File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Marie Covert May 25 2023 at 12:59PM on page 2

These rural areas contain many natural heritage features which need to be preserved for the sake of biodiversity, of species' habitat and survival, and environmental protection. The whole area, whether privately or publicly owned needs to be mapped to identify the marshes, wetlands, woodland, and corridors. The City of Hamilton needs to know what is surrounding it. Every inch needs to be mapped by professionals using the latest technology to determine flood plains, danger zones, roads/highways impacted by extreme weather events. If there is intense flooding, are the culverts appropriately sized to avoid flooding? What buildings have already been erected in a flood plain because of inadequate knowledge or care? Citizens need to know that they live in a flood plain so they can take adequate measures. First responders need to know which arteries will be impassable due to flooding or landslides. Where can the firetrucks or emergency repair vehicles gain access during extreme weather events? Mapping of existing features cannot be under-valued and should commence immediately. The Claremont Access is already crumbling. How much of the escarpment will suffer the same fate if the City does not understand where the flood plains, high water levels and major waterways will impact the lower City?
0 replies

Marie Covert May 25 2023 at 12:48PM on page 2

Suggestion
This should be the absolute priority. Keep publishing the map of all the available areas for intensification within the Urban Boundary. Keep flashing the numbers re: available homes in the pipeline and numbers available to be built within the Urban Boundary. There is absolutely no excuse to expand at this point.
0 replies

Marie Covert May 25 2023 at 12:20PM on page 2

Question
The climate crisis and mitigation/adaptation must be at the heart of any changes. We all know that the country is spiraling out of control and everything possible must be done to limit the damage. Allowing any kind of development in the 6 areas identified is counter-intuitive to crisis management and will only exacerbate the situation. Can you quantify how much damage will be done, as these lands/trees will no longer sequester carbon, prevent erosion, purify drinking water and provide shelter from the heat domes? A financial analysis might convince the province that Hamilton is progressing in the right direction.
0 replies

Amélia Rougeau May 24 2023 at 6:06PM on page 3

Suggestion
HAND OFF THE GREENBELT . You cant protect it by destroying it . we the people have decided we don't want to see our beloved ecosystems be destroyed for urban sprawl . we need those environnement more than ever . and instead of reducing waste you should stop them from being created. we are sick of seeing our beloved forest and wetlands being destroyed for car centric single family ouse or big condos that the average citizen can't even affort we want multihousing buildings that are multi-use so people can get what they need without using cars, native plantations and no green grass lawn . we want change . we don't want plastic anymore and we certainly don't want to see you touch the greenbelt !!!!!
0 replies
in reply to Don McLean's comment

Amélia Rougeau May 24 2023 at 5:55PM on page 3

Suggestion
yes we don't want anymore ecosistem to be destroyed. population growth doesn't mean we should destroy the rich habitats we have
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:19PM on page 3

Give preference to public spaces and increase those.
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:17PM on page 3

Protect AND ENHANCE ecological systems and the natural environment. We have a severe biodiversity crisis already and that wording aligns with “improve air, land and water quality”. Instead of “reduce waste” it should be “avoid waste”. Require green infrastructure wherever possible to minimize climatic impacts.
1 reply

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:17PM on page 3

This is open to mis-interpretation. What is “vacant”? Historically, we have followed the foolish objective of “highest and best use” defined generally as maximizing tax revenues. That’s why building housing on prime agricultural land was considered a good thing. It wasn’t and isn’t.
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:16PM on page 2

Yes, for existing neighbourhoods, but for new development there need to be specific objectives such as transit-supportive densities (at least 80 residents or jobs per hectare); and protected pedestrian and cycling on all streets; plus effective connections to existing and planned transit, cycling and walking routes.
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:14PM on page 2

The separation of “employment land” from residential and other uses is out-of-date and imposes unreasonable transportation requirements including associated infrastructure. “Complete” neighbourhoods should include employment.
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:14PM on page 2

This must include rental housing.
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:12PM on page 2

Protection and enhancement of biodiversity should be part of this objective not just “recreation and enjoyment of the rural landscape”
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:12PM on page 2

Yes, but also give priority to this objective over new development and infrastructure outside of existing built-up areas.
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:11PM on page 2

Not “encourage” but require, and not just a “compatible mix” and range of affordability, but at minimum accommodates the actual financial abilities of Hamiltonians. It should not make things worse. So if a third of our population can only afford to be tenants, then at least a third of the new housing should be rental and at a price that can be afforded. New development should not increase the percentage of Hamiltonians who are unhoused; it should do the opposite and actually reduce the percentage who are unhoused.
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:10PM on page 2

Suggestion
It is unclear what “reduce” means in this principle. Logic requires identifying the comparator. Reduce from what? For farmland, natural areas, and other rural lands, the minimum requirement is that whatever land uses replace these must result in less emissions than are currently coming from those lands. The calculation must include any loss of carbon sinks (wetlands, trees, etc). If actual reduction of GHG emissions is deemed impossible, the land use change is likely inappropriate. Or compensatory measures are required such as funding GHG reductions in other parts of Hamilton.
0 replies

Don McLean May 17 2023 at 3:09PM on page 2

Suggestion
This is out-of-date. We must eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, not just reduce them. The city has already committed to a detailed plan to reach net zero emissions by 2050, so allowing ANY additional GHG emissions is counter-productive and will require future measures to eliminate them, probably paid for from the public purse. Calculations must include not just the “end result of development” on newly urbanized lands but also take account of any construction activity related to these lands. And it should also include the carbon footprint of building materials.
0 replies

Anton Lodder May 16 2023 at 10:31PM on page 2

Suggestion
A major difficulty in building communities that provide access to all kinds of people is that our building codes make it prohibitive for families to buy and rent the kind of apartments they need. We should be asking the province to relax our building code to allow for point-access blocks with appropriate fire mitigation, since it can result in up to 20% less floor area for a 3-bedroom house, reducing cost.
0 replies

Anton Lodder May 16 2023 at 10:28PM on page 2

Suggestion
A key requirement in any discussion of 'employment lands' is how we can ensure access to jobs *within* communities. This means that at least 30% of housing should be in mixed-used developments so that commercial uses are close to where people live; we also need to ensure that where 'employment' specific uses are considered, that we are not just segregating work from home, which needlessly increases the difficulty of providing transportation. Where we need to provide industrial and semi-industrial lands, they need to have the same standard for bike/walk/transit access as residential lands.
0 replies

Anton Lodder May 16 2023 at 10:24PM on page 2

Suggestion
A serious plan for climate mitigation would require new buildings be constructed to a passivhaus standard. This would ensure that it is easy and cost-effective for new residents to heat and cool their homes and maintain high levels of air quality even in the face of extreme weather conditions such as heat waves and forest fires.
0 replies

Anton Lodder May 16 2023 at 10:22PM on page 2

Suggestion
Do we need to provide all housing types? Hamilton already services a large quantity of detached single-family homes, which are the least cost-effective way to provide housing, and which go against the stated goals on transportation as well as our desire to address the high cost of housing. We should be asking for a minimum density of 4 storeys.
0 replies

Anton Lodder May 16 2023 at 10:17PM on page 2

Suggestion
If we really want to encourage different transportation options in these communities, we need to enact parking maximums. There is no transportation strategy that makes it attractive to walk the long distances required by commercial and residential developments that meet our parking standards.
0 replies

Anton Lodder May 16 2023 at 10:13PM on page 2

Suggestion
In my opinion 'complete streets' is not a good enough standard, since it implies that all public right-of-way will provide car access. If we want to develop these lands in a financially and ecologically sustainable way, they should be car-light eco-districts with the majority of routes providing only non-car access at the interior; car access should be provided by pushing most driving and parking to arterials, with direct routes being reserved only for biking and walking.
0 replies

David Price May 15 2023 at 5:27PM on page 1

I think my comments will be a waste of time It is tragedy to pave over any more agricultural lands. We don't need any more people or developers vision of surveys Just look at the ugliness along Rymal Rd and up Hwy 56 to the west The city is being ruined year after year. ie; LRT Street Changing No maintenance on the Claremont access..... and on and on. make sure someone objects to this invasion
0 replies

Sam Marranca May 15 2023 at 5:02PM on page 8

Question
Nowhere in these 8 pages are there provisions for new expressways/parkways. The province has no problem building new communities, but don't care how we are supposed to navigate from Point A to Point B. The Linc and Red Hill Expressway are woefully inadequate and are jammed, morning noon and night. What kind of planning is this? I attended the Elfrida Awareness Meeting in July, 2017 and expressed my concern at that time there were no provisions for new expressways/parkways to accommodate the massive growth. Who actually are the planners who are blind to this important concern?
0 replies

testing May 12 2023 at 1:42PM on page 1

testing
0 replies

Avian Yuen May 11 2023 at 4:16PM on page 3

Suggestion
As an additional Directive: 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.
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:51AM on page 5

Suggestion
As this affects the entire city I think this can't be limited to adjacent property owners. This should be put on display in locations across the city where residents of all income levels can come and view the recommendations and provide comment. How could this be equitable if the only people consulted already live / work nearby? What about those living / working in all the other parts of the city?
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:48AM on page 6

Question
Has this process been recommended / approved by indigenous groups? Is this sufficient to ensure we have incorporated their concerns?
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:46AM on page 3

Question
How is this possible by taking existing agricultural and natural areas and developing them?
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:45AM on page 2

Suggestion
There should be a set priority list that all plans are evaluated against. Starting with pedestrians and active transportation in all forms.
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:44AM on page 2

Suggestion
This ties into affordability. Any plan to develop these lands needs to show how someone making minimum wage can afford to live in these areas. This would mean the cost to rent or buy must be within 30% of minimum wage.
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:43AM on page 2

Suggestion
Same as above. This appears to be impossible as these areas are taking rural areas and converting them to urban areas.
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:42AM on page 2

Question
Isn't this impossible for these properties as they are outside of the existing built up areas?
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:42AM on page 2

Suggestion
As there is a housing crisis (in addition to a climate crisis) I think that a minimum level of density should be considered for this entire area. I don't see how we can provide homes that can be purchased or rented for 30% of the average family income without forcing a minimum density of 4-6 storeys. This is required to make higher order transit cost effective and will help bring down the cost to service this land on a per occupant basis and is the only way to do this and hit our greenhouse gas emissions targets.
0 replies

Peter Vander Klippe May 10 2023 at 9:39AM on page 2

Suggestion
This needs to be fleshed out to make sure we aren't simply greenwashed. Looking at the city as a whole, how will developing this land help or hinder us achieving the guidelines provided by the IPCC? Will this help or hinder our requirement to reduce carbon emissions significantly? Will this help or hinder our requirement to become net zero?
0 replies

Donald Hopkins May 9 2023 at 7:23PM on page 1

I am astounded that the previous "plan" for employment lands around the airport has disappeared so easily. Obviously public consultation means nothing and "planning" is nothing more than a temporary and expensive process that can be easily disregarded. To build houses so close to an airport will only ensure that Hamilton has no opportunity to grow in the future.
0 replies
View all