By Claude & Parth on 2026-04-08, City: Kingston, View Transcript
Kingston’s Planning Committee held a community meeting on three applications, including a revised proposal for 5–7 Cataraqui St. where the developer is seeking to replace previously approved townhouses with a 141-unit, six-storey apartment building after finding “greater contamination” on the former industrial site. The committee also unanimously approved a zoning amendment for a 48-unit purpose-built rental building at 1152–1158 Montreal St., and unanimously approved a consent and zoning amendment to sever an existing residence from an agricultural property at 3980 Highway 2 while prohibiting future residential uses on the retained farmland.
Rose Cove Developments presented a substantially changed plan for the Inner Harbour brownfield site. Staff and the applicant said additional investigations found “greater contamination,” and that “it was no longer…economically viable to remediate the soil to a degree that would allow the townhouses to proceed.” The revised concept would keep 43 townhouses on the northern portion of the lands, but replace the southern townhouse block with “a six story 141 unit apartment building with a penthouse level.”
The applicant described the area as having “a very deep industrial history” that has been “transitioning towards more sensitive uses over time.” On design, the applicant said they did not want to “mimic… the industrial character” but wanted a building that “fits with this neighbourhood,” adding that a heritage consultant advised simplifying elements to “make it feel more like a practical type of industrial building that’s been converted.” The applicant also said the building is set back so that looking down the street it “wouldn’t dominate the streetscape.”
Resident Jennifer McCluskey objected to the height and massing, telling the committee: “A six story 141 unit apartment building with a pentose level in the historic district would risk character inherited to view sheds and does not fit the unique waterfront heritage of this neighbourhood.” The applicant pointed to setbacks and design moves intended to break up the building’s appearance, and said the site had been “explicitly left out” of some North Kingston intensification goals.
No decision was made at this meeting. Staff also reminded attendees about the process and appeal rights: “This committee then makes a recommendation on the application to city council who has the final say… Members of the public cannot appeal a decision. Only [the] registered owner… or prescribed person under the Planning Act has the ability to appeal a decision.”
The committee approved a zoning by-law amendment for 1152–1158 Montreal St. to permit a four-storey, 48-unit purpose-built rental apartment building, replacing three existing houses. The applicant described the unit mix and sizes, saying: “We have one, two, and three bedroom units proposed,” with one-bedrooms in the “high 500s to low 600…square feet,” two-bedrooms ranging up to “over 900 square feet,” and three-bedrooms “over a thousand.”
Councillor Shaves focused on accessibility and winter conditions, objecting to any delay in addressing access between parking and entrances: “I don’t want to see any delay, especially for those who have accessibility issues… someone who has mobility issues, especially those who use a wheelchair, would have difficulty.” Staff said they would look at options during site plan control, including an additional ramp.
Tree retention and survival also came up. Councillor Sanek urged the applicant to maximize planting despite constraints: “If you could plant some trees, make it work, have bur oak… some that are tall and skinny… whatever can work… we’ll need some trees.” Another speaker raised concerns about snow storage and salt impacts on the limited number of trees proposed: “If you’re only going to have six trees on the lot… with snow storage… you have salt… some oil… We want all the trees to survive.”
The committee unanimously approved a consent application and related zoning amendment for 3980 Highway 2 to sever an existing residence and accessory buildings from a larger agricultural parcel used as part of an off-site dairy farm operation. Staff said the zoning amendment would restrict the retained lands to farming uses: “The recommended zoning by Law Amendment will prohibit residential uses on the retained property. This ensures that continued use of the [land] for productive agricultural and agricultural related uses only.” No public comments were received.
Tree loss and landscaping expectations were raised across files. In the Inner Harbour area, councillors discussed cumulative impacts and limited planting opportunities on constrained sites. On landscaping approach, the applicant described low-maintenance planting goals: “The idea of those landscaped areas is that they would require ideally minimal maintenance… well suited to… pollinator friendly spaces.”
The committee also heard that the Cataraqui Street project is expected to proceed with public support: “This project is intended to advance with significant support from the city in terms of the Brownfield CIP funding.” Sustainability features such as EV readiness and net-zero performance were discussed as not yet finalized, with staff noting incentives can increase with higher performance targets.
Traffic and access design questions were raised for the Cataraqui Street proposal, particularly how vehicles would circulate between the apartment building and the townhouse component and how that might affect safety for residents entering and exiting. The applicant said some details remain to be resolved at later design stages.
Passed:
- Zoning By-Law Amendment for 1152–1158 Montreal Street to permit a four-storey, 48-unit purpose-built rental apartment building — Approved unanimously
- Consent and Zoning By-Law Amendment for 3980 Highway 2 to sever an existing residence and prohibit residential uses on the retained agricultural parcel — Approved unanimously
Deferred: - No decision on 5–7 Cataraqui Street (community meeting only; no recommendation brought forward)
Note: This was a Planning Committee meeting; a full attendance list was not provided in the transcript.