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.

Second 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.

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Comments

Cancel

Add comment

John Holmes Apr 29 2026 at 2:52PM on page 47

What would be the minimum lot sized allowed in the Partial Services area on land with municipal water service available but with private waste water systems?

John Holmes Apr 29 2026 at 2:46PM on page 243

Question

When read together what do 3A2.3 and 10B6.1 mean in practice for possible future development on the lands at 790 and 1054 Highway 2?
Municipal water services already exist along Highway 2, albeit on the southside of the highway in the case of 1054 (3A2.3), and if developers were to provide municipal sewage services at their own expense (10B6.1), precisely what kind and scale (density) of residential and commercial development would be permitted on the properties at 790 and 1054 Highway 2?

Lisa Osanic Apr 27 2026 at 7:00PM on page 181

Comment

Setbacks to data centres must be specified in the new OP. 300 metres is not enough. living at least 0.5 to 2.5 miles (approx. 800 meters to 4 kilometers) away from a data center is recommended to minimize noise pollution from HVAC systems and generators. While not generally dangerous, data centers can produce constant low-frequency humming noise. Data center noise can be heard up to 2.5 miles away, with the most significant impact often felt within 3,000 feet. It's been documented that new Microsoft data centres in the USA can be heard up to 6km away. The last thing we want as a city is to ruin the property value of our existing homes because of the hummmmmmmmmmm of a data centre. We don't want that to affect Kingston's dwindling wildlife in what is left of our highly fragmented forest areas in the proposed natural heritage areas.

Matt Rogalsky Apr 23 2026 at 1:36PM on page 5

Comment

Where are the areas of Provincial Environmental Significance? Why are all these 'significant' things associated with reducing environmental protections and building in questionable areas like the 'tannery lands' which have ecosystems that should be preserved, along with a massive amount of green coverage which helps combat higher temperatures in summer.

Mary C Apr 22 2026 at 5:44PM on page 20

Comment

I’m concerned by this commitment to “accelerate” housing development. We absolutely need more affordable housing, but when governments claim that they’re “accelerating” any project, this sometimes means that they’re skipping vital environmental and equity reviews. Any new construction should not recklessly build over the nature and cultural sites that are integral to our community.

Kate Apr 20 2026 at 11:01PM on page 242

Comment

Expanding the urban boundary to include areas such as 790 and 1052 Highway 15 would result in the unnecessary loss of a valuable rural landscape that supports farms, wildlife, and ecological functions that cannot be easily replaced. This area is not only environmentally significant but also part of Kingston’s rural identity, and its conversion to urban use should not be taken lightly. At the same time, the city is already growing at a pace that raises serious questions about sustainability, particularly in the east end where infrastructure, transportation corridors like the LaSalle Causeway, and healthcare capacity are already under strain. It is difficult to understand how additional large-scale development in a relatively remote area—requiring new services and infrastructure—can be justified when existing systems are struggling to meet current demand. Rather than leapfrogging into rural lands, planning should focus on responsible, coordinated growth that aligns with infrastructure capacity and long-term community well-being. Decisions of this scale require careful, evidence-based consideration, and it is not clear that such due diligence has been demonstrated in this case.

Kate Apr 20 2026 at 10:56PM on page 242

Comment

The City should refrain from endorsing the expansion areas identified on Map 15 until key supporting frameworks are completed and made public, including the Water/Wastewater and Mobility Master Plans, as well as strengthened Natural Heritage policies and implementing tools (such as Environmental Impact Study Terms of Reference, a Biodiversity Action Plan, updated Tree By-law, and Forest Management Strategy). Planning decisions must also account for the financial value of ecological services provided by natural systems, particularly where proposals may lead to their degradation, such as urban boundary expansion. City-wide Natural Asset Management Planning, informed by Natural Heritage System mapping, should be undertaken prior to any such decisions. In short, both robust environmental policy and clear fiscal analysis are necessary before proceeding with expansion.

Kate Apr 20 2026 at 10:51PM on page 18

Comment

The Official Plan should clearly establish that Principle 3 (Climate Action) and Principle 7 (Natural Heritage) serve as the primary framework guiding all growth decisions. Any proposed development should first demonstrate compliance with climate and environmental protection objectives before being considered. Without this clear hierarchy, attempts to “balance” these priorities with Principle 4 (Economic Prosperity) and Principle 2 (Housing) risk prioritizing short-term growth over long-term environmental sustainability, ultimately leading to the continued degradation of natural heritage and expansion of urban sprawl.

Kate Apr 20 2026 at 10:50PM on page 15

Comment

I object to the population projections used in this Plan on the basis that they are not sufficiently justified or transparent. Kingston is projected to grow by approximately 44% by 2051 which is significantly higher than provincial and national averages, yet there is no clear explanation of the assumptions driving this level of growth, particularly with respect to migration patterns and local economic capacity. Given that population growth in Canada is highly dependent on uncertain factors such as immigration and internal migration, it is critical that these assumptions be clearly articulated and evidence-based. Without this, the projections risk overstating demand, which could lead to overbuilding and unnecessary infrastructure costs for residents.

Knox Apr 20 2026 at 9:38PM on page 243

Comment

There is a group called friends of butternutcreek that has been fighting against this expansion. We don't want this expansion and have made it very clear. There are stop work orders already in place and the federal, municipal and local governments should respect our decision.

Colin Apr 20 2026 at 8:53PM on page 143

Question

Does "separated" mean protected or just a separate lane (just paint)?

Kari Apr 20 2026 at 8:52PM on page 143

Comment

For safety, accessibility and environmental reasons, we need to prioritize this.

Chanda Apr 20 2026 at 8:47PM on page 82

Question

It's not clear how the chart is suppose to function.

Should sewage treatment facilities be in the same land use as landfill? Sewage treatment facilities are by the water on the map, do we want landfills to potentially be there too or will there be other means to protect the potential of a landfill being located by the water?

in reply to Colin Burt's comment

Kari Apr 20 2026 at 8:43PM on page 83

Comment

Agreed, the demand for community gardens in Kingston in high.

Kari Apr 20 2026 at 8:35PM on page 50

Comment

Having more parking lots doesn't make for an attractive or walkable downtown.

Kari Apr 20 2026 at 8:29PM on page 45

Comment

I think we should increase our active transportation target by adding more bike lanes.

in reply to Sarah Woodstock's comment

Audrey 1 Apr 20 2026 at 8:22PM on page 243

Comment

I concur with this. I moved to Kingston 3 years ago with the hopes of staying long-term, and I hope that any development will happen AFTER all information is made available, the public has been given adequate time to review all of this information, and that the City will develop proper density with the least urban sprawl possible.

Emily Apr 20 2026 at 7:29PM on page 117

Comment

Section 5B1 could be updated to incorporate pre-mapped “No-Go” zones that limit development and site alteration within all Natural Heritage System features, including woodlands, contributory woodlands, unevaluated wetlands, and corridors. Where high-quality data, such as LiDAR mapping, is already available, it may be beneficial to use this information proactively rather than relying solely on developer-led Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) to define protection boundaries.

Several municipalities in Ontario have already taken this approach, demonstrating its feasibility and potential value. Exploring similar measures in Kingston could help strengthen the protection of natural heritage features, especially when the cities long-term goal is to be “Canada’s most sustainable city”.

Emily Apr 20 2026 at 7:22PM on page 18

Comment

The Official Plan could more clearly identify Principle 3 (Climate Action) and Principle 7 (Natural Heritage) as guiding considerations for all growth-related decisions. Ensuring that development aligns with climate and environmental protection objectives from the outset can help support more sustainable outcomes.

Providing this clarity may also help strengthen how these principles are considered alongside others, such as Principle 4 (Economic Prosperity) and Principle 2 (Housing), reducing the risk of unintended impacts on natural heritage as the city grows.

Emily Apr 20 2026 at 6:59PM on page 15

Comment

Can the OP and NHS public review period please be extended to allow release and public review of comprehensive NHS policies in or related to the Official Plan. The incomplete policies include, but are not limited to:
- Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Terms of Reference
- Biodiversity Action Plan
- Tree by-law Update
- Forest Management Strategy
- City-wide Natural Asset Management Planning
- Ecological Offsetting Guidelines

These are all very important to have in completion, before any decisions are made to ensure protection for species at risk, biodiversity, important forest, among other factors.

Chanda Apr 20 2026 at 5:21PM on page 20

Comment

Bedroom size needs to be functional too though. Sometimes the space is too small that even standard furnishing for everyday life does not even fit. Another way to counter balance lack of floor space is additional height like a loft. Someone once told me that a home is your castle, when there is not enough space for everyday life that contributes to their mental health. I was fortunate to witness a friend's family daily function in a one bedroom loft in Europe. They were able to make it work with 4 kids by being able to be adaptive in their living space but they have a large enough space to be able to convert a living room into a sleep space for 3 kids and convert it back during the day. As the kids grew older, the neighbouring unit was able to be merged to theirs for more space. More bedroom is great to have but it's not always the best scenario. Being able to be adaptive to the situation if something were to go wrong or better. In my neighbourhood, people want to stay in the same neighbourhood but as people get older or as families grow - space needs may change. It would be good to have the range of housing options close by.

Audrey Apr 20 2026 at 4:31PM on page 35

Comment

I am glad to see mention of foraging in this plan! Please consider "rewilding" some massive expanses of land. I see far too many empty expanses of grass, such as in parks (where it is legal to forage), that go bone-dry in the summer. Rewilding land will help the City's resilience when it comes to summer droughts (which will become more intense due to climate change) and will also help with local biodiversity.

in reply to Dan Irwin's comment

Audrey Apr 20 2026 at 4:24PM on page 23

Comment

Community gardens--and greenhouses--are also important infrastructure, especially in the face of increasing cost of groceries!

in reply to Jon Lenton's comment

Audrey Apr 20 2026 at 4:21PM on page 20

Comment

In addition, the City should make it clear to developers that air conditioning will become critical for renters to survive our warming climate. Ensuring A/C in new builds and retrofitted units would be a preemptive action for when laws are (hopefully) created in the future that require units to be below a certain temperature, such as in New Westminster, BC (link).

I would like to see strong protections for the environment in this plan to help mitigate the need for air conditioning in the first place--i.e. ensuring the city meets at least the minimum forest cover recommendations by Environment Canada. Green cover has been proven to reduce local temperatures--not to mention the boon to biodiversity.

Yvonne Hiemstra Apr 20 2026 at 3:23PM on page 117

We MUST know the recommendations from North South on which natural assets are essential and recommended for permanent protection that represents a minimum of 30% canopy cover and performs the natural flood and drought as well as heat mitigations as well as biodiversity and habitat that are necessary to address our climate change goals. In addition to NOT working with updated population growth numbers (that will not exceed 200,000 people), how can the City recommend urban boundary expansions without knowing the natural heritage that needs to be preserved?

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:21PM on page 150

Comment

SPCK&D recognizes the need to have a well-maintained water and sewage system that is not at/over capacity. (see 7B2.2 p 142). Given the essential nature of the water and sewage system, it is imperative these services remain non-profit and within the full control of the municipality. Development should be limited if it negatively impacts the infrastructure capacity.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:20PM on page 140

Comment

SPCK&D supports having housing concentrated near transit hubs. This will improve the use of transit with resulting reduction in climate concerns related to individual vehicle use.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:16PM on page 45

Comment

SPCK&D fully supports the commitment to more use of active transportation and more use of public transit.

Sarah Woodstock Apr 20 2026 at 2:15PM on page 44

Comment

Achieving 30% forest coverage would of course be a step in the correct direction, but this is a minimum threshold for ecological health. The Plan should include commitments to actively increase forest cover in the urban area, maintain existing forest cover outside the urban boundary, and achieve long-term improvement. We should affirmatively improve Kingston's ecosystems, rather than winnow them down to their absolute minimum.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:15PM on page 44

Comment

SPCK&D supports housing intensification as a way to reduce sprawl, limit excessive development costs (e.g., water and sewage) and support climate friendly activities (like active transportation and use of public transportation). We should note that another report we saw included a forecast of 70% of new housing growth being through intensification.

SPCK&D supports the City’s commitment to “monitor and report on available housing data annually.” If these data can be parsed out in detail to include subsets on people who are students, and those living in rentals that are included in rent control and those that are not, it may provide more clarity to the City over time as to the realities of housing for a variety of people in our community.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:14PM on page 37

Comment

SPCK&D greatly supports the need for all post-secondary institutions to develop and implement a comprehensive Student Housing Strategy. There are concerns that the student housing market with its resulting lucrative turnover rates may be worsening the affordability of housing for long-term residents of Kingston.

The post-secondary institutions ought to have options for housing for all students who want to live in campus-operated housing.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:13PM on page 30

Question

SPCK&D recognizes the importance of affordable housing. The need for over 8,000 units in the next decade will be a considerable issue but one that, once achieved, will be beneficial to all. Can the City implement minimums for new developments for affordable units? Even if a challenge, it would result in dignity for many

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:12PM on page 29

Comment

SPCK&K supports the notion that affordable housing is the highest priority housing option.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:10PM on page 28

Comment

SPCK&D supports the commitment for affordable rental housing. This may need additional attention given that there is no rent control for newer units, no vacancy control in Ontario, and that the market price for rentals is quite high relative to minimum wage. Ensuring that development includes units that will be marketed to those that cannot afford market rates is important. It is also important to ensure that units remain affordable over time. As such, the City should continue its efforts towards the implementation of Inclusionary Zoning.

SPCK&D understands the City is updating its housing and homelessness plan in 2026. This will be an important connection to the Official Plan, and as noted previously, we look forward to reviewing the HHP when it is released for public review.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:09PM on page 29

Comment

SPCK&D agrees that integrated health care within housing facilities is a laudable goal and must be done with the full participation of both health providers and the residents who will be recipients of care. Choice is a central feature here, and appropriate tailoring of care (be it for preventative public health initiatives, supportive housing for seniors, mental health and addictions support, or other services) must be developed based on best evidence, and forms of access that suit population needs and goals.

Sarah Woodstock Apr 20 2026 at 2:09PM on page 15

Comment

As others have noted, this population estimate is outdated. To seriously engage with the task of determining the ideal course of action for Kingston, it is necessary to work from the best possible data.

Sarah Woodstock Apr 20 2026 at 2:05PM on page 21

Comment

It is impossible to determine how this Plan squares with the pledge of carbon neutrality by 2040 if it does not include a GHG Impact assessment. These assessments should be mandatory, in order for council and the public to adequately grasp the impact of development decisions.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 2:00PM on page 26

Comment

SPCK&D highlights this as a key point. As the City of Kingston has discovered in working with its homeless population, available housing options frequently do not meet the needs or preferences of the homeless persons themselves. The goal of seeking intentional engagement of marginalized populations is important and vital for success. We suggest that the plan be more specific in terms of how truly marginalized groups, such as low income families, frail seniors, and those experiencing homelessness will be included in the process. The standard forms of consultation (such as we are engaging in now through online document review and community presentations) are not sufficient; neither is working with proxy groups who represent their cause. The City will need to use intentional methods of outreach to engage persons from these groups in both generating ideas and responding to initial plans. This will likely require engaging persons with lived experience to conduct face-to-face interactions and small group discussion with peers in non-threatening and supportive contexts.

Sarah Woodstock Apr 20 2026 at 1:59PM on page 222

Comment

This definition should be expanded to include bogs, fens, floodplains, and corridors. If it filters our water and/or stops a flood, it is surely 'locally important.'

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 1:57PM on page 24

Comment

SPCK&D would highlight that getting vulnerable citizens through heat emergencies, cold, flooding, etc. is critical, and there is a need for systems that address this. We heartily agree with the points made in this plan that suggest a commitment to protecting sensitive ecological features of our city

Sarah Woodstock Apr 20 2026 at 1:57PM on page 124

Comment

The soft language here - that an evaluation "may" be required - is manifestly dangerous. These evaluations should be mandatory, if we want to take the protection of these habitats seriously.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 1:56PM on page 24

Question

SPCK&D agrees that building an inclusive city is a laudable goal, and one to which we should aspire – but somewhere in this plan there should be intentional planning for spaces for temporary and transitional housing that might exist on public land. Have the planners thought about how people who use public spaces for housing will be served? It seems likely that homelessness will persist in one way or another into the future. This has implications for both the homeless population and other residents who seek safe access to public spaces.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 1:55PM on page 23

Comment

SPCK&D advocates for public transit to be readily available to people living in supportive and affordable housing units. Increasing the concentration of affordability near transit hubs is a reasonable way to implement this city commitment to transportation.

Sarah Woodstock Apr 20 2026 at 1:54PM on page 121

Comment

Where does the 50m number come from? As others have noted, Ontario Nature reccomends 150m.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 1:53PM on page 20

Comment

SPCK&D supports the need for an adequate number of supportive and affordable housing units. This excellent point needs to be backed up with direct efforts to ensure a substantial increase in both supportive and affordable housing based on increasing numbers of city residents requiring these options.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 1:52PM on page 19

Comment

SPCK&D can cite numerous past studies which have shown that Kingston needs more affordable housing to meet the housing needs of residents in the lower- and moderate-income ranges. The City is currently working on the new Housing and Homelessness Plan (HHP) at the request of the Province. The HHP is due in the Fall 2026, and we will be contributing additional comments on the City’s housing approach to creating affordable housing when it is released. The HHP may need to be aligned with the new Official Plan when it is completed this year but this would mainly affect new housing development.

While the City and the community-based non-profit sectors have been developing new housing with more affordable rates, the pace of this development depends primarily on the sites available and government funding for new projects with affordable rents. The new Federal Program (Build Canada Homes) is currently being launched for large projects and the availability of funding for Kingston has not yet been determined. At present, there are limited funds for adding affordable housing in the City.

The City does have several other initiatives which provide for access to more affordable housing such as a home-buyer assistance program and long-standing program to assist and create secondary suites in existing housing. The City provides full annual reports on all of its housing activities.

Sarah Woodstock Apr 20 2026 at 1:51PM on page 122

Comment

Offsetting is a funamentally flawed concept. Rather than understanding the distinct natural landscape of Kingston as irreplaceaple, it becomes a fungible commodity - so that a wetland might be traded for a field of mass-planted trees. This idea can only lead to the gradual, irreversible destruction of our ecological system - for dubious environmental benefit. As such, offsetting should not be relied upon as a strategy here.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 1:48PM on page 17

Comment

SPCK&D would like to point out that in the past few years Kingston has seen a rapid expansion of new private sector, luxury residences for seniors in residential areas in the west end and near the Cataraqui Town Centre. These effectively free-up hundreds of previous seniors’ homes that are sold to new buyers and meet some of the demand for home-ownership in existing communities without the need for new infrastructure and other services. We support new housing across the entire housing continuum, and effective repurposing of buildings/land that may be freed up through new development.

Social Planning Council of Kingston and District Apr 20 2026 at 1:46PM on page 17

Comment

SPCK&D heartily agrees with this perspective. Given the very high costs of installing new infrastructure, the plan needs to consider the densities attainable by servicing prime existing sites already slated for development to assess how much of the need can be accommodated within the current urban boundaries. Examples of existing sites include the vacant land at the former Kingston Psychiatric Hospital site that appears ready for servicing. Another example is the expansion of housing for CFB Kingston (the timetable for which is not clear at this time).

Sarah Woodstock Apr 20 2026 at 1:43PM on page 117

Comment

If we already have the necessary data to determine protection boundaries for woodlands, wetlands, and other natural heritge features, why not use it to protect features now? Why rely on the biased, site-specific Environmental Impact Studies produced by developers?

View all