A development application for this property proposes that the one-storey building be converted to a three-storey residential building with 9 units and 18 bedrooms. The property is currently zoned “Neighbourhood Commercial.” Read this previous What’s Up Kingston report about the development proposal.

In Draft 1, the map below shows the site as permitting a commercial use, which is consistent with the zoning that has been in place since at least 2008. At that time, the site was “red flagged” in the zoning with a note that to maintain the “neighbourhood character” no additional floor space would be allowed. In 2025, the North King’s Town project policies added the property into the Heritage Character Area.

In Draft 2, the map below shows the use for the site as “Residential + Commercial,” the yellow colouring.

For neighbours who have been worried about the impact of this high-density development proposal on their neighbourhood and the close by park, this change for the property in the draft Official Plan map is troubling.

“It appears as if someone at the City has changed the zoning of this tiny, unique site in the Second Draft while it’s currently undergoing an application for a Zoning Bylaw Amendment. What an erosion of trust! It’s like they’re anticipating the outcome of the development approval process before Planning Committee and Council have voted. I hope I’m mistaken as that would be completely unethical,” says Jill Bryant, a neighbour.

The development application will be coming to Planning Committee for a decision on June 4, 2026.

Notice of a Public Meeting

[edited]

The City of Kingston has received an application for a: Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBA)

Purpose and Effect of the Application: To permit the conversion of existing 1-storey medical office building into a 3-storey residential apartment building, containing 9 residential units.

The site is located at 4 York Street… The property has an area of approximately 275 square metres. The subject property is designated Residential in the Official Plan.

The subject property is in a Red Exception in the Kingston Zoning By-Law 2022-62 and is subject to both the provisions of the CN (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone in Zoning By-law 2022-62, and is also subject to the site-specific provisions of the A.119 Zone in former Zoning Bylaw Number 8499.

The applicant is proposing a zoning by-law amendment to permit the adaptive re-use of the existing 1-storey building on the subject property to establish a three-storey apartment building containing 9 dwelling units with a total of 18 bedrooms.

The proposed unit mix includes 4 one-bedroom units, 3 two-bedroom units and 2 four-bedroom units.

An Urban Multi-Residential Zone 11 (URM11) is proposed for the site along with an Exception Overlay that would apply site-specific development standards pertaining to matters such as height, setbacks, lot coverage, landscaped open space, a step back for the rooftop amenity area, and parking.

A Holding Overlay is also recommended, specifying conditions to be satisfied before the applicant is in a position to obtain a building permit.

Due to a lack of available space on the site, no on-site vehicular parking is being proposed. However, 17 long-term bike spaces are proposed in shared rooms internal to the building and 1 short-term bike space is proposed.

**** Address of Property: 4 York Street (Formerly 391 Barrie Street)

Name of Applicant: David Kay and the Boulevard Group

City File Number: D14-010-2025 - more informtion on DASH

Public Meeting Date: June 4, 2026 Time: 6:00 p.m.

Location: This will be a hybrid meeting. Attendees can participate in-person at Council Chambers, City Hall, 216 Ontario Street, or virtually. To register to attend virtually, email Christine O’Connor, Committee Clerk, at cloconnor@cityofkingston.ca.

Enquiries may be made by contacting Amy Didrikson, Senior Planner, by email adidrikson@cityofkingston.ca, or by phone 613-546-4291, ext. 3296.

Written comments for or against this change may be sent to Planning Services via: Mail: 216 Ontario Street, Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 Fax: 613-542-9965

Accessible parking requirements in some new developments

Two sections in draft 2 of the Official Plan seem to contradict each other.

Draft section 3C1.3 says that new developments that are located in a Projected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) have to provide bicycle parking but are not required to provide any vehicle parking. This is a new provincial law rule.

On other hand, draft section 6F1.1 says the “new development must provide accessible parking spaces in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, recognizing that accessible parking spaces are critical to ensuring social equity and accessibility for individuals with disabilities.”

Asked about this apparent contradiction, Laura Flaherty, Project Manager, Planning Services, who is leading the Official Plan review drafting process explained that there is “no conflict between section 3C1.3 and section 6F1.1 of the Second Draft of the Official Plan – they point to the appropriate legislation governing these two topics.”

The Catch-22 is that the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (the “AODA”), requires that a portion of provided vehicle parking must be accessible parking. When no vehicle parking is required then there is no requirement to provide accessible parking.

Flaherty wrote, “Accordingly, if a development in a PMTSA does not provide parking facilities, neither the AODA nor section 6F1.1 would operate to require accessible parking spaces. If parking facilities are voluntarily provided in a PMTSA, then accessible parking requirements under the AODA, and therefore section 6F1.1 of the Official Plan, would apply.”

In other words, instead of looking to the number of units in a building and providing accessible parking for a portion of the units, the rules are to only provide accessible parking when there is other parking.

The message to people with disabilities is therefore “If you require parking, don’t live here.”

1. The reason for an Official Plan and why they’re important.

2. The role of population projections in an Official Plan review process

3. Urban boundaries - setting a limit on urban growth

4. Land values related to urban boundary expansion

5. Nature protections in an Official Plan

6. Best practice Official Plan review process

This is Map 5 in draft 2 which shows the uses of land in the city. The Memorial Centre is the light green square property in the approximate centre of the map. The light green signifies “Open Space + Commercial.”

In Kingston’s current Official Plan, the Memorial Centre is covered by this policy:

Section 3.8.19, current Official Plan:

“The Memorial Centre will be developed to respect the seven Council endorsed principles for site development, that development be “green”, “connected”, “diverse”, “flexible”, “balanced”, “affordable” and “accessible”.”

The Memorial Centre is also referenced as a “park” in section 10E.1.42 on Parkettes: “In addition to parks within walking distance of the Williamsville Main Street, such as Victoria Park and the Memorial Centre, future development plans for the main street area are encouraged to include small urban parkettes.”

In draft 2 of the Official Plan, the Memorial Centre is not mentioned at all (unless the “find” function is not working accurately).

The map showing the “use” of land in the city shows the Memorial Centre as “Open Space” and “Commercial.” These uses are defined in section 4A1.1.

In draft 2, the “Open Space” column in the Table for “Commercial Use” (Table 4A.3) does not have a “P” for “principal use.” This suggests that the Open Space use has to be dominant. In the Open Space Table (Table 4A.8) there is a “P” for “principal use” for both Commercial Use and Open Space Use.

This is confusing. The introduction of a new concept for city planning proposing a “use” and “form” approach was not been discussed in detail at the recent public meeting. Staff focused on a high-level explanation of the second draft of the Official Plan. There were many more questions than answers at the April 27, 2026 virtual meeting.

What does the proposed Official Plan mean for the Memorial Centre?

Downtown Kingston — Princess Street

In the current Official Plan, Section 2.2.7.1 “recognizes the importance of maintaining and conserving the heritage buildings and character of the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area, as established in Sections 7.3 and 10A of this Plan.

Section 7.3.C.6: “The City intends to investigate areas for designation as heritage conservation districts, including, but not limited to: a. lower Princess Street from Division Street to the waterfront.” The idea of a heritage conservation district for Lower Princess Street is carried forward in draft 2 in section 5A8-A. Perhaps this will finally be done?

Section 7.3.D.1 of the current Official Plan uses the word “compatible” — for example in subsection (b) “new buildings will reinforce and be compatible with the existing built heritage resources.” “Compatibility” is not mentioned in draft 2 with respect to Lower Princess Street developments.

Section 10.A.4.6 of the current Official Plan has specific setback and height limits for Lower Princess Street.

Draft 2 of the proposed Official Plan does not include setback or height limits. Instead section 5A8-A.2 says that “new buildings must .. comply with the maximum streetwall height, minimum building height and minimum ground floor height provisions in the zoning by-law.” In other words, setback and height limits for Princess Street between Division and the waterfront will now be set in zoning without any overarching policy identifying a vision for the street.

There has not been a public discussion about what these changes in approach to Lower Princess Street mean.

This video looks at three critical elements when a city writes new Official Plan policies: efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness.

Whitelaw asks: Is the process of developing a Official Plan going to:

• lead to efficient use of the land by expanding municipal services to the least costly and smallest spaces

• lead to an effective use of land by creating good living spaces for people and offering parks and places for nature

• be a fair process that gives people a chance to understand the proposed policies and have a voice in the process — public consultation and engagement?

Here’s a link to a toolkit to give you more information about the draft Official Plan and where to send your comments.

Here’s a link to a petition on the urban boundary expansion proposed in the second draft Official Plan.

Here’s a link to a recording of the Monday, April 27, 2026 two-hour city meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan.

The deadline for comments on the second draft of the Official Plan is May 3, 2026.

Comments on the second draft of the Official Plan may be sent to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca or added to the draft on the City website.

The City’s capital expenditures will reach almost $1 billion over the next five years

Kingston is already struggling to maintain existing infrastructure. According to the staff report (page 105 and following, on Tuesday, May 5th City Council’s agenda, over the next five-years, capital expenditures are projected to total $940 million, including both asset management and capital investments.

This ad is running this weekend on FLY-FM.

ABC news report on AI Data Centres raises concerns about their size, electricity use, noise, and impact on neighbours.

Across North America there is growing concern about the impact of AI Data Centres on a community’s electricity and water supplies, for water both the taking of water to cool the complex computer systems and the release of used water, which may contain coolants and minerals, into the environment.

There are also concerns about the land area covered by some massive AI centres (equal to 500 football fields, according to the ABC report) and their noise — noise above an acceptable decibel threshold and “infranoise” that cannot be heard by humans and may have health effects, such as headaches, dizziness, and nausea.

In the state of Georgia, AI data centres have become an election issue as reported in Politico.

During Kingston’s April 27, 2026 public meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan, staff answered questions about the possible location of AI data centres under the proposed new Official Plan. The answer was that an application would have to adhere to policies protecting the city’s natural heritage systems and that the centres would have to be located in a “commercial” or “business use” area. Staff mentioned Cataraqui Estates as a possible location and the Gardiners Road area.

The places proposed for business uses are found on Map 5 of the draft Official Plan.

“Data processing” is listed in the “Business Use Permissions” - Table 4A.4 - with permission for this use in the following designated areas: Commercial, (COM) Business (BUS), Airport (AIR), Rural Business (RBS), and Rural Industrial (RID).

A search suggests that the Table is the only time “data processing” is mentioned in the second draft of the Official Plan. There do not seem to be any policies requiring, for instance, AI data centres to be located at least one kilometre from residential areas or from short-term residential facilities such as hotels.

“Data processing” is not defined in section 9C1 of the second draft, which provides definitions for terms used in the draft Official Plan.

Question: How do the proposals in the draft 2 Official Plan apply to people who do some kind of data processing from their homes — a residential area — or institutions that do data processing? Neither of these “use” areas are listed as permitted places for data processing in Table 4A.4.

City of Toronto Council directs staff to report back with an overview of land-use compatibility considerations and zoning by-law requirements for AI data centres

The Toronto City Council passed the following motion on March 26, 2026.

“SUMMARY:

As AI becomes an increasingly prevalent force in global industry and our day-to-day lives, we must navigate the technical and infrastructure requirements that makes the use of this technology possible. The location and servicing of AI data centres is one such consideration – and it is one that is a growing concern in our communities.

There are good data sovereignty reasons to want Canadian data managed in Canada, and the many data-reliant Canadian businesses headquartered in Toronto have good reasons to want their data managed here.

At the same time, AI data centres may put a significant strain on power grids, driving up the cost of electricity for all users, displacing other valued uses of electricity, and increasing climate pollution from electricity generation. They may also use large quantities of potable water and climate-warming chemicals for cooling purposes, and trigger costly fires. These extensive resource requirements could adversely affect municipal infrastructure, increase costs for Torontonians, and worsen climate damage.

Residents have questions about how Toronto plans to manage proposed AI data centres while maintaining energy, water and infrastructure capacity for the essential functions of our city and their day-to-day lives, as well as balance these proposals with our broader affordability, environmental and climate goals. These questions are particularly challenging in relation to AI data centres that can be established as-of-right – that is, without a public process by which residents can raise questions or concerns.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, Executive Director, Development Review, and Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry, along with other relevant divisions and in consultation with Toronto Hydro, to report to Planning and Housing Committee in the first half of 2027, on the subject of new AI data centres in the City of Toronto, addressing the following:

a. A general overview of the land-use compatibility considerations and zoning by-law requirements that apply to such projects;

b. Processes in place to address impacts relating to grid capacity and water usage, among other environmental, energy and affordability impacts, resulting from their existence within the City of Toronto;

c. Information on the current regulatory environment for AI data centres at the federal, provincial and municipal orders of government, as well as any updates following recent legislative changes; and

d. Recommendations for improvements, if any, to municipal review processes and regulatory frameworks around AI data centres to ensure Toronto’s environmental, climate, infrastructural, energy and affordability priorities are protected.” [bold added]

To provide input into Kingston’s draft Official Plan

Comments on the second draft of the Official Plan may be sent to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca or added to the draft on the City website.

The deadline for comments on the second draft of the Official Plan is May 3, 2026.

This video talks about nature and why it needs to be protected in an Official Plan.

Here’s a link to a toolkit to give you more information about the draft Official Plan and where to send your comments.

Here’s a link to a petition on the urban boundary expansion proposed in the second draft Official Plan.

Here’s a link to a recording of the Monday, April 27, 2026 two-hour city meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan.

The deadline for comments on the second draft of the Official Plan is May 3, 2026.

Comments on the second draft of the Official Plan may be sent to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca or added to the draft on the City website.

This ad is running on FLY-FM this weekend.

This video talks about land values when rural land is opened up for development and about the relationship between boundary expansion and intensification opportunities.

Here’s a link to a toolkit to give you more information about the draft Official Plan and where to send your comments.

Here’s a link to a petition on the urban boundary expansion proposed in the second draft Official Plan.

Here’s a link to a recording of the Monday, April 27, 2026 two-hour city meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan.

The deadline for comments on the second draft of the Official Plan is May 3, 2026.

Comments on the second draft of the Official Plan may be sent to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca or added to the draft on the City website.

This short video focuses on the reason an Official Plan defines the urban boundary and explains the difference between an urban and rural designation in an Official Plan.

The City is proposing four placess to expand the urban boundary in the current second draft of the Official Plan: Creekford Commons, Mile Square, Highway 15 near the 401, and Highway 2 east of the Canadian Forces Base.

Here’s a link to a toolkit to give you more information about the draft Official Plan and where to send your comments.

Here’s a link to a petition on the urban boundary expansion proposed in the second draft Official Plan.

Here’s a link to a recording of the Monday, April 27, 2026 two-hour city meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan.

The deadline for comments on the second draft of the Official Plan is May 3, 2026.

Comments on the second draft of the Official Plan may be sent to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca or added to the draft on the City website.

This ad is running on FLY-FM this weekend.

Listen to this short video on why the Official Plan review process is grounded in population projections. For Kingston, the projection in the draft Official Plan is 220,000 residents by 2051.

Here’s a link to a petition on the urban boundary expansion proposed in the second draft Official Plan.

Here’s a link to a recording of the Monday, April 27, 2026 two-hour city meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan.

The deadline for comments on the second draft of the Official Plan is May 3, 2026.

Comments on the second draft of the Official Plan may be sent to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca or added to the draft on the City website.

Listen to this short video on the reason for an Official Plan and why it’s important.

Here’s a link to a recording of the Monday, April 27, 2026 two-hour city meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan.

The deadline for comments on the second draft of the Official Plan is May 3, 2026.

Comments on the second draft of the Official Plan may be sent to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca or added to the draft on the City website.

One of the slides the city presented at the Official Plan information meeting.

Almost 100 participants attended the April 27th virtual public meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan.

Presenting information on behalf of the City were Paige Agnew, Commissioner of Growth and Development Services; Sukriti Agarwal, Manager, Policy Planning; and Niall Oddie, Senior Planner, working on the natural heritage aspects of the Official Plan. Jen Pinarski, Manager, Communications and Public Engagement, moderated the information session.

First to speak about the draft Official Plan was Agarwal who walked participants through almost 60 slides. Her presentation was divided into sections and every 10 minutes or so, Pinarski asked a question or two that had been posted using the Q & A function. Often, she read a question and then suggested it might be better answered at another time later in the meeting

What’s different in this Official Plan compared to the current Official Plan?

The easy answer is “a lot.” The second draft Plan proposal includes:

• two categories for what can happen on any property in the city — there’s a “use designation” — what can be built on this land (housing, school, industry, commercial etc.) — and a “form designation” - what a building size and shape can be. The impact of this change of approach was not explained.

• two categories of non-housing related land uses — “employment areas” (industrial, manufacturing, and warehousing) and “business areas” (offices, retail). The impact of this change of approach was not explained.

• a goal of 60% for development intensification within the current city urban boundary - the goal was 40% in the first draft

• an urban boundary expansion to meet the projected population of 220,000 residents in 2051 (based on medium growth assumptions) and on the maps identifying the proposed areas to expand the city the words “deferred” appear with staff proposing a phased in approach

• reduced protection for natural features and lands adjacent to them (such as Provincially Significant Wetlands and Provincially Significant Woodlands) saying that when an Environmental Impact Study shows no negative impacts on the natural feature development can go ahead.

The second draft of the Official Plan is 238 pages without the maps. Maps are available on the City website.

This meeting slide shows that natural feature protections recommended in the independently-produced natural heritage study (the work of North-South Environemental Inc.) for riparian areas (usually a 30 m buffer to water), locally-important wetlands, other wetlands, contributory woodlands, and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest are not included in the second draft of the Official Plan.

Meeting participants asked over 60 questions using the Q & A function. Perhaps 10 of them were answered.

Here are a few of the questions:

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

• Do you have any insight on what industries will be moving to Kingston?

• What are the functional reasons for the form-based designation?

• Will there be certain areas designated for any type of AI centre?

• How do you prove no negative impact?

• Will the 3rd daft OP have a public feedback period of days or weeks or none at all?

The City said it was taking note of the questions and presumably will be answering them within the next few weeks.

Many, many months ago Council directed staff to have the new Official Plan ready for their approval by the end of June 2026. Until Council changes this timeframe, staff are doing everything they can to complete the project to meet this deadline.

Comments on the second draft of the Official Plan may be sent to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca or added to the draft on the City website. The deadline for draft 2 comments is May 3rd.

The Official Plan is the policy document that guides development in the city. What can be built where? How close? How tall? How many people within the building? Where are the parks? And where should the city grow next with new roads, water and sewer services, police, fire, etc.?

The city has rescheduled the briefing on this draft of the Official Plan from April 8th to tonight, April 27th at 6 pm.

Register here. Everyone is invited to listen, ask, and comment.

Comments on the draft Official Plan can also be added to the draft here or sent to the City by email.

The deadline to submit comments on this draft is May 3, 2026.

The Official Plan is the policy document that guides development in the city. What can be built where? How close? How tall? How many people within the building? Where are the parks? And where should the city grow next with new roads, water and sewer services, police, fire, etc.?

The city has rescheduled the briefing on this draft of the Official Plan from April 8th to tonight, April 27th at 7pm.

Register here. Everyone is invited to listen, ask, and comment.

Comments on the draft Official Plan can also be added to the draft here or sent to the City by email.

The deadline to submit comments on this draft is May 3, 2026.

“The previously postponed Virtual Open House for the Official Plan project has been rescheduled.

New event details:

Date: Monday, April 27, 2026

Time: 6 – 8 p.m.

Advance registration is required. Please register online via Zoom.

Extended commenting deadline:

May 3, 2026

The open house will provide residents with an opportunity to hear directly from the project team about the Second Draft of the Official Plan, which was publicly released on March 9th, ask questions and share their feedback. The session will be recorded and made available online following the event for those who are unable to attend. Written comments can still be provided in Konveio using the Plan embedded on the Get Involved Kingston page, or can be submitted via email to newofficialplan@cityofkingston.ca.

To support continued public input, the deadline for submitting comments or questions on the Second Draft of the Official Plan has been extended to May 3rd. As with planning projects, comments can be submitted at any time before Council makes a decision – the deadline for comments just ensures that any comments received by May 3rd can be responded to in the Third Draft.”

April 21 — tomorrow — remains the deadline for submitting comments to the City on the natural heritage maps, proposed definitions, and approaches to protecting woodlands, wetlands, and valleylands.

This toolkit prepared by the Kingston Climate Justice Coalition provides information on the second draft Official Plan and natural heritage protection proposals.

There is a petition to halt any expansion of the urban growth boundary until more information is known about its costs to taxpayers.

This is a media release that was sent out today by the Coalition of Kingston Communities and the Kingston Climate Justice Coalition:

April 20, 2026
** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **

Kingston Groups Call for Pause on Urban Boundary -
Expansion and Extension of Official Plan Review Can Wait Until After Election

Kingston, Ontario — Kingston community groups are calling for an immediate pause on the proposed Urban Boundary expansion as well as an extension of the Official Plan review period beyond the deadline of May 3, 2026 the city announced earlier today. The groups cite environmental, financial, and governance concerns supported by independent expert analysis.

The call is backed by legal opinions from environmental lawyer David R. Donnelly, representing Building Kingston’s Future, and municipal lawyer Roberto Aburto, representing the Coalition of Kingston Communities. Both lawyers conclude that proceeding at this stage would be premature and inconsistent with sound planning principles.

“Deferring the costly decision to expand the urban boundary is necessary to allow a newly elected Council, with a renewed mandate, to consider this issue fully and transparently, ensuring that the long-term implications for residents are clearly understood”, wrote David Donnelly, one of Canada’s leading environmental lawyers. “Urban sprawl is the least efficient and costliest development option for Kingston, what’s the rush?”, Donnelly added.

The draft Official Plan currently under review does not yet include comprehensive Natural Heritage protection policies, which are now expected in mid-May. Community groups are urging an extension of the review period beyond May 3, 2026 to allow for the development, review, and integration of these missing policies.

To address concerns about missing policies to protect the City’s natural areas, residents retained Mr. Mark Heaton, a retired Ministry of Natural Resources ecologist familiar with Natural Heritage Systems planning in municipalities across Ontario. In his report, he concluded Kingston must “raise the bar” for the rural portion of the city to a 40% forest cover target from the current 30%, and that all Significant Woodlands and wetlands should include mapping of the 120-metre Adjacent Lands consistent with Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement.

“Kingston has already lost thousands of hectares of forest since 2004 despite clear policy commitments to protect and enhance it.” said Annette Burfoot, of Building Kingston’s Future. “Continuing with the current approach will only accelerate that loss. We need stronger, nature-first policies in place before any urban expansion is considered.”

The legal submissions note there is essential financial analysis missing that is critical to any urban boundary decisions. The City has not completed an analysis of infrastructure or services costs, transportation/mobility studies or the economic value of nature’s ecological services.

“How can Council vote on adding new areas for development and infrastructure without knowing the costs to taxpayers”? asks Christine Sypnowich, chair of the Coalition of Kingston Communities. “Growth does not pay for itself and taxpayers will bear yet again the cost of these decisions far into the future.”

An online petition launched by the Kingston Climate Justice Coalition on Sunday, April 12, has already gathered over 500 signatures. The petition calls for “no urban boundary expansion decisions without full fiscal and environmental transparency” and highlights growing community concern.

“These decisions will shape Kingston’s finances, natural environment, and climate resilience for decades to come,” says Chris Gusen, Co-Chair of the Kingston Climate Justice Coalition “Residents and councillors need access to complete studies and policies, clear evidence, and time to understand the implications of the options before Council makes irreversible choices.”

The groups were pleased to see the City announce a re-scheduling of the cancelled April 8th public meeting. The meeting to answer questions about the second draft of the Official Plan is now scheduled for April 27th.

The new deadline of May 3 refers to comments on the Official Plan only. Comments on the second draft of the natural heritage study are still due on Tuesday, April 21, 2026.

The groups would like to be reassured that there will be a fulsome comment period after all the natural heritage policies are made public in mid-May and before the final draft of the Official Plan is presented for approval.

“Decisions of this magnitude must be based on evidence and meaningful public engagement,” says Sypnowich. “Right now, neither condition has been met.”