Rooming house decision delayed

Planning committee sends Parkhill Rd. W. rooming house conversion plan back to city staff

A proposed zoning bylaw amendment that would allow the owner of a Parkhill Rd. W. rooming house to convert the 12-bedroom into a two-unit duplex with six bedrooms each was deferred by the city’s planning committee early Tuesday morning.

The application to make the change was sent back to staff to determine exactly which residential district zoning classification the building at 880 Parkhill Rd. W. fits into – R1, which permits one dwelling unit, or R2, which allows up to two.

The proposed change is part of a response to a January decision by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM), which stated that “the building bears a strong resemblance to a two-dwelling unit and not a single-dwelling unit.”

The OFM became involved after a 2016 inspection by the city fire department “resulted in items that required attention by the current owner,” planning and development services director Jeffrey Humble wrote in a report to Monday’s meeting.

All but one of those items were then rescinded by the OFM.

After talks from January to April, the city and building owner agreed the proposed rezoning would be the appropriate way to determine what kind of dwelling the building is; that the change to a duplex would better reflect the layout of the house.

Fireproof wall and doors separating upstairs and downstairs, interconnected smoke alarms and a hallway sprinkler were installed at a substantial cost, landlord Walther Lehmann of WDL Enterprises wrote to the city planning committee.

He wrote that the home “by far” exceeded applicable codes for a single family residence, such as having smoke alarms in each bedroom, prior to the fire inspection.

Written opposition to the proposed rezoning was filed with the city clerk earlier this month, although Brian and Suzanne Moreau of Crowley Crescent did not state exactly why, instead addressing the activity they say goes on there.

“As a neighbour, we have our hands full with the drunken parties, fighting, arguments, drinking and drugs all too often until early morning, not to mention (people) running through our yards, urinating and throwing beer bottles and cans,” they wrote. “If you have never experienced this behaviour I invite you to witness it first hand this September.”

Lehmann responded to those concerns in his letter.

“When students return they sometimes have a party and have a right to do so, but excessive parties or so-called keg parties are not allowed as per the rental agreement,” he wrote.

Opponents argue that several aspects of the property are not in accordance with the existing bylaw, including issues related to the driveway and setbacks.

They are “grasping every straw they can” in order to argue against the zoning amendment, even though the changes do not affect them, Lehmann wrote, adding there will be no differences to what they have been exposed to over the last 13 years.

“We believe that the opponents seem to have some unrealistic ideas in regards to how students should be controlled by authorities or what authorities can do,” he stated. “Students are a part of life in Peterborough ... we are providing, as landlords, a necessary service to students by providing rental accommodation, which seems to be in short supply in Peterborough.”

Under the recently approved business licensing provisions for rental dwelling units, the city will require the owner to obtain a business licence for each unit.

Under new business at the end of Monday’s meeting, which stretched into the early morning, staff were also directed to report back to council regarding lowimpact design standards.