City Councillors returned to city hall on the evening of August 8th after a month-long summer break.

On the table for discussion this evening was the recently passed Bill 23, or “More Homes Built Faster Act” as part of Ontario's Housing Supply Action Plan brought forward by the Ford Government. In short, the bill aims to build 1.5 million houses over the next 10 years, forcibly amending multiple municipal Acts and regulations in order to streamline the quota. Importantly, the Planning Act was changed to require municipal zoning permits to allow a maximum of three units—a unit being an independent living space within a larger structure—per lot in a detached, townhouse, or semi-detached dwelling, and prohibits regulations on the unit size; all without the need to rezone the lot. 

Notably, Ford’s decision to expedite this Bill without proper consultation poses an extensive threat to Ontario’s wetlands, parks, conservation areas, and Indigenous territories as the means to produce such a massive quantity of houses in a short period of time overhauls the protection and preservation of Ontario’s environment. 

As part of Peterborough’s pledge to contribute to More Homes Built Faster Act and keep on track with its New Official Plan, Peterborough is now required to permit up to two dwelling units per residential unit without the need to rezone, as opposed to a maximum of one dwelling unit without the need to rezone in the 2018 Zoning By-law. 

During this General Committee, acting Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services, Michael Papadacos, submitted a report asking city councillors to accept a zoning bylaw amendment that would adhere to the new provincial regulations. 

Caroline Kimble, Peterborough’s Policy Planning Manager, started off the evening with a presentation outlining the Zoning By-law report. The proposed amendments in the Zoning By-law report aims to create a new definition for “additional residential unit”, delete residential parking requirements, and remove a minimum floor area in the dwelling units. 

Parking was at the forefront of councillors’ concern in regard to the proposed plan. “I have more questions than answers in regards to this,” said Councillor Gary Baldwin, stating that insufficient parking is causing a large complaint among residents, especially considering there are some houses with up to ten people living inside. 

“That's problematic for everyone,” said Baldwin, and asked Kimble how the city is looking at addressing parking requirements. 

In response, Kimble reaffirmed that this is mandatory and “the city does not have an option with respect to the number of units, nor does the city have an option with the number of parking spaces.” 

Kimble also stated that parking permits are being explored as a temporary solution, and council will have a better sense of where that’s going in a report later this fall. 

Councillor Kieth Riel was next to speak, stating that property taxes on homeowners who decide to add an additional unit is not properly addressed in the report and he fears the implication of an unknown tax increase. 

“Can you give me some comfort here?” he asked Kimble, referring to the uncertainty for property owners. 

Kimble responded again by saying this is mandatory, and that there is going to be an impact to creating these additional units with the assessed property value likely to increase. 

Riel then stated that he feels like there should be a warning sign here, “because city councillors are the ones who will be getting the phone calls from residents asking why their taxes are two times the amount despite having a residential home."

“That’s the point that I’m bringing in,” he said. 

Papadacos responded to Riel’s statement by saying “this is by no means going to solve the housing crisis” and that any homeowner embarking on this path needs to be fully aware of the legislative and financial costs that come along with any property changes. 

Riel continued, adding to councillor Baldwin’s concerns over parking stating that it needs to be addressed now, not later on. 

“Is that not putting the cart before the horse? We should be addressing the parking issue because it’s happening today,” he said, echoing that the majority of Trent students opt to not use the transit system, adding to the influx of cars. 

Kimble responded to Riel’s questioning that the maximum number of cars per lot the province is permitting Peterborough to have is one, and that the only option they have is to require less, but a parking study would determine whether or not less is feasible. 

Kimble rebutted Riel stating that requiring less spaces is actually putting the cart before the horse, “so we’ve left it at one.”

Councillor Alex Bierk spoke on the lack of affordable housing in Peterborough, quoting Riel who had previously described the report as “a fluffing report.” 

Bierk outlined the nature of the housing crisis in Peterborough by saying “the type of affordable housing that people need does not exist,” and further mentioned how the vacancy rate has dropped even lower since the updated zoning bylaw in 2018. 

“Statistically, it hasn’t had an impact,” Bierk said before asking Kimble what can be done by the city to increase affordability and support people struggling.

Kimble stated that the city can certainly build units in programs to incentivize affordable housing, but “we cannot mandate affordability.” 

Papadacos answered Bierk’s question about the possibility of incentivizing affordable housing programs noting that “I think the thing we all collectively as a society need to recognize is that housing affordability is a multi-faceted predicament which doesn’t have solutions that are easily deployed,” he said before confirming that conversations around affordability are happening on a “regular basis.”

Councilor Kevin Duguay spoke next, outlining his support for the amendments “I don’t consider this report, by the way, to be fluff.” 

Bierk continued to voice his concern over repeating patterns of problems that notoriously do not get solved fast enough, citing parking as an example in this report. 

He noted that there is a “fear that we just pat ourselves on the back and say we're doing everything that we can, and that this just ends up on a shelf somewhere in planning for a few people to take advantage of.” 

Bierk also noted that he is not against this report, but instead is interested in building on it to make it beneficial for everyone. 

“Quick decisions are not always the best decisions…sometimes quick changes have ramifications that aren't fully discussed and considered,” said Baldwin, who further stated that he understands this is mandatory, but that he remains frustrated with municipal government forcibly bearing the brunt of the ramifications from Bill 23. 

Riel echoed Baldwin’s concern, noting that councillors are going to face upset from residents for “not protecting [them]” when their tax rate increases.

Councillor Leslie Parnell closed the questioning with final comments, stating that “this is not a free for all…there are rules to be followed” in regards to homeowners deciding to add additional dwellings. 

Ultimately, the vote to receive the report for information carried unanimously with Mayor Jeff Leal and Councillor Andrew Beamer abstaining due to a conflict of interest.