Draft Framework for Processing and Evaluating Urban Boundary Expansion Applications

Any proponent should be required to demonstrate that there will be no reduction of land available to tenant farmers, and no adverse effects upon agricultural uses and operations elsewhere.

As part of any application for settlement boundary expansion, the applicant should be required to provide labour and equipment market studies and such other supporting research which demonstrate that there is sufficient unused construction labour within the relevant categories in excess of what would be consumed by build-out of all infill development permitted as-of-right (or which is likely to be permitted as of right upon conclusion of existing or planned city initiatives), assuming that all infill construction of six storeys and under would make use of conventional stick frame construction (and associated labour and equipment). Any proponent should be required to demonstrate that proceeding with greenfield development would not increase construction costs or compete for labour and equipment time with infill development, even assuming construction of six-storey stick-frame mid-rise apartment buildings on all residential and mixed use lots on collectors and arterials, and construction of four-storey fourplexes on every existing residential lot that is sold or conveyed.

As part of any application for settlement boundary expansion, the applicant should be required to demonstrate through independent modeling conducted at the applicant's expense but directed and controlled and contracted or conducted by the City (and the above market and feasibility studies) that every hectare of the subject land that is in fact not permanently maintained as farmland or natural cover (and excluded from any residential or commercial lot) will in fact have an active transportation mode share of no less than 75% and with a public transit farebox recovery ratio of at least 68%.

As part of any application for settlement boundary expansion, the applicant should be required to provide market and feasibility studies, as well as supporting site analysis, showing that with the requested settlement boundary expansion, and OP designation and zoning, and even factoring in the possibility of future rezoning or changes to OP designation, every hectare of the subject land will in fact be developed at and maintain for no less than 30 years density of no less than 100 residents per hectare (for residential and mixed use land) and at a density of no less than 100 jobs per hectare (for employment or commercial land).

All residents of the City of Hamilton should be provided with mailed notice of all requests for settlement boundary expansion - there should be no limit or reduction in weighting of input based on physical proximity. This is because greenfield development, by consuming construction capacity (e.g., labour, equipment time, including for infra) impacts the viability of infill housing development throughout the City of Hamilton, and by increasing the area of road and sewer and other infrastructure, undermines the future tax burden and the availability of funds to maintain, replace and upgrade infrastructure elsewhere in the city of Hamilton. However there should be intensive, proactive consultation in the form of in-person interviews with all tenant farmers and owner farmers both on the land where settlement boundary expansion is proposed. Where the farmers in question have a tenant relationship with the applicant or the owner of the subject lands, their identity should be kept confidential from the applicant and owner upon request, but nonetheless factored in.

Adding this comment too (seam reasoning) Please keep me informed if any new boundary expansion applications are received at joannejones9@gmail.com

Adding this comment (as it appears it was incorrectly left below, in contact with Helpdesk to remove)....I am Counsel and Land Use and Land Development Program Manager for the environmental charity and think tank Environmental Defence. I am not in fact a resident of any Hamilton ward, but I am submitting at the request of multiple Hamilton residents who wish Environmental Defence to contribute technical support for their own submissions on the question of how to respond to requests for settlement area boundary expansion. The ward number reflects that of an individual who made such a request.

(1) All residents of the City of Hamilton should be provided with mailed notice of all requests for settlement boundary expansion - there should be no limit or reduction in weighting of input based on physical proximity. This is because greenfield development, by consuming construction capacity (e.g., labour, equipment time, including for infra) impacts the viability of infill housing development throughout the City of Hamilton, and by increasing the area of road and sewer and other infrastructure, undermines the future tax burden and the availability of funds to maintain, replace and upgrade infrastructure elsewhere in the city of Hamilton. However there should be intensive, proactive consultation in the form of in-person interviews with all tenant farmers and owner farmers both on the land where settlement boundary expansion is proposed. Where the farmers in question have a tenant relationship with the applicant or the owner of the subject lands, their identity should be kept confidential from the applicant and owner upon request, but nonetheless factored in.

(2) As part of any application for settlement boundary expansion, the applicant should be required to provide market and feasibility studies, as well as supporting site analysis, showing that with the requested settlement boundary expansion, and OP designation and zoning, and even factoring in the possibility of future rezoning or changes to OP designation, every hectare of the subject land will in fact be developed at and maintain for no less than 30 years density of no less than 100 residents per hectare (for residential and mixed use land) and at a density of no less than 100 jobs per hectare (for employment or commercial land).

(3) As part of any application for settlement boundary expansion, the applicant should be required to demonstrate through independent modeling conducted at the applicant's expense but directed and controlled and contracted or conducted by the City (and the above market and feasibility studies) that every hectare of the subject land that is in fact not permanently maintained as farmland or natural cover (and excluded from any residential or commercial lot) will in fact have an active transportation mode share of no less than 75% and with a public transit farebox recovery ratio of at least 68%.

(4) As part of any application for settlement boundary expansion, the applicant should be required to provide labour and equipment market studies and such other supporting research which demonstrate that there is sufficient unused construction labour within the relevant categories in excess of what would be consumed by build-out of all infill development permitted as-of-right (or which is likely to be permitted as of right upon conclusion of existing or planned city initiatives), assuming that all infill construction of six storeys and under would make use of conventional stick frame construction (and associated labour and equipment). Proponent should be required to demonstrate that proceeding with greenfield development would not increase construction costs or compete for labour and equipment time with infill development, even assuming construction of six-storey stick-frame mid-rise apartment buildings on all residential and mixed use lots on collectors and arterials, and construction of four-storey fourplexes on every existing residential lot that is sold or conveyed.

(5) Proponent should be required to demonstrate that there will be no reduction of land available to tenant farmers, and no adverse effects upon agricultural uses and operations elsewhere.

1) Because Hamilton is legalizing wood-frame, labour-efficient mid-rise on the edges of all its urban and suburban neighborhoods, and has already legalized adding an additional family-sized detached house (a detached SDU) behind each existing home, there will be far more homes permitted as of right than can be built using the construction capacity Hamilton has. This that if Hamilton allows any homes to be built beyond our current SABE they will be at the expense of a greater number of infill homes.

(2) "Yes and" isn't a real option here. Hamilton can't plan for BOTH densification of existing neighbourhoods AND development of Greenfield sprawl neighbourhoods outside the existing SABE without saddling itself with a white elephant. Hamilton will be proactively planning its future infrastructure to support densification of its existing neighbourhoods through midrise and multiplex and SDUs, and that means that work premised on supporting sprawl sewers and roads would be wasted.


(3) Extending settlement boundaries would undermine the financial viability of upgraded public transit within Hamilton's existing neighborhoods and settlement area. Existing neighbourhoods need all the people and jobs that boundary expansion would divert into greenfield sprawl in order to make all its transit and other plans for existing neighbourhoods viable

1.Land Cost: Create As-Of-Right Permission To Build Mid-Rise In Places Where It’s Actually Viable To Build
2.Construction Cost: Legalize Labour Efficient Designs And Methods For Mid-Rise
3.Carrying And Procedural Costs: Simplify And Speed Up Approvals Processes
4.Reduce Fees, Taxes And Charges For Midrise
5.Spur Competition: Transition Small-Scale Infill Developers And Low-Rise Construction Sub-trades To Mid-Rise Development

What about the Waterdown area?

The public must be given enough notice of any planned community meetings. We must be allowed to ask questions, to challenge and to oppose plans, not just sit and listen to some proposal.

Engagement with Indigenous leaders, including traditional leaders as well as elected leaders, is necessary. No development anywhere without it. Reconciliation comes first before anything else.

No development on agricultural lands ever! We need a farm belt as well as a green belt.

There should be no exception to the protection of farmland. Prime agricultural land is a must. We cannot allow it to be paved over. Water and food resources are going to be scarce in a few years and it is imperative that Hamilton have a supply of sufficient farmland to feed its population, and enough clean water for all.

This is a must. It should not be optional, protection of biodiversity, endangered species etc must be mandated.

This is very important.

The ability of existing emergency services to cover this newly built area is vital for the safety of all residents.
Who wants to wait an extra 10 minutes for police, fire or ambulance?

Heritage trees in all newly built areas must be protected by law. Stop the practice of bull-dozing trees to create these flat, boring neighbourhoods (that usually flood every time there is an extreme rainstorm.) A minimum of at least one tree per property, three trees at corners and a dozen or more at shopping centres or other areas with large parking lots.

It is imperative that developers who want to expand our boundaries provide a full range of services, such as parks, recreation centres, libraries, schools, long-term care homes, medical offices as well as grocery and hardware stores. It is not fair to tax payers to pay for these new services at the expense of neglecting the rec centres etc in their own neighbourhoods. Create complete communities so people don't have to drive for recreation, shopping, school, etc.

All newly built communities must include semi-detached home, 4 plexes and 6 plexes. This will allow a mix of ages and income groups and ensure that there is housing for all, not just the wealthy. The era of detached homes with expansive lawns are over.

Are woodlands with native Carolinian forests being protected? Heritage trees or rare trees must also be protected. We need this biomass to help us mitigate the effects of climate change, extremely hot weather and increases in carbon emissions.

There should be NO development on or near wetlands or other low lying areas that flood occasionally and allow water to be absorbed into the ground and into the aquafers. We have huge flooding problems now with extreme weather events becoming more common due to climate change.

I strongly recommend using existing infrastructure and vacant spaces, as well as homeowners’ properties within our urban centres for family friendly, Additional Dwelling Units.
The reasons for creating these unique, safe spaces is to revitalize existing neighbourhoods, businesses, schools and social services. People love living in established neighbourhoods and communities where they grew up. Paving over existing farmland and wild spaces are more expensive for young families and dumps the costs onto the rest of us. They choke roads, because everyone needs to drive, adding to the greenhouse effect while taking away our lands that can help offset climate change. Keeping schools, recreational facilities and existing social services populated and protected, encourage healthy, happy families in our communities.
Additionally they are much more affordable, and can increase our city’s tax revenue easily. Even so far as to give young people dreams of owning their own properties with ADU’s to help support them.
This relieves the burden on our communities and our environment.
Opposingly, adding to gridlock and destroying our greenspaces does nothing to relieve people struggling to find homes.
Do not stoke the builders dreams, stoke the peoples’ dreams, Put money back into our pockets. This economy works.

Is the proposed expansion area on or adjacent to an already existing transit stop?
Are there bike lanes planned to connect with the city-wide network?
Will there be sidewalks to make walking safer and more accessible for those who require assistive devices?

Add the importance of wildlife, specifically Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO). Reports from consultants need to be complete and accurate, conducted over a long period of time to account for seasonal habits, breeding grounds, migratory birds, etc. The report must be from a trusted source/group. I realize you discuss biodiversity and these fit into that overall umbrella but think it worthwhile to actually mention wildlife and their contribution to public health and human welfare.

I do not understand these first 2 considerations in the Growth Allocation. I think these are the City's guiding principles and as such, the answers have already been established so is there no need to review this for each application? Could they be stated as Top Criteria and only exceptions will be processed through the application routine?

There are approximately 70 "Considerations" in Part B. To answer all of them for each application will take a great deal of time, energy, and money. Could I suggest a top-down approach such that the most critical considerations top the list and if the application fails one of the critical considerations, the application process ends. It does not carry on through all the other departments, when it is already a failure.

Who would complete this Functional Servicing Report? If the expectation is that the developers will use their own consultants, the City can expect skewed reports.
Could the City hire its own experts to approve the plans because fully trained experts in each field should be the ones to assess the plans for completeness and accuracy.

When will the finalized Terms of Reference for all plans and studies be completed? There is another requirement for a second review at that time.

A report that evaluates to value to replicate the function of, and replace the loss of natural assets already in place such as wetlands, woodlots, meadows that provide habitat etc.

First report should be contribution to or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over the long term. Second report should be fiscal impact of UBE.

every single wetland, marsh, swamp must be protected in perpetuity, they clean and filter our water and absorb catastrophic rainfall events, which will continue to occur in greater frequency and severity with climate change

the headwaters of 3 major watersheds are in this airport area and improving the water quality CANNOT be guaranteed with any more impermeable surfaces, additional contaminated runoff, etc

97% of all southern ontarios wetlands are gone, 2 hectares of wetland can absorb 70 times that areas water. we must protect them forever, no matter what their size is

the taxpayers will 100% be on the hook for all cost overruns, maintaining the infrastructure long after the development companies have made their massive profits and run. how can taxpayers be guaranteed we will NOT pay a single dime of this proposed expansion and its cost over runs.

Hamiltons climate change initiatives have not been put into serious practice in any of the recent commercial spaces such as the Amazon warehouses on upper james, how can we trust that these areas will see less area covered in impermeable surfaces?

floodwater management and stormwater management has not been taken into account concerning the head water in the area of AEGD. Also the predictors of climate change models for floodwater management are predicting 300% increase in floods over next 5-10 years. We must keep our wetlands intact and pristine

Why not have a clear requirement that there will be no further damaging of remaining natural heritage resources, eg. wetlands, meadows, forests. These resources took thousands of years to develop and cannot be replaced in their entirety. Nothing prevents flooding as well as non-paved land and wetlands.