HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2022, 2:59 AM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,884
Good! These prime land should be for employment only.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2022, 3:12 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LikeHamilton View Post
OLT Denies Developer Near Hamilton Airport

By Joey Coleman, Editor, THE PUBLIC RECORD | November 8, 2022

A developer lost at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The owners of 8475 English Church Road East in Glanbrook appealed City Council’s October 2020 denial of their application to convert some of the lands to residential lots under the present Rural Hamilton Official Plan.

City of Hamilton professional planning staff recommended Council deny the application because the conversion is contrary to the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and residential uses are incompatible in the noise corridor along the runway approach to Hamilton’s airport.

Hamilton’s Airport formally opposed the proposal.

Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the province’s overriding planning law, states in section 1.6.9 that “Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports above 30 NEF/NEP [Noise Exposure Forecast].”

Read more with a map

https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2022/...eid=914e0b1e91

Damn NIMBY airport.

Doubt it will be the last though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2023, 12:47 PM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,263
https://www.insauga.com/hamilton-com...mes-the-space/


Good news story for growth in a sector Hamilton should lead in. Also I think this is the first time Mac stretching out to the south by the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2023, 10:03 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,527
Maybe Mac should develop another "innovation" park in that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2023, 1:50 AM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,527
Posting because this issue may be (is likely, it seems to me) related to growth around the airport... and IMO the city needs to think about this stuff, because it will become a larger problem over time as more land is developed.

Looking at that image, it's not hard to imagine why this home got flooded.

Hopefully the coming mitigations will help. Though historically, there was little understanding that building anything on a flood plain was a bad idea...


Floodwaters keep coming. Insurance company won’t pay. Who is to blame? This Glanbrook couple points to a giant new development
‘We’re tapped out,’ Dickenson Road couple says of ruined basement


https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilto...3dddefdd8.html

Teviah Moro
The Hamilton Spectator
Wednesday, August 2, 2023



Greg and Monica Sheldrake dread those days when heavy rain is in the forecast.

The Glanbrook couple are the outdoorsy types, so they’re not afraid of getting wet.

It’s their basement that keeps them up at night.

Flooding has become all-too-familiar as development builds up in the Mount Hope airport commercial district.

In particular, the Sheldrakes point to Amazon’s massive warehouse off Upper James Street, just around the corner from their Dickenson Road home.

During heavy rain, a torrent flows from there and inundates their front yard and driveway.

“There’s so much water, so fast, it’s mind-blowing, honestly,” Monica says.

A few weeks ago, Greg recalls, he watched helplessly as water pooled in the driveway and flooded the basement during a bad storm that packed a small tornado.

It’s ruined, and after more than one drenching, their insurance company won’t cover the damage, they say.

“It’s just so deflating,” Greg laments. “Like we’re not putting more money into this place. Like we’re done. We’re tapped out.”

The Sheldrakes say flooding has been an issue since around 2009, when developers started building and altering land by their home.

But when Amazon’s 855,000-square-foot warehouse — where a golf club’s ponds and grass once absorbed water “like a sponge” — opened in early 2022, it became a serious problem, Greg points out.

“This was approved and it’s new development. So why are we having new development carry on when we can’t deal with the water downstream?”

...

Coun. Mark Tadeson agrees the former golf course helped water drain and calls commercial development a “contributing factor” to the flooding in the area.

But the new Glanbrook councillor, who has fielded the Sheldrakes’ concerns, suggests the city could help provide some relief.

“Public works is involved. They’re aware of the situation and they’re working on mitigating factors.”

The area has a “history of flooding” with properties in a natural floodplain of a local watercourse, Gavin Norman, the city’s manager of infrastructure planning, told The Spectator.

Nonetheless, “it appears, from residents’ concerns, that the problem is increasing,” Norman added.

“By nature of the low-lying lands, some of the properties may experience property flooding during significant events.”

Development is obliged to control stormwater discharge from sites, so the “rate of flow leaving the site does not exceed pre-development conditions,” Norman noted.

But “due to the ongoing concerns from residents,” the city has hired a consultant to evaluate a storm pond at the southwest corner of Upper James and Dickenson.

As well, the city’s installation of a new sanitary trunk sewer along Dickenson in the months ahead will include culvert replacement and ditch cleaning, “which may provide some improvement.”

The city is also conducting an environmental assessment for the reconstruction of Dickenson, west of Upper James, that examines stormwater runoff at the intersection and ways to improve drainage. The study is expected to wrap up in August 2024.

Others on Dickenson, whose properties back onto a farmer’s field, are also concerned about flooding, with water pooling in backyards during storms.

Some speculate changes to a neighbour’s property, including an altered culvert, may have interfered with water flow.

Norman said public works staff are trying to determine if “there are other contributing factors that could be exacerbating the issue,” including the condition of the local watercourse and more frequent heavy downpours.

...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2023, 2:24 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking View Post
Posting because this issue may be (is likely, it seems to me) related to growth around the airport... and IMO the city needs to think about this stuff, because it will become a larger problem over time as more land is developed.

Looking at that image, it's not hard to imagine why this home got flooded.

Hopefully the coming mitigations will help. Though historically, there was little understanding that building anything on a flood plain was a bad idea...


Floodwaters keep coming. Insurance company won’t pay. Who is to blame? This Glanbrook couple points to a giant new development
‘We’re tapped out,’ Dickenson Road couple says of ruined basement


https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilto...3dddefdd8.html
This is an unfortunate situation for the homeowners. It also illustrates an example of what I'll call 'told you so' situations where the longer-term cost of suburban development is disproportionately high compared to more compact forms of more urbanized development and the older central city itself.

Building in a floodplain is sometimes unavoidable, especially historically when so many communities formed on river banks and deltas because they were fertile and generally flat and had a freshwater source. But it inherently comes with flooding risk, especially when the proportion of impermeable surfaces steadily increases over time without a concomitant increase in stormwater management infrastructure.

When suburban development typically occurred, including flood-prone areas, it was only required to provide the minimal viable servicing infrastructure, such as stormwater ditches and culverts with some interspersed detention ponds and generally undersized connections to the broader municipal stormwater system. In each instance, the supplied infrastructure was sufficient to meet the codes and by-laws of the time. But taken in aggregate, the patchwork system of subdivision-oriented stormwater infrastructure was not built to the same standard as the more urbanized/older parts of the city with a fully grade-separated stormwater system, albeit one that is, unfortunately, still commonly utilizing a combined stormwater and sewage outflow system in the older parts of a city.

The longer-term challenges of this approach are on display here where new development has, for a variety of reasons, upset the balance and produced runoff that exceeds the capability of the downstream stormwater systems to cope. Couple that with the inherent topographic channeling of a floodplain and it's a real problem with no easy solution. As a result, the City is hiring expensive consultants to study the situation and it will undoubtedly require some quite significant capital investments to mitigate, all while the homeowners are incurring huge financial costs and insurers are balking.

Meanwhile, the City is undertaking expensive infrastructure upgrades and studies throughout the area to keep up with demand, all while grappling with and preparing for a vexing aspect of climate change which is the cycle of increasing periods of hot dry weather, which parches the soil and lowers its permeability, and more intense rainfall events. This cycle, unfortunately, reduces the effectiveness of natural infiltration stormwater management systems like ditches, swales, and detention ponds, exacerbating the likelihood of localized flooding during heavy rainstorms.

So, my point with all of this is that as we are gearing up for another round of suburban development that will result from provincial policies, we have to significantly increase the capacities and quality of the stormwater management system that is being required in new subdivisions and ensure that these new developments bear the preponderance of costs to upgrade the downstream municipal infrastructure that will be required to service them. A major reason why suburban and exurban development is so cheap is that it's only making a down payment on the true cost of the development to the broader city. When those additional costs are borne, often decades down the line, it is everyone who foots the bill and it's a large bill. <gestures expansively at our roads>
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis

Last edited by SFUVancouver; Aug 3, 2023 at 2:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2023, 6:26 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,527
I agree! And it wasn't until Hurricane Hazel in 1954 that Ontario really began to understand the potential issues with development on flood plains and the management of storm water. That was a unique event, but you'd think we'd have learned a few things that can be applied to smaller creeks and their drainage basins to mitigate impacts of much smaller/isolated storms that have become more frequent.

There have also been decisions and things built in the past that are now proving very inadequate for current weather and climate conditions. Like this:


https://www.thespec.com/news/dundas-...c709c13f8.html


It's is a prime example of a cost that cities are forced to deal with as urban boundaries expand. Property taxes will rise to pay for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2023, 7:40 PM
urban_planner urban_planner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 794
Sometimes it's just a lot of rain in a short period of time and not a result of poor planning. A stretch of highway 54 that runs along the grand river between Caledonia and Cayuga was flooded last weekend strictly farm land surrounding it but 70 to 80mm fell in 3 hours.
__________________
I think its the best city of its size on earth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2023, 11:02 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_planner View Post
Sometimes it's just a lot of rain in a short period of time and not a result of poor planning. A stretch of highway 54 that runs along the grand river between Caledonia and Cayuga was flooded last weekend strictly farm land surrounding it but 70 to 80mm fell in 3 hours.
True. And cities cannot mitigate or prepare for everything.

But a better job needs to be done to implement plans that lower the risks. With so much new development (commercial/industrial and residential) planned to happen across such a massive area around the airport, there's an opportunity to do that. The development industry needs to be part of it too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2023, 2:42 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,598
Ontario has some of the strictest flood mitigation regulations on the continent. It’s almost hilarious how much our stormwater systems are almost overbuilt. New development generally needs to be designed to handle 100 year storms, with a bit of excess capacity on top.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2023, 11:31 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Ontario has some of the strictest flood mitigation regulations on the continent. It’s almost hilarious how much our stormwater systems are almost overbuilt. New development generally needs to be designed to handle 100 year storms, with a bit of excess capacity on top.
So, what we’ll probably need with climate change… 🙃
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2023, 4:07 AM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,527
The city is probably going to have to pick its battles here... and just because the expanded urban boundary will remain, doesn't mean it needs to be built out or even fully serviced right away.

(this is southeast of the airport and AEGD, between Airport Rd. and White Church on the east side of Upper James; there's a map image in the article that I cannot link to)


Ontario government says it won't revisit decision to expand Hamilton urban boundary
Hamilton mayor and councillors say they won't give up pushing the province to reverse course


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...sion-1.6975874

Samantha Beattie · CBC News · Sep 23, 2023


The Ontario government says it will not revisit its controversial decision to expand Hamilton's urban boundary to include land owned by well-connected developers.

The province ordered the expansion in November 2022, opening up 2,200 hectares of countryside for development, at the same time it announced it would be removing land from the Greenbelt, including five sites in the Hamilton area.

Premier Doug Ford reversed course Thursday, vowing to add back all the land to the Greenbelt. He apologized for the land selection process that "left too much room for some people to benefit over others."

Following Ford's announcement, Mayor Andrea Horwath, Hamilton city councillors and advocates were hopeful the province would also shrink Hamilton's urban boundary back to the one council agreed to in 2021, which focused the city on increasing density rather than sprawl.

"Our position is not changing … how as a city we should be able to chart our own path in terms of how to accommodate growth," Horwath said.

"We have a lot of great plans and absolutely we want to see our wishes respected."

Chris Poulos, director of issues management for the housing minister, told CBC Hamilton on Friday the province won't change its mind.

"Based upon assessments from the City of Hamilton's own planners the province took the necessary action to accommodate anticipated levels of growth and allow for more desperately needed housing to be built," he said. "This decision will not be revisited."

The city's planners did originally recommend expanding Hamilton's urban boundary by 1,300 hectares in 2021. But, facing public opposition, council voted for the planners' alternative option to not expand outwards, but rather focus on infilling the existing urban area to meet its housing targets.

The provincially mandated expansion in 2022 includes land near the airport along White Church Road that was not part of staff's original recommendation. That land contains properties owned in part by developers Sergio Manchia of UrbanCore Developments and Paul Paletta of Alinea Group Holdings, formerly Penta Properties.

Paletta's family also owns property across the street that was removed from the Greenbelt, as was Manchia's land at Barton and Fifty Road in Hamilton's east end.

...

More here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2023, 12:49 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,598


The City has a legislative requirement to process applications in the urban expansion lands - there isn't much they can do about it.

Even if they do refuse to process it, they risk the province issuing an EMZO like they did at Lakeview in Mississauga. An EMZO shifts all approval authority to the province and completely removes the City from having any input or involvement in the approvals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2023, 3:14 PM
mikevbar1 mikevbar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 215
The best way to disincentivize absolute sprawl on these lands-primarily the Elfrida lands- would simply be to require a ludicrous density that will slow buildout considerably, something to the order of 80-100ppha at least. An affordable housing requirement might do the trick but doesn't seem very pragmatic if the goal is to see something pass.
__________________
Steeltowner & Urban Planning Undergrad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2023, 3:37 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikevbar1 View Post
The best way to disincentivize absolute sprawl on these lands-primarily the Elfrida lands- would simply be to require a ludicrous density that will slow buildout considerably, something to the order of 80-100ppha at least. An affordable housing requirement might do the trick but doesn't seem very pragmatic if the goal is to see something pass.
80 ppha is the standard which was set out in the Growth Plan prior to the PCs coming to power - it was only in place for a year or so, however.

Many modern greenfield areas in the GTA are actually planned to be quite close to that. North Oakville is planned to be 30 units/hectare for example - which works out to around 80people/jobs per hectare once you include employment and average unit populations.

I don't imagine Elfrida is going to get built at quite that density (north Oakville needs a lot of condos to get there) - but it'll probably be close. I expect 60-70ppha.

The suburban greenfield market in Hamilton right now is dominated by townhouses - which sell basically as fast as developers can build them. I imagine the greenfield areas will be dominated by that product type. Fruitland-Winona is finally getting it's plan of subdivision applications and it's almost entirely townhouse units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2023, 8:53 PM
mikevbar1 mikevbar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
80 ppha is the standard which was set out in the Growth Plan prior to the PCs coming to power - it was only in place for a year or so, however.

Many modern greenfield areas in the GTA are actually planned to be quite close to that. North Oakville is planned to be 30 units/hectare for example - which works out to around 80people/jobs per hectare once you include employment and average unit populations.

I don't imagine Elfrida is going to get built at quite that density (north Oakville needs a lot of condos to get there) - but it'll probably be close. I expect 60-70ppha.

The suburban greenfield market in Hamilton right now is dominated by townhouses - which sell basically as fast as developers can build them. I imagine the greenfield areas will be dominated by that product type. Fruitland-Winona is finally getting it's plan of subdivision applications and it's almost entirely townhouse units.
I was trying to give a slightly higher range than that standard, thanks for bringing it forward though LOL. In any case, I meant it as a means to deliver something not wholly unfamiliar, but not necessarily of the typical minimum reqs. I had no idea townhomes were actually that popular, however. That should bode well- if most of our subdivisions became townhomes, I think we'd all be better off for it. There Isn't really a whole ton of greenfield land available for subdivisions left, at least by comparison with other cities. Best to maximize their use in any case.
__________________
Steeltowner & Urban Planning Undergrad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.