City planners challenged in first test of intensification rules
August 13, 2006

Click on map for larger image (pdf file).

It appears that provincial rules requiring higher density development are being skirted in Hamilton's first neighbourhood plan subject to the Places to Grow legislation. City planners have stretched provincial definitions and cut corners on the provision of parkland and natural areas to provide more space for single-family houses near the escarpment in upper Stoney Creek.

The provincial legislation enacted earlier this year sets minimum density levels in order to reduce sprawl and make better use of costly urban services like roads, transit, and sewer and water pipes. The targets count the combined number of residents and jobs, and range from a minimum of 400 per hectare in downtown Toronto to 200 per hectare in the downtowns of larger communities like Hamilton, Oakville, Burlington, Milton and Kitchener-Waterloo.

Some cities like Guelph, Brantford and St Catharines are allowed to go as low as 150 in their downtowns, while suburban areas like the one being planned in Stoney Creek are required "to achieve a minimum density target that is not less than 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare" according to the Places to Grow legislation.

But the plans for the Nash neighbourhood unveiled to the planning committee last week fail to meet even this modest density. The 370 hectare neighbourhood is bounded by the edge of the Escarpment, Upper Centennial Parkway, Mud Street and Felker's Creek (just east of Paramount Drive ) and includes both the Taro east quarry landfill and their closed west quarry landfill. When fully developed, the neighbourhood plan anticipates 9600 residents. That works out to barely half the provincial target.

Presenting the plan at last week's planning committee meeting, Brenda Khes described the neighbourhood as "transit-supportive" - a comment that drew careful questioning by Flamborough councillor Dave Braden, a strong supporter of lowering the city's costs of servicing development.

Noting that much of the neighbourhood couldn't be built on, Braden asked if the plan "raise[d] the densities in the parts that do get built on so that you can make a general comment that the neighbourhood is transit-supportive".

Khes acknowledged that there was difficulty in achieving the provincial targets because "48% is either the dump, open space or environmentally sensitive areas [so] the calculation to determine that 50 units per hectare includes essentially the urban area minus that area".

Excluding this 48% means the remaining areas have a projected density of 49.9 persons per hectare if the full projected population level is attained. Provincial rules do allow excluding environmentally sensitive areas from density calculations, but make no mention of dumps or former dumps.

Khes admitted that achieving the density target has also meant the only park in the neighbourhood is about a hectare less than required by city policies, an issue raised by both ward councillor Phil Bruckler and west mountain councillor Terry Whitehead. And a plan to leave only a 35-metre wide natural area around Felker's Creek was questioned by Brian McHattie who noted that provincial rules require at least a 60 metre buffer area.

Beyond these concerns the plan notes other constraints that affect the only proposed pocket of medium-high density development, as well as a large chunk of the identified medium density area. Both are located within 500 metres of the landfill As a result, "studies demonstrating that there are no adverse effects on the development or that the effects can be mitigated" are required before building can proceed.

This restriction also applies to the only school site in the neighbourhood and the only commercial zone near residential areas. Almost all of the lands designated for single-family homes are further north toward the escarpment.

Bruckler defended the planned density noting that the previous Stoney Creek plan for the area only called for 5650 residents. "We've almost doubled that by way of density, and I think that sort of addresses the higher density requirements in the Places to Grow, and all that kind of thing," noted Bruckler.

But he raised numerous other concerns about the plan, which surprisingly appeared not to have been presented to him in advance of the meeting. Bruckler was particularly concerned about the road access to the proposed residential areas which is limited to First Road and Green Mountain Road, with the latter intersecting with Centennial Parkway on the hill, making left turns impossible. "For all intents and purposes you almost have one exit," Bruckler pointed out.

Khes explained that the plan calls for possible realignment of this roadway once the east quarry landfill is closed in about 10 years time. But this and other uncertainties led Bruckler to ask the committee to postpone approval until he's had an opportunity to consult with local residents. The committee agreed, and the proposal will likely be back on the agenda of the September 5 meeting.

The density concerns were not shared by the six public delegations on the plan. Five represented developers and potential developers and the sixth spoke on behalf of Taro. Most supported the plan, but Manfred Rudolf argued the designation of his client's lands at the top of the Centennial hill as environmentally sensitive was incorrect, contending that the earlier Stoney Creek plan would have allowed residential development there.

The proposed plan, including maps, can be viewed on the city's website at
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/
CityDepartments/PlanningEcDev/Development/CommunityPlanning/
SecondaryPlans/nash-home.htm.

The provincial Places to Grow is available at
http://www.pir.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/
Library/4/FPLAN-ENG-WEB-ALL.pdf?N_ID=4?N_ID=4.