This document has been prepared to consolidate the feedback received at the Virtual Open House on the Second Draft of the new Official Plan held on April 27, 2026, and staff responses to the questions received. This feedback document includes the exact wording from written questions and comments submitted at the open house. Submissions are organized by theme. There were 97 submissions received in total.

Approximately 107 residents attended the Virtual Open House. Staff would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to participate in this process and shared their feedback.

Population Forecast

Question 1

“All current evidence and population projections from Stats Canada and the provincial MoF show that Kingston will not grow to 220,000 by 2051. How will this new data be addressed in the OP?”

Response:

As per the Provincial Planning Statement, municipalities are required to base population and employment forecasts on the Ontario Population Projections published by the Ministry of Finance (MOF), with flexibility to modify these projections as appropriate. The Council-endorsed Medium Growth Scenario was prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. under the review of the 2023 MOF population projections which were the most current at the time at the time the City’s growth forecast was prepared. A review of the 2025 MOF projections was also undertaken in the fall of 2025. This review concluded that the previously completed forecast remained valid and that no immediate update to long-term forecasts is required at this time.

As per the growth forecast completed for the City, the City is anticipated to have a permanent population of 148,000 in 2026. As per Statistics Canada’s estimates, the City had already surpassed that population in 2024.

The City recognizes that forecasts need to be reviewed over time as new information becomes available, including Census data, MOF projections, post-secondary enrollment trends, and housing market conditions. The City will undertake new growth forecasts at regular intervals and revise the Plan if newer data shows that the long-term growth outlook has materially changed. The next Census is being undertaken this year however as per Statistics Canada, the major data releases will be completed approximately 18 months from Census Day.

Question 2

“This entire plan hinges on an unrealistic population growth. How can any of this make sense if there is so much discussion and objection to these growth projections? "Growth" is highly unlikely to take place so it makes no sense to keep referring to it.”

Response:

The Provincial Planning Statement requires Official Plans to be prepared with a lifespan of 20 to 30 years. The City’s draft Official Plan uses a long-term forecast to make sure the City is prepared for the projected population, housing and employment growth to 2051. Staff acknowledge that the forecast is not a guarantee that growth will occur exactly as projected. Over time, economic conditions, housing markets, migration patterns, and other outside factors may change. The City cannot control the pace of growth, but it can control its readiness. This Plan gives Council the tools to support growth in a coordinated, strategic, and fiscally responsible way when that growth occurs.

Please also see response to Question 1.

Question 3

“The population chart is outdated and doesn't represent what has happened in the last 2 years. This is what many people have been saying but continues to be ignored.”

Response:

Please see response to Question 1.

Question 4

“Queen's housing projections for the next three years are static. St. Lawrence college has cut more than 40% of their programs. So why is the OP projectng 47000 students by 2051?”

Response:

Full-time post-secondary student enrollment is forecast to increase from 34,000 in 2021 to 48,300 in 2051, which is an increase of 14,300 students. The student population forecast is a long-term planning assumption, not a short-term enrollment count. The City will continue to monitor post-secondary student enrollment, federal immigration policy, provincial post-secondary enrollment directions, and student housing demand. If long-term post-secondary enrollment expectations change, that information will be used to inform future updates to the growth forecast and Official Plan reviews.

Question 5

“Kingston represents 82% of the Frontenac numbers so the 227,391 needs to be reduced by 82% and that is 186,460. Vastly lower than the 220,900 planned for”

Response:

As per the Ontario population projections released in 2025 by the Ministry of Finance, 227,391 (the number noted in the comment above) is the projected population for the Frontenac Census Division for the year 2051. The Ministry of Finance notes that its projections do not represent Ontario government policy targets or desired population outcomes, nor do they incorporate explicit economic or planning assumptions. They are developed using a standard demographic methodology in which assumptions for population growth reflect recent trends in all streams of migration and the continuing evolution of long-term fertility and mortality patterns in each census division. It is not anticipated that these projections would capture all post-secondary student population residing within the City of Kingston.

As per the Provincial Planning Statement, municipalities are required to base population and employment forecasts on the Ontario Population Projections published by the Ministry of Finance, with flexibility to modify these projections as appropriate. The growth forecast for the City was prepared under the review of the 2023 Ministry of Finance population projections, and took into consideration Statistics Canada Census data, the City’s development pipeline, macro-economic conditions, as well as regional wide and local development trends, and were developed using assumptions related to births, deaths and net migration (international net-migration, inter-provincial net-migration, intra-provincial net migration). The total population forecast of 220,900 for the City of Kingston in 2051 includes the permanent population of the City (197,000) adjusted for Census undercount, as well as the post-secondary student population not captured in Census (23,900), and as such does not represent a strictly comparable permanent population figure included within the Ministry of Finance population projections.

Question 6

“Does the population and housing projections for the city in 2051 include the additional military families that will join our community?”

Response:

The population, housing and employment forecast completed in 2023 did not include the additional 900 new military housing units at the Canadian Forces Base, Kingston, announced by the federal government in February 2026. Staff note that all 900 units are proposed to be located within the existing urban boundary.

Question 7

“It feels that we are over projecting and continuing to push the boundaries we currently do not have the infrastructure for current demands. Why can't we hold off for another 10 years and focus on the infrastructure and than revisit expanding the boundaries? At this time we can't predict how many students will not come after the provincial cuts to post secondary. We currently have many areas within the City limit where we can build affordable homes and commercial. There will not be any affordable homes built from expanding the boundary.”

Response:

Section 2.1 of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 requires municipalities, when preparing a new official plan or updating one, to make sufficient land available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses for a planning horizon of at least 20 years and not more than 30 years. This is intended to ensure that municipalities are planning far ahead for future housing, employment, infrastructure, public service facilities, and community needs. Kingston is using 2051 as its planning horizon for the new Official Plan.

Based on the land needs assessment studies completed by the City, the current urban boundary does not contain sufficient land to accommodate population, housing and employment growth to 2051, i.e. the existing boundary on its own does not provide enough land to meet the Provincial requirement to plan for long-range growth. The Official Plan is required to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The draft urban boundary expansion does not mean immediate development or immediate infrastructure construction. The background studies identify long-term land needs to 2051 to accommodate the projected population and employment growth. The Second Draft of the Official Plan includes phasing policies to align development with infrastructure readiness, water and wastewater capacity, transportation planning, and future Council decisions. The City is also proposing a much stronger intensification target, with 60 percent of housing growth directed to the existing built-up area within the current urban boundary.

The post secondary student forecast is not driving an urban boundary expansion. Student households are anticipated to be accommodated within the City’s existing built-up area within the current urban boundary.

Question 8

“So nothing would need to happen with expanding the urban boundry until maybe 10 years from now when the city could reassess the need of expansion based on actual population growth?”

Response:

Please see response to Question 7.

Question 9

“Why can't we wait for the 2026 Census data and see the impact of limited post secondary attendance, (as well as real estate uptake) before committing to such a large population growth?”

Response:

As per Statistics Canada, post-secondary students who are away at school or for a summer job are directed to be included on their parents' questionnaire for Census purposes if they return to live with them at any other time of the year. As such a portion of the post-secondary student population is not captured in the Statistics Canada Census data within the municipality where the post-secondary institution is located.

As per the growth forecast work completed for the City, an estimated 51% (17,500 students) of the 2021 full-time post-secondary student enrollment was not captured in the 2021 Census. It is also noted that the post-secondary student population is anticipated to be accommodated within the existing built up area of the City.

For the 2026 Census, Statistics Canada plans for all major data releases to be completed approximately 18 months from Census Day (which means data releases are anticipated to be completed at the end of 2027).

Section 26 of the Planning Act requires municipalities to update their Official Plans within 5 years of a previous Official Plan update. Kingston’s last Official Plan update was adopted by Council in 2017, so the City is already beyond the time required by the Planning Act.

The new Official Plan is being prepared using the best available long-term forecast. The City will undertake new growth forecasts at regular intervals and revise the Plan if newer data shows that the long-term growth outlook has materially changed. The Second Draft also states that the Official Plan is not intended to remain static and may be amended to reflect changing circumstances or new priorities.

Question 10

“Where are all these people the City thinks are moving to Kingston coming from? Who are they? Where do they live now? Why would they move to Kingston?”

Response:

The forecast is based on a combination of anticipated local population changes (births, deaths), net migration (international net-migration, inter-provincial net-migration, intra-provincial net migration), post-secondary student population, macro-economic trends, employment growth, and Kingston’s role as a regional centre for education, health care, public institutions, manufacturing, tourism, defence, and services. The Official Plan does not identify individual future residents, but plans for the housing, jobs, infrastructure, and services that would be needed for the forecasted growth.

Question 11

“Can the supply of housing to support your growth projections concerntrate more on mid-rise to high-rise higher density solutions rather than single family low density developments?”

Response:

The City is proposing a much stronger intensification target, with 60 percent of housing growth directed to the existing built-up area within the current urban boundary. The Second Draft of the new Official Plan directs a significant share of growth to mid-rise and high-rise forms of development, especially in the Strategic Growth Areas, and expects most high-density housing to be accommodated within the built-up area.

Proposed Urban Boundary Expansion

Question 12

“If climate policy is at the heart of this plan, why is the city even entertaining urban sprawl (urban expansion)?”

Response:

The City’s primary growth strategy is intensification, including a proposed 60 percent intensification target within the existing built-up area. The proposed urban boundary expansion arises because the land needs analysis concludes that even with a higher intensification target, additional land is needed over the long term for housing, employment, parks, commercial uses, institutional uses, and other complete community needs. Development within the urban boundary expansion areas would remain subject to all applicable policies of the Official Plan, including those related to the natural heritage system, infrastructure, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and phasing.

Question 13

“So rural area remains rural but is shrunk to accomodate supposed growth? That's how the urban boudary is moved? Who is driving the different urban boundary changes? It appears developers are.”

Response:

It is correct that an urban boundary expansion will result in a reduction of the land area that is currently included within the rural area.

Private landowner requests are one input into the proposed urban boundary, but staff’s recommendation is based on planning analysis which considers provincial policy and other factors such as the Council-endorsed growth forecast, land needs requirements, available and planned infrastructure, impacts on prime agricultural areas, and land use compatibility.

Please also see the response to Question 7.

Question 14

“Taggart Construction is driving urban boundary growth in the east. Correct?”

Response:

No single landowner or developer determines the City’s future urban boundary recommendation. Staff reviewed submitted requests alongside broader land needs requirements to determine the location of the urban boundary expansion shown in the Second Draft of the Official Plan.

Question 15

“So the provincial planning statement does not require an urban boundary expansion necessarily as long as any possible growth can be accomodated within the current boundaries? Is that true?”

Response:

The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) does not require an urban boundary expansion if a municipality can demonstrate that an appropriate range and mix of land uses (including a range and mix of housing options and densities) to meet the projected needs for a time horizon of at least 20 years, but not more than 30 years, can be accommodated within the existing urban boundary.

In Kingston’s case, the background studies concluded that there is not enough land within the current urban boundary to accommodate the Council-endorsed growth forecast to 2051, even with a higher intensification target (40% in the existing Official Plan proposed to be increased to 60% in the new Official Plan). To accommodate various demographic groups, the City will require a range of housing options including high density, medium density and grade-related low density housing options in line with the PPS policies. While there is significant intensification potential, not all residential development will be accommodated through intensification within the existing built up area due to the need to plan for a full range and mix of housing options, which is driving the need for an urban boundary expansion. An urban boundary expansion is also required to accommodate future employment uses.

Questions 16 and 17

“How can the City say it is committed to sustainability and then expand the boundary and remove trees, increase traffic, etc.?”

“*I mean increase car use”

Response:

Policies included within the Second Draft of the Official Plan are intended to manage growth in a way that protects natural heritage, reduces car dependence, supports transit and active transportation, and aligns infrastructure with long-term need. The draft urban boundary expansion areas do not approve tree removal or future development by themselves. Future development would be required to go through the development approvals process, and satisfy applicable policies of the Official Plan such as those related to the natural heritage system, servicing, mobility, climate change mitigation and adaptation, stormwater management, and phasing requirements before proceeding.

Question 18

“If we are not sure if we will need to expanded area in the next few years, and since the housing infrastructure is not there yet, and assuming that these will be single family form development, this seems like the high cost will be high for the well-being of the city overall and meeting the needs of a small number of people compared to those you estimate will need to be withing the current urban boundries.”

Response:

The draft urban boundary expansion areas are not intended to be developed immediately or be made available only for single-detached housing. Future development would need to be phased with infrastructure and planned as complete communities with a mix of housing, services, parks, mobility options, etc.

The Second Draft of the Official Plan includes phasing policies and development requirements that make it clear that future development in the expansion areas will only proceed when Council determines it is in the City’s interest to invest in the necessary infrastructure and services.

Question 19

“I think it is critical that these last two questions are addressed. Moving ahead with infrastructure work and land development immediately seems ill advised, especially given the push-back you are seeing regarding the population growth predictions. Intensification within the current urban boundaries seems a more measured way to proceed.”

Response:

Please see responses to Question 12 and 18.

Question 20

“Could you speak to the impact on land values when an area changes from rural to a development area, even when they are identified as "deferred?"”

Response:

A change from rural to urban can affect market expectations and perceived development potential of a property. It is beyond the scope of the Official Plan project to consider individual land values.

The Deferred Form Designation applies to lands that have been brought into the proposed urban boundary expansion, but do not yet have an identified built form or detailed planning framework. This designation signals that the form of development will be determined at a later stage through a future Official Plan Amendment application once more detailed planning and design work has been completed.

Sequencing of Development and Infrastructure

Question 21

“If the City actually goes ahead with urban boundary expansion in the east, will the City actually commit to expanding and widening Hwy 15, Gore Rd, and Middle Road prior to allowing any new development? Traffic is already a mess and any further growth will bring east to a stand-still.”

Response:

Through the Integrated Mobility Plan (IMP), the 2051 population and employment forecasts are being utilized to understand how growth will impact the transportation system, including in the east end. As part of this, the City is evaluating and prioritizing options across all modes of travel, and how those options can integrate within the available right-of-way to support that growth in a phased and sustainable way. The next phase of the Integrated Mobility Plan, which is focused on draft network planning and infrastructure recommendations, will be presented at the IMP open house scheduled for Monday, May 11th, 5:00-7:30pm, at the Central Branch Library. Materials will also be available online on the YG220K project page.

Question 22

“Can you please say more about the sequencing of development beyond the current urban boundary vs in the expansion lands? Sukriti talked about how intensification should come first, but since there are already applications from private developers for the expansion lands, it seems like intensification and expansion will happen in tandem…”

Response:

Intensification within the current urban boundary remains the City’s primary near-term growth strategy. While applications for an urban boundary expansion have been submitted, it is not anticipated that the expansion lands will be available for development immediately. The Second Draft of the Official Plan includes phasing policies and development requirements that make it clear that future development in the expansion areas will only proceed when Council determines it is in the City’s interest to invest in the necessary infrastructure and services.

Question 23

“To ensure these new urban expansion areas evolve into complete communities, what is the city's strategies for implementing secondary plan areas or neighborhoods? Are there efforts underway for these areas to guide density and ameneties?”

Response:

Policies have been included within the Second Draft of the Official Plan which enable the City to require a developer or multiple developers to proceed through an Official Plan Amendment application and/or complete a secondary plan for complex development proposals where coordination of technical matters (e.g., servicing) is required. As part of such proposals, the City may require developers to complete a comprehensive environmental impact study or natural heritage study, technical cultural heritage studies, a master servicing plan, an assessment of natural hazards, a phasing and timing program and a financial implementation plan.

Specifically for the urban boundary expansion area on Highway 15 identified as 10C1 on Map 15, policies have been included in the Second Draft that require coordination between all property owners to demonstrate a fully integrated build-out of the lands as one fully integrated complete community.

Question 24

“Can your design for the future of Kingston have a greater emphasis on walkable bikable high density mass transit friendly downtown rather than planning for more car-centric suburban big box parking lot sprawl?”

Response:

Yes, the Second Draft places a strong emphasis on transit-supportive densities, complete communities, and active transportation. The Second Draft includes policies that direct more growth to walkable, bikeable, transit-supportive areas, while ensuring any expansion areas are also planned around complete community principles rather than auto-oriented sprawl.

Question 25

“The p;lan for an MSC for water and wastewater specifically says that operating and infrastructure costs decisions will be made by the MSC not Council. Please correct the slides on this.”

Response:

The proposed Municipal Service Corporation (MSC) structure is not part of the Official Plan project. For more information on the MSC, please see Report Number EITP-26-007.

Proposed Rural Settlement Area on Highway 2

Question 26

“What is the advantage to the city and to taxpayers of adding more Rural Settlement Areas? This does not seem to provide much advantage, while potentially increasing cost and disrutpting natural heritage. Thank you.”

Response:

In 2021, the City undertook a Lifecycle Fiscal Impacts of Development study. This study shows that the cost of growth depends heavily on the type, location, and servicing needs of development. In this case, the proposed Rural Settlement Area has been proposed to help avoid the higher infrastructure commitments that would come with full urban expansion. Where new service connections are required, those costs would be the responsibility of the developer through the development process. The City’s ongoing costs would be municipal services such as waste collection, winter maintenance, road maintenance, and other services that already exist in the area.

The municipal benefit is that additional development increases the tax assessment base in an area that is close to the existing urban boundary, and already served by some municipal infrastructure. The Rural Settlement Area would provide housing options in an area that already contains rural residential development. This will contribute to the needed housing options that have been identified through the population, housing and employment forecast.

The environmental and well-related concerns would need to be addressed at the development stage. The proposed designation would not remove the need for site-specific review. Any future development would need to demonstrate that the site can be serviced over the long term, that there are no negative impacts to groundwater supply, and that natural heritage and water resource policies are satisfied. One important benefit that should be considered for the proposed Partial Services Settlement Area – under the Provincial Planning Statement, in order for new development to connect to the existing municipal water service as a “partial service”, this area must be designated as a settlement area. Allowing these properties to connect to the existing municipal water service ensures that they are not drawing water from the groundwater supply.

Question 27

“Will Hwy 2 rural growth area advertise the sounds of live fire training coming from the Base?”

Response:

The Second Draft includes a National Defence Buffer Area related to CFB Kingston. Future sensitive land uses near the range and training area would require consultation with the Department of National Defence and/or CFB Kingston, and may require the completion of noise or vibration studies, mitigation, fencing, or landowner information packages registered on title to clearly inform future property owners of the proximity to CFB Kingston, and of the likelihood of ongoing military noise and vibration.

Question 28

“Is Area 4 slated for later development? I am unclear what the advantage is to the city and to taxpayers of adding a Rural Settlement Area? Development here seems likely to increase cost to taxpayers while disrupting existing natural heritage.”

Response:

Should the proposed rural settlement area be approved as part of the new Official Plan, development within this area may be able to proceed sooner, subject to the property owner(s) successfully completing the development approvals process, including the submission of required technical studies completed to the City’s satisfaction. For a future residential subdivision, the required applications include, but are not limited to a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

Please also see response to Question 26.

Question 29

“What is the housing density of the proposed rural settlement area? Are the structures single family homes in the entire area?”

Response:

The density and housing form within the proposed Rural Settlement Area would be determined through technical studies submitted at the time of future development applications. Through the development review process, the City will evaluate the appropriateness of future development to ensure that it is similar in scale and intensity to existing residential development in the surrounding area. The Rural Settlement Area is not intended to function as an urban subdivision or urban growth area.

Policies have been included in the Second Draft of the Official Plan which clearly state that the new Rural Settlement Area on Highway 2 is intended to be rounded out with new infill rural housing development, with supportive commercial and business uses.

Rural housing is defined in the Second Draft as: one principal housing unit plus two additional rural units in the rural area.

Question 30

“What ensures that “Area 4 Hwy 2 Rural Settlement” will be developed as rural rather than cookie cutter urban urban sprawl, as has happened all along Hwy 15 towards the industrial park?”

Response:

Please see response to Question 29.

Gross Hectares and Employment Lands

Question 31

“As a follow up, can you explain why an area designated -in part - as wetland has been shown as 340 hectares of employment land?”

Response:

Mapped urban boundary expansion areas include components of the natural heritage system such as significant woodlands, other wetlands, etc. however, that does not mean all lands are developable. The components of the natural heritage system remain subject to the Natural Heritage System policies, including Environmental Impact Study requirements.

Question 32

“What is a gross hectare and how is it different from a hectare in this planning analysis?”

Response:

A gross hectare in a land needs analysis includes the broader land area needed to support development, such as roads, parks, stormwater management, and other supporting infrastructure. For example, for community area land needs, gross hectares include lands to be used for actual residential development, but also lands needed for the road network, stormwater management facilities, schools, parks, commercial uses, etc.

Question 33

“1) Please explain why employment land (area 3) is one big almost rectangular parcel, and not a series of smaller parcel 2) why are no employment lands being set aside north of the 401.”

Response:

Employment lands are often planned in larger contiguous areas because industrial and business uses typically need larger parcels to accommodate large scale buildings and goods movement access. Several areas north of Highway 401 have been designated for rural industrial and rural business uses, for example those along Perth Road and Highway 38.

Natural Heritage System

Question 34

“No mention is made about natural heritage features that are mostly in rural areas. How are they prioritized?”

Response:

The Natural Heritage System components for the entire City, including the rural area, are shown on Map 8 of the Second Draft of the Official Plan. Section 5B of the Second Draft has associated policies that apply City-wide, that speak to the identification, protection, and enhancement of those various components. Those policies identify where development is proposed to be prohibited within those features, as well as where development is proposed to be prohibited subject to the demonstration of no negative impacts.

Question 35

“How will the city deal with the fact that the province has just removed protection for endangered and threatened species? What protection will there be?”

Response:

While the Province did introduce changes to the protection of endangered and threatened species through the approval of the Species Conservation Act, 2025, which came into force on March 30, 2026, replacing the Endangered Species Act, 2007, there are still protections at both the provincial and federal levels. The Second Draft policies do not permit development and site alteration in the habitat of endangered and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

Question 36

“What definition of "no negative impact" for the NHS policies is the OP considering?”

Response:

The Second Draft uses the same definition as the Provincial Planning Statement, as noted below:

Negative impacts:
in regard to fish habitat, any harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, except where an exemption to the prohibition has been authorized under the Fisheries Act;
in regard to other natural heritage features and areas, degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development activities.

Question 37

“How do you prove no negative impact?”

Response:

No negative impact is typically demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed by the City. The study identifies natural features and their ecological functions, assesses potential impacts of the proposed development, and may recommend avoidance or mitigation measures if negative impacts on the natural heritage system are anticipated. As noted in the Second Draft, the City will be preparing new Environmental Impact Study Guidelines as outlined in the draft Natural Heritage Study. All Environmental Impact Studies will be required to comply with the requirements of Council-approved Environmental Impact Study Guidelines.

Question 38

“Thank you Sukriti, the statement prohibiting development “unless no significant impacts” is used frequently and seems to provide unnecessary wiggle room for development. Can I ask why not simply prohibit development? The latter statement would provide better protection to NH areas of importance.”

Response:

Some features are proposed to be protected through a strict prohibition, including significant wetlands and significant coastal wetlands. Other features are reviewed through the “no negative impacts” test because that is the provincial planning framework for many natural heritage features. If an applicant cannot demonstrate no negative impact, development would not be approved in the affected area.

Question 39

“How is this plan protecting wetlands when eastern and western urban boundaries push up against Butternut Creek wetland and Milhaven Creek respectively?”

Response:

An urban boundary expansion does not override the Natural Heritage System policies included in Section 5B of the Second Draft. Development within the urban boundary expansion areas would remain subject to those policies, including requirements for Environmental Impact Studies to ensure that new development does not have a negative impact on the natural features or their ecological functions.

The proposed urban boundary included in the Second Draft of the Official Plan does not extend to Millhaven Creek, which is located in Loyalist Township.

Question 40

“Has any of these policies to do with protected areas and buffers been run by First Nations? They know better than anyone if any of this makes sense. We need far more natural heritage to support human health and certainly "offsetting" should not be the fall back.”

Response:

Indigenous consultation has been part of the Official Plan process as well as the Natural Heritage Study. The Natural Heritage Study conducted community workshops in February, 2025, including consultation with the local urban Indigenous community. The Natural Heritage Study was also discussed with three surrounding First Nations and local Indigenous organizations.

Question 41

“can additional protections above and beyond those in the current urban boundary be given for these expansion areas. For example, could larger buffers to natural heritage features like wetlands be included and requirement for exclusion fencing and crossing structures for turtles and other wildlife for any roads through these features?”

Response:

Larger buffers, exclusion fencing, wildlife crossings, and other mitigation measures would be required where supported by the findings and recommendations of an Environmental Impact Study. The new Environmental Impact Study Guidelines will include additional guidance on appropriate buffer widths and mitigation strategies.

Question 42

“General question - is it possible to add requirements that exclusion fencing and crossing structures be included in the construction of any new roads that are adjacent to or cross turtle habitats and also be required for roads that under go construction maintenance.”

Response:

Section 5B3.11 of the Second Draft of the Official Plan generally discourages development that would fragment the natural heritage system and requires consideration of appropriate mitigation measures to maintain ecological connectivity and reduce wildlife mortality. Further, Section 5B3.17 indicates that the City will explore opportunities to reduce wildlife mortality and restore ecological linkages through road reconstruction or major capital projects, particularly for turtles. Implementation details would need to be considered at the time of development or site alteration.

Question 43

“It is important to know that Creekford road is already a high turtle mortality road as it crosses an important and significant wetland with heavy vehicle traffic.”

Response:

Thank you for the comment. The comment has been captured as part of the meeting record.

Question 44

“To have it on record that the collins bay penitentiary lands are also important for turtles as there is a wetland that transects the property. bath road at the prison is one of the major turtle mortality locations within the city as per the 2014 study the city had done. Any growth there should ensure appropriate measures and land use planning beyond typically to ensure human impacts on turtles are minimal (e.g. exclusion fencing and mitigation efforts, consideration of buffers and nesting sites).”

Response:

Should these lands come into private ownership and become available for development, any mitigation measures identified through the City’s review and approval of an Environmental Impact Study would be required to be implemented before future development can proceed.

Questions 45 and 46

“Can specific protections for keystone species be named in the official plan?”

“I’m thinking of turtles and beavers as examples.”

Response:

The Official Plan policies protect significant wildlife habitat and habitat of endangered species and threatened species as per the Provincial Planning Statement policies, rather than naming specific species. The Natural Heritage Study did not advance recommendations related to the protection of keystone species, partly due to a lack of comprehensive data across the municipality.

Question 47

“How does intensification, ie infill, reconcile with the woefully low canopy cover in the downtown area (around 8.7%) if the target is to hit 30% canopy cover?”

Response:

Targets for canopy cover and woodland cover are intended to be applied on a city-wide basis, rather than on an area-specific basis. The Natural Heritage Study Report acknowledges that increases are more likely to be achieved through urban tree canopy expansion rather than woodland expansion; opportunities to expand the woodland cover target will primarily be located in rural areas, where woodlands are less fragmented and development pressure is lower. Within the urban area, development within or adjacent to remaining significant woodlands would only be permitted if an Environmental Impact Study, reviewed and approved by the City, demonstrates no negative impacts. It is acknowledged that intensification should be supported by tree preservation, new tree planting, low-impact development, and careful design of hard surfaces. The City typically uses implementation tools such as Site Plan Control and the Tree By-Law, alongside tree planting on municipal property, to enhance canopy cover while accommodating growth. Further, the City encourages tree planting on private properties through the “Neighbourhood Tree Planting Program”, which subsidizes the cost of trees for private planting.

Question 48

“How are decisions being made about the urban boundary with respect to creating resilience relative to climate change? It feels as though development - and rapid expansion - is driving the plan, and there is not a clear vision that will guide the climate strategy. I know that there are specific, small-scale policies to deal with climate change, but what’s the large strategy that forces developers’ hands to retain natural heritage features, incorporate green rooves on industrial buildings, created more than the bare minimum urban canopy, reduce open asphalt spaces, etc.”

Response:

The broader climate strategy of the Second Draft of the Official Plan is to integrate land use planning and transportation planning to support complete communities. The Second Draft identifies Strategic Growth Areas on Map 2, and concentrates new housing, jobs, and services in corridors and nodes, paving the way for higher densities and mixed uses around a strengthened transit network.

The Plan supports increases in the tree canopy and the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage system which is integral to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The Plan also supports the prioritization of green infrastructure and low-impact development.

While sustainable features are supported and encouraged by the City, Official Plans cannot establish green development standards (such as requiring green roofs on industrial buildings).

Future development within the urban boundary expansion areas would be planned as complete communities with a range and mix of uses, including residential, commercial, parks, and employment uses.

Site-specific applications for development would be required to demonstrate conformity with all applicable Official Plan policies.

Question 49

“Will the city be implementing sponge city principles for all future development?”

Response:

The term “sponge city” has not been used in the Second Draft, however it includes many related principles within policies associated with green infrastructure, stormwater management, riparian ribbon, tree canopy, and climate adaptation.

Site-specific applications for development would be required to demonstrate conformity with all applicable Official Plan policies.

Ecological Offsetting

Question 50

“How would you measure woodland compensation? Because you can’t consider cutting an old growth tree replaced with a sapling as equivalent.”

Response:

The draft Natural Heritage Study Report notes that ecological offsetting should not be considered within complex features, such as mature or old-growth forests. Additional information on the offsetting process, requirements, and replacement ratios will be contained within future Ecological Offsetting Guidelines, which will be subject to public consultation.

Question 51

“Off-setting takes years. Why allow the deforestation at all?”

Response:

Ecological offsetting is only considered as the last option within the mitigation hierarchy of: avoid, minimize, mitigate, compensate. Ecological offsetting is only proposed to be permitted in situations where development or site alteration will not be able to avoid, minimize or fully mitigate negative impacts on the natural heritage system, where the feature and form can be replicated in a reasonable timeframe (e.g. 5 years for wetlands and 20 years for woodlands). Ecological offsetting needs to be implemented carefully but can be used to achieve no-net-loss, and can seek an overall net gain in terms of area and ecological function for the natural heritage system, such as by infilling fragmented woodlands to increase interior habitat or replacing isolated wetlands with larger, connected features. Offsetting will only be considered after the completion and Council approval of Ecological Offsetting Guidelines. Ecological offsetting would be required to comply with the requirements of Council-approved Ecological Offsetting Guidelines.

Question 52

“If offsetting is considered for wetlands and other nature features will the city put together a process to follow and/or recommended consultants to use for designing these offset features. I ask because the replacement of these features is both difficult and costly so there needs to be some type of understanding before offsetting is allowed/considered to ensure it will actually occur properly and at all.”

Response:

The City will prepare Ecological Offsetting Guidelines as per the recommendations of the draft Natural Heritage Study. It is anticipated that the Guidelines will help identify limitations to offsetting (off-limit areas or components), identify replacement ratios (whether offsetting should be used to demonstrate ‘no net loss’ or a ‘net environmental gain’); outline expectations around construction, maintenance and monitoring of features to ensure they will achieve intended size and function; clarify how securities will be kept and requirements for their release; and explore opportunities for long-term success of the feature, including ownership and zoning considerations. The Ecological Offsetting Guidelines will be subject to public consultation.

Question 53

“I asked my question a little early - mostly answered now. But curious the way that developers complying with actually creating the offset features will occur. What is the penalty or method of enforcement?”

Response:

Offsetting compliance would need to be secured through legal agreements. Should Council support the concept of ecological offsetting, staff will be potentially looking at a Community Planning Permit System for the City to be able to require such agreements. A Community Planning Permit System would be subject to Council approval. It is anticipated that many of the details will be addressed through the Ecological Offsetting Guidelines.

Question 54

“How were the "reasonable" time frames for offsetting decided on?”

Response:

The timeframes for offsetting suggestions of approximately five years for wetlands and 20 years for woodlands are based on guidance from the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010) as well as offsetting undertaken in other jurisdictions whereby successional status and replaceability of a feature are accomplished within a reasonable timeframe. Depending on the complexity of the feature, it is possible to establish ecological function within a wetland within five years and within a woodland within 20 years. Old growth forests, bogs, fens, and other complex habitats cannot be replicated within these time frames and would not be features considered for ecological offsetting.

Question 55

“How does the actual process work when the NO Net Loss requirement is used to manage woodlands in a way that protects the climate and environment in light of the fact that when a mature tree is removed the new trees planted don’t manage the ground water and carbon footprint untill the new trees are mature?”

Response:

Ecological Offsetting Guidelines will provide replacement ratios for each natural feature type eligible for offsetting, which will take into consideration the age and complexity of the feature being replicated to ensure objectives related replacement area, form and function can be replicated within a reasonable timeframe. It should be noted that ecological offsetting primarily focuses on replicating ecological functions rather than on climate change adaptation.

Question 56

“What is the timeline for City to complete guideline docs for Environmenal Impact Studies and Ecological Offsetting / Guidelines ?”

Response:

It is anticipated that some draft information will be available in June. Consultation on the Ecological Offsetting Guidelines and Environmental Impact Study Guidelines will continue after Council approval of the new Official Plan. Both sets of guidelines will be subject to Council approval.

Question 57

“I am also wondering how offsetting will be maintained, to ensure the natural heritage features that are “offset”. How are developers required to maintain and ensure that these new features thrive, when they are allowed to cause damage to existing features, with new development?”

Response:

Please see response to Question 53.

Question 58

“If offseting is not approved, would that mean that significant wetlands/woodlands would be respected and not filled/clearcut by using offseting as a remedy?”

Response:

If offsetting as a tool is not supported by Council, findings and recommendations of an Environmental Impact Study, reviewed and approved by the City, would inform appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. As per the Provincial Planning Statement, development is not permitted within significant wetlands, whereas development may be permitted within significant woodlands provided it can be demonstrated there would be no negative impacts.

Question 59

“Why, when speaking of natural heritage features is the term 'net' loss, 'net' gain. Why not simply use the term loss or gain?”

Response

Loss would only describe what is removed. Gain would only describe what is added or improved through restoration. The word “net” is used to reflect the overall result after accounting for both.

Industrial and Business Uses

Question 60

“What does ‘protected under the planning act’ mean vis a vis industrial land.”

Response:

Lands called “area of employment” under the Planning Act can now only be used for industrial uses, such as manufacturing, research and development in connection with manufacturing, warehousing, goods movement, associated retail and office, and ancillary facilities.

In the past offices and independent research and development facilities could be co-located with industrial uses, which is no longer permitted by the Planning Act definition of an ‘area of employment’. These areas are protected from sensitive uses and from conversion to non-industrial uses unless provincial and municipal criteria are met.

Questions 61 and 62

“Would AI data centres be considered an employment area or a business area? What policies does the 2nd draft Official Plan set for AI Data Centres? Where are they allowed in the City?”

“Paige - -please answer the rest of my question re: policies in draft 2 and where they would be allwoed?”

Response:

The Second Draft does not specifically refer to AI data centres. Based on the draft use designation framework, an AI data centre would generally be permitted on properties where a Business Use is permitted, subject to the form designation and all other applicable policies of the Plan. Map 5 of the Second Draft of the Official Plan shows areas where a Business Use would be permitted.

As part of the public feedback on the Second Draft, staff have received a number of comments about AI data centres and will be addressing this in the Third Draft.

Question 63

“Following up on Vicki’s question–will there be certain areas designated for any type of AI centre?”

Response:

Please see response to Question 61.

Questions 64 and 65

“Do you have any insight as to what industries will be moving to Kingston?”

“Can you provide any insight as to what industries may be moving to Kingston?”

Response:

The City is planning for a broad range of employment growth in the industrial sector, such as advanced manufacturing, wholesale trade/distribution, and transportation and warehousing.

Question 66

“How are employment lands being pushed to be part of the innovative climate change strategy? These lands sit on huge parcels, having giant rooves, and large asphalt areas, typically. These should be pushed to be part of the solution.”

Response:

The Second Draft of the Official Plan establishes a policy framework that encourages sustainable design, green infrastructure, low impact development, and opportunities for innovation such as district energy systems – which would apply to employment lands.

As the primary developer of City-owned industrial and business lands, the Second Draft establishes a shovel-worthy framework for the City which focuses on ecological health, sustainability, and community well-being over the next seven generations. Please see Section 2C5 of the Second Draft.

Battery Energy Storage Systems

Questions 67 and 68

“What policies for Large-scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) vs protection of watersheds and Natural Heritage Features are included in the draft OP?”

“Paige/Nial -- please answer the question regarding: What policies for Large-scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) vs protection of watersheds and Natural Heritage Features are included in the draft OP? Thank you.”

Response:

The Second Draft treats energy storage systems (which include battery energy storage) within the framework to reducing energy consumption.

A large-scale BESS proposal would need to comply with all applicable policies of the Official Plan, including those related to the natural heritage system and stormwater management. Depending on the where those facilities are proposed, and what natural heritage features may be present in the area of the development or on adjacent lands, the City would require the submission of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to assess potential impacts on the natural heritage features. The EIS would include identification of mitigation measures or avoidance mechanisms in terms of locating the facility appropriately, including buffers, and respecting feature boundaries. A stormwater management report would also be required to ensure the quality and quantity of water is appropriately managed.

Battery energy storage systems are regulated by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). As part of the IESO procurement process, proponents are required to consult with municipalities to ensure local planning considerations are addressed.

Form Designation

Question 69

“Form based sounds like it is about optics. What are the functional reasons for the form-based designmation?”

Response:

The form designation helps guide height, massing, scale, and transition in relation to the surrounding context. The form designation is intended to create upfront and clearer expectations for the anticipated built form of the development.

Question 70

“Form based policy talks about "fit" of buildings in neighbourhoods not just what is inside the building. This clearly has not been the case in areas where 16 storey buildings dwarf regular housing and low rise commercial in the city (i.e. building at corner of Queen and Barrie). Is this going to change now? Can we expect buildings to be compatible with the existing flavour of the neighbourhood?”

Response:

Existing buildings were approved under the context of the Official Plan policies that were in place at the time of the development application.

The new form-based framework is intended to provide clearer direction on building scale, height, massing, transition, and fit. Future applications would be reviewed against the applicable Use Designation, Form Designation, and all other applicable policies once the new Official Plan is in force.

Question 71

“In line with Yvonne's question, can we expect that plans will not be presented by the city that already include exemptions to the plan?”

Response:

Future applications would be reviewed against the applicable Use Designation, Form Designation, and all other applicable policies once the new Official Plan is in force. If a proposal does not conform with the Official Plan, it would require an Official Plan amendment and a public process.

Cultural Heritage

Question 72

“The current draft uses the vocabulary of how the OP ‘must comply’ with the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan for all three heritage districts. But Map 7 of protected views does not include ANY of the views protected in HCDP for the village of Barriefield. I've raised this before but the problem persists.”

Response:

Based on feedback received on the First Draft of the Official Plan, the Second Draft was revised to remove the specificity from Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD) section so that there are no inconsistencies between the Official Plan and the HCD Plan. The policy now states that new development must comply with the HCD Plan. This would include protected views. If the HCD Plan is amended in the future, the Official Plan policies would continue to apply without the need for an amendment.

Questions 73 and 74

“Is cultural heritage covered? It doesn't look like it - just natural heritage - when will my question be answered?”

“Is cultural heritage covered in this meeting is what I meant”

Response:

The open house presentation was structured around the key highlights of the Second Draft of the Official Plan along with detailed topic areas that included natural heritage and urban boundary expansion. Cultural heritage was referenced on the slide titled ‘Heritage + Placemaking’, in the first part of the presentation on the key highlights, but not included in the detailed topic areas.

Cultural heritage is covered in the Second Draft of the Official Plan in Section 5A, which includes policies on cultural heritage resources, built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, archaeological resources, protected heritage properties, area-specific cultural heritage policies, protected views, living heritage, heritage character areas, and cemeteries.

Public Engagement

Question 75

“Duncan Sinclair: How do you propose to involve more of the citizenry in development of this plan given the absence of an effective newspaper or radio station and the proliferation of social media sites?”

Response:

Staff have been using multiple engagement channels to reach out to as many residents as possible, including the project website on Get Involved Kingston, the project email list, social media, public open houses, committee meetings (for example Planning Committee, Planning Advisory Committee, Rural Economic and Community Development Working Group), targeted stakeholder outreach, youth engagement, Indigenous engagement, and direct notice where required, including publishing in the Kingston Whig-Standard. Additionally, as part of the Official Plan project, a community advisory group (CAG) was established which includes a panel of community members. Some members of the CAG act as project champions and have held events in their communities to make residents aware of the Official Plan project.

Question 76

“Will the 3rd draft OP have a public feedback period of days or weeks or none at all?”

Response:

The Third Draft is anticipated in early June and will be open for public comment leading up to the Special Meeting of Council on June 30, 2026, as per the Council approved schedule of meetings.

Questions 77 and 78

“Does a question have to pertain to the main themes in order to be answered in this forum?”

“Following up on my query - If so, it would have been good to know that in advance. The meeting was advertised as an opportunity to address all facets of the OP.”

Response:

Questions were welcomed on all aspects of the Second Draft of the Official Plan.

Staff appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration for future sessions to ensure expectations are communicated as clearly as possible.

Question 79

“I am also wondering about the presentations from developers that were supposed to be part of the Special Meeting of Council on March 31. Will the public have an opportunity to hear what those developers were going to say? If so, when?”

Response:

No presentation materials were submitted by developers for the canceled meeting. Should those individuals wish to present at a future Special Meeting of Council, it would be at their discretion.

Question 80

“What will timing be for responses to outstanding questions from tonight? How will they be shared publically?”

Response:

Questions received at the open house have been grouped by theme in this ‘What We Heard’ document. The ‘What We Heard’ document has been shared with the registrants and posted on the Get Involved Kingston project website.

Question 81

“The schedule sounds good - but how do you intend to include the content of the Housing and Homelessness plan in this plan, given that it won't be released until the fall?”

Response:

It is not anticipated that the ongoing Housing and Homelessness Plan Review and Update will be completed prior to the finalization of the new Official Plan. Should future recommendations from the Housing and Homelessness Plan need to be reflected within the Official Plan policies, there will be the opportunity to incorporate them as a City-initiated amendment to the new Official Plan.

Intensification

Question 82

“This may be too specific for this forum, but Map 2's Strategic Growth Areas, Map 4's Priority Pedestrian Areas, and Schedule 1's zone maps, all create pockets along Montreal street that essentially allow islands of development which are disconnected from other such areas in the city. Has any consideration gone into general intensification along Montreal street, allowing for more integrated development with the other regions identified by the plan?”

Response:

The City completed a study for the North King’s Town (NKT) area in 2025, which included the Montreal Street corridor. As part of this work, there were several locations identified for intensification on Montreal Street, which have been carried forward into the draft Official Plan mapping as strategic growth areas. In identifying sites for intensification, the NKT study took into consideration adjacent land uses, parcel fabric as well as heritage considerations. Based on that work, not all properties along Montreal Street were considered appropriate for intensification.

Question 83

“Thank you for this information. As a resident of North King’s Town for 19 years, I feel like my community is vulnerable to what many see as misguided and poorly thought-out intensification. Are current downtown “intensification” projects readily approved by city staff simply because they are satisfying an intensification target—regardless of obvious planning rules? And does approval occur despite strong opposition from neighbours? Without the opportunity to participate at the OLT, do long-time residents of downtown Kingston no longer have a voice at all?”

Response:

Intensification targets do not replace planning review. Development applications are reviewed on their own merit and evaluated against applicable Official Plan policies as well as the Provincial Planning Statement. Residents continue to have a voice through the development approvals process, even where provincial changes have affected appeal rights. Decisions on applications are made by Council or the Committee of Adjustment, as applicable, and not by City staff.

Existing Undeveloped Lands

Question 84

“Has all the Novellis land been taken into consideration for building new commercial and residential spaces? Lot of land sitting adjacent to Sir John A MacDonal Blvd.”

Response:

The Novelis lands have been considered as part of the land supply analysis. The lands have been included within an Industrial use designation in the Second Draft of the Official Plan.

Questions 85 and 86

“are there undeveloped lands within the urban boundary that could be expropriated or the owner be encouraged to develop the land so expanding the boundary can be avoided?”

“*eg, there are empty gravel lots and unused commercial buildings with lots”

Response:

The City can encourage development through land use and zoning permissions, infrastructure planning or other incentives. Expropriation is a separate legal tool used only in specific circumstances and is not generally used as a broad growth management strategy. The land needs analysis has taken vacant lands within the urban boundary into consideration.

Underused lots and vacant commercial properties are important intensification opportunities. The Second Draft of the Official Plan supports intensification in appropriate locations through flexible dual use permissions and form-based policies.

Question 87

“Aside from Collins Bay, has the City identified other lands within the current UB that are owned by other orders of government and could have good potential for residential / commerical use? Is the City lobbying other orders of government to make those lands available in the interest of tackling the housing crisis without promoting urban sprawl?”

Response:

Lands within the Kingston Provincial Campus at 752 King Street West have been included within a Residential + Commercial + Institutional Use designation to allow for residential and commercial uses.

Staff continue to reach out to federal and provincial ministries about surplus lands that may be disposed of in the foreseeable future.

Excess Soil Management Site on Highway 15

Question 88

“Part of the highway 15 section that is being considered for urban boundary expansion is currently being used as a dump site for construction excavation materials which continues to grow in size. Why is farmland that has been sold to the developer who has applied for urban boundary expansion and future development been allowed to use this site as an ever expanding dumpsite for excavation waste in an area that hasn’t yet been approved for urban boundary expansion?”

Response:

In December 2019, the government passed Ontario Regulation 406/19 under the Environmental Protection Act, titled “On-Site and Excess Soil Management” to support improved management of excess construction soil. These changes reduce soil management costs, while protecting human health and the environment.

The owner of the property at 1623 Highway 15 has registered those lands with the Province as a beneficial re-use site under Ontario Regulation 406/19. Once registered, an estimated end date is provided but can be updated based on actual need.

This process is handled through the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and is separate from the Official Plan review process being undertaken by the City. The use of the subject property as a beneficial re-use site is not controlled by the City nor is it associated with the owner’s application to request an urban boundary expansion.

Question 89

“Why is the highway 15 proposed development site being used as a construction waste material at all when it is not being considered as a 'short-term' development site.”

Response:

Please see response to Question 88.

Question 90

“The permits that are provided to a developer to house waste on other sites - do they have an expiry date? I am thinking in terms of the Hwy 15 site which has held construction waste for nearly a year.”

Response:

Please see response to Question 88.

Status of the Plan

Question 91

“Has this plan been submitted to the province of Ontario. Was it approved as written. Were comments from the province received by the city and if so, are they available for public review”

Response:

The Second Draft is not the final version of the new Official Plan and has not been approved as written by the province.

Additional Comments and Statements

Comment 92

“Not a question. Hoping I can rejoin if battery dies before I get to my charger.”

Comment 93

“Thank you for that comprehensive answer Paige.”

Comment 94

“Thank you for the response. Appreciate it. I will ask privately about the Rural settlement area and what the benefits are. Thank you very much for the detailed reply about timing Ms. Agnew that was very clear!”

Comment 95

“Thank you for the information, and for the opportunity to weigh in. This public consultation is extremely important, as are clear answers to very important complex questions.”

Comment 96

“Thank you to all who presented and answered questions, for the presentation and information.”

Comment 97

“Thank you for your time and committment this evening. It was well done.”

Response

Thank you for participating. Comments 92 through 97 have been captured as part of the meeting record.

Correction

Please note that following the presentation, a correction was identified to the information included in the Population, Housing and Employment Growth Forecast slide. The 2021 population for the City was noted as 136,600, which represents the permanent population of the City adjusted for Census undercount. However, the total population, including post-secondary students not captured in the Census was 154,100 in 2021. Accordingly, the forecasted increase in the total population between 2021 and 2051 is 66,800.