In a marathon meeting that lasted almost six hours on Wednesday night (September 3), Peterborough city council voted to approve a zoning by-law amendment to allow a 17-storey high-rise to be built in downtown East City.
Four hours of the meeting were spent on the zoning by-law amendment, with council hearing from 10 public delegations about the amendment before debating and voting. Prior to the meeting, a protest was held outside of city hall and the public gallery and overflow room were filled with people opposed to the proposed development.
Wednesday night’s meeting followed a five-hour public meeting during general committee last Monday night (August 25) that included a presentation from city staff and 16 public delegations — that meeting lasted so long that the remainder of the general committee agenda was shifted to a special meeting on Tuesday evening (September 2).
At last Monday’s public meeting, general committee voted 7-4 to approve the zoning by-law amendment, with Mayor Jeff Leal and councillors Kevin Duguay, Lesley Parnell, Matt Crowley, Don Vassiliadis, Andrew Beamer, and Dave Haacke voting in favour, and councillors Keith Riel, Gary Baldwin, Joy Lachica, and Alex Bierk voting against. Items endorsed by general committee are considered for final approval at the next regular council meeting, which was held on Wednesday night.
After hearing from three delegations on different matters (developer Murray Davenport on updated city-wide development charges, lawyer Ann Farquharson on the police stations renovations and expansion project, and resident Rob Hailman on the proposed multi-use sport and event centre), council heard from 10 delegations about the zoning by-law amendment that would allow Toronto developer TVM Group to proceed with site planning for a 17-storey high-rise on the property adjacent to Mark Street United Church.
Several of the delegations at Wednesday night’s meeting had also appeared during the public meeting last Monday night. That includes the first delegation, TVM Group CEO Amit Sofer, who said that the proposed $90-million build would have a positive financial impact on the city, including by providing more tax revenue, more jobs, more housing, and more parking.
“I can’t make everyone happy,” Sofer said, referring to the opposition to the development by East City residents. He said he represented people on the other side — those who need housing.
After confirming that Sofer does not live in Peterborough, councillor Bierk questioned him on his claim that he represents people who need housing, asking him if he had letters of support, and how the project would reduce rents. Sofer replied that his claim is based on the lack of housing and his development experience shows that increasing supply reduces demand.
“How will a 17-storey building blend in rather than stand out as an anomaly?” Bierk asked.
Sofer referred to his response at the public meeting, comparing the 17-storey building to the original 10-storey proposal presented at an open house in June 2024, and noting that the 17-storey version reduces the height of the podium and that, while the tower will stand out, it will be set back from the streetscape.
Councillor Riel asked Sofer why the proposed development increased from 10 to 17 storeys, and why he believes a 17-storey building will not have a negative impact on East City.
Sofer said the height increase was in response to concerns expressed by residents at the open house about the 10-storey proposal, including the lack of parking, height of the podium, setbacks, and the distance from the Mark Street United Church.
“I think it will have a positive impact,” Sofer said, with Mayor Leal interrupting to remind people in the public gallery about proper decorum.
“Change is a difficult thing for everybody to accept,” Sofer said, adding that the development would bring “more people, more vibrancy, more parking, and more shops” to East City.
Councillor Baldwin asked Sofer if he had other properties he is planning to build in East City and, after Sofer confirmed he does, asked if they would be similar to the 17-storey building.
“They … it is not,” Sofer replied.
The next delegation was Darryl Bennett, representing the board of trustees of Mark Street United Church, who spoke in support of the development. He said that the proposal is consistent with the city’s official plan and that TVM Group has done everything requested by city staff when it comes to the proposal.
“The proposal meets all the requirements,” he said, adding “You can’t change your policies on the fly.”
In response to a question from councillor Lachica about whether the church board and membership and the United Church of Canada were consulted about the change from 10 to 17 storeys, Bennett said that a “multi-storey building” was presented, but not a specific height.
The next delegation was Desmond Vandenburg, a resident whose home is located on a lot that was severed by Mark Street United Church in 2019 with the assistance of Kevin Duguay in his capacity as a professional planner prior to his election to council in 2022.
Vandenburg attempted several times to bring up the issue of a perceived conflict of interest with councillor Duguay voting on an item pertaining to a former client, with Mayor Leal interrupting him several times before telling him he was in “dangerous waters” as Vandenburg continued to try to finish his sentence.
After the mayor allowed him to raise a point of personal privilege, Duguay — who was visibly angry — said that he was retained “82 months ago,” was only involved in the severance of land from the church for residential houses, that there was no indication of future development at the time, and that he has no affiliation with the development.
When Vandenburg attempted to share a quote from Duguay in 2019, Leal interrupted him again, saying there is no conflict of interest and to continue but to stick to the land use.
“I won’t,” Vandenburg said. “This is ridiculous.”
After Vandenburg attempted to respond to a question from councillor Lachica, who was also interrupted by Leal when she tried to ask her question, the mayor interrupted and said “You are in dangerous waters,” further interrupting Vandenburg and telling him he can go the integrity commissioner if he is not satisfied.
The next delegation was resident Sharon Davison, who raised several concerns with the 17-storey development, including its impact on age-friendly neighbourhoods. In response to a question from councillor Riel, she outlined her concern with increased traffic on Hunter Street East, noting that people will begin using side streets in residential areas.
The next delegation was Kent Randall of EcoVue Consulting Services Inc., the planner for TVM Group. He noted that the urban design guidelines are not statutory, but are “just suggestions.”
“A lot of buildings in the future will not be able to follow them,” he said.
Randall fielded a number of questions from councillors, including from Lachica about whether holding a second open house on the 17-storey proposal would have been good planning process for building “public trust” (Randall agreed it would have been, but that there would have been opposition regardless of the height of the building), from Bierk as to whether the development would be an economic driver for the neighbourhood and would boost property values (Randall said he couldn’t comment), and from Riel on how a 17-storey building is compatible with the neighbourhood (Randall said Sofer had addressed that question, and added that the 17-storey proposal addresses issues with the original 10-storey proposal).
Several councillors asked Randall whether TVM Group could go back to the original 10-storey proposal. He said it hadn’t been discussed but going back to the original design would be problematic because it wasn’t supported by city staff and a new design would have to be created.
The next delegation was Chris Magwood of Endeavour Centre, who said this was not a pro-development versus anti-development issue but an issue of compatible development. After listing six ways the 17-storey building breaks compatibility, he said approving the building in East City would mean “Any proposal will be deemed compatible.”
In response to a question from councillor Bierk, Magwood noted that the unit count of the building increased by 25 per cent when it changed from 10 to 17 storeys, and that the lack of units was not a concern expressed by the community. He said the design could have addressed community concerns without increasing the number of units. In response to a question from councillor Lachica, he said he had showed the building rendering to “friends in the business,” none of whom thought it was compatible.
“If this is compatible, the field is wide open,” Magwood said.
The next delegation was resident Peter Dawson, whose home would be located adjacent to the parking garage. He said “exhaust fumes wafting into my front year” would not enhance his property value. He added that someone associated with the project told him “Just wait until you see what’s coming for Hunter Street.”
Former Peterborough mayor Paul Ayotte, a resident of Rogers Street in East City, said he was “shocked” by city staff’s approval of the zoning by-law amendment. He raised concerns about people who had moved to East City because it is a residential neighbourhood and that addition of more than 200 residents is not a minor matter.
Displaying a rendering of the proposed 17-storey building, Ayotte said “I’m going to be very blunt here.”
“When I look at this rendering … it appears to me that the proponents of this development and seven members of this council are giving my community the finger, because that’s exactly what that reminds me of,” he said.
“You don’t build a community like we have in Ashburnham by wrecking neighbourhoods, and this is what you’re doing,” Ayotte added. “Don’t make this mistake part of your legacy.”
The next delegation was Oriana Rendon, a tenant in a property owned and operated by TVM Group, who raised a number of issues about lack of maintenance of the building and her apartment. She noted that her requests for maintenance have been ignored, but she received a response 40 minutes after the list of delegates was made available.
The final delegation was Gavin Muir, a Northcrest resident who raised concerns about the precedent approving the 17-storey building will set for the entire city.
“This is Peterborough’s Rubicon,” Muir said, a reference symbolizing a point of no return.
He noted that a lot of discussion among project proponents about the official plan’s description of compatibility has focused on the lack of sameness, but they have not addressed the description’s reference to enhancing character without undue impacts.
He also pointed out that city council has previously voted against a city staff recommendation, referring to the Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes (PATH) temporary zoning application on Lansdowne Street East which is now before the Ontario Land Tribunal. “This is a much more critical decision,” he said.
Muir spoke about transparency and the integrity of the process, saying “It needs to be fair. It needs to look fair.”
In response to a question from councillor Riel, Muir said that NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) criticisms have been levelled against those opposed to the 17-storey building, but that some of those supporting the building have the opinion “I’m okay because it’s not in my back yard,” which is going to change.
“It’s coming to other neighbourhoods,” Muir said. “This is going to change everything … It starts here, but it doesn’t end here.”
After a break, council returned to debate the item, with councillor Riel putting forward a motion to limit the height of the building to 10 storeys.
“It’s coming to your ward,” Riel said to his colleagues. “If you think this is going to be a welcome addition to the community, you’re crazy.”
He added that compatibility is “out the window” if council approves the zoning by-law amendment.
“If you approve this, there’s going to a wall of 17-storey buildings from Mark Street to Driscoll Terrace.”
After further debate and some questions of city staff on the application process, councillors voted on Riel’s motion. The motion lost 5-6, with councillors Riel, Bierk, Lachica, Baldwin, and Crowley voting in favour and Mayor Leal and councillors Duguay, Beamer, Parnell, Vassiliadis, and Haacke voting against.
After some question about the wording of Riel’s motion after the vote, councillor Parnell “put the question” on the main motion, a procedural tactic to end further debate, which passed 6-5, with Beamer, Riel, Bierk, Lachica, and Baldwin voting against it.
The vote on the main motion passed 7-4, with the same split as the previous vote at general committee. Leal, Duguay, Parnell, Crowley, Vassiliadis, Beamer, and Haacke voted in favour and Riel, Baldwin, Lachica, and Bierk voted against.
With the zoning by-law amendment approved, TVM Group can now proceed with site planning, a process that can take 60 days or longer. While a start date for construction would be determined, Sofer said at the August 25 public meeting that the building would take from 18 to 24 months to complete.
