Peterborough city council will be reconsidering its decision to give a historic property at 1400 Monaghan Road a heritage designation when it meets as general committee on Monday (December 2).
GTA-based J & J Developments, which purchased the property known as the Martin House in late 2023 with the intention of demolishing the building and redeveloping the property’s large lot for a six-storey residential housing complex, has filed a notice of objection to council’s decision.
Located on the northeast corner of Monaghan Road and Homewood Avenue, the Martin House was built between 1930 and 1931 for local businessman Herbert Samuel Martin — an innovator in the emerging industry of corrugated containers in the early 20th century — by Henry Thomas Hickey, a prolific contractor who worked on more than 100 buildings in Peterborough.
On September 23, council voted 6-5 in favour of the heritage designation in a surprising reversal of a vote at the previous week’s general committee meeting to not designate the property. A heritage designation prevents the owner of the property from tearing down the building or making modifications that would destroy heritage features of the building.
After council’s decision, the City of Peterborough was required under the Ontario Heritage Act to publish a notice of intention to designate, which it did on October 1. The owner of the property then had 30 days to object to the notice. The city received a letter dated October 31 from Toronto legal firm Overland LLP, representing J&J Developments, with a formal notice of objection.
While a notice of objection would have previously gone directly to the Ontario Land Tribunal for review, changes made to the Ontario Heritage Act in 2022 now require that council consider the objection and make a decision whether or not to withdraw the notice of intention to designate the property.
If council votes withdraw the notice, the property is removed from the heritage register and J & J Developments could proceed with its plans for the property.
If council votes to proceed with the heritage designation by passing a designating by-law, the city would publish a notice on the by-law’s passage, triggering a second 30-day objection period during which an appeal can be made to the Ontario Land Tribunal, which would issue a binding decision to either dismiss the appeal or repeal or amend the city’s by-law.
Overland LLP’s letter to the city objecting to the city’s notice of intention to designate includes a report from ERA Architects Inc. of Toronto, which was hired by the legal firm to review the city’s notice of intention to designate the property, as well as the “Heritage Designation Brief” prepared by the Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC) that was considered by council when making its decision. The report also includes ERA Architects’ own research into and analysis of the property’s cultural heritage value.
“There are numerous concerns with the purported basis for designation in the Heritage Designation Brief,” reads the letter from Overland LLP. “In summary, the Heritage Designation Brief grossly overstates the tangential cultural heritage value exhibited on the property. In particular, the existing structure exhibits modest value, certainly not to the level of significance to warrant designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.”
Overland LLP’s letter also expresses concerns with the process of designation, stating that at no time during the process in which J&J Developments was working with city staff to develop initial concepts for the property did city staff inform the developer that the Martin House was being considered for heritage designation.
It should be noted that the Martin House is listed in the City of Peterborough’s heritage register, which includes properties in the city identified as having cultural heritage value or interest that are designated or could be designated. At the September 23 council meeting, John Cooper, principal of J & J Developments, admitted he was aware the property was listed on the heritage register.
Overland LLP’s letter also states that, “As a general proposition, the process of designation does not typically originate at the request of a local heritage advisory committee.”
“City staff did not initiate the designation process in response to an impending development proposal or demolition permit,” Overland LLP’s letter states. “Rather, it was PACAC that commenced the designation process while the owners worked with city staff to refine a development proposal that implements key objectives of the city’s strategic plan.”
It should also be noted that, under the province’s More Homes Built Faster Act, municipalities were required to review their heritage registers by January 1, 2025, identifying properties on the registers that would be designated and removing other properties from the registers so they could be made available for potential development. After objections from municipalities, the province extended the deadline to January 1, 2027.
As for the report from ERA Architects Inc., it questions the assertions made in PACAC’s Heritage Designation Brief, stating that that the Martin House “is a typical contractor-designed Georgian Revival house with some minor Spanish Revival elements” comparable to neighbouring houses at 627 and 631 Gilmour St., and that it does not meet the threshold of demonstrating a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit.
“The Martin House … is a typical, builder-designed house that reflects mass-produced, made-to-order interior and exterior elements — including interior woodwork applied with glue,” the report states, adding that architect-designed residences are a usual threshold test for craftsmanship or artistic merit. “It would be exceedingly rare for a contractor-built residence to rise to the level of high craftsmanship or artistic merit.”
The ERA report questions the historical value of the Martin House and its original owner Herbert Samuel Martin and their significance to the Peterborough community, noting there is no “physical evidence” that Martin even lived in the residence.
As for the significance of Martin’s business to Peterborough, the report states that “the Martin-Hewitt Container Company was a relatively small-scale business that originated in Toronto, and eventually shifted to Peterborough, driven by business opportunity. This is a typical story common to all kinds of private businesses throughout history. The company’s decision to co-locate with companies like Quaker Oats to provide them with containers does not make it key to the facilitation and growth of those more significant businesses.”
“There is no evidence that the Martin-Hewitt Container Company occupies any space in the public consciousness in Peterborough. This was a company active in Peterborough for 24 years at the very end of Peterborough’s significant industrial period, from 1929 until it was acquired in 1953. It is not a company name with which locals are familiar today, and the only place it exists on the internet is in reference to the proposed designation of the site at 1400 Monaghan Road.”
“In our view, the fact that Herbert Samuel Martin existed as a professional and a businessperson in Peterborough does not make him, or his company significant to the community, nor does the site exemplify or have strong evidence of his connection.”
The ERA report also questions the assertion made in PACAC’s Heritage Designation Brief that the Martin House is “physically, functionally and historically linked to its surroundings as a cornerstone of the West End neighbourhood landscape and as an example of an affluent residence well designed in the prevalent architectural styles of the day.”
“Every house of this era would reflect the lowered foundations, simplified massing, electrical lighting and indoor plumbing found at the Martin House,” the ERA report states. “Meanwhile, the Old West End is replete with prominent and highly-visible integrated or attached garages.”
“In our view, the Martin House is not such a significant representation of technological and social change in the early 20th century that would merit designation above any of its neighbours that exemplify all the same elements and attributes.”
The ERA report concludes that the Martin House “is not so exceptional or outstanding that it should be elevated to individual designation status.”
