Dismissing development charge complaint for 280 Jameson Drive

Councillor Votes

Full Resolution Text

Tribunal Decision That, respecting the hearing on April 20, 2026 of the development charge complaint by 1439121 Ontario Ltd. respecting the property known municipally as 280 Jameson Drive, the said complaint be dismissed in the form of decision comprising Appendix A to this motion. Appendix A 1. Council received a complaint (the “Complaint”) under section 20 of the Development Charges Act (the “DCA”) from 1439121 Ontario Limited (the “Complainant”) in relation to development charges to be imposed for the property municipally known as 280 Jameson Drive, Peterborough, Ontario (the “Property”). 2. The Complainant sought a conditional building permit for the construction of a ~37,000 square foot (3,480 square metre) building to be constructed (the “Phase 2 Building”) on the Property in August 2025, and as a result received an invoice on September 16, 2025 in the amount of $895,369.20 for development charges to be imposed for that development (the “DCs”). 3. Council has reviewed the materials submitted by the Complainant, considered the submissions of Counsel for the Complainant, and has had the benefit of reviewing the staff report IPGPL26-024. 4. Council finds no evidence that an error was made in determining the amount of the DCs, respecting the availability of a credit or respecting the application of By-laws 24-081 or 25-100 for the Phase 2 Building. 5. At the time the Complainant submitted the site plan application for the Phase 2 Building in May 2025, By-Law 24-081 applied, subject to the reductions in payable rates occasioned by the passage of By-Law 25-100. 6. Even if the Complainant could rely on the August 2023 site plan application, the operation of clause 26.2(5)(b) and subsection 26(1.2) of the DCA result in the application of By-Laws 24-081 and 25-100 and the imposition of DCs for the Phase 2 Building. 7. The Complainant did not appeal the passage of By-Law 24-081 or By-Law 25-100. 8. The Complainant's arguments and evidence do not address the grounds set out in subsection 20(6) of the DCA. 9. The Complainant makes policy arguments that do not address the grounds justifying relief under subsection 20(6). 10. Council is not satisfied that there is any incorrect determination or error that would justify rectification. 11. Council does however find noteworthy that the Complainant's materials indicate that while the City of Peterborough had the highest percentage growth of DCs among all comparator municipalities, indicating that the City of Peterborough had historically low development charge rates, the City of Peterborough continues to charge the lowest rates of all comparator municipalities referenced in the Complainant's materials.