Monday December 2^nd , 2024’s City Council Special & General Committee meetings were animated by lively debates from city council and public delegations, largely revolving around the matter of housing development.

The evening began with a Special City Council Meeting dedicated to the city’s new development charge legislation, based on the recommendations of a report by consulting firm Hemson.

In order to fund the city’s day-to-day operations without significantly increasing the current residential tax rate, this report recommended charges to new residential housing developments be increased by about 48%, and increased each year to adjust for inflation, as of January 1st, 2026.

Multiple delegations from Peterborough's housing development industry came to speak to council about their concerns at the prospect of such an increase.

The first of these delegates, MJ Davenport & Associates’ Murray Davenport, described the city as a “no growth municipality,” and accused council of “offloading the maintenance cost of existing infrastructure against new developments.”

Davenport expressed a feeling of injustice at what he perceived as developers being made to pay for public works projects, such as highway maintenance and affordable housing construction.

The Peterborough and Kawarthas Home Builders Association’s Rebecca Schillemat was next on the speaker’s list, and began by thanking council for delaying their adjustment of development charges to inflation by a year.

Schillematt remained critical, however. She expressed dissatisfaction at the 48% increase, and asked for “a bit more of a balanced and appropriate increase to the development charges” instead.

She explained that the current recommended increase would make Peterborough “uncompetitive” compared to other cities in Ontario, and lead to developers starting their projects elsewhere.

Schillematt also called to retain Peterborough’s unique regulation on development cost payment timelines. Previously, developers in the city were allowed to pay their development charges in the closing phase of housing construction, where most other cities asked that they be paid when they applied for building permits.

While this policy allowed more leeway for developers, City Staff cited large administrative charges and burdens associated with “keeping track” of due payments as motivation for its removal.

The Peterborough and District Construction Association’s Nigel Lister hinted at the possibility of developers offloading higher charges onto buyers and renters, saying that “these charges unfortunately put a burden on everybody.”

The Biglieri planning and development firm's Evan Sugden echoed his fellow delegates’ perspectives, with a rather gutsier approach to the issue. Rather than a mere re-examination of the proposed 48% development cost increase, Sugden proposed a one-year pause on any of the proposed increases, barring adjusting for inflation.

After a few minutes of councilors asking for clarification on what exactly they were voting on, a vote was conducted and the Hemson report’s recommendations were ratified with a minor amendment from councilor Dave Haacke, clarifying that development charges would only begin accounting for inflation in 2026.

This concluded the special meeting, with councilors retreating into closed session until the beginning of their general committee.

The general meeting featured a series of presentations to council, the first of which was prepared by the Peterborough Domestic Abuse Network, a coalition featuring organizations such as the Kawartha Sexual Assault Centre (KSAC) and the Peterborough and Hamilton YWCA.

Kim Dolan and Brittany McMillan, executive directors of YWCA and KSAC respectively, presented alarming statistics on the rise of domestic violence to council.

From 2023 to 2024, Peterborough saw a rise in firearm-related crimes. The Network has been tracking femicides since 2021, and recorded 52 instances in the 2021-2022 year, which increased to 62 in 2022-2023 and 2023-2024.

Both Dolan and McMillan expressed gratitude to council for their designation of intimate partner violence as an epidemic, and, when prompted by councilor Joy Lachica, expressed hope that the provincial government would follow in the city’s footsteps.

The network then announced an upcoming collaboration with the Trent Community Research Centre including a survey on the city’s attitude towards gender-based violence with the aim to use this information as a bearing for further sensitization and prevention efforts.

The Network will be seeking funding from the provincial government’s Ontario Stands program, in hopes of expanding the scope of their work.

The next speaker was Travis Doak, the CEO of Peterborough’s Housing Corporation, reporting on the Corporation’s Annual General Meeting.

The Peterborough Housing Corporation is the leading source of affordable housing in Peterborough, providing up to 1,300 housing units. It focuses on Rent-Geared-to-Income housing, and serves Peterborough residents who rely on ODSP or Ontario Works for income.

Doak highlighted the Corporation’s growth, notably the purchase of a property on 555 Bonaccord Street, adding 85 new units to its roster. 

He also cited difficulties in holding tenants accountable for their actions, especially those who “require a very high level of resources to be able to maintain their residence.”

“We must balance [serving these tenants] with the needs of our current needs and communities and the broader community,” he said. “We cannot serve everyone nor is that our mandate.”

The next presentation summed up Peterborough corporate and community Greenhouse Gas emission levels.

Some of the most noteworthy findings include that Nitrous Oxide released from the City’s waste water treatment plant represented 64% of corporate emissions. At the community and corporate levels, emissions seem to be either stable or slightly increasing, and possibly headed back to pre-COVID-19 lockdown levels.

Council then examined a proposal from an unnamed corporate source to purchase naming rights for the Peterborough Memorial Centre (PMC). 

Coun. Haacke set the tone for council’s reaction, asking his colleagues about the possibility of tacking a corporate name onto the current one, so as not to lose the “memorial” part of the name.

Haacke also expressed interest in the financial prospects of this sale, looking to “incorporate the intent with the opportunity.”

Councilor Gary Baldwin shared Haacke’s concerns about the meaning of the center, but none of his enthusiasm about the prospective sale.

After a lengthy summary of the PMCs history since its founding in 1956, Baldwin—a history and sports buff—proposed that the source of the offer could instead purchase the naming rights of another sports complex in town, were one to be built. 

Mayor Jeff Leal then echoed Baldwin’s sentiment, and the council voted not to give the offer any further consideration.

Following this was perhaps the most controversial item of the night, a notice of objection from J & J Developers to the September 23rd Heritage Designation of their property on 1400 Monaghan Road.

J & J Developers sought to tear down the historic Martin House and build a new residential building in its place, but were stopped in their tracks by the designation, which protected the existing building from demolition.

Councilor Joy Lachica took serious issue with this notice. She expressed frustration with the delays with which council was presented with the notice, which she believed had stopped them from properly examining the issue.

For Lachica, the notice’s challenge to the heritage designation process “disparages our expert City Staff who made the recommendation, our PACAC [Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee] local experts on heritage and architecture.”

As such, she moved for the notice to be re-examined by PACAC, which initially recommended the property for heritage designation. 

Councilor Alex Bierk expressed frustration at the whole examination process, declaring that PACAC should have examined the notice of objection before it came into council’s hands.

Mayor Leal described a very different course of events from Lachica’s. He recalled that J & J Developers had already obtained a construction permit when the site’s heritage designation was announced, and that City Staff had no idea of the designation.

Lachica subsequently corrected the mayor, indicating that at the time of designation, J & J Developers had not in fact received any kind of permit.

Lachica alleged that the development firm had met with lawyers to discuss legal recourse against the heritage designation, and even met with councilors to “broker deals.” 

“It’s inappropriate, and in my opinion, it’s unethical.” she said.

Councilor Kevin Duguay spoke in opposition to Lachica’s motion to return the letter to PACAC, taking offense with her allegations of “brokered deals.”

Duguay determined that for council to examine a letter of objection was standard procedure, and said that the property owners were within their rights to object to the designation.

After further arguing in favor of the motion from Lachica and councilor Keith Riel, it was put to vote and blocked.

Next, coun. Haacke put forth his own motion for the heritage site designation of the 1400 Monaghan house to be immediately rescinded.

“People know how I feel about designating a property that somebody else owns”, he explained, “I do not support expropriating property…I certainly oppose designating something against the owner’s wishes.”

Bierk and Lachica spoke in opposition to the new motion, stressing the importance of trusting the city’s hired analysts.

Councilor Lesley Parnell argued that damage to the property had made it unworthy of a heritage designation, claiming that “the only reason this even came forward when it did was to block an application that was in process within the planning department.”

That claim led to a point of order from coun. Bierk, who called it unfounded. That point was quickly followed by another from coun. Lachica when Parnell alleged that previous owners of the property had wanted it to be demolished.

After a third point of order on Parnell from Lachica, this time for straying off-topic, Lachica put the motion to a vote, where it was carried with Haacke’s amendment rescinding the property’s heritage status.

As council moved to Other Business, coun. Riel raised a question about allegations made by the group Friends of Bonnerworth Park that their legal proceedings against the city were intentionally being “road blocked.”

City Staff explained that they responded urgently to the Friends of Bonnerworth Parks’s lawsuit and subsequent announcement of a November 25^th court hearing.

As it turns out, however, the hearing date simply did not exist. “There was never any engagement with the Superior Court office by the applicant to secure a hearing date,” said city solicitor David Potts.

Editor's Note (04-12-2024, 16:56): Article was updated to clarify the nature and date of the Heritage Designation on the Martin House at 1400 Monaghan Rd.