At a public meeting of the Planning Act on Monday night, Peterborough City Council voted to recommend the rezoning of a proposed development at the Mark Street United Church. Originally a general committee meeting, the evening was instead taken up by debates between council, the public, and the applicant about the rezoning amendment for 90 Hunter St. East, as 12 East City residents posted delegations against the motion. 

The applicant, TVM Mark Street Inc., applied to rezone the site from its current single use as a church to sever the site into a split zoning district. Under the new proposal, the east side of the church would remain the same and the west side would be developed into a mixed-use building. 

The current proposal includes a 17-storey mixed-use residential building with 205 market rent units and a street-level commercial space instead of its initial contemplation of a 10-storey building with 156 dwellings, 126 parking spaces and 172 bicycle parking spaces. 

The proposed development is angled to generate approximately $9 million in development charges and $300,000 in educational development charges for the City of Peterborough.

Before registered delegates presented their speeches to council, Land Use Planner Nolan Drumm attempted to address the concerns of neighbouring residents while providing information on city planning staff’s report on the rezoning amendment. 

“I do want to empathize with the surrounding neighbours. Obviously some people will experience impacts more than others,” Drumm told council. “So just because we're recommending approval doesn't mean that we don't empathize with the concerns that the neighbours do have.”

Drumm also stressed that the proposed building is in accordance with the City of Peterborough’s Official Plan, the City’s 2023-2050 strategic plan for developing mixed-use neighbourhoods, and Peterborough’s housing pledge of 4,700 additional units by 2031.

Town Ward Councillor Joy Lachica was not convinced, however, that the proposal was congruent with the city’s urban design guidelines and other “village-like” parts of an urban landscape. 

“We put a lot of our own money into these urban design guidelines, and we know that they are an accompaniment to inform, to provide the guideline for planners' development and councillors who are making these rezoning decisions,” councillor Lachica said. 

“So to what degree did you sit with the applicant and talk about a high rise being put in a sensitive, small-scale village, akin to [Toronto’s] Queen West or Queen East, where it’s evident that isn't happening in other cities where there is a village of this scale?” 

“We looked at bringing the building to the street,” Drumm replied. “Having that commercial animation at the street level, and a smaller unit size instead of one big mass building. One of the things that was important was having those animated uses at the street level.” 

The development met controversy from residents surrounding the site, as the applicant increased the proposed building’s height without what neighbours felt was sufficient public consultation. The applicable report from planning staff confirms the applicant informed property owners within 120 metres of the site of the meeting under the Planning Act, which constitutes sufficient notice under Section 34 of the Act.

The staff report also details how residents raised concerns at a public open house held at Mark Street United Church by TVM last June, especially regarding the potential impacts to neighbourhood and heritage character the residential-commercial area of East City faces. 

“The prevailing development characteristic of the street is currently low-rise commercial (three storeys or less), generally constructed from 1985 or earlier, with many properties having large surface parking areas. Properties to the north are predominantly low-density residential,” the report states.

With over 60 residents in attendance at the open house in June 2024, the initial proposal of a 10-storey building was intially not received well by neighbouring property owners, and that feeling prevailed during many delegations during the August 25th meeting, as many felt “blindsided” by its height increase. 

“This is not collaboration, it is development pushed through without respect for our residents,” homeowner Summer Meyer told council. “Make no mistake that approving this tower sets a precedent. If we allow 17 storeys here, we open the door to more high-rises, one after another until East City is unrecognizable.”

“Our small human-scale neighbourhood would be replaced with walls of concrete and glass,” Meyer said. 

Concerns brought forward last June were reiterated at the Planning Act meeting, as issues from the public, identified in the amendment’s report, were continually cited during all delegations from residents. 

Delegations of the night focused on the impact to traffic flow and pedestrian safety, a purported strain on municipal services and questioning the affordability of the proposed units, but most  shared a common theme of preserving the “heritage character” of East City. 

“It is staff's opinion that the application and all supporting material has struck an appropriate balance between compatibility and sameness,” resident Lucy Dawson told council.

“Does that mean that city staff guarantee that property values in the immediate vicinity will not be negatively affected by the looming presence of this monolith? Or that the destruction brought on by the extended period of construction will be inconsequential?” She asked.

Despite consistent communication between all involved parties, residents were still hostile to the proposal, as delegates took to calling the 17-storey residential building a “monstrosity” and a “bommyknocker.”

Other concerns about the development include sightline “massing” and a lack of separation between the proposed property and other properties adjacent to the site.

In her presentation to council, neighbouring resident Courtney Claessens expressed her skepticism at the developer’s ability to maintain the heritage character of Mark Street United Church.

“This massing was called out as a concern in the heritage impact assessment when considering these longer views on Hunter Street, saying that it will profoundly change the setting of the former 19th century commercial core by introducing this contrasting build form,” Claessens pointed out.

The building does not contravene the City’s Official Plan in its height, as it follows the plan’s guidance for the developmental direction for Peterborough’s downtown core, which includes East City. There is currently no height restriction by-law on new builds in Peterborough.

“There's no official plan amendment that's required,” former Peterborough Mayor Daryl Bennett told council. “That tells me this project is within the policies that are established by the city and by the problems to guide future growth.”

Bennett, speaking as the chair of the Mark Street United Church's board of trustees and its property development team, cited Peterborough’s growing housing need and the need for intensification in the city.

“We have a 1% vacancy rate in this city. That's been there for too long,” Bennett said. “You need all sorts of accommodation, not just strictly one style or another style. There has to be an abundance of new places to offset the number of units that need to be filled with people to come to this community.”

In his own delegation, Kent Randall from EcoVue Consulting Services reminded attendees that the Planning Act only required that TVM hold one public meeting, a requirement which they met. 

Randall’s delegation was met with several thumbs down from the public gallery.

“This is housing, too,” Randall told council. “This counts towards adding housing to the housing continuum, which, in turn, will help stabilize rental prices.”

Randall explained how the build would stimulate economic growth and would encourage further development of the East City residential/commercial area.

“This just ticks every box that we look for in development: when it comes to provincial policy, when it comes to local planning policy, it's in place on existing infrastructure that's not only good for the environment, that's good economically for existing infrastructure,” Randall said. 

“You don't need to extend existing infrastructure where stores and services are located, as it will bring people to the central area, which is what we want.”

Councillor Matt Crowley then asked if Randall and the applicant had met with residents since the changes to the proposal. Randall confirmed that he met with delegate Courtney Claessens and other residents to discuss their concerns.

“We talked about the new design and the things that we could do if this went through site plan approval, to try to make things as less impactful as possible to them,” Randall told council.

Council then asked Randall what the applicant’s next steps would be if they denied the re-zoning. 

“We would have the option to appeal the decision at the Ontario Land Tribunal,” Randall said. 

TVM Group president and CEO Amit Sofer also spoke of the extensive communication between themselves and concerned residents during the entirety of the development’s planning process. 

“The engagement with the community was not just at that meeting I attended with neighbours,” Sofer told council. “We responded to emails, we responded to a number of the people who spoke this evening. And there was ongoing input from the neighbourhood and from the community, both directly to myself, to Kent [Randall] and through Nolan [Drumm] at the city.”

The 90 Hunter Street East site is not the first time TVM has faced public backlash  over a proposed build: Sofer mentioned how TVM made alterations to St. Peter’s Elementary School in 2008, when itwas met with similar scrutiny. 

“We built that as an affordable housing building, and there were the same demonstrations against us—albeit none of it was online because it predated the online life—but a huge number of delegates spoke against our building,” Sofer said. 

“We still own it and manage it to this day, some 18 years later,” he continued. “Community gets built by bringing people together, not by excluding people from joining existing communities, and in that building, we house people who came from all different and difficult circumstances.” 

Sofer further clarified the building’s height increase was as a result of concerns he heard from both the city and the public, especially in respect to creating affordable housing stock. 

“Lower the building. The rents go up. Reduce the ability for us to create it. The rents go up,” Sofer added.

“We have set this program in place so that we can make certain applications to attempt to achieve lower rents, to attempt to achieve fitting into certain qualifications for financing programs that are available. We haven't achieved them.”

After his delegation, Sofer warned council against the precedent the zoning application’s denial would set. 

“I get it, but you are speaking to the broader community of developers. You are telling people our rules don't matter. Put your project together, come here, and then we'll let you know, because we don't really like the colour or we don't.”

Town Ward Councillor Alex Bierk was quick to reply.

“It's a mischaracterization to say that we're here nitpicking about the colour of a building,” he said. “If you look at the neighbourhood, and you look at your plan, what you are plopping into that neighbourhood, that the concerns from the neighbourhood are valid, okay? And this is democracy, right?” 

“No matter what this or that says, we are here to represent the voice of the people that elected us and bring their concerns to this table, where the safeguards exist for us to speak on their behalf,” Bierk said.

As council moved to debate the issue, Ashburnham Ward Councillor Keith Riel motioned to defer the zoning by-law until after the city develops its community permit planning system, which would replace the current municipal zoning by-law system.

“We’re just bringing the cart before the horse. There could be major implications to this development with the introduction of CPPs,” Riel added.

With no debate, the deferral was lost 7-4 with only Baldwin, Riel, Lachica and Bierk’s support.

As debate opened up on the zoning, Ashburnham Councillor Gary Baldwin explained that while he felt the Mark Street site was a good opportunity, he wouldn’t support it.

“They do tick all the boxes from a planning perspective, but there's something about 17 storeys that I just don't like,” Baldwin told council. 

While the recommendation from city planning staff does not address impacts to “neighbourhood character” verbatim, it points to similar planning approvals in the area, like the six-storey Railyards, the nine-storey 195 Hunter Street East or the twelve-storey Skyline-Times Square. 

“I don't think that I got many emails or phone calls when Ashburnham Realty built their two buildings, which was a departure from the height in the city,” councillor Riel said. 

“We are elected to do a job for the people that we represent,” Riel continued. “The constituents that I represent in Ashburnham have told me in no uncertain terms that they are not against development. They are against 17 storeys.” 

“We want development that's going to blend in, to show the heritage of the city to be something that you can be proud of, not just building a tower of 17 storeys.”

Bierk expressed a similar sentiment.

“If you're pitching this project as being a solution to the housing crisis, I'm not buying it. It's a trickle-down economics argument, and I'm not buying it,” he told the horseshoe. “We need off-market housing, and we need to deal with people in the working class and people that are living in poverty.”

Northcrest Councillor Dave Haacke said he felt the development of Mark Street United would bring much-needed housing density to the existing market in Peterborough.

“There's no such thing as affordable housing. There's no secret to it,” Haacke told council. “But if we do want to make housing truly affordable, let's get out of the way.”

Despite conflict between downtown/East City wards and the rest of council, Mayor Jeff Leal warned council about the reality of Ontario’s housing market.

“We're facing a generational crisis in housing in the province of Ontario. I have lived in Peterborough all my life. I've also had a very privileged life growing up here in Peterborough, beyond belief.”

“When I talk to friends of my son or daughter, one of the things they constantly talk about is their inability to find quality accommodation,” Leal continued. “Whether it's a home, whether it's an apartment, they're very frustrated that politicians haven't been able to meet that challenge here in Peterborough.”

Coun. Kevin Duguay then called the question on an empty speakers list, killing debate and forcing a vote to approve the recommendation for 90 Hunter St. East’s rezoning. The motion passed 7-4, with Bierk, Baldwin, Lachica, and Riel opposed..