City of Kingston

Kingston Heritage Properties Committee

Minutes

2025-08
-
Council Chamber
Members Present:
  • Councillor Oosterhof
  • Jennifer Demitor
  • Peter Gower
  • Gunnar Heissler
  • Alexander Legnini
  • Robert Mayo
  • Daniel Rose
  • Ann Stevens
Regrets
  • Councillor Glenn, Chair
Staff Present:
  • Kevin Gibbs, Director, Heritage Services
  • Jennifer Hay, Heritage Coordinator
  • Allison Hannah, Committee Clerk
  • Niki Kensit, Intermediate Heritage Planner
  • Joel Konrad, Manager, Heritage Planning
  • Ryan Leary, Senior Heritage Planner
  • Alan McLeod, Senior Legal Counsel & Deputy City Solicitor
  • Iain Sullivan, Committee Clerk
Others Present:
  • Members of the public were present.


The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 

  • Moved by:Ms. Stevens
    Seconded by:Mr. Mayo

    That the agenda be amended to include the addendum, and as amended, be approved.

    Carried
  • Moved by:Ms. Stevens
    Seconded by:Mr. Mayo

    That the minutes of Kingston Heritage Properties Committee Meeting Number 2025-07, held Wednesday, June 18, 2025, be approved. 

    Carried

There were none. 

There were none. 

There were none. 

Ms. Kensit introduced the application. 

The Committee did not provide comment. 

The Vice-Chair provided an opportunity for members of the public to speak. There were no comments received from members of the public. 

  • Moved by:Mr. Heissler
    Seconded by:Mr. Gower

    That the application on the property at 111 Norman Rogers Drive be referred to the Director of Heritage Services for the issuance of final approval, in accordance with the details described in the application (File Number P18-033-2025), which was deemed complete on June 6, 2025, with said alterations to include:

    • The removal of the existing stone stairs along the north side of the east end of the building and the removal of the existing retaining wall along the south side of the east end of the building;
    • The removal, storage, repainting and reinstallation of the handrail on the north side of the building;
    • The excavation of the areas where the existing stairs and retaining wall were removed, to conduct below grade masonry repairs to the foundation, including repointing, parging and waterproofing;
    • The installation of reinforced concrete foundation walls to support the rebuilding of the stairs and retaining walls;
    • The reconstruction of the stone stairs, which consist of a stepped concrete slab-on-grade with stone treads laid over compacted granular fill and the retaining walls on both the north and south sides of the building, all faced and capped with limestone to match the existing materials;
    • The installation of weepers at both retaining walls and through the stair foundation to improve drainage;
    • Adjustments to the slope on the north sidewalk, at the top of the stairs, with new concrete;
    • The installation of two (2) new safety bollards near the top of the north retaining wall;
    • Restoration to any landscape and/or surfaces upon the completion of construction; and

    That the approval of the application be subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit A to Report Number HP-25-016.

    Carried

Mr. Leary introduced the application.

Mr. Heissler expressed his concern with the individual property's design and the lack of cohesion in the development at large. He noted that the Committee had only been looking at each property individually and not at the larger picture. He pointed to the conditions required for the application to be approved and stated that the application needed to be sent back to be corrected by the applicant.

Mr. Gower agreed with Mr. Heissler’s comments. He expressed his opinion that the subdivision will not be as cohesive as first envisioned. Graham Coe, agent for the applicant, stated that the items not in contention on the proposal were contained in the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD) plan. He stated that the applicant believes the materials proposed for the roof are in keeping with the HCD plan. He further stated that the development was respectful of the existing community. Thomas Kirkhoff, agent for the applicant, further noted that the building's massing had been reduced due to the slope of the property.

Councillor Oosterhof cautioned against sending the application back. He sought clarity on the development at large. Mr. Leary noted that it was a unique development in the city. He stated that the designs for the development come from a series of prototype homes and then changes are made according to the wishes of the new homeowner. He confirmed that the building is a two-floor dwelling and that staff sought to have the roofing material changed.

Mr. Mayo asked if a 3D model of the whole development had been produced. Mr. Kerkhoff stated that they had a 2D model of the development but not a 3D one. He noted that a 3D model could be explored.

Ms. Demitor stated that a model and what the neighbouring properties would look like would be useful as context.

Ms. Stevens sought confirmation on whether the Committee was approving the steel roof proposed. Mr. Leary confirmed that staff had included a condition that it be changed to a more appropriate material.

Mr. Heissler expressed his desire that the owner consent to the changes staff have included in the conditions.

The Vice-Chair provided an opportunity for members of the public to speak.

Don Taylor stated his belief that an overall subdivision plan was not required as Barriefield had developed organically over time and was therefore filled with variation. He expressed his wish that there was an example of the type of roofing that the applicant wishes to use provided. He stated that making the building simpler would make it cheaper for the applicant.

Mr. Heissler stated his belief that modern subdivisions were different and a larger plan was needed to ensure that it worked with the existing neighbourhood.

Councillor Oosterhof expressed support for the application. He echoed the public comments regarding the desire not to have uniformity in the development. He stated that he wished for steel roofs to be used more often and that there would be a move away from using asphalt shingles.

The Chair was passed to Mr. Gower.

Ms. Demitor noted her agreement with the statement that having good design and character was important. She expressed her desire for providing better context to the applications in the development by having the neighbouring properties be shown on the plans. She agreed with Councillor Oosterhof on a desire to not have asphalt roofing.

The Chair was returned to Ms. Demitor.

  • Moved by:Councillor Oosterhof
    Seconded by:Mr. Mayo

    That Kingston Heritage Properties Committee recommends to Council:

    That the new construction at 246 Old Kiln Crescent, be approved in accordance with the details described in the application (File Number P18-037-2025), which was deemed complete on June 10, 2025, with said application to include the construction of a two-storey dwelling and a detached garage accessed by a driveway; and

    That the approval of the application be subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit A to Report Number HP-25-017.

    Carried

Mr. Leary introduced the application.

Councillor Oosterhof noted his concerns regarding the file and his displeasure at the issues regarding insurance rates. He asked how many attributes were required for a property to be designated. He further noted the work that the owners had done on the property and asked when work done prior to the designation counts towards the designation. Mr. Leary stated that two of the nine criteria must be met for designation and that the subject property meets three of the criteria. He explained that properties up for designation are evaluated as they currently stand and that modern additions like the columns and portico add to the features of the building. He stated that the building was fairly unique and as a whole adds value to the community.

Councillor Oosterhof reiterated his disappointment with the insurance industry and the province. He stated that Council had put a pause on designations to provide time for discussions regarding insurance issues. He asked that the Committee vote to recommend Council de-designate the building, arguing that the insurance rates risked the homeowner being forced to leave their home.

Mr. Legnini asked for clarification on why insurance companies were changing the insurance rates and if they were specifically mentioning the heritage designation. He further asked how easy it would be to restore the designation and if there were any arguments against the heritage value in the request to de-designate or if it was based on the issues related to insurance. Mr. Leary confirmed that there were no arguments against the heritage attributes. He stated that the building could be re-designated in the future. Mr. Konrad pointed to the materials submitted regarding the request and stated that some insurance companies stated that it was due to the heritage designation and others were vaguer.

Mr. Heissler stated that the mandate of the Kingston Heritage Properties Committee was to review items based on their technical merits and not political issues. He noted that he lived in one of the oldest designated houses in the city and has insurance coverage that is affordable. He further stated that the heritage designation on the property is supportable from a heritage perspective and that it is up to Council to make a political choice.

Mr. Gower agreed with Mr. Heissler' s statements. He expressed his concern regarding the statements in the submission about the difficulty of getting Heritage Impact Statements and noted that they are not difficult to obtain. He commented that the insurance company should not be changing the rates due to the designation.

Ms. Demitor asked for clarification on what was before the Committee and the process following the vote. Mr. Leary explained that the staff recommendation before the Committee is for them to deny the request. He further explained that the recommendation will go to Council where it will be considered.

The Vice-Chair offered an opportunity for members of the public to speak.

Kerry Shea explained that she was the owner of the property and acknowledged the work of the Committee in preserving heritage but urged the Committee to not make housing unaffordable. She stated that she had not spoken to Council prior to the designation but since then her insurance rates have become unaffordable. She explained that she had attempted several times to find affordable coverage but to no success. She further stated that she was soon to be in a position of choosing unaffordable insurance costs or paying her her mortgage. She commented that her request was not to ask the Committee to turn its back on heritage but to have compassion. She expressed her dissatisfaction on the way that the system was currently working. She urged the Committee to support removing the designation.

Don Taylor agreed that it was a difficult situation. He commended staff's work and stated his opinion that the insurance companies were at fault. He noted that he had lived in a designated building for over 50 years and his insurance had never asked about the designation. He further noted that the building had significant heritage attributes and stated his hope that a solution could be found.

Joseph Campbell thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. He stated that the owner was facing a 5-fold increase in her insurance premiums and was not contesting the heritage value of the dwelling. He noted that rural heritage designations have been paused by the City and changes were needed if designations were ever to continue in the area. He further noted that the insurance industry is not well-regulated and that further high-level discussions are needed between the province and the industry. He shared his belief that support from the Committee in overturning the designation would show that it had sympathy with homeowners. He reiterated that he was not arguing against history, only against the costs to this one property. 

Mr. Legnini explained that in his experience insurance companies had never asked if a property was designated. He noted his confusion on the matter and stated his sympathies for the owner.

Mr. Rose highlighted his background working in the heritage industry and expressed his sympathies with the owner. He noted that the Committee was being requested to be political and it made him uncomfortable, further noting that the mandate of the Committee is technical and not political in nature.

Mr. Heissler agreed with Mr. Legnini and Mr. Rose that the situation for the owner was very difficult. He reiterated his previous comments related to the mandate of the Committee and stated that the decision to remove the designation or not lay with Council.

Councillor Oosterhof asked if staff were aware of other municipalities in Ontario that were dealing with this issue. He noted that Windsor had placed a part of their rural area into a Heritage District and asked if that would help solve the problem. He stated that Council would likely do the right thing for the owner but urged the Committee to support the owner by voting against the motion. Mr. Konrad stated that staff were aware of other municipalities dealing with similar insurance issues but that there was no clear, common approach yet. He confirmed that staff were working on that. He further stated that placing a Heritage District in the area would still place a designation on title. Mr. Gibbs confirmed that staff would be bringing a report for discussion soon on this topic.

The Chair was passed to Mr. Gower.

Ms. Demitor stated her belief that the Committee did not wish to place hardships on those with designated homes. She expressed concern that the Committee was becoming more involved in insurance issues which lay outside their mandate, similar to issues related to the Ontario Building Code. She noted that it was likely insurance issues would also arise in the urban area of the City. She stated her belief that issues like the one discussed should be sent directly to Council as they are a political matter.

The Chair was returned to Ms. Demitor.

  • Moved by:Mr. Gower
    Seconded by:Mr. Mayo

    That the Kingston Heritage Properties Committee recommends to Council: 

    That Council refuse the application to repeal By-Law Number 2024-180 ‘A By-Law to Designate the property at 2555 Highway 38 to be of Cultural Heritage Value and Interest Pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act’; and

    That staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 32(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

    Carried

There were none. 

There were none. 

There was none. 

The next meeting of the Kingston Heritage Properties Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, August 20, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. 

  • Moved by:Mr. Heissler
    Seconded by:Mr. Mayo

    That the meeting of the Kingston Heritage Properties Committee adjourn at 11:23 a.m. 

    Carried