Kingsville’s Town Council meeting, held this week on October 23, 2023 once again revisited the matter of a development planned for 183 Main Street East.
This property, which includes a stately home and large rear yard, has been at the centre of an ongoing dispute between the developer, Town Council and a group of Kingsville residents since a petition to protect the home from demolition was circulated by concerned citizens four years ago in October, 2019.
At that time, the developer wanted to demolish the home to make way for two 4-storey residential buildings while Kingsville citizens fought to have the home designated a heritage property.
In March 2020, Town Council approved the heritage designation of the home which is now officially the Esther Jasperson Campbell House. The name is a reference to the only daughter of Colonel Jasperson who, along with her husband, local dentist Dr. Campbell, were its first residents.
This designation under the Ontario Heritage Act protects the Esther Jasperson Campbell House from demolition.
In March, 2021 the developer returned to the Town Council with new plans for a 3-storey condominium building at the rear of the property, but asked for zoning allowances to build up to 12.2 m in height, rather than the 11 m allowed under zoning. This was to accommodate plans for a pitched roof.
Additionally, the developer asked to reduce the rear yard setback from 12.2 m to 7.5 m.
At the Town Council meeting held later in March, 2021 this application was voted down. The developer then filed an appeal with Ontario’s Provincial Land Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), now referred to as the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).
Over a year later, in August, 2022, a decision was rendered by the OLT allowing the developer to proceed with the construction of a 3-storey apartment building.
Since that time, the developer returned and submitted an application for a 6-storey building on the property and a plan to physically relocate the heritage home closer to the road and closer to the eastern property line that is shared with the heritage property located at 170 Main Street East. The application was heard at this week’s meeting.
After hearing petitions against this application delivered by local residents Joanne Rivard and Tamara Stomp, councillors were asked to weigh in. All six councillors, Deputy Mayor Kimberly DeYong and Mayor Dennis Rogers had something to say on this matter.
Councillor Sheri Lowrie asked about the relativity of the previous petition which had over 2600 signatures. She expressed concern that the petition related only to the demolition of the home and not to this new development.
Councillor Debby Jarvis-Chausse requested a report on gas wells in the area. This has become a concern for many residents since there are known gas wells in proximity to this planned development. She also expressed concern for the neighbouring property owners who would no longer be able to enjoy morning sunlight if the heritage home was moved closer to the road.
Councillor Tony Gaffan asked if the planned development would be rentals or available for purchase. The developer was not able to provide a response to this query and said that decision would be driven by the market.
Councillor Gaffan had several other questions related to how damage to the heritage home would be addressed; whether there was a storm water management plan for the development since a large part of the property would be paved; and, whether the footprint for the development was appropriate for the size of the lot.
Councillor Larry Patterson stated that he was in receipt of emails from the public who are upset that this plan is not being allowed to move forward. He said, “We are not breaking any policies, our fire department has given us the green light, our planner has given us the green light.”
He also stated that the Town already “blew” over $30,000 fighting this application at the OLT. He wrapped up by expressing his plans to support the application saying “When we are all done, I’ll be moving the recommendation.”
Councillor Lowrie appeared to support Councillor Patterson’s position. She stated that she only received 15 emails and when she went to the information evening about this development only three residents showed up. She said that the development would be a place where her parents might like to retire.
Later in the meeting, she stated that “I have a hard time spending taxpayer money and possibly quite a lot of it to fight a battle that I don’t think we can win and I also don’t want to live in the past either.”
Entering the fray, Deputy Mayor DeYong mentioned the interim control by-law and that this property had been excluded since the council believed that the 3-storey apartment building, which had already gone through an appeal with the developer winning at OLT, would move forward.
She reminded everyone of the fight to designate and save the house and expressed concern that it could potentially be damaged in the move. She said that, at the very least, the surety for the relocation of the home should be equivalent to its value.
And, referring specifically to appeals at OLT, Deputy Mayor DeYong reminded the Council that members of the public could also appeal decisions at the OLT. According to her, the decision of council should not be based on a potential appeal by the developer.
She stated that there are currently 10 to 15 citizens who could also launch an appeal. According to Councillor DeYong, “making a decision based on an appeal doesn’t make any sense.”
Councillor Thomas Neufeld stated that “183 Main Street East will be an address that is burned into my brain until the day that I die.” He confirmed that he would support the application based on his belief that we need more building units in Kingsville and seemed to express fatigue with this fight.
He said, “We have already fought this address at the OLT or LPAT or whatever it was called at that time and you know, I’ll be honest, I don’t want to do this again.”
Making reference to the Main Street Development Committee, he said, “That’s a committee that, boy, if we don’t take everything that they say, then, you know, council is just stupid. Anyway, I’m in favour of this project. I think we would be silly not to approve this.”
Councillor Gaffan stated that he felt that the only one benefitting is the developer. He said, “We cater, we change amendments, we push here and we push there for the benefit of them.” He pointed out that there are two fairly new buildings in town that are still not full.
He challenged earlier points suggesting there is only a vocal minority fighting this application when he said, “I see people daily and I’ve never had one person come up to me and say, you know what, this is a good idea.”
He also confirmed that listening to the public is important. He said, “We need to be learning and listening to what the public wants and we don’t necessarily always have to do what makes sense because of money and going to LPAT. If we continue to over-cater to the developers, we will have a harder and harder time saying no to things that just don’t make sense.”
At this point in the deliberations, Town Clerk Paula Parker was asked to give an update on petitions. She confirmed that in May, 2023 the Town received 239 signed petitions opposing 6-storey buildings on Main Street.
After rigourous back and forth debate between Councillors both for and against this application, Mayor Rogers weighed in with some very clear statements.
He pointed out that the Council needs to plan accordingly for the future and that residential growth must be part of the plan. But he also compared this issue coming back again to the Council table to opening a wound since it has divided the community and the Council.
“This original project divided our residents. It divided our town. It divided our residents against the town. And, it divided our residents from Council. Now, the fact that this project is being brought back after everything, and everything that this community went through, opening that wound again is not an option in my eyes.”
He acknowledged that the developer has stated that he will take the Town to the OLT again if his application is not approved.
On this point, the Mayor was clear when he said, “While this project checks all the professional boxes, it doesn’t check the community partner box. I cannot vote in favour of opening a wound from the past which has proven to divide this community which is why I will not be supporting this recommendation. Dividing this community again is too great a cost.”
The meeting then moved to a vote with Councillors Gaffan and Jarvis-Chausse and Deputy Mayor DeYong voting no and Councillors Lowrie, Patterson and Neufeld voting yes.
The Mayor cast the deciding ballot and voted no.
The application to build a 6-storey building behind the Esther Jasperson Campbell House and relocate the house closer to the road failed.
Photo: Kingsville Times
Current traffic on main street is horrendous. Adding a six story building and all units to this mess doesn’t make sense. The developers don’t live here they only build with no regards to the community and after filling their wallets move on to another money making project. The house needs to stay in it’s current location. Good call voting it down.
I am relieved to see this decision rendered by council. I am disappointed in the councillors who were willing to support such an obvious plot, and grateful to the Mayor and councillors who saw through this and stood in defence of Kingsville and the integrity of its historical designations. The application to move a historically designated home was a clear, willful and flagrant attempt to subvert the protections that such a designation creates in the first place, and council has a duty to protect the character of Kingsville from profit mongerers who do not care about these sorts of considerations, protections and restrictions when it comes to their own personal profiteering.
The catering to corporations and developers in recent years has already seen the over-development of the quaint and beautiful town I have loved for so long, and we have lost so many beautiful properties, such as the Shore House, to ugly, badly designed modern development that does not even attempt to blend into the fabric of a quaint historical town. The fact that there are multiple buildings on Main Street that are not even rented out to capacity yet makes the argument for the desperate need for this project look like basic lip service to developers.
You don’t have to live in the past to respect history, character and the qualities of this town that set it apart as a gem; the failure to keep that important balance will relegate Kingsville to an ugly sprawl that is easy to pass right on by for better destinations if you fail to defend the things that have always made this place special. These are the things we discuss in my family when it comes time to elect Kingsville’s leaders.
Thank you for rejecting this application for the building.. This beautiful little town we all love so much is at risk of losing what makes it so charming. And also, driving down Main Street is already becoming unbearable most days. Something needs to be done about increasing traffic volumes and the increasingly inefficient management of how to keep it moving. For example, trying to turn left out of any business passed Wigle Ave. is an exercise in futility.
If we do not stand up to the developers they are going to run rampant. Just go visit Lasalle and see how developers have turned it into a hideous looking community. Let’s protect what we have and keep Kingsville liveable.
I’ve almost been run over crossing Main St at the high school, I used the signal. One driver drove right through and I had to stop half way. Other walk signals at Jasperson and Main St does not even work since the the tornado this year.
As a Kingsville resident up until 3 years ago, I still return there every month for appointments, always looking forward to the drive through “lovely old Kingsville”. However, I am increasingly saddened and disappointed by the number of new large buildings gradually crowding the down-town area.
Therefore, I am in sympathetic agreement with ‘Ingrid’, a Kingsville resident who commented in her email to you this morning about the increased traffic and its resulting noise.
My immediate question: where is the parking availability for all the traffic that comes with occupants of new large buildings? Small business parking lots are already over-crowded.
Sad to say, beautiful down-town Kingsville is already changing to look more like any other over-crowded small town. For many years, Kingsville was a tourist attraction but I can see it being dropped as a ‘feature’ on well-known visiting bus tours if its beauty is spoiled. PLEASE DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN.
With the present difficult and dangerous traffic situation on Main St. E it would be absurd to allow any further high density development in this area.
Well, I know who I’ll be voting for in the next election.
I live at 140 Main St E. My unit is right in front and my windows are not sufficient to reduce noise levels from road. All I hear is roaring,roaring,roaring. In the by laws if this were a business or institutional building it would have to have better windows. The windows are not rated as energy efficient either. I hope council considers this moving forwards with permits especially close to the road. Also, energy star windows by design have a better sounding rating. Ingrid