While I understand the current regime at Queen's Park has bullied Hamilton into the destruction of arable land and greenspace, and that Hamilton, unlike Ukraine has no outside forces to help fight Queen's Park, Hamilton has misused and under utilized space in the current urban area that will accommodate most of the supposed future housing. As most understand, the builder lobby will not readily accept construction in the present urban area for reasons of profit and ease of development. That being the case, and with the bully at the door, Hamilton might consider most seriously Chapter A introduction 4.1.1 most seriously. It should consider there be only porous surfaces on the roads and sidewalks. They do exist. There should be little effort to divert water into a storm sewer but water should be allowed to drain naturally. Builders must pay for infrastructure and rapid transit into the existing urban areas, not the citizens of the city. Natural gas should not be allowed in any expansion areas. All dwellings should be readied to accommodate electric vehicles at no extra charge. There should be a larger proportion of green space to dwellings and builders should have to plant a higher ratio of trees to dwellings to offset the increase in heat. No extra roads should be built to accommodate the projects and if any are built, let the province and the builders lobby pay for them not the citizens of Hamilton. With all that is happening due to climate change and planetary heating, this expansion into farmland and greenspace is the most bizarre, bordering on insane, idea since the building boom of the post war years. We're still trying to deal with that. The colonial idea that there's lots of land, trees, clean water and resources is so out of sync with conditions today.

There is nothing "15 minute city" about any of this. Complete communities require density, a range of socioeconomic inhabitants, and a range of cultural options. These areas will be the same as all other sprawl: Houses from which you drive to soccer fields and strip malls that contain utterly predictable franchises. None of these will be narrower "front porch" streets with tree canopies where you can talk to your neighbour across the street from said porch. I'll bet my entire mortgage on that.

(Attempt #2 - first one was just... ignored.) Build up, not out. One tool to make vertical development more attractive is to apply a fee on new builds where a fixed fee for ground use applies ($/m^2) but is divided amongst the number of principal residences built on that area. The fee is paid directly by the developer and is not tax-deductible or tax-credited in any way. (Obviously they'll pass the fee along to the buyer.) This is strictly about ground use. The fee could probably be pro-rated by distance away from existing transportation and municipal infrastructure. Build a big home out in the country? It simply costs a lot more. Is this unfair? Yes. Monster single-family homes simply cost and use far more per residence than the same area used to build a three-story walk-up. (They don't all need to be 30-storey buildings. But those would have a lower development fee associated with them.) Their use of resources and arable land is a one-way street: Destruction. Will those with wealth have an unfair advantage? They always do. But the number of people with that level of wealth is low enough that the amount and rate of destruction will be manageable. Also: Make developers pay for full public transit infrastructure in new-build areas for a period of years, pro-rated by distance from transit infrastructure.

Build up, not out. One tool to make vertical development more attractive is to apply a fee on new builds where a fixed fee for ground use applies ($/m^2) but is divided amongst the number of principal residences built on that area. The fee is paid directly by the developer and is not tax-deductible or tax-credited in any way. (Obviously they'll pass the fee along to the buyer.) This is strictly about ground use. The fee could probably be pro-rated by distance away from existing transportation and municipal infrastructure. Build a big home out in the country? It simply costs a lot more. Is this unfair? Yes. Monster single-family homes simply cost and use far more per residence than the same area used to build a three-story walk-up. (They don't all need to be 30-storey buildings. But those would have a lower development fee associated with them.) Their use of resources and arable land is a one-way street: Destruction. Will those with wealth have an unfair advantage? They always do. But the number of people with that level of wealth is low enough that the amount and rate of destruction will be manageable. Also: Make developers pay for full public transit infrastructure in new-build areas for a period of years, pro-rated by distance from transit infrastructure.

If City Council has directed city staff to assume responsibility for completing the Secondary Plans for province-designated Urban Expansion areas, should “privately initiated secondary plans” not be taken into consideration on the same level (ie., community input) as any other citizen’s input? Currently, they appear to have greater status/influence.

The people of Hamilton have already spoken and City Council listened and accepted the will of the people: No urban boundary expansion!! Kudos to City Council for their great work in endorsing public opinion and agreeing that there should be NO expansion into these 6 recommended areas. I understand that the provincial government is forcing a Secondary Plan for Urban Expansion upon us all and tromping over our democratic rights. Is it possible to make the requirements for a Secondary Plan so extreme that the requirements can never be met? These lands need to be protected, at a minimum - improved wherever possible.

I have lived in Hamilton my entire life. I have experienced change and gentrification and the sprawl south of Rymal first hand as I lived on White Church Rd when binbrook was first converted to sod farms and then to housing within 3 yrs. Now we are fighting 20+ storey condominiums in the downtown core, particularly ward 2,3,4 - I live in ward 4 right off main St. No one from the city is purchasing the condos, they are being used to create investment opportunities for people who already own houses and condos elsewhere. We have no sustainable housing, affordable housing or transitional housing. WE ARE LOSING HALFWAY houses in my neighborhood which are vital branches of social systems designed to help people who were formerly incarcerated transition back to living in society. Without these homes people are left unhoused. The destruction and defunding of Housing Hamilton left a huge gap for impoverished, low income, working poor people to fall into. Current policies exacerbate this problem. I stand with Acorn, as a woman who dragged myself out of poverty, put myself through school and now qualify as one of the working professionals that the city has been trying to lure in since 2008. My partner and I stand with Andrea Horwath and her track record of accountability on behalf of the NDP. We ask council to honour the referendum held where Hamilton voted NOT to extend our urban boundary.

Hamiltonians have already spoken very clearly: we do not want sprawl development on farmland and wetlands, destryoying our natural heritage and farmland. It has been clearly demonstrated that neighbourhoods within the existing city have attainable housing in complete communities with existing jobs, fast and frequent public transit and amenities within walking distance of everyone. We cannot afford to pay more taxes for more (and unnecessary) sprawl: we have sprawling parking lots, strip malls, and boarded up storefronts in Hamilton with plenty of room to create housing and mixed use communities within the former urban boundary.

DO NOT TOUCH the GREENBELT. The PREMIER promised he would not. It should be a protected zone (if it isn't already)? I thought it was. Why does the Premier lie to us? He deserves to be removed from office for such a bare faced lie. We have lost ALL respect for him. The greenbelt is precious because it holds wetlands, watersheds, forests, lakes, streams, endangered species and Class 'A' farmland. I repeat: do not touch our greenbelt. Thank you.

Preserve our farmlands. Utilize the existing urban areas and their vacant spaces.

there are federally protected species in these Greenbelt areas. Species At Risk Act protects them from Ottawa. All of these areas in question need to be scoured to find these species and protect them and their habitat.

as long as there are still sprawling parking lots, strip malls, and boarded up storefronts in Hamilton, there is still plenty of room to create housing and mixed use communities within the former urban boundary.

i reject any kind of sprawl development on farmland and wetlands until neighbourhoods across the existing city have attainable housing in complete communities with jobs, fast and frequent public transit and amenities within walking distance of everyone.

Hamiltonians have already spoken and said we do NOT wish to expand our urban boundaries at this time, especially because of the risk to our environment and local food supply. There are adequate spaces within the current urban boundary which can be developed or re-zoned to accommodate much, if not all of the expected population increase. We need to plan to build and allow for mixed-use housing within current neighbourhoods so that residents can live in their community for their entire lives, should they wish to do so. This, to me, is more a matter of political will to do the right thing!

those new 'communities' are never Communities. they are agglomerations, with no noticeable community life. in fact, they are ugly naked compounds. fence them in, and you have an instant concentration camp. everything has already been said about the sufficient existing unbuilt space within Hamilton to satisfy the perceived future needs for housing, thus nullifying the need for these expansions. in addition, Bill Gates and the WEF amongst others have determined that there is a need for a global population reduction of 92%, this to be achieved by the year 2030, and for which they (and others) are in charge of implementing, so far successfully , as we speak. this whole obsessive push by Ford sounds more like a deal for his friends than a real need for proper housing. the dense populations parked in these areas will need to use their cars for EVERYTHING. and the cost to the City (that's us the taxpayers) of connecting all the services to these areas will be enormous. it is up to council to apply every tool in their power to prevent this proposed scenario to ever happening. what Hamilton should strive for with its existing farmland remaining intact is SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

i am concerned that the city is building outward too quickly and money spent on infrastructure to open up these new areas will be money taken away from inproving the infrastructure desperately needed within the old urban boundary. We need more affordable housing and rental units closer to schools and hospitals and the city should concentrate on these needs.

Include cost benefit analysis so that informed decisions can be made

Incorporate concepts around natural asset valuation

A great opportunity to take this further and not allow gas hookups on new builds.

What is considered as "significant"

Eliminate parking minimums in the existing built up area to allow more density in the city before creating car dependent suburban sprawl.

Incentivize infill development, SDUs and pass bylaws like Toronto allowing fourplexes in existing neighbourhoods. Allow small walk up apartments to be built in all neighourhoods. Eliminate parking minimums. Use all the municipal tools we have to densify the city before considering costly sprawl onto farmland.

Why build "complete communities" on farmland when we haven't come close to attaining that objective within the existing city? I feel like planning staff are excited about planning these communities but they actually need to step back look at the existing city. There is SO MUCH work to do to create complete communities in Hamilton where they currently don't exist. Don't let Hamilton rot while stretched resources are wasted on sprawl development.

Sorry Ted but Twenty Road West is also prime ag land just like Elfrida. It also holds wetlands and environmentally significant areas and since you have a financial interest in Twenty Road being developed first your opinion is obviously biased. Hamilton tax payers should not pay for one single penny of construction on food land until all areas inside Hamilton's former boundary are developed and we have eliminated our multi billion $ infrastructure deficit.

This sounds like a bad idea. Why would the developers get to keep this plan secret? Also, will developers need to fund the development and health of green spaces to replace the lands they are building upon? Who holds them accountable for this? And would the "new" spaces have to be located within a certain distance of their development? How is the ecological value measured and compared to the land that was taken over in the development?

There are opportunities to invest in affordable options and mixed developments in many already developed -and now abandoned- areas of the city. We can't afford to just keep ruining more and more lands when we haven't fixed what's already broken.

We should not be carving into any green space anywhere until we fix up and use neglected areas of the city first. Provincial leadership is frozen in the past. Building more sprawling communities in the greenbelt will not reduce stormwater costs in the way that intensified communities would. Value per acre is MUCH higher in mixed use areas of the city. We dont need more prawling neighbourhoods or big box shopping complexes with parking lots as far as you can see. We need healthy green spaces that people are invested in, meaningful community centre hubs, incentives for entrepreneurs and small businesses to move in and to be creative with how we grow. More of the same sprawling communities is going to drove people out of Hamilton over the next 20 years. They will move to cities where planning has been smarter not repeats of past mistakes.

My sister and I own nine plus acres on the North East corner of Airport road and Upper James. This land has been identified as white lands, but we have been denied the opportunity to develop these acres. City water is already available, and this makes no sense to us. Land is useless as currently zoned. Would the city of Hamilton please take another look at this area?

Privately initiated secondary plans should only be considered on greenfield areas when all existing urban lands have been exhausted. Just because a developer owns land in an area does not mean it should be developed until the City needs this to meet population housing needs.

Congratulations on redefining the necessary attributes of new development. This list of attributes is excellent and represents a new and proper approach to any greenfield development. Of course any new development should not take up good agricultural land - Class 1, 2, as a minimum. Could that be included?

I live in the area, and I am in favour of expanding the urban zone. Although I own a house, many of my close relatives simply cannot purchase a house and rent is very expensive. Expanding the urban zone is a prudent planning to ensure many existing and new Hamiltonions can one day aspire to own a house. Since the other side of Upper James is being built up, I think this makes sense. I wholeheartedly endorse.

No to sprawl! This was made loud and clear by residents and City Council. We Will stand firm and continue to protect our green spaces and precious farm land

Will family health needs be included in these plans (new family doctors offices, clinics, etc)?

As a precursor to my other comments I want to emphatically state that I am totally against the rape of our GREENBELT area. No development should be allowed outside the current urban boundary until all land within the pre-Ford urban area has been utilized

Community centres/sports fields are needed at the onset to give families a place to create a community

Leave a good number of existing forested areas within the development as wild spaces

Direct public transit routes to downtown Hamilton. Overspill parking hubs. Sidewalks/pathways that connect the new area to existing/new build neighbouring communities (not ‘islands’ of unconnected neighbourhoods)

The ford gov’t has ridden roughshod over the democratic rights of the City of Hamilton and its citizens to contain sprawl to current city limits. If developers (many of whom are personal friends of ‘premier’ ford) are given the go-ahead by the provincial gov’t to build housing estates on the designated Greenbelt lands, then the developers, not the City, should pay for ALL the infrastructure costs. (The infrastructure will undoubtedly be as crappily built as the new homes these developers erect.) Not a penny of City of Hamilton monies should be spent on any Green Belt construction. Let developers assume all the costs, as well as the costs of legal challenges from foolhardy homebuyers once their shabbily-built houses start falling apart. The City should offer help and expertise for infrastructure for new housing developments ONLY within current City boundaries, not for houses built on Greenbelt lands. .

sections 4.1.1 d and e section 1.2.9.e v111 - sub-watershed plan Preserving the natural watershed - two examples: 1. The upper stretch of the north arm of Twenty Mile Creek, bounded by Mud Street to the north, Golf club road to the south and highway 56 to the west. 2. an unnamed stream bounded by Tapleytown to the east, Mud Street to the north, and Upper Centennial Parkway to the west. These two streams are the types of watercourses that land developers love to fill in and build on. They will fill in these feeder streams and seek to build right to the edge of the main watercourse, such as Twenty Mile Creek. We should preserve these feeder streams for flood control purposes, but also to preserve healthier watersheds and natural areas for wildlife and recreation. I propose that in the Secondary Plan there are clauses that clearly define what watersheds and water bodies are to be protected. If a natural stream has be straightened or it's route altered so that it resembles a "ditch" - we must not define this water feature as a "ditch", but as a re-aligned stream, and thus give it protection from being "developed". Feeder streams and ephemerals (streams and ponds that seasonally dry up), must be protected from development. Research into flood zones should be done to prevent any development in lands adjacent to water bodies that periodically flood. A good model to follow could be the Erin Mills neighbourhood in Mississauga, prior to 1990. The pre-1990 developments preserved almost all the streams and feeder streams as green spaces, creating a beautiful and environmentally healthy urban area. A bad model to follow is Erin Mills, and Mississuaga in general, post-1990 when the rules protecting the watershed were changed so that it was easier for developers to fill in and bury the feeder streams, which they did with great enthusiasm. To summarize: -flood zones cannot be developed. Define a flood zone as extending beyond the immediate flood zone by a certain number of metres. - feeder stream in the sub-watershed cannot be developed ( see my two examples above). Again define the protected area as extending a certain number of meters from either side of the stream or ephemeral. To be meaningful, one would think that 5 meters on each side would be a minimum, plus the flood plain zone. Included former streams that were realigned into "ditches". -state clearly that developers cannot alter a natural watercourse state clearly that developers cannot fill in and bury natural watercourses and water bodies -provide for fines, penalties ans restitution orders for all violations. A major benefit of such policies would be the creation of wildlife corridors along the streams. Because the feeder streams, ephemerals and ditches that were once natural streams, are included this would allow for an extensive series of wildlife corridors that could extend right across and between urbanized areas. Along these lines a policy could be implemented such as: All newly developed neighbourhoods must plan for the creation of wild life corridors that run through the development and connect to the adjacent developments. These would follow the existing watershed, woodlots and other natural areas, where ever possible.

It would be helpful for citizens to know if the province can ultimately override City planning here as well, and the role and authority of the Ontario Land Tribunal in City planning. What process will be in place for communication to citizens if the province and/or OLT adjust the City planning?

Agree with Peter's comment re: archaeological and indigenous studies and approval as part of the process.

Some of these ecologically sensitive areas have already been mishandled and irreparably altered, changing riparian biomes, despite being under the protection of Niagara Peninsula Conservation Area. What assurances are there that the remaining areas will be preserved - not according to where planners want a pond or a stream; but according to the natural biospheres?

testing

The plan should also seek to use the new land in a way which ends up financially as a net-plus for the city. If long-term infrastructure repair cannot be covered by the tax revenue directly contributed by the land users, then this new opportunity will be a waste.

The Twenty Road East Area would be the best of the Six Areas for Urban Expansion due to location between the Red Hill Business Park and the Airport Employment Lands. Also it has been designated as not sustainable for farming and has city water and sewers already paid for by taxpayers. Public transit is close by along with Turner Park and many other city services.

Finally, planning maybe based on science ,instead on politics. The use the Twenty Road East Area to help in the housing and rental crisis is long overdue. It has been deemed unsustainable for farming by Lear Studies. Also, it already has water and sewers paid for by taxpayers. It boarders on Turner Park( Largest Park in the City). with Public transit and other city services close by. It is located between the Red Hill Business Park and the Airport Employment Lands. It would best fulfill the Live, Play,Work Plan.

Why is the city not party to this agreement? What is the benefit to the citizens of Hamilton from this clause?

Servicing this areas should be subject to a life cycle cost analysis showing cost to construct and maintain all the city owned aspects of the servicing as compared to the income for the city based on the additional tax base and show how the city can afford to service this land as well as maintain all the new infrastructure built. We do not want to add to our infrastructure debt and ideally any new development would be a net reduction of long term maintenance costs for the city.

There should be a minimum list of studies required and any private party needs to provide a business case that is submitted to the city for approval prior to omitting any study.

We should also require an analysis of developing these areas in light of the climate emergency and how these could help/hinder the city's overall climate goals. This should be an all inclusive Life Cycle Analysis of the impact on the cities climate goals with respect to the IPCC recommendations and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.