New basement apartments are a necessity

Any city councillor who needs to be convinced of the value of allowing basement apartments in every residential neighbourhood should consider a couple of facts.

First, Peterborough’s rental vacancy rate has been hovering around one per cent for the past year.

That’s among the very lowest rates nationally. It guarantees that anyone who can’t afford to buy a home will have an extremely tough time finding a place to live.

Second, just last fall council approved a project for city-owned Peterborough Housing Corp. that will invest $39 million in public money to develop 119 oneand two-bedroom apartments on McDonnel St.

That works out to $327,000 per apartment.

Next month, council is scheduled to vote on a sweeping change to zoning regulations. Any homeowner would be able to add a one or two-bedroom apartment, subject to parking and size restrictions.

Over time that simple change could, and likely would, create apartments for hundreds of young people just starting in the workforce, seniors, students and low-income earners.

The cost to the public purse? Next to zero. Homeowners would also come out ahead.

Seniors with more space than they need could start cashing rent cheques to supplement pension income, allowing them to stay in their homes longer.

Young couples faced with an average house price that has climbed beyond $400,000 would have rental income to offset mortgage payments, making it possible to enter the market.

Those are simple, common sense reasons to support the change. It represents good social and fiscal policy.

Then there is the fact that if councillors doesn’t embrace basements apartments, the provincial government will likely do it for them.

A staff report that was unanimously endorsed by the new city planning advisory board this week and will be the subject of public and council debate in May makes that clear.

The province effectively ordered municipalities to clear the way for secondary units in single family homes – “granny flats,” basement apartments or even converted garages – back in 2010, the report notes.

Peterborough has been slow, make that very slow, to react. City council went beyond foot-dragging a few years ago when it rejected (narrowly, the vote was 6-5) an application to convert a home near Peterborough Regional Health Centre into two apartments.

That one involved a duplex, not a secondary apartment, but the core issue was the same: is there room in a conventional, single-family neighbourhood for a two-unit home?

Council said no. The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) said yes. Those apartments now exist, just like hundreds of “non-conforming” apartments in other neighbourhoods, and life goes on quite nicely.

The OMB has since been reconfigured and now has to give local planning decisions more weight. However, the overwhelming strength of provincial direction on this issue means council would still be fighting a losing battle to preserve the “sanctity” of the single-family neighbourhood if it turned down this new proposal.

In fact, council would be wise to loosen regulations beyond what is being proposed.

Homeowners in the area directly surrounding downtown – east of Park Street, south of Parkhill Road and north of Lansdowne Street – should not have to provide an extra parking space for a new apartment.

Even without that change, new rules to encourage secondary apartments represent a necessary step forward. Peterborough needs to take that step.