With time running out before a vote is taken on Sept. 7 on a controversial report recommending major development in Barriefield, City Council voted last night to adjourn rather than sit beyond 11 pm to discuss this and other important issues on their agenda.

“This is just the latest in a series of moves that have prevented public discussion of the future of Barriefield Village as a heritage site,” said Christine Sypnowich, Vice-Chair of the Barriefield Village Association (BVA).
“The whole process has been unfair from the beginning. First, the City worked behind closed doors for months and without notice or public consultation, unveiled plans for a high density affordable housing project in Barriefield. Then, it spent $250,000 on outside consultants to study the feasibility of the development, all with limited public input.

“The consultants announced their plans in mid August for a 32-unit apartment building and 15 dwellings on the site. City Council’s only opportunity to publicly ask questions about the report was on August 24th, but they decided to adjourn at 11 pm instead of ask questions. The next scheduled meeting on Sept. 7 will be when they will vote on the recommendations,” Ms Sypnowich said.

The City has until October to produce a proposal if it hopes to qualify for a federal government program that would hand over the Barriefield land for $ 1. The stipulation is the land has to be used for affordable housing.

“We know that several councillors were poised to ask questions about the report at last night’s meeting, but they were denied the opportunity when a majority voted against sitting beyond 11 pm.

“It is not unusual for Council to agree to sit later when important agenda issues need to be addressed. Denying the opportunity to discuss the consultants’ report in public is a slap in the face to taxpayers and particularly to the people of Barriefield who have done everything possible to try to cooperate with the City in determining what is the most appropriate use of the land,” said the BVA’s Ms Sypnowich.

To contribute to the process in a meaningful way, the BVA hired Wayne Morgan, a respected planner with 30 years’ experience in heritage conservation, to provide an opinion on the consultants’ report.

In a report prepared for the BVA, Mr. Morgan was highly critical of a proposal by the City’s consultants for 47 residential units in Barriefield, saying it violates the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan, local planning and zoning laws, and national and international protocols for conserving cultural heritage.

Mr. Morgan recommended that Kingston not proceed with the proposal to build affordable housing along Highway 15 in Barriefield Village.

His report was submitted to the City’s consultants to meet their deadline of Aug. 18 for public reaction, but this week when the consultants made the feedback they had received public, no mention was made of the Morgan report. Also missing were submissions from several Barriefield residents and others who disagreed with the consultants’ recommendations.

The Kingston Municipal Heritage Committee (KMHC), which reports to City Council, has not provided feedback on the City proposal. The proposal was presented to KMHC at an ‘information-only’ session only hours before it was officially unveiled to the public last week. No discussion or assessment was permitted. The City’s Heritage Planner has also been absent from the process.

Mr. Morgan, who has considerable experience in heritage planning and administration, and has appeared a number of times before the Ontario Municipal Board, states that the proposal does not comply with provincial policy issued under the Planning Act, Kingston’s Official Plan and zoning by-law, the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan, the Ontario Heritage Act and national and international protocols for heritage conservation.

The Morgan report commented at length on the limitations of the property for development due to the City of Kingston and Department of National Defence easements on the land.

The BVA estimates that City and Department of National Defence easements for water, sewers and electricity, as well as a steam line which runs through the centre of the property from the CFB Kingston generating plant, take out about 38 per cent of the 13,500 square meters on parcel 2, where a seniors apartment building is proposed, and about 35 per cent of parcel 3’s 16,000 square meters, which would be the location of the remaining 15 dwellings in the proposal.

Mr. Morgan noted that the utility corridor on the west side of the property meant that the City consultants proposed the housing development be built right next to Highway 15, eliminating the green buffer to the village and necessitating a number of design features to block highway noise, with the result that the project contravenes heritage requirements as well as the principles of good planning.

“It is alarming that the City was apparently unaware of the 30-meter-wide steam line before the consultants brought the issue to public attention. There is even some question as to whether Council knew about the City’s own easements on the property. The $250,000 tab is a high price to pay for information that should have been known before the costly study was launched,” said Doug Morrow, spokesperson from the BVA.

The Morgan Report also focused on the proposed development of the 32-unit apartment building on the parcel of land adjacent to J.E. Horton Public School, which the Limestone District School Board has scheduled for closure in two years.

“Development of (this) parcel at this time may preclude the optimum development of the school site and (this) parcel and the potential to consider the relocation of underground services to more appropriate locations,” Mr. Morgan states.

The main theme of Mr. Morgan’s report is that the proposed built form of the apartment building and the locations and orientations of both the apartment building and the houses do not “respect the prevailing character of the District” and do not comply with the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan. The Plan takes precedence over other city bylaws, according to Mr. Morgan.

Mr. Morgan was also critical of the height of the proposed structures and such elements as garages placed in front of houses and street parking, which violates the BHCDP and introduces design elements more in keeping with a modern development than a historic village.

“Mr. Morgan’s professional opinion is based on many years experience in senior planning roles for the City of Toronto and as a consultant focused on heritage conservation. His advice is very important to Kingston and its taxpayers as City Council prepares to vote on the Barriefield development proposal,” said Mr. Morrow of the BVA.

“His input is especially important since our own local heritage watchdog, the Kingston Municipal Heritage Committee, was not given the opportunity to play a meaningful role in the process determining Barriefield’s future.

“We have always stressed that we recognize that eventually development will occur on some of the land now vacant along Highway 15. But we have insisted, and will continue to do so, that any development must comply with the Heritage Conservation District Plan and that Barriefield’s unique heritage be protected now and in the future.

“Spending so much taxpayers’ money is truly irresponsible when it could have been used for greatly needed affordable housing that can be built a lot more cheaply and quickly in areas of the city that do not have to conform to heritage laws, are more accessible and have services already in place,” added Mr. Morrow.

“By voting to adjourn last night before the consultants’ report could be discussed, Council has denied us one of the last opportunities to ensure that councilors and the public are aware of how taxpayers’ money is being wasted on a seriously flawed set of recom