By Claude & Parth on 2026-07-11, City: Kingston, View Transcript
Kingston Planning Committee discussed two development applications: a proposed 149-unit, eight-storey apartment building at 55 Cataraqui Woods Drive and a zoning bylaw amendment for 4 York Street to convert an existing building into a three-storey, nine-unit apartment building. The Cataraqui Woods application passed unanimously at committee. The 4 York Street application drew debate over heritage, parking, accessibility, traffic and neighbourhood fit, and was voted down 5-1.
Staff presented an application to amend the Official Plan and zoning bylaw for 55 Cataraqui Woods Drive, a vacant 1.5-hectare site, to permit an eight-storey apartment building with 149 dwelling units. Senior planner Amy Didrickson said the application would "establish site-specific permission for an eight-story apartment building with a reduced ninth story containing amenity area and mechanical penthouse containing 149 dwelling units."
Staff said the proposal had been revised since the community meeting, mainly through changes to parking and site layout. The current plan includes two levels of underground parking and 40 surface spaces at the rear. Staff said the site is served by transit, active transportation connections and existing municipal services.
Committee discussion on the Cataraqui Woods proposal focused on traffic, noise, open space and site design. Staff said the Class Four noise designation was needed because of existing nearby non-residential activity and clarified that it "does not allow increased noise impacts to existing residential" uses. Required mitigation includes building design measures and noise attenuation.
Staff also emphasized the amount of landscaped space and amenity area in the proposal. City staff said, "It is great to see that the private amenity on this site will go forward with the enactment of the site plan control and provide that level of green space for the site." Councillor Conny Glenn also praised the inclusion of larger units, saying, "I was thrilled to, of course, see three bedroom units in here. It's very difficult for families to find affordable places to live, and enough space."
On access and parking, staff said the two-way driveway could function safely and that parking levels were appropriate for the site.
Committee then considered a zoning bylaw amendment for 4 York Street to convert an existing building into a three-storey apartment building with nine units and 18 bedrooms. Staff said the property is within the St. Lawrence Heritage Character Area but is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Residents argued the proposal conflicted with the North Kingstown planning work and the existing character of the area. Claire LaSalle told committee, "I really hope that nearly a decade of effort won't be squashed by an application demanding relief from umpteen requirements. I ask that you deny Mr. Case application." Karen Weisbaum said, "Housing is necessary, but it should not be at the expense of a true, livable city neighbourhood."
Staff defended the compatibility analysis, saying "compatibility does not mean the same. It just means an ability to coexist." But Councillor Wendy Stephen said of the existing building, "To me, it's historic. Um, I don't think that it should be anything more than what it is. And, um, yeah, so I can't be supporting this."
Parking and accessibility became central issues in the York Street debate. Applicant representative Ryan Boehme said, "we do have zero parking spaces proposed," and argued that was appropriate because the site is close to "active transportation corridors, public transit, centres and corridors" and other services.
Councillors questioned whether the site could function without parking and whether accessibility needs were adequately addressed. Staff said zoning could not regulate all accessibility features, with Ms. Hansen explaining: "All other matters under the AODA for how a building functions are regulated under the Ontario Building Code and implemented through those detailed drawings. So it's a limitation that we have for a zoning bylaw, by what we can regulate."
Committee members also raised concerns about the constrained triangular lot and whether the proposal was trying to fit too much onto the site. Councillor Conny Glenn said, "I'm going to actually put forward that this is a spot where no building probably should ever have been put in the first place. So we are faced with a very, um, awkward, uh, position."
The scale of the proposal and the number of requested zoning exceptions were also debated. Councillor Brandon Tozzo asked staff whether it was normal "to have so many exceptions" for a proposal on a site of this size. Resident Andrea Gamo argued, "This proposal represents a massive increase in density on a tiny lot," and said the site was "not within any of the many Intensive Intensification areas recently added to the official plan."
Staff maintained the application could represent compatible intensification, but several councillors said the cumulative concerns about heritage, parking, accessibility and fit were too significant. Committee rejected the 4 York Street application on a 5-1 vote.
Councillors referenced in the meeting materials or discussion: - Councillor Wendy Stephen - Councillor Conny Glenn - Councillor Brandon Tozzo - Councillor Paul Chaves - Councillor Lisa Osanic - Councillor Gary Oosterhof
Other speakers referenced: - Bryan Paterson - Don Amos - Gregory Ridge - Ryan Boehme - Jeff McLaren