Peterborough city council has voted to reverse its earlier decision to designate the Martin House as a heritage property, which means a GTA-based developer can proceed with its plans to demolish the well-known historic home and build a six-storey residential housing complex on the property.
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.
At its general committee meeting on Monday night (December 2), council was considering a formal notice of objection to the heritage designation from Toronto legal firm Overland LLP on behalf of developer J & J Developments, which had purchased the property in late 2023 for redevelopment.
Councillor Dave Haacke brought forward a motion to withdraw the city’s notice to designate the property, which passed 6-5, with councillors Haacke, Matt Crowley, Andrew Beamer, Kevin Duguay, Lesley Parnell, and mayor Jeff Leal voting in favour of the motion, and councillors Joy Lachica, Alex Bierk, Don Vassiliadis, Keith Riel, and Gary Baldwin voting against.
The decision to withdraw the heritage designation for the Martin House reverses council’s September 23rd decision to designate the property. At that meeting, councillors had voted 6-5 in favour of granting the heritage designation. The difference between that vote and Monday night’s vote came down to Crowley, who changed his earlier vote and this time sided against the heritage designation.
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, a municipality is required to publish a notice of its intention to designate a property, followed by a 30-day period where anyone can object to the notice of intention. While objections previously went directly to the Ontario Land Tribunal for review, amendments made to the Ontario Heritage Act in 2022 as a result of the More Homes Built Faster Act require a municipal council to consider the objection and make a decision whether or not to withdraw the notice of intention.
If a decision to withdraw is made, the property is removed from the heritage register and is no longer protected from renovation or demolition.
The City of Peterborough published its notice of intention on October 1 and received a letter dated October 31 from Overland LLP with a notice of objection, which included a report from Toronto-based ERA Architects Inc. Both the letter and report questioned the validity of the heritage designation brief prepared by the Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC) that was considered by council when making its September 23rd decision, as well as the historical value of the Martin House and its original owner Herbert Samuel Martin, his business, and their significance to the Peterborough community.
Prior to Haacke’s motion, Lachica brought forward a motion that council defer consideration of the notice of objection until PACAC had the opportunity to provide feedback on the ERA Architects report. She noted that council has not yet put any procedures in place to consider notices of objection as per the 2022 changes made to the Ontario Heritage Act.
“Council has not had adequate time to assess this letter of objection,” Lachica said, adding that council did not see the letter and report until November 14, two weeks after city staff received it. “This report, by rights, should have been in a November cycle, so that council could have taken the opportunity to consult with our expert, Erik Hanson (the city’s heritage resources program manager) and PACAC.”
“The letter of objection, it disparages our city staff, our expert city staff who made the recommendation, our PACAC local experts on heritage and architecture,” Lachica said. “I find it insulting and I would also just say it is disrespectful to our community.”
Lachica also claimed the developer has met with some city councillors “to broker deals around affordable housing, and it’s inappropriate and in my opinion unethical.” She said council should hold a special meeting the following week when PACAC could present its response to the ERA Architects report “because it could be conjecture.”
Duguay said he would not support a deferral, noted that it is the role of council and not the role of PACAC to consider a letter of objection.
“There’s nothing to be gained by a deferral,” he said.
Lachica’s motion to defer consideration of the notice of objection lost 5-6, with Lachia, Bierk, Crowley, Vassiliadis, and Riel voting in favour, and Haacke, Beamer, Leal, Baldwin, Duguay, and Parnell voting against.
Haacke then brought forth his amending motion for council to withdraw its notice of designation, making it clear that he does not support designating a property against an owner’s wishes.
“I don’t like it. I never have, and I never will,” he said.
Bierk said he would not support withdrawing the heritage designation, noting that he disagreed with claims made in the ERA Architects report.
“I strongly urge the council members that voted in favour of this decision (on September 23) to stick with it,” he said. “It was a celebrated decision in the neighbourhood — it’s a beloved property. Again, just like the Memorial Centre conversation, this is part of the history that makes Peterborough a unique and special place.”
Bierk was referring to an earlier item on council’s agenda, when councillors voted against considering the Peterborough Memorial Centre for naming rights, after city staff had brought forward a report to council indicating they had received an unsolicited request from a business seeking naming rights for the arena that was originally named in honour of local war veterans.
Riel questioned whether Haacke’s motion, which would rescind a decision already made by council, would require a vote by two-thirds of council to pass. Beamer, as chair of general committee, said Haacke’s motion was in order and asked for confirmation from the city’s legislative services commissioner David Potts, who agreed.
Speaking in support of Haacke’s motion, Parnell did not address whether the Martin House had heritage value but instead talked about the developer’s plan for the property.
“This isn’t about heritage,” she said. “The only reason this (heritage designation) even came forward when it did was to block an application that was in process within the planning department.”
Bierk interrupted Parnell with a point of order.
“That accusation is not founded on any truth or any discussion that we had at council, or at a council meeting, or in the public minutes of our PACAC meetings, so I would not like it not to be considered,” he said.
Beamer said Bierk could respond to Parnell’s comments later and allowed her to continue.
Parnell then spoke about the benefits of the developer’s plans for the property, including making some of the units affordable, that the Martin House “is in fact destroyed inside, very unfortunately, by a previous owner,” and that the city has housing targets to meet.
Riel then raised a point or order, stating that Parnell should be addressing the notice of objection itself rather than speaking about the developer’s plans for the property. Beamer again allowed Parnell to continue.
“We’re talking about money,” she said. “We are looking at 2.5 (to) three million dollars in development charges, probably $250,000 to $300,000 in annual property taxes.”
Councillor Bierk raised another point of order, stating that Parnell should be addressing the notice of objection, but Beamer ruled her comments in order as she was explaining why she supports Haacke’s motion to withdraw the designation.
After further comments from Duguay, Lachica called the question to end the debate, which passed unanimously. Council then voted on Haacke’s motion, which passed 6-5 with Haacke, Crowley, Beamer, Duguay, Parnell, and Leal voting in favour of the motion, and Lachica, Bierk, Vassiliadis, Riel, and Baldwin voting against.
Items endorsed by general committee on will be considered for final approval at the regular city council meeting on Monday (December 9).
