At its fourth consecutive weekly meeting in June, Peterborough city council endorsed a new structure for stormwater user fees and the city’s new community planning permit by-law, among other items.

Council met as general committee on Monday night (June 22), which is the final general committee before council takes a summer break during July. There will also be a final regular city council meeting on June 29, when council will ratify items endorsed by general committee. Council will then return to chambers on Tuesday, August 4 following the Civic Holiday long weekend for a general committee meeting.

At Monday night’s meeting, councillor Dave Haacke was absent and councillor Lesley Parnell attended virtually. The city was experiencing technical issues with its eScribe software, which is used to record votes, so deputy city clerk Natalie Garnett recorded votes manually.

Most of the almost four-hour meeting was consumed by two agenda items: a presentation on a proposed new structure for stormwater user fees and a presentation on the final city-wide community planning permit by-law.

Stormwater fees would shift from property value to runoff

The city’s asset management and capital planning director Ian Boland provided council with a presentation on a staff report about a proposed stormwater utility rate structure that would shift the fee from the current assessed property value-based model to one based more closely on how much stormwater runoff a property generates.

The city introduced an interim stormwater fee in April 2025 after council approved moving stormwater management costs from the general tax levy to a dedicated user fee. That interim fee is based on assessed property value, which staff say does not accurately reflect how much runoff is generated by different properties.

The city retained AECOM Canada in July 2025 to review stormwater funding options and develop a more equitable model, with staff recommending an option that would charge residential properties based on housing type and size, while non-residential properties would be charged based on their measured impervious area, such as roofs, asphalt, and other hard surfaces. The report says the model would create a stronger link between a property’s contribution to stormwater runoff and the fee charged on the utility bill.

Under the recommended model, residential properties would tiered into groups based on housing type and size: single detached homes (small, medium, and large), medium density housing (semi-detached homes, townhomes), and high density housing (condos, apartments). The majority of detached homeowners – who represent about 80 per cent of all property types in the city – are expected to pay less than they do under the current interim fee. For example, a medium single detached home that currently pays an interim fee of $126 would instead pay $102.

Non-residential properties would pay fees directly proportional to their individual measured impervious area, such as asphalt, roof areas, and other hard surfaces that do not absorb stormwater.

A credit program of up to 50 per percent would be implemented for non-residential properties that take actions to manage stormwater, such as holding stormwater so it doesn’t leave the property too quickly, removing pollutants from stormwater runoff, increasing infrastructure that absorbs rainfall (such as green space, rain gardens, or pervious pavers), and establishing policies and plans for pollution prevention and climate resilience.

The report emphasizes the overall cost of stormwater management is not changing. Instead, the city would be changing how those existing costs are calculated and displayed on utility bills. Peterborough’s stormwater program is currently funded through a mix of the stormwater utility fee, sewer surcharge, Flood Reduction Master Plan capital levy, and general tax levy.

Councillors raise questions about fee exemptions and revenue shortfalls

After Boland’s presentation, councillor Alex Bierk raised concerns that in some cases tenants had to pay the stormwater utility fee. Finance and corporate commissioner Richard Freymond advised that the city only bills the property owner for stormwater management, so a tenant would need to address that issue with their landlord.

Councillor Matt Crowley raised the issue of Trent University requesting a full exemption to the stormwater fee, on the premise that it manages most of its stormwater runoff onsite through private infrastructure and into the Otonabee River and therefore has minimal impact on the municipal stormwater network. Under the new fee structure, the two Trent campuses would pay a combined total of around $236,000 instead of the current fee of $87,300. Crowley wondered if other non-residential properties such as churches would also pursue such exemptions.

Borland said that, other than Trent University, council would be responsible for determining any exemptions. According to the staff report, there will be further discussions between the city and the university on its exemption request.

Councillor Gary Baldwin asked if churches would be exempt from the fee and, if a church decided to depave their parking lot, would the fee be reduced. Borland said that are no exemptions for non-residential properties that previously did not pay for stormwater management because they were exempt from property taxes. He said that if a church did remove impervious surfaces, their fee would be reduced.

For his part, councillor Keith Riel asked Borland how the city would address any revenue shortfalls created by the new model through reduced fees for residential properties or credits for non-residential properties. Borland replied that evidence from other municipalities indicates that there is low uptake of credit programs but, even if credits are used, reduction in stormwater will ultimately benefit the city by reducing the impact on infrastructure and resulting costs.

After further comments, council voted unanimously 10-0 in favour of the staff report and its recommendations.

New community planning permit system to replace outdated and cumbersome comprehensive zoning by-law

Council then received a presentation on the final city-wide community planning permit by-law from the city’s planning policy manager Caroline Kimball, policy and research planners Milan Nguyen and Megan Peck, and Justine Giancola from Dillon Consulting Limited.

The community planning permit by-law replaces the city’s “legacy” comprehensive zoning by-law — which is more than 50 years old, 800 pages, and contains over 400 site-specific provisions through various amendments — to meet a statutory obligation under the Planning Act that the city update all zoning by-laws within three years to align with and implement the April 2023 official plan.

In March 2025, council directed staff to establish the community planning permit by-law as the primary tool to implement the official plan, providing a framework for greater land-use flexibility and significantly streamlining development approvals.

Following community consultation, the city released the final draft community planning permit by-law to the public on June 5, integrating revisions to address community feedback received before, during, and after the March 23 statutory public meeting on the by-law.

“What began as an exploratory idea is now a modern effective process ready to transform how we approve development in Peterborough,” Kimball told council. “This initiative responds directly to a critical challenge to support growth. All levels of government have acknowledged the urgent need to streamline approvals.”

“To give some brief context, provincially the goal is to build 1.5 million new homes in the province by 2031, as recommended by the housing affordability task force. Locally, Peterborough has pledged to facilitate 4,700 new home housing units by the same target date. To achieve this, the mayor’s task force for housing creation recommended transitioning to a city-wide community planning permit system, and this framework will replace multiple approval approach streams within a single expedited process.”

Nguyen and Peck provided background on the project, the community consultation process, and how feedback from the community and city council was integrated into the final by-law.

Key changes made include prioritizing affordable housing and parkland, incentivizing sustainable building practices and green development, supporting the “missing middle” in housing through enhanced land use flexibility and modernized development regulations, and establishing a high burden of proof for demonstrating compatibility between employment uses and sensitive land uses.

Other changes include establishing Class 3 maximum building heights and removing the 45-degree angular plane requirement, transition provisions to accommodate in-process applications and to recognize approved planning applications, and precinct mapping refinements to implement the official plan, including enhancements to the open space network.

Next steps for the implementation of the by-law include updates to city processes, studies, software systems, and public notice protocols, terms of reference for common studies, reports, and plans, targeted training with city staff, partner agencies, developers, and Williams Treaties First Nations, and expanded customer service to support by-law interpretation and public education.

Staff would monitor by-law implementation, tracking its success, and report back to council in one year with an update on implementation, key performance indicators, lessons learned, and any recommendations for refinements.

Giancola provided council with an overview of how the community planning permit by-law differs from the comprehensive zoning by-law from the perspectives of applicants, city council, and the community, and how the new by-law will support densification of communities.

Council adds reporting and environmental measures

After several questions of the presenters from various councillors and Mayor Jeff Leal, councillor Joy Lachica introduced a five-part amendment to the recommendations of the staff report introducing the by-law:

1. That the by-law to establish reserve funds to regulate the use of monies collected as cash-in-lieu of in-kind facility services and matters when imposed as a condition of approval for Class 2 or Class 3 community planning permits be approved, as attached as Appendix B to this report, with section 3.2 amended to allocate 50 per cent of the obligatory reserve fund to affordable housing and 50 per cent to Climate Change Action plan 2.0 and park conservation or outdoor public recreational purposes.
2. That staff report to council on lessons learned with an information report including monitoring use of environmental studies and any recommended implementation changes after one year
3. That voluntary green development standards be referenced in an additional checklist to accompany the community planning permit system by-law to reflect best practices to developers, builders and renters
4. That staff expedite development of a community improvement plan for green development standards and council-approved application of Climate Change Action Plan 2.0 and report back to council by the first quarter of 2027
5. That staff expedite a field verification, mapping, monitoring, and designation process for important natural areas including woodlands and wetlands and report back to council by the first quarter of 2027.

While council did not support Lachica’s first item, which would have amended the proposed reserve fund by-law’s allocation of 25 per cent for Climate Change Action Plan 2.0 and park conservation or outdoor public recreational purposes and 75 per cent for affordable housing, the remaining items were approved in separate votes.

Councillor Bierk proposed an additional motion that city staff provide a brief summary every quarter on how the community planning permit system is working during its first year of implementation.

After city staff noted that quarterly reporting would be a challenge due to workload, councillor Lesley Parnell suggested the motion be amended to provide reports every six months, which Bierk agreed to. Council supported the motion.

Returning to the main motion, Mayor Leal spoke in support of the community planning permit by-law.

“I do believe I’m on pretty solid ground when I say that we are the first middle-sized city in the province of Ontario to adopt a (community planning permit system), and the timing is perfect,” the mayor said. “We’re replacing a comprehensive zoning bylaw that was first put in place in 1972. It is 54 years old and, over that period of time it has been amended so many times that it’s now an 800-page document, just because of what has transpired over those 54 years.”

He went on to outline seven strengths of the new system, including allowing the city to build a new “housing ladder” with emphasis on strategic growth areas, providing clarity for the housing development industry, unlocking the “missing middle” for housing, reducing systemic barriers to home ownership and housing affordability, supporting the provision of funding for non-market housing such as Peterborough Housing Corporation, maximizing existing infrastructure in the community, and maximizing every funding dollar.

After some further debate, council voted unanimously to endorse the final community planning permit by-law.

Items endorsed by general committee will be considered by council for final approval next Monday (June 29), when registered delegations will be heard.

The federal government has directed Alto to develop a southern corridor option that includes a station in Kingston for the Peterborough-Ottawa section of the proposed 1,000-kilometre high-speed rail (HSR) network between Toronto and Québec City, with further public consultation on the Peterborough-Ottawa section now set for 2027.

Minister of Transport Steven MacKinnon made the announcement at Queen’s University in Kingston on Monday (June 22) where he was joined by Alto president and CEO Martin Imbleau to release the What We Heard Report, which documents the results of Alto’s public consultations from March to April as well as the results of Indigenous consultation.

While Alto had said in April that it would be announcing a “more precise corridor” for the Peterborough-Ottawa section by the fall, the Crown corporation is now saying that consultation this fall will focus on a narrower corridor for the Ottawa-Montréal segment, with subsequent consultation for the western and eastern segments of the project taking place in 2027.

Advocates for a high-speed rail station in Kingston successfully make their case

Following a review of the findings of Alto’s public consultation report, Minister MacKinnon has directed Alto to develop a plan to assess a southern route option between Peterborough and Ottawa that includes a potential stop in Kingston that would interconnect with VIA Rail services, “subject to technical feasibility and project requirements.”

The 134-page report includes a section on Kingston, which was excluded from Alto’s originally proposed southern corridor.

“Although a station is not currently proposed in Kingston, municipal, stakeholder, resident and community support has emerged for the project, contingent on the inclusion of a Kingston station,” the report states. “The existing VIA Rail station was a suggested location for a Kingston HSR station.”

According to the report, advocates for a Kingston station pointed to the city’s strategic location between Toronto and Ottawa/Montréal alongside its importance as an existing rail hub serving a wider eastern Ontario population, noting it is in the fourth-busiest VIA Rail station in Canada.

“Canadians shared valuable perspectives through Alto’s consultation process, and we are acting on what we heard,” Minister MacKinnon said. “I have asked Alto to further assess an alignment option that could include Kingston as a potential stop as we continue advancing this transformative project for communities across the Toronto-Québec City corridor.”

According to a media release from Transport Canada, adding a high-speed rail station in Kingston would reduce travel times between Kingston and Toronto to around 90 minutes “while establishing Kingston as a key regional mobility hub, improving connections and placing up to 80 per cent of residents between Peterborough and Ottawa within a 25-minute drive of a station.”

For his part, Imbleau said the announcement of a potential stop in Kingston “demonstrates that Kingston’s voices were thoughtfully considered throughout this important consultation process,” adding that the decision “reflects the strength of local engagement and advocacy.”

Public feedback highlights both global and local concerns with proposed high-speed rail

Alto’s public consultation report summarizes feedback gathered during 26 in-person open houses, 10 virtual sessions, and 31 stakeholder roundtables, engaging more than 10,000 people, as well as nearly 45,000 comments through online questionnaires and an interactive map from over 324,000 visits on Alto’s online consultation platform.

The report identifies key global themes heard during consultation — including cost and timeline, value for taxpayers, environmental considerations, land acquisition and expropriation, farmland protection, ridership, affordability, construction impacts, integration with existing public transportation, impact on VIA rail, and more — as well as local themes for each of the sections of the proposed rail line.

That includes 17 pages of the report dedicated to the section between Toronto and Peterborough, the location of an Alto station in Peterborough, and the southern and northern corridor options between Peterborough and Ottawa. While there was broad interest in the project’s potential to improve regional connectivity and economic development, there were significant concerns about the impacts on farmland, rural communities, environmentally sensitive areas, and existing transportation networks.

Toronto-Peterborough segment

For the Toronto-Peterborough segment, many participants said high-speed rail could support job creation, tourism, business connectivity, and commuting, with some suggesting it could make Peterborough and the Kawarthas a more attainable place to live for people working in Toronto. Participants also noted that communities in Kawartha Lakes such as Lindsay are underserved by transit and could benefit from better connections to a future Peterborough station.

However, respondents also raised concerns about the route’s potential effects on rural landowners, farmers, emergency access, property values, and seasonal residences. Agricultural concerns included the loss and fragmentation of farmland, reduced access across right-of-ways, and the need for agricultural impact assessments comparable to environmental assessments.

Environmental concerns in the Toronto-to-Peterborough section included potential impacts on environmentally sensitive areas including Oak Ridges Moraine and its headwaters, the Cavan Swamp Wildlife Area, Ganaraska Forest wetlands, the Trent-Severn Waterway, Rice Lake, the Otonabee River, and more, as well as species at risk such as the Blanding’s turtle, western chorus frog, monarch butterfly, eastern hog-nosed snake, and northern map turtle.

Peterborough station

For Peterborough, the report states many participants support a high-speed rail station because the city is not served by VIA Rail or GO Transit rail services. Some participants said a station could encourage transit-oriented development, create jobs, attract tourism, and improve access for students and employees at Trent University and Fleming College, while others said expanding VIA Rail or GO Transit would be a better option.

Participants were divided on where a Peterborough station should be located, with some advocating for a downtown station as a way to support local businesses, investment, housing, and a more walkable urban core, but others pointing to higher construction costs and possible impacts on the city’s historic character.

Supporters of a greenfield station south of the city, including the Cold Springs area near Highway 115 and Highway 7 that the City of Peterborough has identified as its preferred location, identified the benefits of establishing a new economic hub that could include housing development, while other participants raised concerns about a station lacking public transit service that would require users to travel by car and increase parking requirements, as well as the potential loss of agricultural land.

Peterborough-to-Ottawa northern corridor

For the Peterborough-to-Ottawa northern corridor, participants suggested considering routes north of Highway 7 or along existing infrastructure corridors to reduce impacts on farmland and rural communities. Respondents questioned whether the project’s long-term benefits would outweigh its impacts, while noting possible opportunities for rural employment through maintenance facilities, rail yards, and local procurement.

Impacts on the environment and wildlife with a northern corridor were prominent among participants, with concerns raised about several sensitive areas, including wetlands, wells, and waterways, as well as at-risk species. Many participants emphasized the need to preserve farmland and had a large number of questions about land acquisition, including compensation, how land values will be assessed, and differences between market and replacement value.

Participants also raised construction concerns related to building a route through the granite bedrock of the Canadian Shield, including technical challenges and potentially higher costs due to blasting and elevation changes with the topography.

Peterborough-to-Ottawa southern corridor

The Peterborough-to-Ottawa southern corridor included even stronger opposition from some rural residents, with major concerns involving community fragmentation and the impact on rural life including agriculture.

“Some have formed organized groups that are very active in both traditional and social media,” the report notes. “Among these residents, emphasis was placed on the importance of preserving rural character and way of life, citing strong ties to farmland and nature, as well as concerns related to land acquisition and potential impacts on property values.”

According to the report, many participants said they could support a southern corridor option if it included a station in Kingston, as that would require the alignment of the route to move further south. There was a preference to align the route with existing infrastructure, such as Highway 401 to minimize potential impact on land.

Across both northern and southern corridor options, participants repeatedly called for Alto to use existing infrastructure where possible, protect farmland and sensitive environmental areas, provide clear information about land acquisition and compensation, maintain emergency access, and integrate high-speed rail with local transit, VIA Rail, bus services, airports, parking, and last-mile transportation.

No decisions have been made yet on a preferred corridor

Although Alto has been directed to develop a southern corridor with a stop in Kingston, the original southern corridor and the northern corridor options are still being considered.

“No corridor has been formally confirmed or excluded at this stage,” according to a statement on Alto’s social media. “Both northern and southern options, including variations such as a potential stop in Kingston, remain under consideration. Work continues on identifying the option that delivers the greatest collective benefit, while reducing the impacts.”

Alto also states that no decision has been made on a stop in Kingston.

“Alto has been asked by the government to study its technical feasibility, and any future decision will be informed by further analysis and consultation.”

Consultation reports available for download

The complete public consultation report is available at www.altotrain.ca/sites/default/files/2026-06/public-consultation-report-june-2026.pdf.

Meanwhile, the Indigenous consultation report identified interests and concerns with the project’s process and timelines, land claims and potential overlap with the project corridor, socio-economic benefits and impacts, archeological heritage, watershed and river systems (including spiritual, cultural, and harvesting practices), impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights (especially hunting, harvesting, and fishing rights), protection of species valued by Indigenous peoples and their habitats, cumulative effects and impacts, and mitigation, offsetting, and restoration opportunities.

The complete Indigenous consultation report is available at www.altotrain.ca/sites/default/files/2026-06/indigenous-relations-consultation-report-june-2026.pdf.