‘This is not a no-growth option’
In a 13-3 vote, council elects to pursue frozen-boundary approach for future development
After a pile of reports, months of pitched debate and thousands of public submissions, city council has opted to hold Hamilton’s urban boundary firm.
Council rejected an urban expansion into roughly 3,200 acres of prime farmland to help accommodate a forecast population boom over the next 30 years.
Instead, on a 13-3 vote, city politicians opted to pursue a frozenboundary approach that will focus all future growth within the existing urban footprint.
In doing so, they also backed Mayor Fred Eisenberger’s motion directing staff to report annually on a variety of markers, including development activity, pace of growth and housing mix.
“This is not a no-growth option,” Eisenberger said late into Friday’s meeting. “This is a where-do-wegrow option and, in my view, that where-do-we-grow option ought to be within the existing urban boundary.”
Staff were asked to report back with a draft official plan — the city’s overarching land-use document — that reflects the no-expansion approach by January.
The Ontario government has told municipalities like Hamilton to update their official plans by July 2022 to reflect land needs over the next 30 years.
The province forecasts the city’s population will spike by 236,000 people, reaching 820,000 by 2051. That’s expected to require 110,320 more residential units.
City staff recommended an “ambitious density” option that called for a phased urban expansion of 3,240 acres into rural areas such as Elfrida, and along Twenty Road East and Twenty Road West.
That “aggressive and forwardthinking” approach was to be coupled with an average intensification rate — which is infill development in built-up areas — of 60 per cent over 30 years.
The no-expansion scenario, which requires an intensification rate of about 80 per cent, is unrealistic and wouldn’t satisfy Ontario’s market-based land-needs policy, according to staff, consultants and provincial officials.
Pro-expansion developers, their planning agents, as well as real-estate and business groups raised red flags that apartment-heavy density targets would drive up prices and send seekers of “ground-related” housing elsewhere.
On Friday, consultant Antony Lorius acknowledged there isn’t a “direct link” between land supply and housing affordability but added, “it’s certainly part of the mix.”
Coun. Terry Whitehead, who joined Lloyd Ferguson and Maria Pearson in going against the majority tide, remarked, “Ignoring supply and demand is like defying gravity.”
Later, Whitehead warned council was “making a huge mistake” in rejecting the staff recommendation and opting for a frozen urban boundary.
The veteran Mountain councillor predicted housing prices would soar further and fuel additional neighbourhood angst over higherdensity developments.
“And you want to blame somebody, you can just point your finger at council.”
Coun. John-Paul Danko — a steady critic of expansion over the past several months — reiterated his doubts that building homes on farmland would alleviate the affordability crunch.
“We have that affordability crisis today,” Danko said.
Development plans for the wouldbe expansion areas wouldn’t materialize for at least 10 years, he noted, which “does nothing to change the economics of housing prices today.”
But builders disagree and contend a frozen boundary is unrealistic — including Aldo DeSantis, president of Stoney Creek-based Multi-Area Developments.
“It’s a joke because the pressure will build up and they’re only delaying the inevitable as far as I’m concerned,” DeSantis, whose firm owns land in Elfrida, told The Spectator earlier this week.
The longtime local builder, whose company developed Summit Park off Rymal Road East, called a frozen boundary an “extreme” idea.
“I hope common sense prevails because they’ll throw the whole thing out of kilter,” said DeSantis, who expects a denser mix of townhomes (stacked and back-to-back), semi-detached and some detached homes would make up expansion communities.
Anti-sprawl campaigners, however, argue meeting growth targets within Hamilton’s existing urban area through local zoning changes that allow for “missing-middle” housing on underutilized lots is feasible.
It’s also essential to ensure food security, mitigate the climate crisis by limiting carbon emissions and keeping municipal infrastructure costs in check, they say.
After Friday’s decision, Stop Sprawl HamOnt, a group of residents that has urged the city to freeze the boundary, called the vote a “big win for all our supporters who grabbed a lawn sign, donated to the cause or emailed their councillor with their concerns.”
“Just as importantly, the City of Hamilton has committed to building more vibrant neighbourhoods with efficient transit, safe active transportation, and a mix of housing types that are suitable for all stages of life and all income levels,” the group wrote in emailed statement.
“Hamilton’s decision will have positive ripple effects across the Greater Golden Horseshoe and should embolden citizens who also are fighting to save their natural heritage from the big sprawl.”
This past summer, Stop Sprawl HamOnt mounted a campaign to encourage residents to take part in a citywide mail-out survey that resulted in 90.4 per cent — or 16,636 of 18,837 respondents — wanting the existing boundary to remain firm.
On Friday, Ferguson called the group a “well-organized and wellchoreographed lobby,” before predicting more pushback in Ancaster over condo construction and traffic headaches on Wilson Street.
Several councillors thanked staff for their work and applauded the high level of engagement — proand anti-expansion alike — on the city-shaping question over the past several months.
Residents who contacted her “clearly understand this issue,” Coun. Maureen Wilson said. “They understand what the challenges are. They understand that choices need to be made.”
Coun. Arlene VanderBeek noted council declared a climate emergency, and pointed to overburdened water and sewer pipes in the city as an example of Hamilton’s infrastructure woes.
“We need to fix what we have and optimize the opportunities that exist in our current urban boundary before we pursue expansion,” the Dundas councillor said.
Coun. Tom Jackson, who called the community debate “quite an extraordinary experience,” expressed misgivings over intensification, but the east Mountain veteran said the potential loss of prime farmland was a “paramount” concern.
Many Ward 2 residents are “embracing smart growth” and density in the core, Coun. Jason Farr said.
The downtown councillor added if the Ontario government is “planning to put the kibosh” on the noexpansion decision, “they may do that very soon” because they may fear “other municipalities may soon follow suit.”
In October, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark made his position on the issue clear, calling Hamilton’s exploration of a no-expansion approach “irresponsible” and “unrealistic” in a Spectator op-ed.
In backing staff’s recommendation, Pearson cited concerns over mounting intensification in Stoney Creek, but also how the province might react.
“I want to keep the control here in our city, as opposed to the province making the decision.”
Several councillors thanked staff for their work and applauded the high level of engagement