CITY OF BRANTFORD Projections Documents... · City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy April 2006 ii Population, Household, and Employment Projections The population of the

CITY OF BRANTFORD

GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

MHBC PLANNING

April 18, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................i

Introduction .................................................................................................................1

Part A – The Identification of Land Needs ................................................................2 Factors Affecting Growth Trends in the City of Brantford .................................2

The Policy Framework for Continued Growth...................................................2

Growth Strategy Timeframe .............................................................................4

Population, Household and Employment Projections.......................................6

Consideration of Growth Scenarios within the Existing

City of Brantford Boundary ...............................................................................7

Industrial Development Capability within Existing

City Municipal Boundary...................................................................................9

Industrial Employment Projections to 2046 ....................................................12

Industrial Land Needs to 2046........................................................................13

Future Greenfield Residential Density Targets...............................................12

Residential Land Needs to 2046 – Existing Planning Scenario A ..................14

Residential Land Needs – Compact City Scenario B .....................................15

Part B – Analysis of Alternative Growth Directions...............................................17 Potential Growth Area Directions ...................................................................17

The Scale of Potential Growth Areas ............................................................18

Growth Area Evaluation Criteria .....................................................................19

The Weighting of Evaluation Criteria ..............................................................20

Growth Area Direction Discussion..................................................................21

Part C – Conceptual Land Use Allocation ..............................................................23

Part D – Water and Wastewater Servicing Assessment........................................25

Conclusion.................................................................................................................28

City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy April 2006 i

CITY OF BRANTFORD Growth Management Strategy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PART A – THE IDENTIFICATION OF LAND NEEDS

Factors Affecting Growth Trends in the City of Brantford

Brantford is a diverse urban growth centre characterized by successful business

park expansion, employment growth, robust residential development and

intensification, an expanding downtown higher education campus, and a location

integrated with the Provincial 400-series highways.

The Policy Framework for Continued Growth

The Provincial Greater Golden Horseshoe “Places to Grow Plan” includes the City

of Brantford as an Urban Growth Centre within an integrated growth management

concept designed to accommodate significant growth to the year 2031. The Plan

provides for a strong policy framework of economic development, livable and

complete communities, environmental protection, resource management,

comprehensive transportation improvements and infrastructure investment.

Growth Strategy Timeframe

Forty years is an appropriate (and perhaps minimum) growth strategy time frame to

consider long-term municipal boundaries and major public infrastructure investment.

City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy April 2006 ii

Population, Household, and Employment Projections

The population of the City of Brantford is projected to increase from 93,000 in 2006

to 155,000 in 2046, and employment from 43,000 (2006) to 82,000 in 2046.

Growth Scenarios within the Existing City

The ‘Existing Planning Scenario A’ would accommodate 124,000 people at buildout

to City boundaries (2026), resulting in a need to accommodate another 31,500

people to 2046.

The ‘Compact City Scenario B’ (based on the density targets of the proposed

‘Places to Grow’ Plan) would accommodate 139,000 people at buildout to City

boundaries (2036) resulting in a need to accommodate another 15,000 people to

2046.

Industrial Development Capacity within the Existing City

The Northwest Industrial Area and the Braneida Industrial Park have an estimated

312 (2005) vacant net hectares remaining, capable of accommodating another

6,862 jobs at the City’s existing employment density of 22 employees per net

hectare.

15,000 new industrial jobs are required to 2046.

Industrial Land Needs to 2046

At the current City net employment density, the shortfall of 8,100 industrial jobs (i.e.

15,000 projected – 6,862 in City = 8,100 +/- shortfall) would require 371 net

hectares, or 495 gross hectares, beyond City boundaries.

Residential Land Needs to 2046

Residential land requirements beyond City boundaries range from 493 gross

hectares (Scenario B – Compact City) to 1,071gross hectares (Scenario A –

Existing Planning Scenario) not including natural features.

City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy April 2006 iii

PART B – ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE GROWTH DIRECTIONS

Potential Growth Area Identified and Assessed

Seven potential growth areas were identified surrounding the City of Brantford.

These areas were assessed relative to developable land area and evaluation

criteria, including agricultural resources, mineral aggregate resources,

environmental features, wellhead protection, sanitary and water servicing,

transportation accessibility and community integration.

The Preferred Growth Direction

Area 1 (north) achieved the highest rank in an overall consideration of the

evaluation criteria. Area 1 has a lower potential to be considered specialty crop

lands when compared to lands to the southeast, southwest and west of the City.

Unlike Area 7, Area 1 is mostly unconstrained by sand and gravel resources of

primary significance. All seven areas exhibited environmental/natural features to a

greater or lesser extent. Area 1 contains tributaries to Fairchild Creek. This natural

system would be preserved as an open space system. Area 2 is highly impacted by

the meander belt of Fairchild Creek, is bisected by numerous drainage tributaries

and as a result, has a very rolling topography. Area 1 is not subject to wellhead

protection policies (such as apply to Area 5).

Area 1 has one of the least impacts on the existing sanitary and water system

servicing capacities since the lands can be serviced from the two major trunk

sanitary sewers (i.e. east and west) and from two existing water pressure zones

(Zone 2/3 and Zone 4), thus reducing the need for major pipe upgrades and

pumping/storage facilities. Area 1 ranks highest relative to

transportation/accessibility, given existing north-south arterial road connections

(Oak Park Road, Paris Road/Brant Avenue, King George Road/Highway 24 and

Wayne Gretzky Parkway) with interchanges to Highway 403. Powerline Road and

County Road 5/99 provide good west to east connections. The expansion of the

northwest industrial node will increase the feasibility of transit service. Area 1 also

achieves a high rank for community integration given the potential to naturally

City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy April 2006 iv

extend industrial and residential development to the north of existing industrial and

residential areas. There is a good potential to achieve a high level of integration

relative to road patterns, transit service, pedestrian system, and commercial,

recreational and school facilities. Extension of future development into Area 1 would

also avoid some of the more significant County of Brant Settlement Areas bordering

the City.

The above indicates a logical preference for Area 1. However, this should not be

viewed as ruling out the possibility of more minor boundary adjustments and

rounding out in other areas. One such example might be the small industrial

designation at the Garden Avenue/Highway 403 interchange.

City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy April 2006 v

PART C: CONCEPTUAL LAND USE ALLOCATION

Preliminary conceptual land use plans have been prepared which approximately

relate land need to land areas;

• Industrial Business Park 570 gross hectares

• Residential Compact Scenario 493 gross hectares

• Residential Existing Planning Scenario 938 gross hectares

The concepts would locate industrial lands in the west part of Area 1 in order to

expand on the Northwest Industrial Park in proximity to Highway 403. Residential

development is shown immediately north of Brantford’s existing residential

neighbourhoods with the ability to achieve a high level of integration with same.

City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy April 2006 vi

PART D: WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICING COSTS

An assessment of the existing water and wastewater system capacities was

performed to determine upgrading requirements and costs to accommodate the

water and wastewater servicing demands of the preferred growth area (Area 1) at

the following three critical stages of development:

Scenario 1: 2036 Intensified Build-Out of the present City

Scenario 2: Development of Area 1 to the 2046

Scenario 3: Buildout of Area 1 beyond 2046

The total investment in infrastructure to serve the above scenarios will be in the

order of $150 million over a 40 year period including a $ 50 million expansion to the

Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2026 and a $ 50 million expansion to the Water

Treatment Plant in 2026.

City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 1

INTRODUCTION

The City of Brantford retained Earth Tech and MHBC Planning to conduct a Growth

Management Strategy to identify long-term land use requirements for the City of

Brantford. The City commissioned this study given a desire to plan comprehensively

for the long-term within a context of limited land resources, increasing growth

pressures, and a need to facilitate continued employment and economic health.

The consultant team includes expertise in municipal planning, civil engineering,

transportation planning, environmental analysis, agricultural analysis, and

aggregate resource planning.

This report is organized into the following headings:

• Part A: Identification of Land Needs.

• Part B: Analysis of Alternative Growth Directions.

• Part C: Conceptual Land Use Allocation.


PART A: THE IDENTIFICATION OF LAND NEEDS

Factors Affecting Growth Trends in the City of Brantford

Brantford is a diverse urban growth centre characterized by successful

business park expansion, employment growth, robust residential

development and intensification, an expanding downtown higher education

campus, and a location integrated with the Provincial 400-series highways.

Within the last 10 years a number of factors have combined to accelerate the role of

Brantford as an urban growth centre. Brantford is a centre for residential,

employment, institutional, and commercial growth.

• Over the five-year period from 2000 to 2004, municipal and private industrial land

sales averaged 49 hectares (121 acres) per year, reflecting the impact of the

completion of Highway 403.

• Residential building permits have been steadily increasing from 255 in 2001, to

556 in 2004, to 594 in 2005. Approximately 37 percent of residential units has

been in the form of intensification between the years 2001 and 2005.

• Laurier University/Brantford and the affiliated campuses of Nipissing University

and Mohawk College have continued to increase in enrollment and are

transforming downtown Brantford.

• Brantford’s strong locational advantages are anticipated to improve in the future

as transit and highway connections to the Greater Golden Horseshoe continue to

be expanded.

The Policy Framework for Continued Growth

The Provincial Greater Golden Horseshoe “Places to Grow Plan” includes the

City of Brantford as an Urban Growth Centre within an integrated growth

management concept designed to accommodate significant growth to the

year 2031. The Plan provides for a strong policy framework of economic


development, liveable and complete communities, environmental protection,

resource management, comprehensive transportation improvements and

infrastructure investment.

The proposed “Places to Grow Plan” for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, includes

the City of Brantford within the outer ring of municipalities expected to

accommodate an additional one million population by 2031.

Brantford is one of only nine Urban Growth Centres situated within the outer ring

and well located just beyond the Greenbelt and in proximity to other major growth

centres.

The following map focuses on that part of the proposed “Places to Grow Plan” that

relates to Brantford.


The plan designates the downtown as an Urban Growth Centre. The “built-up area”

designation encompasses the majority of the lands within the City’s boundaries.

Designated growth areas include 4 greenfield sites within the City’s boundaries as

well as additional designated growth areas located immediately to the north of the

City’s boundaries. The Paris urban area is also indicated to the north west of the

City.

A “Future Goods Movement Corridor” is located east of the City. While shown as

conceptual, this Corridor intersects with Highway 403 and would provide a major

corridor connecting the City to the GTA and the “Gateway Economic Zone”

identified at the Fort Erie/USA border crossing. The concept of connecting the

goods movement corridor with Highway 403 will further enhance Brantford’s

strategic growth location in Southern Ontario.

“Improved Inter-regional Transit” links are identified between the Brantford Urban

Centre and the Hamilton Urban Centre and Cambridge Urban Centre. The

identification of this transit system link provides the framework for future transit

investment decisions in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The existing major highway (Highway 403), goods movement corridor, and

improved inter-regional transit links identified in the Places to Grow Plan improve

and expand upon Brantford’s strong location advantages within the Greater Golden

Horseshoe.

Growth Strategy Timeframe

Forty years is an appropriate (and perhaps minimum) growth strategy time frame to consider long-term municipal boundaries and major public infrastructure investment.

In preparing a growth strategy, a longer term view is required to ensure municipal

boundaries are established for reasonable lengths of time, to allow sufficient surplus

lands to satisfy economic and other growth needs, and to adequately plan for and

fund major public infrastructure investments.


The “Places to Grow Plan” timeframe is to the year 2031. However, when preparing

growth strategies that may affect long-term infrastructure investments,

municipalities often review growth needs within a longer time frame.

In 2001, the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) commissioned a policy

development paper on growth management. The paper entitled ‘Exploring Growth

Management Roles in Ontario: Learning from “Who Does What” Elsewhere’,

assessed current efforts in North America and provided direction with respect to

current growth management initiatives in Ontario. It concluded that 20-year growth

boundaries are not an effective growth management strategy on their own. It

recommended that a 5-year, 20-year and 50-year perspective to growth

management is needed, to provide for long-term infrastructure investment, and

coordination between rural and urban areas. Examples of longer term growth

management perspectives include:

The Region of Waterloo Growth Management Strategy adopted by Regional

Council in June 2003 providing a framework to guide growth in Waterloo

Region to a target year of 2041. Initiated in 2001, the growth strategy had a

40-year time horizon.

The Region of Peel is undertaking a growth management strategy to

consider the long-term (to 2051) impacts of demographic and socio-

economic changes combined with high levels of growth, on the programs

and services delivered by the Region.

The City of London completed background studies as part of a growth

management review that identified a 50-year servicing boundary.

For the purposes of the Brantford Growth Strategy, a 40-year time frame is

recommended to the year 2046. This also assumes that at 2046 there should be a

minimum 10 year ability to accommodate residential growth (in keeping with Section

1.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement.


Population, Household, and Employment Projections

The population of the City of Brantford is projected to increase from 93,000 in

2006 to 155,000 in 2046, and employment from 43,000 (2006) to 82,000 in 2046.

The City of Brantford has completed population, household, and employment

projections to the years 2031 and 2046 (see Appendix 1). These projections are

based on the work carried out by CN Watson & Associates as part of the

Development Charges Background Study that was completed in 2004. Three

alternative forecasts, low; reference; and high, were prepared by CN Watson &

Associates using a housing market-based model to forecast future housing units

and population and are differentiated on the basis of the assumptions used on the

level of future new residential construction in Brantford.

The table below provides a comparison of the C.N. Watson forecasts and the City

of Brantford forecasts:

C.N. Watson & Associates

2006 Official Plan Review Program

Growth Assumption (residential units/year)

Low Residential Growth

361

Reference Residential Growth

Development Charges Reference Forecast 465

High Residential Growth Current Trends Forecast 575

Growth Management Forecast 650

For the purposes of the City’s new forecasts, the C.N. Watson Low Forecast

scenario was discarded as it does not appear relevant to conditions and trends in

Brantford. The High Residential Forecast was renamed the Current Trends

Forecast, as it reflects recent growth in the City.

There are many factors that point to higher growth rates for Brantford than what has

been experienced in the mid-term past. Based on these considerations, the City

prepared a new forecast called the “growth management forecast”. The growth

management forecast is based on approximately 650 new residential units per year


to 2031. The 2031 forecast was then extended to 2046, the timeline for this growth

strategy.

This forecast reflects increased levels of residential construction in Brantford, the

high level of industrial development within Brantford (such as the Ferrero plant with

its first phase employment of 600 employees), as well as new industrial-related

opportunities in nearby communities such as Woodstock (the new Toyota

automotive assembly plant). In addition, favourable house prices in Brantford, the

development of post-secondary education facilities, and the entrance of large scale

GTA home builders into the local housing market are all factors which support the

growth management forecast.

Consideration of Growth Scenarios within the Existing City of Brantford Boundary

The following graph provides a summary of the growth management population

forecast from 2001 to 2046:

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

20012006

20112016

20212026

20312036

20412046

Ye a rs

Popu

latio

n (in

thou

sand

s)

Existing Planning Scenario A: 124,000 people

20 Year PPS Time Horizon

25 Year Places to Grow Time Horizon

40 Year Long-Term Growth Strategy

132,0

00

93,00

0

86,00

0

Complete buildout of industrial land by 2021

Buildout of low density housing supply by 2023

Population Buildout A

Population Buildout B

155,5

00

Compact City Scenario B: 139,000 people (+15,000 people)

New Official Plan Time Horizon to 2031

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

20012006

20112016

20212026

20312036

20412046

Ye a rs

Popu

latio

n (in

thou

sand

s)

Existing Planning Scenario A: 124,000 people

20 Year PPS Time Horizon



132,0

00

93,00

0

86,00

0





155,5

00

Compact City Scenario B: 139,000 people (+15,000 people)


Existing Planning Scenario A: 124,000 peopleExisting Planning Scenario A: 124,000 people

20 Year PPS Time Horizon20 Year PPS Time Horizon



132,0

00

93,00

0

86,00

0





155,5

00

Compact City Scenario B: 139,000 people (+15,000 people)Compact City Scenario B: 139,000 people (+15,000 people)



This forecast results in an increase of 62,500 people (67% increase) over the 40-

year growth strategy time frame.

Two development scenarios have been identified for build-out of the land capacity

within existing City of Brantford municipal boundaries:

CITY CAPACITY SCENARIOS

Existing Planning Scenario AGrowth based on densities in

the City’s existing development inventory

Compact City Scenario BGrowth based on the Province’s Proposed Places to Grow Plan

densities

Existing ‘Planning Scenario A’ is based on existing inventories of known infilling

projects as well as current estimates of development in residential greenfield areas.

‘Planning Scenario A’ would result in an ultimate population at total build-out to City

boundaries of approximately 124,000 people.

The ‘Compact City Scenario B’ is based on the intensification and density targets

contained within the draft “Places to Grow Plan”. For example, the capacity of

greenfield areas has been adjusted based on 50 people or jobs per gross hectare.

Downtown density has been estimated at 150 people or jobs per hectare. A

minimum of 40% of future residential units have been assumed to be provided

through intensification within the built-up area.

The Compact City Scenario would add additional capacity of 15,000 people over

existing Planning Scenario A within the City’s existing boundaries (see Appendix 2).

However, this would be achieved at a substantial change to housing mix / density

types. For example, the following table compares the City’s projected demand for

housing by density type relative to the housing distribution, which results from the

Compact City Scenario:


Current City Density Distribution Target

“Places to Grow” Impact on Density

Distribution “Low” Density 75% vs. 47% “Medium” Density 15% vs. 22% “High” Density 10% vs. 31%

Based on current projected housing demand, it is anticipated that the lower density

forms of housing (single detached and semi-detached) would be completely built-

out in approximately 17 years (i.e. by 2023). This would leave a long-term shortfall

of new low density housing in the remaining 23 years to 2046.

Potential implications of a shortfall of low density housing include:

An inability to satisfy Section 1.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which

requires provision of an appropriate range of housing types and densities to

meet projected requirements of current and future residents;

Impact on availability and affordability of single and semi-detached units;

Difficulties in achieving the concept of “complete communities” (as per

Places to Grow Plan), which by definition includes “a full range of housing”;

Changes in commuting patterns wherein single detached homebuyers

choose to drive further to satisfy their housing preference;

Potential impact on ability to achieve Provincial growth targets given not all

housing needs are being satisfied.

Industrial Development Capability within Existing City Municipal Boundary

The two main industrial employment areas are the north-west industrial area, and

the Braneida Park industrial area. Both are favourably located at interchanges of

Highway 403.


The following table provides a summary of the existing inventory of vacant industrial

land within these two industrial parks by city owned and privately owned land

parcels.

ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY IN BRANTFORD’S INDUSTRIAL PARKS

(based on 22 employees per net hectare )

CITY OWNEDPRIVATELY

OWNED TOTAL

LOCATION TRAFFIC

ZONE HA JOBS HA JOBS HA JOBS

NORTH-WEST INDUSTRIAL AREA

17 14.8 326 164.9 3,628 179.7 3,954

BRANEIDA INDUSTRIAL AREA

07

08

09

10

11

12

0.5

31.6

11

695

15.3

08.0

38.5

21.6

06.6

10.1

337

176

847

475

145

222

15.3

08.5

70.1

21.6

06.6

10.1

337

187

1,542

475

145

222

32.1 706 100.1 2,202 132.2 2,908

TOTAL 46.9 1,032 265.0 5,830 311.9 6,862

Source: City of Brantford “Vacant Industrial Land” map – May 2005 (see Appendix 10)

1 Average Brantford industrial park density = 22 employees/net hectare

197.2 gross hectares (487.3 acres) for parcels 1,2,3,12,13,14 reduced by 49.3 ha (25%) to equal 147.9 net ha to account for future roads, storm water management, and topographic constraints related to previous aggregate extraction. (147.9 net ha + parcels 5,7,8 & 11 = 17.0 ha = 164.9)

Complete build-out of these remaining industrial areas, and the resulting jobs which

could be accommodated, are based on an employment density of 22 employees


per net hectare. This density is the current City of Brantford average employee

density within the City’s developed industrial parks.

The table identifies a remaining inventory of 312 vacant industrial hectares, capable

of accommodating approximately 6,862 additional industrial jobs.

Industrial Employment Projections

Employment projections prepared by the City of Brantford are summarized in the

following graph. Approximately 40,000 new jobs are anticipated. Of these,

approximately 15,000 will be industrial jobs requiring an industrial park location.

CITY OF BRANTFORD EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS BY SECTOR

A comparison of the long-term projection of an additional 15,000 industrial jobs

relative to the existing vacant industrial land capacity within the City (6,862 jobs),

results in a shortfall of land required to accommodate approximately 8,100 jobs. A

literal application of the remaining available land would suggest a complete build-

out of industrial land within City boundaries by the year 2021 (i.e. 15 years).

However, as the industrial land supply continues to decrease and selection of sites

become limited in respect to competitive prices, and choice of lot sizes and

locations, industrial land opportunities will likely be significantly constrained within 5

to 8 years.


Industrial Land Needs to 2046

The previous analysis identified a shortfall in land to accommodate 8,100 industrial

jobs to the year 2046, within existing City of Brantford boundaries. At current City

net employment densities of 22 jobs per hectare, this would result in a requirement

for 371 net hectares beyond the current City boundaries. In order to determine the

amount of gross industrial park area required (not including environmentally

sensitive non-developable areas) a ratio of 3 net hectares to 4 gross hectares has

been utilized. The difference between net and gross would include a combination of

the area taken up by municipal roads, storm water management facilities, and

topographic limitations. Using this ratio, approximately 495 gross hectares of additional industrial land to 2046 are required.

It is conceivable that the current density of employees per hectare could intensify

over the planning period. However, this needs to be balanced against ensuring a

sufficient amount of land to accommodate unforeseen economic attraction

contingencies. Such contingencies, which are difficult to predict, might include a

demand for larger lot sizes and the attraction of significant industries,

fluctuations/increases in demand from time to time, and having a sufficient ongoing

supply to provide choice and flexibility in industrial attraction and retention efforts.

Care should be taken in limiting the amount of land based on excessive

employment density targets. Industrial parks tend to have a range of densities

depending upon the type and function of industrial use (i.e. warehousing, light

assembly, intense industrial), the age/maturity of the industry, potential expansions

to same, impacts of automation, the desire for single floor operations, and the

relative health of the economy with respect to hiring and layoffs.

Brantford is attracting many logistic related industries due to its highway

accessibility. Logistic industries support the integrated manufacturing economy of

Southern Ontario. However, logistic operations generally yield lower employment

densities.


The recent announcement of the Toyota automobile manufacturing plant in

Woodstock proposes 2,000 jobs on a site of approximately 400 hectares. This

yields an employment density of 5 employees per hectare, or only one tenth of the

Places to Grow Plan target of 50 jobs per hectare. Yet, the need to accommodate

such a facility cannot be denied given the positive economic impact and spin-off

jobs that will result.

An example of differing employment densities is illustrated by the recent attraction

of two industries to the City. Proctor and Gamble and Ferrero each occupy the

same square footage of building (approximately 750,000 sq.ft.), but one employs

about 300 while the other employs 600. These variations could not be predicted at

the Official Plan stage and cannot be controlled through planning regulatory

mechanisms. Another example of industrial employment density is the average of

28 jobs per hectare in Waterloo Region.

Perhaps minimum building coverage targets can be established. However, even

this approach should be tempered by the realization that industries may buy more

land than they initially build on, given a desire to provide for future expansion on the

same site.

Future Greenfield Residential Density Targets

In determining the additional land required to accommodate residential

development beyond City boundaries, a target density of 50 persons and jobs per

hectare (as per the Places to Grow Plan) was assumed. In order to estimate the

relative proportion of other land uses (i.e. commercial and institutional), the

proportion of population to jobs in the developed residential neighbourhoods in

north Brantford were identified:


2001 Population and Jobs by Traffic Zone in North Brantford Residential Neighbourhoods

Traffic Zone Population Jobs Total 2 2,647 1,170 3,817

3 2,579 765 2,344

5 10,720 935 11,655

6 5,110 625 5,735

49 4,544 0 4,544

Total 25,600 3,495 29,095

Percentage 12% 88% 100%

Proportion @ 50/hectare 44 6 50

Therefore, to provide for related commercial and institutional uses in greenfield

areas the density target of 50 has been further refined to a combination of 6 jobs

and 44 persons per gross hectare.

Residential Land Needs to 2046 – Existing Planning Scenario A

The extent of the residential land shortfall within City boundaries covers a range

depending on which scenario is used.

The existing current Planning Scenario A would accommodate 124,000 people

within the City of Brantford boundaries. Given the population projection of 155,500

to the year 2046, this would result in a population capacity shortfall of 31,500

people. At a derived “Places to Grow” density of 44 persons and 6 jobs per hectare

for greenfields, approximately 716 gross hectares would be required beyond current

City boundaries to 2046.

One of the difficulties in estimating land needs to a set date (i.e. 2046) is the

assumption that the resulting calculation provides for no additional developable land

beyond that time period. For example, the above 716 hectares would be

completely utilized by 2046. The Provincial Policy Statement (Section 1.4.1)

requires planning authorities to, “maintain at all times the ability to accommodate

residential growth for a minimum of 10 years…”. As the 2046 time period


approaches and 5-year reviews of the Brantford Official Plan are conducted, the

need to address this policy will become increasingly urgent. Thus 10 to 15 years

before 2046 the minimum requirement for an additional 10 year supply will need to

be addressed.

Providing for an additional 10 year residential land supply at 2046 would require

providing for an additional population of 15,600, which at 44 persons per gross

hectare would equal another 355 hectares.

In summary the additional residential land requirements for Existing Planning

Scenario A were calculated as follows:

2046 population projection: 155,500 persons Scenario A City build-out population: 124,000 persons Population shortfall to 2046: 31,500 persons Gross residential hectares required:

(31,500 shortfall ) 44 persons/hectare) 716 gross hectares

Provide for additional 10 year supply at 2046: (15,600 population ) 44 persons/hectare)

355 gross hectares

Total Scenario A Residential Land Required: 1,071 gross hectares

Residential Land Needs to 2046 – Compact City Scenario B

The Compact City Scenario B would accommodate 139,000 people within City of

Brantford boundaries (See Appendix 2). The following provides a summary of

calculations to determine the additional longer term residential land requirements to

2046:

2046 population projection: 155,500 persons Scenario A City build-out population: 139,000 persons Population shortfall to 2046: 16,500 persons Provision of an additional 10 year supply at

2046 for a population of: 15,600 persons

Total additional population planned for: 32,100 persons


Estimated number of dwelling units at 2.51

people per unit: 12,789 units

40% of units through intensification: 5,116 units 60% of units in new greenfields: 7,673 units 7,673 new greenfield units are equivalent to: 21,677 persons

Unit Density Type

% total units

# of units

People/unit

Estimatedpopulation

Low 75% 5,755 3.0 17,265 Medium 15% 1,151 2.5 2,878 High 10% 767 2.0 1,534 TOTAL 100% 7,673 21,677

Total Scenario B Residential Land Required: (21,677 persons ) 44 persons/hectare)

493 gross hectares

Therefore, depending on which scenario and densities are applied, an additional residential land area of approximately 493 to 1,071 gross hectares are required beyond existing City boundaries.


PART B: ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE GROWTH DIRECTIONS

Part A of this report identified a need for additional industrial business park and

residential land, beyond the build out capacity within existing City boundaries. The

City of Brantford is surrounded by one municipality, the County of Brant. Potential

growth expansions to the year 2046 would therefore affect lands within the County.

Potential Growth Area Directions

The following map identifies seven potential growth areas surrounding the City.

The seven areas have been identified for comparative analysis purposes. All

extend outward from the City boundary for a distance ranging from two to three

kilometres. The seven areas have been determined based on natural and cultural

boundaries and characteristics. For example:

Area 1 (north) extends across the top (north) of the City to County Roads 5 and 99

in the north. The west side is bounded by Paris Road and the municipal boundary,

and the east side by Fairchild Creek.

Area 2 (east) extends east of the City to Fairchild Creek and is bisected by

Highway 403.

Area 3 (south-east) includes the Oxbow of the Grand River and lands to the

southeast above the Grand’s high embankment. Area 3 also includes the

Cainsville/Blossom Avenue Settlement Area.

Area 4 (south) is located south of the Grand River, is traversed by County Road 18

and includes the Tutela Heights Settlement Area and approximately the north half of

the Mount Pleasant Settlement Area.

Area 5 (south-west) is located west of the Grand River and includes a large

‘wellhead protection area’ designation in the County Plan, and the Airport/Oakhill

Settlement Area.


Area 6 (west) is a smaller area bounded by the Grand River, the future Brantford

South Access Road, the Airport and Oakhill Settlement Area.

Area 7 (west) is bounded by the Grand River to the east, the Paris settlement

boundary to the west and the airport to the south. This area is characterized by

aggregate resources and is bisected by Highway 403 and Whitemans Creek.

The Scale of Potential Growth Areas

The following map identifies sub-areas for each potential growth area. Area

calculations in hectares are provided for each sub-area.

Natural features and proposed regulated areas as provided by the Grand River

Conservation Authority (GRCA) have been assumed to be non-developable lands

and therefore have not been included in the land area calculations. These natural

features also in many instances serve to define the limits of the sub-areas.

The following table provides land area calculations for the lands not constrained by

natural features (based on GRCA mapping), and also indicates land areas already

affected by existing uses (i.e. airport) and development designations (based on the

County Official Plan).

Area Calculations for Potential Growth Areas (in hectares)

Area Agriculture Industrial Designation

Licensed Pit Airport

Cemetery Hamlet & Estate

Residential

Highway Commercial

Area Total

1 1484 33 34 1551

2 403 75 16 494

3 647 248 11 83 8 997

4 768 355 1123

5 620 95 179 156 17 1067

6 168 168

7 305 134 439

TOTAL 4395 323 240 179 33 594 75 5839


The seven study areas have a total of 4,395 hectares not affected by natural

features or developed land uses and settlement designations. This exceeds the

additional City industrial and residential land area required to 2046 (i.e. 1,083 to

1,528 gross hectares) by a factor of 4.0 times to 2.9 times respectively.

The next section of this report will therefore assess and rank the seven growth

areas in order to determine a preferred growth direction(s).

Growth Area Evaluation Criteria

In order to evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the seven areas

to accommodate growth, the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of

Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety of the Provincial

Policy Statement were considered and the following eight criteria were developed:

• Prime agricultural land - Prime agricultural areas to be protected for agricultural

use. Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands

predominate and include Class 1, 2 and 3 soils. The analysis is included as

Appendix 3.

• Mineral aggregate resources / licensed pits – Protection of mineral aggregate

resources to make as much resource as close to market as possible. The

analysis is included as Appendix 4.

• Environmental features – Natural features to be protected, including wetlands,

rivers, streams, woodlands. The analysis is included as Appendix 5.

• Wellhead protection areas – Restrict development in or near sensitive ground

water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will

be protected, improved or restored. The existing policy area from the Brant

County Official Plan is included as Appendix 6.


• Sanitary servicing – Direct and accommodate expected growth in a manner that

promotes the efficient use of existing municipal sewage systems. Consideration

of optimizing existing infrastructure and facilities, where feasible, before

developing new infrastructure and facilities. Municipal services are the preferred

form of servicing. The analysis is included as Appendix 7.

• Water servicing – Direct and accommodate expected growth in a manner that

promotes the efficient use of existing municipal water systems. Municipal

services are the preferred form of servicing. The analysis is included as

Appendix 7.

• Transportation accessibility - Provision of an integrated, safe and energy

efficient transportation system to facilitate the movement of people and goods to

address projected needs. The analysis is included as Appendix 8.

• Community integration – The proposed Places to Grow Plan requires “complete

communities”, which could also include consideration of integration of

community facility planning with existing facilities and neighbourhoods.

The Weighting of Evaluation Criteria

Each criteria was given a weight of high constraint (3), medium constraint (2) or low

constraint (1), as it applied to a specific potential growth area. Therefore, the seven

potential growth areas were evaluated against eight criteria, each of which was

given a weighting from 1 to 3. For example, potential specialty cropland was

considered a high constraint (3) to development, while a mixed agricultural

capability was a medium constraint (2), and lower agricultural capability a low

constraint (1).

The following fold out matrix provides a visual summary of this exercise and results

in a ranking of least constrained to more constrained. The following table provides

a summary of the results:

Area One Area Two Area Three Area Four Area Five Area Six Area SevenCRITERIA North East Southeast South Southwest West West

Prime Agricultural Land

Mineral AggregateResources/Licensed Pits

Environmental Features (overall)

Wellhead Protection Area

Sanitary Servicing

Water Servicing

Transportation Accessibility

Community Integration

Constraint Summary 9 11 15 13 18 17 20

High Constraint Medium Constraint Low Constraint3 2 1

Evaluation Summary of Potential Growth DirectionsBrantford Growth Management Strategy


Area 1 has one of the least impacts on the existing sanitary and water system

servicing capacities since the lands can be serviced from two major trunk sanitary

sewers (i.e. west and east) and from two existing water pressure zones (Zone 2/3

and Zone 4), thus reducing the need for major infrastructure upgrades and

pumping/storage facilities.

Area 6 is limited in scale (only 168 hectares) and is more difficult to service.

From an industrial location perspective and proximity/accessibility to Highway 403,

Area 1 north ranks high. The extension of industrial uses northerly along Oak Park

Road is seen as a natural extension of the Northwest Industrial Park, and

compatible with existing highway commercial and industrial designations within the

Brant County Official Plan (immediately to the west). The area also has moderate

topography. By comparison, Area 2 to the east has a more rolling topography and is

characterized by numerous natural features and tributaries relating to the oxbow

meander of Fairchild Creek. The ability to assemble contiguous parcels is more

difficult in Area 2, given the numerous drainage corridors which bisect this area.

From a residential perspective, Area 1 north immediately abuts onto the northern

completed neighbourhoods of the City of Brantford. This enables the logical

extension of residential growth northerly, as well as the ability to utilize and relate to

existing soft services located within the northern portion of the City. Extending

residential development to the north also provides the opportunity to balance the

area of residential growth in close proximity to the area of future industrial

employment.

Growth to the north would also limit the impact on existing settlements within Brant

County. Areas 2, 3, 4 and 5 presently include designated settlement areas of either

an industrial or residential nature.

The proposed ‘Places to Grow’ Plan also indicates a ‘Designated Growth Area’ to

the north of the City within portions of Area 1.


PART C: CONCEPTUAL LAND USE ALLOCATION

The attached maps provide preliminary land use concepts for Area 1 north. The

land use concepts are at a very general level and intended to indicate the

relationship between the land area requirements identified in Part A, and available

land areas within Area 1 north.

Natural features are shown in green. These natural features relate to the tributaries

of Fairchild Creek, which drain through the central portion of Area 1 from west to

east. The boundaries of the natural features are based on the proposed regulated

area as provided by the Grand River Conservation Authority. It is expected that

future more detailed environmental assessments at a neighbourhood and/or

subdivision planning level, will address the boundaries of the natural features

designation in greater detail in order to refine the limits of developable lands. These

west/east natural features could supplement the future transportation system with

pedestrian linkages. Public input comments from the ongoing City of Brantford

Official Plan program has put a high value on a walkable City, including an

integrated pedestrian/open space system.

The concepts illustrate an area for industrial/business park development, in the

westerly portion of Area 1. This area consists of 570 gross hectares, which is close

to the identified 495 hectares required for industrial land.

The industrial land allocation is in the area of Powerline Road, Golf Road, the Paris

Road and County Road 5. It has good accessibility to the Oak Park Road and Paris

Road interchanges with Highway 403. The industrial area is less constrained

relative to identified natural features, as compared to the potential residential areas

further to the east.

It is expected that future more detailed planning will provide for an industrial area

concept that might identify a range of industrial/business park designations. For

example, areas closer to residential development might be considered for a

transitional business park designation. The more detailed industrial concept could


also identify complementary land uses, access and collector road layouts, and

appropriate servicing and phasing of development.

An area immediately north of the residential neighbourhoods contained within the

City of Brantford is illustrated as potential future residential development.

Planning Scenario A illustrates an area of 938 gross residential hectares, which

utilizes all of the remaining lands in Area 1 not affected by natural features (and is

still less than the estimated need of 1,071 gross residential hectares). The

Compact City Scenario B concept illustrates an area of 493 gross residential

hectares.

More detailed planning at a neighbourhood level would ultimately be required for

these conceptual residential lands. A major objective should be a high level of

integration with the existing residential communities to the south. This would include

maximizing the extension of the existing residential road pattern, providing for the

extension of existing transit routes and considering the relationship to recreation,

schools, commercial areas, and recreation facilities.


PART D: WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICING ASSESSMENT

The water and wastewater servicing assessment identified the relative servicing

impact of each of the proposed seven growth areas on the existing infrastructure.

The results of this analysis were combined with the other evaluation criteria as

described in Part B to identify the preferred growth direction. The details of this

assessment can be reviewed in Appendix 7, Part 1.

Based on the preferred growth direction and the final population growth projections,

a more detailed analysis of the water and wastewater system upgrades and

estimated costs was performed for three critical stages of development as follows:

Scenario 1: 2036 Intensified Build-Out of the present City

Scenario 2: Development of Area 1 to the 2046

Scenario 3: Buildout of Area 1 beyond 2046

The existing water and wastewater linear systems were modeled, based on the

compact growth scenario to identify wastewater trunk sewer, water transmission

main, pumping, storage and treatment upgrade requirements. Plant expansion

costs were allocated to the three growth scenarios based on current construction

unit costs and average per capita equivalent consumption rates. The following is a

more detailed description of the scope of work performed for each of the three

growth scenarios:

Scenario 1 – Assessment of wastewater trunk sewer and water transmission

main improvements, pumping station upgrades, water storage expansions

and incremental water and wastewater treatment expansions to

accommodate all new growth within the existing city boundary to

accommodate the build-out population of 139,000 persons (2036).


main extensions to the external boundaries of Area 1, water and wastewater

pumping upgrades and water storage and water and wastewater treatment


expansions to accommodate the first phase of Area 1 growth (16,500

persons plus ICI) by 2046.


main extensions to the external boundaries of Area1, water and wastewater

pumping system upgrades and water storage and water and wastewater

treatment expansions to accommodate the balance of Area 1 development

(i.e. to build-out)..

Details of the upgrade and costing analysis can be reviewed in Appendix 7 Part 2.

The following table summarizes the estimated growth related costs required to

provide the necessary water and wastewater service upgrades to accommodate

the three growth scenarios. The table also includes year of construction of each

component of infrastructure and the distribution of costs to accommodate each

growth scenario.


Summary of Total Water and Wastewater Servicing Costs


CONCLUSION

The Growth Management Strategy was initiated by the City of Brantford to identify

land use needs and adequately plan for major public infrastructure investments. A

time horizon of 40 years has been used to consider long-term land needs.

The methodology used to assess growth needs and directions is illustrated as

follows:

Preparation of Population, Household and Employment

Forecasts

Development of BuildoutGrowth Scenarios for the City

Inventory of Current Land Supply within City Boundary

Determination of Land Needs to 2046

Identification of Potential Growth Directions

Comparison and Ranking of Potential Growth Directions

Selection of a Preferred Growth Direction

Preparation of Preliminary Land Use Concepts to Address Land

Needs

Preparation of Population, Household and Employment

Forecasts

Development of BuildoutGrowth Scenarios for the City

Inventory of Current Land Supply within City Boundary

Determination of Land Needs to 2046

Identification of Potential Growth Directions

Comparison and Ranking of Potential Growth Directions

Selection of a Preferred Growth Direction

Preparation of Preliminary Land Use Concepts to Address Land

Needs


The City’s forecasts project continued growth to 2046, due to Brantford’s strategic

location in Southern Ontario, the recent development of post-secondary institutions

in the downtown, relatively affordable housing by comparison with the Greater

Toronto Area, and the City’s identification as an Urban Growth Centre by the

Province. An additional 62,540 people, 82,000 jobs and 26,450 new households

are forecasted to 2046.

The City currently has capacity to accommodate some industrial and residential

growth. However, additional land will be required beyond the current City

boundaries to adequately accommodate the forecasted growth. From an industrial

land needs perspective, approximately 495 gross hectares would be required.

Residential land requirements beyond the City boundaries range from 493 gross

hectares to 1,071 gross hectares depending upon the degree of intensification

achieved.

The Growth Management Strategy identified seven potential growth area directions

surrounding the City. These were assessed based on criteria from current

provincial policy. The growth areas were compared and ranked, with the area to

the north of the current City determined as the preferred growth direction.

Preliminary concepts for this area illustrate possible land use combinations to meet

industrial and residential land needs to 2046.

Generally, growth to the north provides for a logical extension of the residential and

industrial areas existing within the City. It has one of the least impacts on existing

sanitary and water servicing system capacities and allows for efficient expansions

to existing systems. The Province’s Proposed Places to Grow Plan also identifies

an area to the north of the City for future growth.

While the area to the north was selected as the preferred direction, there may also

be the opportunity for other areas of minor rounding out of the City from portions of

other growth areas.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections

Appendix 2 Growth Scenario ‘B’ Compact City (Growth capacity of the existing City

of Brantford based on the G.G.H. ‘Places to Grow’ Plan)

Appendix 3 Agricultural Assessment of Potential Growth Areas

Appendix 4 Mineral Aggregate Resources

Appendix 5 Overview of Natural Heritage Features by Potential Growth Areas

Appendix 6 Groundwater and Wellhead Protection Area Policies from the County

of Brant Official Plan

Appendix 7 Water and Wastewater Assessment (Part 1) - Relative Impact of Growth

Areas on the Existing Water and Wastewater Systems

Appendix 7 Water and Wastewater Assessment (Part 2) - Water and Wastewater

Servicing Upgrades and Costs for Growth Area 1

Appendix 8 Transportation Assessment

Appendix 9 Residential Monitoring Map

Appendix 10 Vacant Industrial Land Map

Appendix 1

City of Brantford

Population and Employment Forecasts

Appendix 1

CITY OF BRANTFORD POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

INTRODUCTION Appendix 1 is based on the report “Growth Forecasts, 2005/06 Official Plan

Review Program”, prepared by the City of Brantford Planning Department.

1.0 HISTORICAL GROWTH

1.1 Historical Population Growth

Recent historical census population data and annual rates of growth for Brantford

are presented in Table 1. Brantford’s population grew by approximately 12,000

people over the 20-year period from 1981 to 2001. Over the 20-year period, the

population of Brantford grew at annual average rate of 0.8 per cent.

Table 1

Historical Population Growth, Brantford: 1986-2001

Year Brantford

Population Annual Rate of

Growth (%) 1981 74,336

0.5 1986 76,146

1.5 1991 81,997

0.7 1996 84,764

0.4 2001 86,417

1986-2001 0.8

Table 2 provides data on the number of households, average household size

and total employment in Brantford for the period between 1991 and 2001. Over

the 10-year period, the total number of households in Brantford increased by


Page 2

almost 3,400. The average household size declined over the 10-year period,

reaching an average size of 2.5 persons per household in Brantford in 2001.

Total employment in Brantford declined by about 4,000 jobs between 1991 and

1996 and then recovered by 2001. Brantford was hit particularly hard by the

general economic downturn in the 1990’s and this is reflected in the jobs lost in

Brantford during the first half of that decade. The employment data also indicate

that Brantford had recovered from the economic downturn by 2001.

Table 2

Households, Average Household Size and Total

Employment, Brantford: 1991-2001 Category Year Brantford

1991 30,460 Total # of Households 2001 33,845

1991 2.6 Average Household Size 2001 2.5

1991 37,705 1996 33,665 Total

Employment 2001 37,440


Page 3

2.0 Development Charges Background Study Projections A new growth forecast for Brantford was completed in 2004. This forecast, which

was also prepared by C.N. Watson and Associates in conjunction with the City’s

recent Development Charges Background Study, used the 2001 Census as base

data. These projections are outlined in the report “City of Brantford Household,

Population and Employment Projections: 2001 –2026”.

Three alternative forecasts, low; reference; and high, were prepared using a

housing market-based model to forecast future housing units and population.

The results of this approach were then checked against forecasts prepared using

a cohort/survival model based on projected births, deaths and net migration to

Brantford over the forecast period. The age/sex profile of the projected

population, under each growth alternative, was prepared by using the

cohort/survival approach. An employment forecast was prepared, for the

reference forecast, by examining relationships between employment and

population amongst major employment categories.

The three alternative forecasts can be differentiated on the basis of the

assumptions used on the level of future new residential construction in Brantford.

The residential unit growth assumptions used for each of the three alternative

forecasts are presented in Table 3 and the resultant population projections and

average annual growth rates are presented in Table 4. The forecast of total

employment are presented in Table 5.


Page 4

Table 3

Residential Unit Assumptions Alternative Development Charge Growth Forecasts:

2001 - 2026 Residential Growth Assumption (new units)

Period Low Reference High mid 2001-mid 2006 2,533 2,283 3,080 mid 2006-mid 2011 1,888 2,500 2,847 mid 2011-mid 2016 1,500 2,250 2,750 mid 2016-mid 2021 1,500 2,250 2,750 mid 2021-mid 2026 1,612 2,250 2,956 Total 9,033 11,633 11,533 Annual Average 361 465 575 Source: C.N. Watson & Associates. City of Brantford Household, Population and Employment Projections: 2001 –2026, 2004

The reference forecast estimates a 2026 population of 112,055. The average

annual rates of growth for all of the three alternatives are relatively modest,

ranging from 0.8% in the Low Forecast, to 1.0% in the Reference Forecast and

1.3 % in the High Forecast. It should be noted that the Reference Forecast was

used for the calculation of development charge rates in the Development

Charges Background Study.

An employment forecast, based on the reference forecast, is presented in Table 5. Total employment in Brantford is expected to grow by about 20,600 new jobs

over the 25-year period between 2001 and 2026. This compares to a projected

population growth of 25,600 over the same period.


Page 5

Table 4 Population Growth

Alternative Development Charge Growth Forecasts: 2001 – 2026

Residential Growth Assumption (new units) Low Reference High

Year Pop.

Annual Growth Rate (%) Pop.

Annual Growth Rate (%) Pop.

Annual Growth Rate (%)

2001 86,417 86,417 86,417 2006 91,807 1.2 92,381 1.3 92,812 1.4 2011 95,914 0.9 97,925 1.2 99,434 1.4 2016 98,954 0.6 103,120 1.0 106,085 1.3 2021 101,735 0.6 107,258 0.8 112,437 1.2 2026 105,159 0.7 112,055 0.9 119,452 1.2

Total Growth 18,742 25,638 33,035

Avg. Growth Rate (%) 2001-26

0.8 1.0 1.3

Source: C.N. Watson & Associates. City of Brantford Household, Population and Employment Projections: 2001 –2026, 2004

Table 5 Forecast of Total Employment in Brantford

Reference Forecast: 2001 - 2026 Year Total Employment 2001 37,440 2006 42,518 2011 47,685 2016 52,070 2021 54,910 2026 58,039

Total Change 20,599 Source: C.N. Watson & Associates. City of Brantford Household, Population and Employment Projections: 2001 –2026, 2004


Page 6

3.0 RECENT GROWTH FACTORS

There are many factors that point to higher growth rates for Brantford than what

has been experienced recently, particularly during the 5-year period between

1996 and 2001. The completion of Highway 403 between Brantford and

Ancaster, in 1997, has considerably improved the accessibility of Brantford and

has been a key contributor to changing local growth dynamics. This is most

clearly demonstrated in statistics on recent industrial development in Brantford.

Figure 1 illustrates the trends in municipal industrial land sales over the past 15

years. Before 1997, annual industrial land sales were consistently below 20

acres a year and in some years no municipal industrial land was sold at all.

Since 1997, industrial land sales, although fluctuating significantly from year to

year, has been consistently above 20 acres a year and actually hit a peak of 188

acres in 2004. The only exception was in 2005 when only 17 acres were sold.

The 2005 total is primarily due to the lack of supply availability in the municipal

industrial land inventory. In the six years before 1997, the municipality sold on

average 6.5 acres of industrial land annually and after 1997 this figure increased

almost tenfold to 60.8 acres a year. It should be noted that the 2004 peak year

does not include the 150 acres of private land that was sold to Ferrero for its new

industrial plant in the City’s northwest which is now nearing completion.


Page 7

Figure 1City of Brantford Industrial Land Sales:

1991-2005

020406080

100120140160180200

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

# of

Acr

es S

old

Annual Sales Average

Figure 2 displays data on the value of industrial building permits in Brantford

from 1991 to 2005. Before 2000, the annual building permit value for industrial

construction projects, which includes plant additions as well as new buildings

rarely rose above $15 million in any year. There was a lag between the increase

in industrial land sales and the increase in the level of industrial building activity.

Note that the industrial building activity peaked in 2005, when it reached $126

million.

Figure 2 also shows that the value of construction activity in Brantford has

increased steadily since 1997 after suffering a general decline in the first half of

the 1990’s. As the graph indicates, industrial construction has mirrored the


Page 8

overall trend and the increase in industrial construction activity has been a factor

in the increase in the overall level of construction, particularly in 2005. The graph

also shows that construction activity in other sectors such as residential,

institutional and commercial has also contributed to the increase in the volume of

construction activity. The graph indicates that, in the early 1990’s, industrial

construction activity was only a small portion of total construction activity and that

it is now a very important sector in the local building industry.

Figure 2City of Brantford Building Permit Values:

Industrial, Other Sectors and Total Construction:1991-2005

0255075

100125150175200225250

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 Year

Bui

ldin

g Pe

rmit

Val

ue $

mill

ions

Total Construction IndustrialOther Sectors

To a considerable extent, the City’s ability to attract further industrial

development is related to the industrial operations that are already located within


Page 9

the community. The City’s Economic Development Department has a well-

established business retention program designed to work with businesses in the

community and to facilitate their future expansion requirements. A number of the

new industrial operations, such as the Proctor and Gamble distribution centre,

the Camco distribution centre and the Ferrero operation announced their

intentions to expand soon after their original investments are operational. Many

other industries have further expansion potential as well.

In the past, Brantford was very susceptible to economic downturns as its

industrial base was concentrated in only a few sectors. With the departure of the

agricultural machinery industry from the community, the local industrial base has

become considerably diversified particularly in recent years as there has been

significant expansion in food processing operations and distribution centres for

consumer products. The City’s industrial base is dominated by small and

medium sized industries with only a few plants having more than 500 employees.

Ferrero when it begins full operations with over 600 employees (not including its

announced expansion) will be Brantford’s largest industrial employer.

Also of relevance is Brantford’s location with respect to the recently announced

Toyota car plant to be constructed in Woodstock, about a half hours drive to the

west of Brantford. This new plant will be an easy commute for Brantford workers

and a short distance for parts suppliers. With this new plant, Brantford is well-

positioned with respect to the southern Ontario automobile manufacturing

centres of Alliston, Oshawa, Brampton, Oakville, St. Catharines, Woodstock, St.

Thomas and Windsor.

Another factor is that a number of the communities in the western half of the

greater Golden Horseshoe, particularly Kitchener and Cambridge, have dwindling

supplies of available industrial land and will have difficulty bringing more


Page 10

industrial land on-stream in the near future. While Brantford is also facing supply

issues, it is taking pro-active steps to deal with the matter.

In addition to Brantford’s ability to attract industrial development, there are other

factors as well that point to strong growth in the community in the future.

Important amongst these other factors is the emergence of Laurier Brantford and

the affiliated campuses of Nipissing University and Mohawk College in the

downtown core. The 2005/06 academic year fulltime enrolment in the downtown

post-secondary campus is 1,500 students and continued expansion is expected.

The development of the university campus allows Brantford to retain more

university students from amongst its own residents as well as to attract students

from other communities who may become permanent residents. The growing

campus also provides many jobs for faculty and support staff that were not

previously available in the community. The development and continued

expansion of the university campus will further contribute to the diversification of

the City’s economic base and contribute to other spin-off job creation.

Over the next 25 years, Brantford strong locational advantages will be further

enhanced with planned improvements in the inter-city transportation network to

the west of the Greater Toronto Area. These improvements include the

expansion inter-regional transit to Brantford from the east and to the north and

the development of the mid-peninsula goods movement corridor that will intersect

the 403 between Hamilton and Brantford. These improvements are part of the

Province’s Places to Grow strategy. The Red Hill Creek Expressway, now under

construction, will further reduce travel times to the US border. The Ministry of

Transportation is also investigating how the Highway 24 corridor that links

Brantford to Waterloo Region can be improved.


Page 11

Brantford has been proactive in providing incentives in various sectors to

encourage development that would not otherwise have occurred. The City’s

Downtown Performance Grant program and the Civic Square project has

facilitated investment in commercial, institutional and residential development in

the downtown core which would not have happened otherwise. The City’s

affordable housing strategy has been responsible for a number of residential

projects that would not have been feasible if the financial assistance offered by

the City was not made available. The Brantford Brownfields Financial Tax

Incentive Program, which is to begin operating in 2006, will encourage

investment in the redevelopment of brownfield properties that will economic spin-

offs that will contribute to growth in the local economy.

Also of importance is the difference in the cost of homes in Brantford to that in

nearby communities that are part of the Greater Toronto-Hamilton (GTAH) area.

The relatively lower prices in Brantford and the availability of land has made it an

attractive area for GTAH home-builders. The best example of this is Empire

Community Homes which now owns large tracts of land in the City’s southwest

and actively markets its Brantford product in the GTAH. Other GTAH home-

builders are following suit.

According to the local housing market analyst for the Canada Mortgage and

Housing Corporation, Brantford housing starts should go up to 600 to 650 new

units a year. A major factor is the significant difference in prices for new homes

in the Brantford and Hamilton housing markets. Figure 3 displays the average

absorbed price of a new single-detached home in Brantford and in the Hamilton

CMA from 1989 to 2005. Whereas the gap between Brantford and the Hamilton

CMA in the average absorbed price for a new home was about $65,000 in 1989,

the gap stood at $192,000 in 2005, with most of this increase occurring after

2001. According to data obtained from CMHC, the average MLS sale in the


Page 12

Figure 3Average Absorbed Price of a New Single-Detached

Home, Brantford and Hamilton CMA: 1989-2005

100120140160180200220240260280300320340360380400

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

-YTD

Year

Avg

. Abs

orbe

d Pr

ice

$ 00

0's

Hamilton Brantford

Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Hamilton CMA is now about $50,000 higher in than in the Brantford area. These

price gaps are encouraging home buyers to look seriously at the Brantford

market and encouraging developers to move into the Brantford market.

The impact of all of these factors are already evident in the local housing market.

Figure 4 shows the trends in building permit data for the totals number of new

housing units and for single-detached housing units issued over the past twenty-

year period from 1986 to 2005. New housing construction was at a relatively

high level in the late 1980’s and then declined in the 1990’s reaching a low level

of 186 units in 1996. Total housing construction was then relatively stable to

2001 and then increased significantly and has been above 500 units a year since


Page 13

2003. In 2005, the total number of new residential units for which building

permits were issued stood at 594 units. The level of total residential

construction, since and including 2002, has been above the levels forecasted by

C.N. Watson and Associates in their Low and Reference forecast scenarios

prepared in 2004 and in 2005 was higher than that projected in Watson’s high

forecast.

It should be noted that the trend in the level of construction of single-detached

housing closely mirrors the trends displayed for the total units. In the 1990’s,

when total residential construction activity was at a relatively low level, single-

detached housing comprised a very large proportion of the total units

constructed. Since 2001, while single-detached housing construction has

increased significantly, there has also been a large number of new townhouse

and apartment dwellings constructed.

Figure 4Residential Building Activity: 1986 - 2005

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

# of

New

Uni

ts

Total Units Single-Detached

Source: City of Brantford Planning Department as drawn from Building Dept.


Page 14

4.0 REVISED CITY OF BRANTFORD FORECAST

Based on the consideration of all of these factors it was evident that a review of

the C.N. Watson growth forecasts was necessary. Residential construction in

Brantford, particularly in 2004 and 2005, was approaching the level upon which

the C.N. Watson High Forecast scenario, prepared in 2004, was based. With the

various factors pointing to more sustained growth in the future and the

consideration that population growth tends to lag behind industrial growth, a

higher level of future growth than what has recently been experienced is not

unreasonable. Based on these considerations a new forecast was prepared.

Also, the C.N. Watson Low Forecast scenario was discarded as it no longer

appears to be relevant to current conditions in Brantford.

Table 6 displays the growth forecasts that will be presented in this report, the

basic assumptions upon which they are based as well as comparisons to the

C.N. Watson growth forecast scenarios. As the reference forecast was the base

forecast used for the Development Charges Background Study it is renamed as

the Development Charges Reference Forecast. C.N. Watson’s high residential

forecast now corresponds closely to recent residential construction levels in

Brantford and is renamed as the Current Trends Forecast. The new forecast,

which is based on the higher annual growth rate of 650 new residential units a

year will be referred to as the Growth Management Forecast.


Page 15

Table 6 Growth Forecasts

C.N. Watson & Associates

Official Plan Review Program

Growth Assumption (residential units/year)

Low Residential Growth

361

Reference Residential Growth

Development Charges Reference Forecast 465

High Residential Growth Current Trends Forecast 575

Growth Management Forecast 650

The methodology used for the preparation of the forecasts followed that used by

C.N. Watson & Associates in the development of its three residential growth

forecasts. This methodology is outlined in their report “City of Brantford

Household, Population and Employment Projections: 2001 –2026”. The statistics

used in their forecasts that vary household size according to the age of the

housing stock and by housing type were also applied in the Official Plan Review

Forecasts. The employment to population ratios used in the C.N. Watson report

were also to derive estimates of future employment in Brantford.

In preparing the forecasts, it was assumed that new housing would be

proportioned amongst the various density categories as follows:

- low density - 75 %

- medium density - 15%

- high density - 10%.

This is the same distribution that was used in the C.N. Watson forecasts. For all

three forecasts, Development Charges Reference, Current Trends, and Growth

Management, it was assumed that over the 2001-2005 period that the total

number of new units to be created over that period would be as follows:


Page 16

- low density - 1,810 units

- medium density - 350 units

high density - 240 units

- Total - 2,400 units.

As a result, all three growth scenarios provide for the same population forecast

for 2006 and the varying growth assumptions on the amount of new residential

construction apply after 2006.

The C.N. Watson forecasts went to 2026. To be consistent with the pending

Places To Grow growth plan for the GGH, the Official Plan forecasts need to be

extended to 2031. The forecasts were prepared at 5-year intervals to this date.

They were also extended a further 15 years, to 2046, to allow for an estimation of

land requirements to accommodate future growth at the end of the planning

period in 2031 and to meeting the planning requirements for the Growth Study.

The projection was extended from 2031 to 2046 by calculating the growth that

was forecasted between 2016 and 2031 and then adding this growth to the 2031

forecasted population. It was further assumed that the employment to population

ratios and average household size would stay constant over the 2031 to 2046

period. The population and household forecasts resulting from this exercise for

each of the three growth scenarios are presented in Table 7.

Table 8 presents the results for the employment forecasts. The employment

forecasts are provided for each of the major employment sectors as well as for

total employment in Brantford. The employment to population ratios used to

derive calculate these forecasts are provided in Table 9.


Page 17

Table 7 Population and Household Forecasts for Brantford: 2001 – 2046

Development Charges Reference Forecast

Year Pop. Change in

Pop.

Annual Growth rate (%) Hshlds.

Change in # of

Hshlds Persons/

Hshld 2001 86,417 33,850 2.55 2006 92,960 6,543 1.5 36,250 2,400 2.56 2011 98,384 5,424 1.1 38,750 2,500 2.54 2016 103,646 5,262 1.0 41,000 2,250 2.53 2021 108,020 4,374 0.8 43,250 2,250 2.50 2026 113,774 5,755 1.0 45,500 2,250 2.50 2031 119,529 5,755 1.0 47,750 2,250 2.50 2046 135,412 15,883 0.8 54,165 6,415 2.50 Current Trends Forecast

Year Pop. Change in

Pop.


Change in # of

Hshlds Persons/

Hshld 2001 86,417 33,850 2.55 2006 92,960 6,543 1.5 36,250 2,400 2.56 2011 99,470 6,510 1.4 39,125 2,875 2.54 2016 106,069 6,599 1.3 41,875 2,750 2.53 2021 111,706 5,637 1.0 44,625 2,750 2.50 2026 118,740 7,033 1.2 47,375 2,750 2.51 2031 125,773 7,033 1.2 50,125 2,750 2.48 2046 145,477 19,704 1.0 58,660 8,835 2.48 Growth Management Forecast

Year Pop. Change in

Pop.


Change in # of

Hshlds Persons/

Hshld 2001 86,417 33,850 2.55 2006 92,960 6,543 1.5 36,250 2,400 2.56 2011 100,557 7,597 1.6 39,500 3,250 2.55 2016 108,493 7,936 1.5 42,750 3,250 2.54 2021 115,394 6,901 1.2 46,000 3,250 2.51 2026 123,706 8,312 1.4 49,250 3,250 2.51 2031 132,018 8,312 1.3 52,500 3,250 2.51 2046 155,500 23,482 1.1 62,700 10,200 2.51


Page 18

Table 8 Employment Forecasts for Brantford: 2001 – 2046

Development Charges Reference Forecast

Year Pop. Primary/ Industrial

Comm./ Pop.

Related Instit. Work At Home Total

2001 86,417 15,555 12,098 7,778 1,728 37,159 2006 92,960 17,662 13,944 9,296 1,859 42,762 2011 98,384 19,677 15,741 10,822 2,952 49,192 2016 103,646 20,729 16,583 11,401 3,109 51,823 2021 108,020 22,684 18,363 11,882 3,241 56,170 2026 113,774 23,893 19,342 13,653 3,413 60,300 2031 119,529 25,101 20,320 14,343 3,586 63,350 2046 135,412 28,436 23,020 16,249 4,062 71,768 Current Trends Forecast


Comm./ Pop.


2001 86,417 15,555 12,098 7,778 1,728 37,159 2006 92,960 17,662 13,944 9,296 1,859 42,762 2011 99,470 19,894 15,915 10,942 2,984 49,735 2016 106,069 21,214 16,971 11,668 3,182 53,035 2021 111,706 23,458 18,990 12,288 3,351 58,087 2026 118,740 24,935 20,186 14,249 3,562 62,932 2031 125,773 26,412 21,381 15,093 3,773 66,660 2046 145,477 30,550 27,731 17,457 4,364 77,103 Growth Management Forecast


Comm./ Pop.


2001 86,417 15,555 12,098 7,778 1,728 37,159 2006 92,960 17,662 13,944 9,296 1,859 42,762 2011 100,557 20,111 16,089 11,061 3,017 50,278 2016 108,493 21,699 17,359 11,934 3,255 54,247 2021 115,394 24,233 19,617 12,693 3,462 60,005 2026 123,706 25,978 21,030 14,845 3,711 65,564 2031 132,018 27,724 22,443 15,842 3,961 69,970 2046 155,500 32,655 26,435 18,660 4,665 82,415


Page 19

Table 9 Employment to Population Ratios by Mayor Employment Sectors,

Brantford: 2001 – 2046 Employment to Population Ratios


Comm./ Pop.


2001 86,417 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.02 0.43 2006 92,960 0.19 0.15 0.10 0.02 0.46 2011 98,384 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.03 0.50 2016 103,646 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.03 0.50 2021 108,020 0.21 0.17 0.11 0.03 0.52 2026 113,774 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.03 0.53 2031 119,529 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.03 0.53 2046 135,412 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.03 0.53

It is recommended that the Growth Management Forecast be used for planning

purposes as it best takes into account the growth dynamics that are in play in the

Brantford area and which are likely to be sustained for some time. Planning for

this level of growth will ensure that Brantford can adequately respond to growth

pressures and maintain a strong local economy.

Appendix 2

Growth Scenario ‘B’ Compact City (Growth capacity of the existing City of Brantford based on the

G.G.H. ‘Places to Grow’ Plan)

Growth Scenario ‘B’ Compact City - 1

ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF BRANTFORD’S URBAN GROWTH CENTRET

TZ # HA 2001 POP

2001 JOBS

2001 TOTAL

2001 DENSITY/

HA 2031 POP

2031 JOBS

2031 TOTAL

2031 DENSITY/

HA 23 27.36 1,159 470 1,359 49.70 2,462 848 3,310 121 24 42.40 909 4,035 5,036 118.80 1,654 6,725 8,379 198 34 50.231 94 740 1,449 28.90 1,875 1,919 3,794 152

TOTAL 120.00 2,162 5,245 7,844 5,991 9,492 15,483 163

TZ #34 reduced to 25 ha for purposes of estimating intensification potential, given extensive public uses such as B.S.A.R., civic centre, YMCA and parkland.

Assumptions on distribution of jobs to population to 2031: Traffic Zone 23: 74% people to 26% jobs. 24: 20% people to 80% jobs. 34: 49% people to 51% jobs. Summary for Urban Growth Centre:

1. The urban growth centre will accommodate an additional 3,829 people and 4,247 jobs in the core by 2031.

2. An additional 3,829 people @ 2 ppu equals 1,914 dwelling units, or an average of 77 units per year over 25 years

3. An additional 4,247 jobs @ 1 job per 18 m2 of floor area approximates 76,500 m2 (7.6 ha) of renovated/newly constructed employment floor area (ie. 3,060 m2 per year over 25 years).

Y517-A Brantford Growth Study N:\Y517\A\Reports\Final Mar14 Report\Appendix 2 Revised.doc


ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF BRANTFORD’S RESIDENTIAL GREENFIELD AREAS AT A DENSITY OF 50 RESIDENTS & JOBS PER HECTARE

NO. of RESIDENTIAL UNITS GREENFIELD LOCATION

TRAFFIC ZONE HA POP JOBS TOTAL LOW MED HIGH TOTAL

SOUTH-WEST 45 136.0 6,750 50 6,800

37 274.0 13,462 238 13,700

410.0 20,212 288 20,500 5,214 1,042 698 6,954

SOUTH 35 28.2 1,410 - 1,410

32 12.0 600 - 600

40.2 2,010 - 2,010 518 104 69 691 EAST 47 63.7 3,185 - 3,185 822 164 110 1,096 NORTH-WEST 46 97.2 4,840 20 4,860 1,248 249 167 1,664

TOTAL 611.1 30,247 308 30,555 7,802 1,559 1,044 10,405

Notes: Area between abandoned rail tracks reduced from 86 to 43 ha due to environmental constraints.

Full services assumed. Area E1 reduced from 91 to 75 ha based on open space constraints.

Developable hectares reduced by 5.4 ha. of open space. Areas for A3 (17.83 ha), E.24 (10 ha) & A4 (18.38 ha) were reduced given open space

constraints. JOB ESTIMATES:

- Community commercial centre (1 job per 1000 sq. ft.) 165 - Two schools @ 20 jobs each 40 - Community centre 50 - Neighbourhood commercial site 30

288 jobs Residential unit distribution based on the following:

% Total People Units Per Unit

Low Density 75% 3.09 Medium Density 15 2.60 High Density 10 2.00



ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY IN BRANTFORD’S INDUSTRIAL PARKS (based on 22 employees per net hectare )

CITY OWNEDPRIVATELY

OWNED TOTAL LOCATION

TRAFFIC ZONE HA JOBS HA JOBS HA JOBS

NORTH-WEST INDUSTRIAL AREA

17 14.8 326 164.9 3,628 179.7 3,954

BRANEIDA INDUSTRIAL AREA

07 08 09 10 11 12

0.5

31.6

11

695

15.3 08.0 38.5 21.6 06.6 10.1

337 176 847 475 145 222

15.3 08.5 70.1 21.6 06.6 10.1

337 187

1,542 475 145 222

32.1 706 100.1 2,202 132.2 2,908

TOTAL 46.9 1,032 265.0 5,830 311.9 6,862 Source: City of Brantford “Vacant Industrial Land” map – May 2005 1 Average Brantford industrial park density = 22 employees/net hectare

197.2 gross hectares (487.3 acres) for parcels 1,2,3,12,13,14 reduced by 49.3 ha (25%) to equal 147.9 net ha to account for future roads, storm management, and topoconstraints related to previous aggregate extraction. (147.9 net ha + parcels 5,7,8 & 11 = 17.0 ha = 164.9)



SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO CITY BUILD-OUT (per GGH “Places to Grow”)

NO. of RESIDENTIAL UNITS DEVELOPMENT

CATEGORY Low

Density Medium Density

High Density

TOTAL UNITS

POPULATION ACCOMMODATED

GREENFIELD AREAS 7,802 1,559 1,044 10,405 (60%) 30,247

INTENSIFICATION Urban Growth

Centre 1,914 1,914 3,829

Infilling (Known Inventory)

418 1,291 900 2,609 6,355

Corridors & Brownfields

988 1,622 2,610 5,813

SubTotal 418 2,279 4,436 7,133 (40%) 15,997

TOTAL 8,220 3,838 5,480 17,538 46,244 DWELLING

DENSITY (%) 47.3% 21.8% 30.9% 100%



INVENTORY INFILL UNITS WITHIN BUILT-UP AREA

TRAFFIC ZONE

LOW DENSITY UNITS

MEDIUM DENSITY

UNITS HIGH DENSITY

UNITS TOTAL 01 12 12 05 93 192 285 49 80 80 11 214 214 13 75 132 207 15 86 86 16 111 111 19 28 34 68 130 21 21 21 25 16 16 27 171 382 553 28 17 17 32 19 19 35 36 36 36 14 14 37 74 260 222 556 45 71 30 120 221 48 31 31

TOTAL UNITS 418 1,291 900 2,609 POPULATION 1,292 3,357 1,800 6,355



RESIDENTIAL SUMMARY

A. GREENFIELDS POPULATION SOUTH-WEST 20,212 SOUTH 2,010 to 5,750 EAST 3,185 NORTH-WEST 4,840

TOTAL 30,247

B. INTENSIFICATION TARGET

Minimum of 40% of residential development by 2015 No. of

Units POP Greenfield Intensification

60% 40%

10,405 7,133

30,247 15,997

TOTAL 100% 17,538 46,244

C. POPULATION CAPACITY PER PLACES TO GROW MINIMUM TARGETS Estimated 2006 population 92,960 Greenfield population 30,247 Intensification population 15,997

139,204

D. 2046 POPULATION PROJECTION 155,500

E. POPULATION NOT ACCOMMODATED WITHIN CITY BOUNDARIES TO 2046 16,296


Appendix 3

Agricultural Assessment of Potential Growth Areas

- 1 -

APPENDIX 3BRANTFORD GROWTH STRATEGY AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT

1.0 Provincial Policy Statement (2005)The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is issued under the authority of Section 3 of the

Planning Act and came into effect on March 1, 2005. It provides policy direction on

matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The wise

use and management of the Province’s agricultural lands over the long-term is of

Provincial interest.

The PPS requires that prime agricultural areas be protected for the long-term use of

agriculture. Prime agricultural areas defined in the PPS as specialty crop areas and/or

Canada Land Inventory 1, 2 and 3 soils. Specialty crop areas are given the highest

priority for protection followed by Classes 1, 2 and 3 soils, in this order of priority.

A specialty crop area is defined by the PPS as an area designated using evaluation

procedures established by the Province, where specialty crops such as tender fruits

(peaches, cherries, plums), grapes, other fruit crops, vegetable crops, greenhouse

crops, and crops from agriculturally developed organic soil lands are predominantly

grown. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is developing evaluation procedures for

identifying specialty crop areas outside the Greenbelt Areas. At the time of writing,

Ministry Staff advised that Brant County has been identified as a potential specialty crop

municipality, but no evaluation procedures have been developed to date.

Policy 2.3.5.1(a) of the PPS does allow planning authorities to exclude land from prime

agricultural areas for expansion of settlement areas only at the time of a comprehensive

review in accordance with policy 1.1.3.9 of the PPS. Policy 1.1.3.9 allows for the

expansion of settlement area boundaries in prime agricultural areas, provided that:

1) the lands do not comprise specialty crop areas;

- 2 -

2) there are no reasonable alternatives, which avoid prime agricultural areas;

and,

3) there are no reasonable alternatives on lower priority agricultural lands in

prime agricultural areas.

2.0 Canada Land InventoryThe Canada Land Inventory (CLI) mapping (Map No. 40 P, O) was reviewed to

establish the capability of soils for agricultural production in the potential growth areas.

The CLI mapping was produced in 1968 at a scale of 1:250,000. The CLI mapping

provides a general representation of the soil capability for agriculture. The information

obtained from the CLI mapping was compared against the more detailed land resource

information provided in the County of Brant Soils Report produced by the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food.

3.0 Soils of Brant County - Report No. 55The Soils of Brant County Report No. 55 was produced by the Ministry of Agriculture

and Food in 1989.The Report provides a detailed assessment of the capability of the

soils to produce common field crops and specialty crops based on an assessment of the

surficial geology, climate and land uses which influence the characteristics of the soils.

The Report also provides a generalized soil map at a scale of 1:100,000 for the entire

County. Figure 3-1 is a rendered version of the soils map and illustrates the agricultural

capability of the soils surrounding the City of Brantford.

The County’s diversified agricultural industry has benefitted from the broad range of

soils and favourable climate in Brant County. According to the Soils Report, livestock

farming is prevalent in the lacustrine and glacial till soils, which are generally located in

the eastern and northeastern portions of the County. Tobacco, vegetables, grain crops

and other cash crops are located in the outwash soils, which are generally located in the

west and southwestern portions of the County.

- 3 -

Cultivated hay, wheat, grain corn and soybeans are the main crops grown in the

County. However, substantial areas in the County are also planted in tobacco and

vegetable crops. These latter crops represent a major component of the County’s

agricultural economy and make effective use of the County’s sandy soils.

The following generally describes the characteristics of the soils within the seven

potential growth areas:

Area 1 (North)Soil capability to the north is mixed. The amount of Class 1 is relatively small and with a

few small concentrations to the extreme northwest, and immediately north of the City

(east of Highway 24). Areas of poor capability soil generally are coincident with the

valleys and side-slopes related to the Fairchild Creek tributaries. Class 3 areas are

generally related to topographic constraints with Class 2 areas being the higher area of

land.

The higher capability soils (Class 1 and 2) in the area are generally comprised of Brant

soils, whereas the lower capability soils are generally Brantford soils. Both of these soil

types are extensively used for field crops. These soils are less commonly used for

specialty crops given their soil characteristics and common limitations associated with

steep slopes and topography.

Area 2 (East)Area 2 is characterized by a wide mix of capability from Classes 1-4. There are a few

small pockets of Class 1 land. Class 2 lands are relatively small in area and located in

areas of the Fairchild Creek oxbows. Class 3 lands are mostly located central to Area 2

and closer to the City boundary. There is a large area of Class 4 lands in the southwest

portion of Area 2 and close to the City boundary. This is coincident with an area of

rolling topography.

- 4 -

Brantford soils, which are coincident with the Class 3 and 4 soils, predominate in the

area. Fox and Berrien soils reflect the small pockets of Class 1 / 2 land. Specialty crops

are grown to a limited extent on Brantford soils, whereas the Fox and Berrien soils are

well suited for specialty crop production, particularly tobacco and specialized

horticultural crops.

Area 3 (South East)Area 3 is a mix of Classes 1-4 capability. Much of the higher capability Class 1 lands

are approximately coincident with the existing industrial designation in the County Plan.

Classes 3 and 4 lands comprise much of the remainder of this area with some Class 2

lands closer to the bluff along the river and in the most westerly oxbow of the Grand

River.

South of the river and outside the existing industrial area, the soils are generally

comprised of Brantford soils (representing the lower capability areas) and Berrien soils

(coinciding with the higher capability area). The Berrien soils are generally well suited

for specialty crops. North of the river and within the oxbow, the soils consist of a mix of

Bookton, Brant and Tuscola soils. With the exception of the Brant soils, these soils are

well suited for horticultural crops.

Area 4 (South)Area 4 has large areas of Class 4 capability, which is non-prime agricultural land. Much

of this Class 4 land is related to very rolling topography and centres on the tributaries

which drain west to east towards the Grand River. This area is also characterized by

large areas of Class 3 land along the drainage tributaries and a larger area of Class 3

land in the most westerly portion. Overall, Area 4 has the greatest degree of poorer

agricultural lands.

The Class 3/4 soils in Area 4 reflect the characteristics of the Brantford soils. Brantford

soils are extensively used for common field crops and are used to a limited extent for

specialized horticultural crops. The Class 4 areas associated with the valleys and

- 5 -

tributaries are characterized as alluvium soils with fine textured clayey floodplain

deposits.

Area 5 (South West)Area 5 is roughly centered on the airport. The majority of Area 5 is Class 2 agricultural

capability with some Class 3 lands closer in towards the City boundary. Of all the study

areas, Area 5 has the largest concentration of better agricultural lands largely as a

result of fewer tributaries passing through the area and larger areas of flatter

topography.

The Class 2 lands are representative of the Fox soils. Small pockets of Caledon and

Teeswater soils are also present in this area. All of these soils are very good soils for

specialty crops, and most commonly, tobacco and potatoes.

Area 6 (West)Area 6 is a mix of all four classifications and is a relatively small area for consideration.

Similar to Area 5, the Fox soils predominate this area, with small pockets of Caledon

and Teeswater soils. All of these soils are considered Class 1 / 2 soils, and are very

good soils for specialty crops, such as tobacco and potatoes.

Area 7 (North)Area 7 West has small isolated pockets of Class 1 soils surrounded by larger areas of

Class 2 soils, with some Class 3 soils and poorer located along Whitemans Creek,

valley and along the floodplain of the Grand River. Much of Area 7 is affected by

existing and future aggregate activities.

The higher agricultural capability soils of Burford and Fox are largely represented in this

area with small pockets of Teeswater soils. All of these soils are very good for specialty

crop production. However, the Burford soils may require more intensive management

for some specialty crops such as tobacco and potatoes.

- 6 -

In summary, the higher quality agricultural soils are generally located in Growth Areas 5,

6 and 7. Area 4 has the poorest agricultural soils because of the topography and

drainage limitations associated with the tributaries to the Grand River. The soil

capability in Areas 1, 2 and 3 are mixed with few concentrations of acres with higher

agricultural soils.

Appendix 4

Mineral Aggregate Resources

APPENDIX 4

MINERAL AGGREGATE RESOURCES AND LICENSED PITS

There is a provincial interest in ensuring that mineral aggregate resources are protected

for long-term use. In order to achieve this, the PPS limits development and activities

that preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to resources in

areas adjacent to, or in, known deposits of mineral aggregate resources. Furthermore,

the PPS requires that as much of the mineral aggregate resources, as is realistically

possible, be made available as close to market as possible.

Both the County of Brant Official Plan and City of Brantford Official Plan implement the

PPS. The County Plan recognizes mineral aggregates as an essential non-renewable

resource, and the policies of the Plan provides for the protection of existing pits and

quarries and extraction operations as well as the mineral aggregate resources. Primary

aggregate resources, as identified the Ministry of Natural Resources Aggregate

Resource Inventory Papers, are protected in the County Plan, and with the exception of

aggregate uses, only land uses directly related to Agriculture and Natural Environment

shall be permitted.

The City of Brantford Official Plan also protects the mineral aggregate resources within

the City boundaries. Mineral Resources Areas within the City are identified in the Plan,

and the policies of the Plan are intended to control development within, and adjacent to,

Mineral Resource Areas such that the long-term availability of the resource is not

precluded.

The County of Brant, and in particular the former Brantford Township, has large

concentration of good quality sand and gravel deposits. Crushed aggregate from

bedrock resources is generally not available or economically feasible in the County,

given the depth of the bedrock formations in the County.

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper

(ARIP) No. 8, the primary sand and gravel resources surrounding the City of Brantford

(and in the former Township of Brantford) are predominantly located west and northwest

of the City (see Figure 4-1). These primary resources are comprised of extensive

outwash deposits that extend along the Grand River, between Paris and Brantford and

along Whiteman’s Creek. A number of licensed pits are located within these outwash

deposits west of the City of Brantford.

The primary resources areas do not affect potential growth areas 1, 2, 3 and 4, and

therefore, these growth areas are not constrained by aggregate resources and/or

licensed pits. Area 5 (Southwest)

Area 5 Southwest is partially constrained by virtue of two licensed pits to the south and

southwest of the airport. However, identified aggregate resources do not affect the

majority of Area 5. A small portion of the Primary Resource Area, as identified in ARIP

Report No. 8, is located in the northwest corner of the growth area.

Area 6 West

Area 6 is largely unconstrained by aggregate resources. There is an area immediately

adjacent to the river that is shown as a Secondary Resource Area, in ARIP Report No. 8

Area 7 (West)

Area 7 West has the greatest area of aggregate resource potential. Firstly, there is a

cluster of licensed pits to the north and south of Highway 403, immediately west of the

Grand River. These licensed pits occupy much of the area between the Grand River

and the Paris Urban Area. The Paris Urban Area forms the westerly boundary of the

northern portion of Area 7. The southerly portion of Area 7 is centered on Whiteman’s

Creek. The Primary Resource Areas are located to the northwest and southeast of

Whiteman’s Creek and occupy much of the southern portion of Area 7. According to the

Aggregate Resources Inventory Report No. 8, the aggregate resources within Area 7

are considered to have high quality gravel with an average depth of 8 metres (25 feet).

In summary, Area 7 has the greatest area of aggregate resources potential and licensed

pits. Aggregate resources affect the majority of Area 7.

Appendix 5

Overview of Natural Heritage Features by Potential Growth Areas

BRANTFORD GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY –NATURAL HERITAGE

FEATURES

The following provides an overview of natural heritage features by potential growth area. The rationale was based on a compilation of existing information from a variety of sources including relevant Official Plans, Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), aerial photos, and GRCA mapping and data.

To evaluate the constraints to development in each area, a ranking system was developed (i.e. 1 = least constrained to 7 = most constrained). The methodology and evaluation criteria are summarized in the Evaluation Table. For clarity and consistency, we separated out the main aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial rationale and grouped them accordingly in each respective Block, similar to our Evaluation Table.

Area 1 – Low Constraint Rating (3rd Overall)

• Aquatic Features – Numerous tributaries of Fairchild Creek, including some headwater reaches occur laterally through this area. Within this block, aquatic features collectively represent 12% of its total area;

• Wetland Features – Within this block, wetland features collectively represent 6% of its total area where 3% constitutes Provincially Significant Wetland area.

• Terrestrial Features – Features include Conservation Lands and lands identified with susceptible slopes (i.e. Slope Erosion in the table). These lands collectively represent 7.5% of the total area within this block.

Area 2 – Medium Constraint Rating (6th Overall)

• Aquatic Features – A fairly large section of the Fairchild Creek meander belt and various tributaries traverse through this area. Within this block, aquatic features represent just over 24% of its total area;

• Wetland Features – Only non-provincially significant wetland features occur within this block constituting approximately 4% of this block’s total area.

• Terrestrial Features - Features include Conservation Lands and lands identified with susceptible slopes. These lands collectively represent 18% of the total area within this block.

MEMO Page 2

Area 3 – High Constraint Rating (7 Overall) th

• Aquatic Features - The Grand River, its floodplain, and associated tributaries meander right through the middle of this block. In addition, the river also flanks the northwestern and southern edges of this area. Therefore, the aquatic coverage represents almost 66% of the total available area in this block;

• Wetland Features - Only non-provincially significant wetland features occur within this block constituting approximately 2.5% of this block’s total area.

• Terrestrial Features - Features include Conservation Lands and lands identified with susceptible slopes. These lands collectively represent 10% of the total area within this block.


• Aquatic Features – This block contains some headwater reaches of D’Aubigny Creek and a section of the Grand River in the northeast corner, which collectively represents only 6% of the total area in the block;

• Wetland Features - Within this block, wetland features collectively represent 9% of its total area where 3% constitutes Provincially Significant Wetland area.

• Terrestrial features - Features include Conservation Lands and lands identified with susceptible slopes. These lands collectively represent 14.5% of the total area within this block.

Area 5 – Low Constraint Rating (1st Overall)

• Aquatic Features – The only aquatic constraint is a small section of Mount Pleasant Creek that cuts across the southern end of this block, which represents only 3% of the total area;

• Wetland features - Only non-provincially significant wetland features occur within this block constituting approximately 1% of this block’s total area.

• Terrestrial features - Features include Conservation Lands and lands identified with susceptible slopes. These lands collectively represent 1% of the total area within this block.

MEMO Page 3

Area 6 – Low Constraint Rating (2 Overall) nd

• Aquatic Features – The only aquatic constraint to development is a section of the Grand River and floodplain that flanks the northside of this block, which comprises 12% of the total block area;

• Wetland features - Only non-provincially significant wetland features occur within this block constituting approximately 0.5% of this block’s total area.



• Aquatic Features – Whiteman’s Creek bisects this entire Block and the Grand River floodplain flanks the entire eastside. As a result, 31% of the total area represents a significant constraint to development (floodplains included);

• Wetland features - Within this block, wetland features collectively represent 4.5% of its total area where 4% constitutes Provincially Significant Wetland area.


Brantford Growth Strategy - Draft Natural Heritage Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Shoreline 0.03a 2.16 19.45 0.21 0.67 4.43 11.91GRCA Flood plains 11.48 21.76 45.94 5.21 2.23 7.64 18.89Virtual Drainage 0.24 0.36 0.46 0.32 0.07 0.1 0.145River-stream cold water 0.004 0.0086 0 0 0.0043 0 0Total Area 11.724 24.2886 65.85 5.74 2.9743 12.17 30.945Evaluation (H,M,Lb) Low Medium High Low Low Low MediumRankc 3 5 7 2 1 4 6

Provincially Significant Wetlands 2.57 0 0 3.04 0 0 3.79Other Wetlands 3.16 3.95 2.56 5.81 0.73 0.56 0.63Total Area 5.73 3.95 2.56 8.85 0.73 0.56 4.42Evaluation (H,M,L) Medium Medium Low High Low Low MediumRank 6 4 3 7 2 1 5

Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ANSI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other Conservation Lands 1.42 0.04 0.08 8.41 0.67 0.15 0.04Slope Erosion 6.04 18.4 9.66 6.03 0.15 9.75 1.26Total Area 7.46 18.44 9.74 14.44 0.82 9.9 1.3Evaluation (H, M, L) Medium High Medium High Low Medium LowRank 3 7 4 6 1 5 2

Percent Area (%)of Natural Heritage Features 24.9 46.7 78.2 29.0 4.5 22.6 36.7Constraint Rank (H,M,L) Low Medium High Medium Low Low MediumOverall Rank 3 6 7 4 1 2 5

Notes:

a -

b -

c -

Blocks (Areas) 1 through 7 were ranked as either having High, Medium or Low constraints in terms of totalpercentage for each category. The highest percentage area was divided into thirds determining what was High,Medium or Low. For example, for the Aquatic category, Block "3" has the highest percentage (65.85) of aquaticnatural features. Therefore Blocks with low constraints ranged from 0 to 22, Blocks with medium constraintsranged from 22 to 44 and Blocks with high constraints ranged from 44 to 66.

Blocks (Areas) were ranked from 1 through 7 for each category, from least constrained to most constrained.

The total percentage area of Natural Heritage Features within the Block (Area). Percentage (%) areas werecalculated by dividing the area of a natural feature within each block by the total area of that block. A ratio wascalculated for the drainage featues (Virtual Drainage and River-stream cold water) where the total kilometres

Terrestrial

Block (Area)

Aquatic

Wetland

Natural FeatureCategory

Appendix 6

Groundwater and Wellhead Protection Area Policies

from the County of Brant Official Plan

SECTION 2 LAND USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

COUNTY OF BRANT OFFICIAL PLAN PAGE 33 November, 2000

the Ministry's recommended sound and vibration limits. The County of Brant may use Site Plan Control in accordance with Section 7.5 of this Plan to require buffering between uses of land where there may be conflicts such that one use may detract from the enjoyment and functioning of the adjoining use. Such buffering will be considered in light of the Ministry of Environment’s guideline entitled Guideline on Separation Distance Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses, as amended from time to time, and may include landscaping, screening and the separation of uses by extra distance between them. Added conditions such as increased yard requirement, planting strips, fencing, and/or berms, deflective lighting, restrictions of use of certain portions of the land, etc., are all added requirements that may be imposed to offset aspects of incompatibility between any two land uses. In areas where a conflict already exists between residential and non-residential land uses, the municipality may consider the erection of a buffer such as sound attenuation fencing as either a general or local improvement. The municipality may also consider the installation of attractive buffering to screen storage and loading areas, particularly where there is an interface with residential uses or the 403 Freeway.

2.2.8 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

The County of Brant is extremely dependent on groundwater for all of the community’s water requirements. In consultation with the Conservation Authorities and the Province, a Groundwater Protection Plan will be developed and implemented. Potential threats to surface and groundwater quality and quantity need to be evaluated, monitored, and appropriate policies implemented in order to prevent, mitigate or eliminate negative impacts. The Grand River Conservation Authority has undertaken a Grand River Regional Groundwater Study and has draft maps on Areas Vulnerable to Contamination, Overburden Thickness, Sand and Gravel Thickness, Upward Vertical Hydraulic Gradients, Downward Vertical Hydraulic Gradients, Potential Groundwater Discharge Areas, Water Table Surface, and Depth to First Aquifer. In addition studies have been done for the Paris municipal wells to determine the area of immediate or primary influence. Similar studies are being done for the Burford area and were done for St. George and around the Brantford Airport. Development applications within the wellhead protection areas and within the areas that are vulnerable to contamination including the Settlement Areas of Burford and the portion of St. George located east of Lot 8, will not be permitted where there is a



proposed use that includes any form of the following: • underground transmission of oil, gasoline, or other petroleum liquid products; • wood preserving and treating; • outdoor storage of road salt, or other de-icing materials and dumping of salt-laden

snow; • petroleum product, refining and manufacturing; • furniture and wood stripping and refinishing; • horticultural nurseries; • intensive livestock operations including the spreading of liquid manure; • landfills; • chemical/biological laboratory; • chemical manufacturing/industrial areas; • disposal of leachable waste (including the spreading of biosolids); • electroplaters and metal fabricators; • facilities generating, treating or disposing hazardous wastes; • asphalt/concrete/tar plants; • automobile junk yards; • bulk fuel oil storage yards; • car washes; • cemeteries; • dry cleaning facilities; • gasoline service stations; • underground storage tanks; • agricultural spraying of herbicides and pesticides. Applications for any industrial or commercial uses within the Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) must include a report outlining the nature of the business, details of their operation, specify if any chemical substances are used or stored on site, and the measures proposed for spill containment. Periodic groundwater quality monitoring for the area down gradient from the development may also be required as part of the approval process. Applications for golf courses within the WHPA will require a site specific assessment of the potential impact on the WHPA and periodic groundwater quality monitoring for the down gradient from the development as part of any approval process. The establishment of any new aggregate extraction pit will also require a site specific assessment of the potential impact on the WHPA including an assessment of potential interference, water quality, and stream flow impacts.



Approval from the County of Brant will be required before any application is processed to either a site plan approval stage and/or a zoning by-law amendment stage of development. The County of Brant will also require all abandoned wells be plugged in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 or as amended from time to time. The County’s Nutrient Management By-Law requires that Nutrient Management Plans be developed and approved by the County before new or expanded livestock operations may occur. The spreading of sludge, and the establishment of new intensive livestock operations are not permitted in the WHPA. Within the WHPA, no aggregate extraction operation, fish farm, landscape feature or any other uses that would result in the exposure of the high water table shall be permitted. Excavation shall be required to remain a minimum of one metre above the high water table. Rehabilitation of established licensed pits will also be restricted from establishing livestock intensive agricultural uses within the WHPA. Throughout the County of Brant, where development involves the taking of water in excess of 10,000 litres per day, the following additional policies shall apply:

1. hydrogeological studies will be required to ensure the quality and quantity of ground and surface water available to adjoining users of the aquifer is maintained;

2. no permit or license for the taking of water shall be issued by the appropriate

authority until the hydrogeological studies have been circulated and consulted upon by the County of Brant;

3. the effect of land use proposals on the groundwater aquifers utilized by approved

water taking operations will be considered before development is permitted so as to ensure land use compatibility and to maintain the quality and quantity of the groundwater resource in the aquifer; and

4. the effect of land use proposals on any Provincially Significant Wetlands and on

any cold water trout stream including Whiteman’s, Gilbert, and McKensie Creeks. 2.2.9 DEVELOPMENT ALONG INLAND WATERCOURSES

Appendix 7

Water Distribution System Assessment and Sanitary Sewer System Assessment

Appendix 7

Part 1

Brantford Growth Management Strategy

Water and Wastewater Assessment, Relative Impact of Growth Areas on the Existing Water and Wastewater Systems

Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 1

1. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

The purpose of the water distribution system assessment is to identify the relative servicing impact of the

proposed growth areas on existing water distribution system. The assessment focused on available

pumping and storage capacity and the need for improvement to service growth areas outside the City

boundary. The assessment is based on a projected “build out” population of approximately 100,000 and

a design population of 30,000 for each of the identified growth areas. It is to be noted that this assessment

was completed prior to the finalization of the projected population and employment estimates. Depending

on the final population and employment projections, the water distribution assessment may have to be

revised.

In the assessment process the existing City of Brantford water hydraulic model is used to evaluate system

capacity and identify the need for improvement works. The City uses the same hydraulic model for their

Master Plan Study.

1.1. Design Criteria

The following design criteria were used to determine the projected water demand for the estimated

growth population of 30,000 persons.

Average Day Consumption factor = 450 L/cap/day

Maximum Day Consumption factor = 1.8( )1 x Average Day Consumption factor

Peak Hour Consumption factor = 2.7( )2 x Average Day Consumption factor

The above design criteria are used to calculate system demands and Tables 1 summarizes the system

demand for a population of 30,000.

1 Obtained from MOE Guidelines, Appendix N, Table 1 – Maximum Day Factor for equivalent population of 25001-50000

2 Obtained from MOE Guidelines, Appendix N, Table 1 – Peak Rate Factor for equivalent population of 25001-50000

File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc


Table 1: System Demand for a Population of 30,000

Demand Condition System Demand

Average Day Demand 156.3 L/s (13.5ML/day)

Maximum Day Demand 281.3 L/s (24.3 ML/day)

Peak Hour Demand 421.9 L/s (36.5 ML/day)

The storage requirement is calculated based on MOE Guidelines. According to MOE Guidelines,

storage requirement is generally calaculated by:

Total Storage = Fire Storage (A) + Equalization Storage (B) + Emergency Storage (C)

Where:

A = Fire Storage – to allow for adequate fire supply and estimated based on population

B = Equalization Storage – to compensate for difference in demand when the local

demand exceeds pumping capacity (25% of Max Day Demand)

C = Emergency Storage – to provide an allowance during system upset (25% of A + B)

Table 2 summarizes the requirement storage to service each Growth Area via different water

distribution district (pressure zone)



Table 2: MOE Recommended Storage Requirement for Population of 30,000

Via Zone 1

Via Zone 2/3

Via Zone 4

40% Via Z4

60% Via Z2/3

Total Equivalent Population per Zone within City Boundary

74,000 74,000 21,000 21,000 74,000

Total Equivalent Population for Growth Area

30,000 30,000 30,000 12,000 16,000

Total Equivalent Population 104,000 104,000 51,000 33,000 90,000

Max. Day Flow within City Boundary (ML/d)

47 ML/d* 42 ML/d* 16 ML/d* 16 ML/d* 42ML/d*

Max Day Flow for Growth Area 24 ML/d 24 ML/d 24 ML/d 10 ML/d 14 ML/d

Total Max. Day Flow 71 ML/d 66 ML/d 40 ML/d 26 ML/d 56 ML/d

A. Fire Storage

Fire Flow( )3 378 L/s 378 L/s 378 L/s 348 L/d 378 L/s

Fire Duration( )4 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 5 hrs 6 hrs

Required Fire Storage = 8.2ML 8.2ML 8.2ML 6.3ML 8.2ML

B. Equalization Storage

25% of Max Day Demand = 18 ML 16 ML 10 ML 6.5 ML 14ML

C. Emergency Storage

25% of (A + B) = 6.6 ML 6.0 ML 4.6ML 3.2ML 5.6ML

Total Required Storage A + B + C 32.8 ML 30.2 ML 22.8 ML 16ML 27.8ML

* System demand within City boundary is calculated based on City’s standards (274Lpcd for existing +

450 Lpcd for future)

1.2. Analysis of Water Servicing Requirements for the Seven Growth Areas

The water distribution system assessments include the following:

3 Obtained from MOE Guidelines, Appendix N, Table 2 – Suggested Fire Flow for equivalent population of 27000-33000

4 Obtained from MOE Guidelines, Appendix N, Table 2 – Fire Flow Duration for equivalent population of 27000-33000



1. Topographic analysis to identify potential water supply options.

2. Pumping capacity assessment to identify the additional pumping capacity requirement in each

zone to maintain water supply to the growth area.

3. Storage capacity assessment to identify additional storage requirement in each zone to maintain

sufficient storage as per the MOE Guideline (fire storage + equalization storage + emergency

storage).

Figure 1 presents the existing water service boundary for the City of Brantford and the location for each

growth area. The subsequent sections summarize the water servicing requirements for each of the seven

growth areas.

Figure 1: City of Brantford Existing Water Service Boundary and Growth Areas Limit

1.2.1. Area 1

The topographic information suggests that the majority of water supply to Area 1 will be from Zone 1

via Zone 2/3 and Zone 4.



• Additional Zone 1 Pumping Capacity Requirement = 9.7 ML/day

• No Additional Zone 2/3 Storage Capacity is required

• No Additional Zone 4 Storage Capacity is required

1.2.2. Area 2


via Zone 2/3. The following system upgrades are required to service 30,000 persons in Area 2:


• Additional Zone 2 Storage Capacity Requirement = 2.0 ML

1.2.3. Area 3


via Zone 2/3. The following system upgrades are required to service 30,000 persons in Area 3:



1.2.4. Area 4

The existing water distribution system connectivity allows servicing Area 4 directly from Zone 1.

The following system upgrades are required to service 30,000 persons in Area 4:



1.2.5. Area 5

The topology of Area 5 and system separation by Grand River necessitates that a new pressure district

be created to supply Area 5. Area 5 will be supplied from Zone 1 via new pumping station within the

new pressure district. The following system upgrades are required to service 30,000 persons in Area

5:




• Pumping Capacity for New Zone Requirement = 51.8 ML/day

• Storage Capacity for New Zone Requirement = 14.8 ML

1.2.6. Area 6


be created to supply Area 6. Area 6 will be supplied from Zone 1 via new pumping station within the

new pressure district. The following system upgrades are required to service 30,000 persons in Area

6:




1.2.7. Area 7


be created to supply Area 7. Area 7 will be supplied from Zone 1 via a new pumping station within

the new pressure district. The following system upgrades are required to service 30,000 persons in

Area 7:




1.3. Water Servicing Constraints

The water servicing constraints for each of the seven growth areas are discussed in the following sections.

Several factors are considered in the assessment of the water servicing of the seven growth areas

including:

1. Constructability constraints including the need for land accusation and river crossings.

2. Existing infrastructure constraints including the need for additional storage and pumping

facilities.



3. Capital costs of new infrastructure to provide additional water servicing capacity.

4. Long term operational cost including pumping cost.

1.3.1. Area 1 Constraints

Growth Area 1 is situated to the north of the existing city boundary. The system assessment indicates that

additional storage in Zones 1 and 2/3 and possibly 4 is required. Additional pumping capacity in Zone 1

is also needed to meet the expected demand. There are no major river crossings required and the need for

land accusation to build new water infrastructure is low. However, in comparison to the other growth

areas, Area 1 is the highest in elevation and is the furthest from the City water treatment facilities. Thus,

more energy would be required to pump the water two Area 1 resulting in higher long term operational

costs.


Growth Area 2 is situated to the north east of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows

that additional storage in Zones 1 and 2/3 is required. Additional pumping capacity in Zone 1 is also

needed to meet the expected demand. There are no major river crossings required and the need for land

accusation to build new water infrastructure is low. The average increase in energy consumption to pump

water to Area 2 would be required but not to the extent of Area1 thus resulting in medium long term

operational costs.


Growth Area 3 is located to the south east of the existing city boundary. The system assessment indicates

that additional storage in Zones 1 and 2/3 is required. Additional pumping capacity in Zone 1 is also

required to meet the expected demand. However, to provide water service to Area 3, a major river

crossing is necessary (high constraint). There is limited existing water infrastructure available to service

Area 3 and therefore a significant level of capital expenditure will be required for a new water supply

network for the area (medium constrain). There would be an average increase in energy consumption to

pump the water to this service Area resulting in a medium long term operational cost.


Growth Area 4 is situated to the south of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows that

additional storage in Zone 1 is needed. Additional pumping capacity in Zone 1 is also required to meet

the expected demand. In comparison to other growth areas, the water servicing of Area 4 would require

the least storage and pumping upgrades (low constraint). However, to provide water service to Area 4 a



major river crossing is necessary (high constraint). The subject growth area can be serviced from the

existing water infrastructure in Zone 1 and therefore limited new infrastructure would be required (low

constrain). The closeness of Area 4 to the City’s water treatment facilities means that the increase in

energy consumption to pump the water and service Area 4 will be low compared to the other service areas

resulting in low long term operational cost.


Growth Area 5 is located to the west of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows that

servicing Area 5 would require the creation of a new pressure zone. The new pressure zone will be

supplied from Zone 1. Thus additional storage in Zone 1 is needed in addition to the storage requirement

for the new zone. Additional pumping capacity in Zone 1 is also required to meet the expected demand in

addition to the need for a new pumping station to service the new zone. In comparison to the other

growth areas, the servicing of Area 5 requires higher storage and pumping upgrades (high constraint).

There will also be a need for land accusation for the new water storage and pumping facilities (high

constraint). Though the Grand River separates Area 5 from the rest of the city, there is an existing water

main crossing the Grand River which could be used to provide water supply to the new zone (low

constraint). The subject growth area will require some capital investment for new infrastructure (medium

constrain). There would be an average increase in energy consumption required to pump water to service

Area 5 resulting in a medium long term operational cost.


Growth Area 6 is situated to the north west of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows

that servicing Area 6 would necessitate the creation of a new pressure zone. The new pressure zone will

be supplied from Zone 1. Thus additional storage in Zone 1 is needed in addition to the storage

requirement for the new zone. Additional pumping capacity in Zone 1 is also required to meet the

expected demand in addition to the need for a new pumping station to service the new zone. In

comparison to the other growth areas, servicing of Area 6 requires high storage and pumping upgrades

(high constraint). There will be a need for land accusation for the new water storage and pumping

facilities and a river crossing (Grand River) to service Area 6 from the city water supply system (high

constraint). The subject growth area will also require a sizable capital investment for new infrastructure

(high constraint). Compared to the other areas, there would be an average increase in energy

consumption to pump the water to Area 6 resulting in a medium long term operational cost.




Growth Area 7 is located to the north west of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows

that servicing Area 7 would require the creation of a new pressure zone. That would be supplied from

Zone 1. Thus additional storage in Zone 1 is needed in addition to the storage requirements for the new

zone. Additional pumping capacity in Zone 1 is also required to meet the expected demand in addition to

the need for a new pumping station. In comparison to other growth areas, servicing Area 7 requires high

storage and pumping upgrades (high constraint). Moreover, there will be a need for land accusation for

the new water storage and pumping facilities (high constraint). A river crossing (Grand River) is also

required (high constraint). There would also be a sizable capital investment for new infrastructure (high

constraint). Area 7 has a very high ground elevation and is a considerable distance from the City water

treatment facilities. Thus, more energy would be required to pump the water to Area 7 resulting in high

long term operational costs.



2. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

Similar to the Water System Assessment, the Sanitary Sewer System Assessment reviewed the relative

servicing impact of the proposed seven growth areas on the existing sanitary sewer collection system.

The assessment is based on a projected “build out” population of approximately 100,000 and a design

population of 30,000 for each of the identified growth areas. It is to be noted that this assessment was

completed prior to the finalization of the projected population and employment estimates. Depending on

the final population and employment projections, the sanitary sewer system assessment may have to be

revised.

The City of Brantford’s H2OMAP sanitary sewer hydraulic model was used to evaluate the system

capacity for each growth area.

2.1. Design Criteria

The following design criteria were used to determine the projected peak sanitary flow for the “build out”

population plus the estimated growth population of 30,000 persons.

Average Sewage Flow = 450 L/cap/day

Design Population = 50 persons/Hectare

Inflow / Infiltration (I/I) Flow Allowances = 0.28 L/ha/s( )5

Sewage Flow Peaking Factor = Harmon Formula ( )6

Utilizing the above design criteria, the sanitary sewer flow for the growth areas based on 30,000 persons

is as below:

Average Sewage Flow = 156.2L/s (13.5 ML/day)

I/I flow = 168.0 L/s (14.5 ML/d)

Harmon Peaking Factor = 1.69

5 Allowance as per MOE standard for extraneous flows

6 M = 1 + 14/(4+p0.5)



Total Sewage Flow ( )7 = 432.0L/s (37.3ML/d)

The total sewage flow was applied to H2OMap Model in order to identify the system constraints.

2.2. Analysis of Sanitary Servicing Requirements for the Seven Growth Areas

The following is a brief summary of the sanitary servicing requirements for each of the seven growth

areas.

2.2.1. Area 1

Approximately 67% of the total sewage flow from Area I can be accomodated by the eastern trunk sewer

system with the remaining 33% going to the western sanitary sewer system. Figure 1 presents the

connections to the existing sanitary sewer system for Area 1.

Figure 1: Sanitary Sewer System Servicing Area 1

7 Total Sewage Flow = Average Sewage Flow * Peaking Factor + I/I



In Figure 1, the sanitary sewer lines in red color were indicating the sanitary sewer restriction (potential

surcharge section). According to Figure 1, there are five (5) potential surcharging sewer lines with a total

length of the surcharging sewer lines of approximately 1.9 km. The majority of the potential surcharge

occurred in the western sanitary sewer system and some potential surcharged sewer lines are also

identified in the eastern trunk system, downstream of Empey Street Pumping Station.

2.2.2. Area 2

Two connections were identified to transport sewage flow from Area 2 to the waste water treatment plant.

Figure 2 presents the connections for Area 2 development.


According to Figure 2, the hydraulic model identified a total of ten (10) potential surcharging sewer lines

with a total length of the surcharging sections of approximately 0.8km.



2.2.3. Area 3

Area 3 can be serviced from the existing 675mm sewer line on Colborne Street. Figure 3 presents the

connection for Area 3 to the existing sanitary sewer system.


Based on the hydraulic analysis results two (2) pipes with a total length of 167m were identified as

potential surcharging sewer lines. As indicated in Figure 3, the potential surcharge sections occurred at

the following locations:

1. Intersection of Linden Ave and Colborne Street

2. 1050mm sewer line between Mohawk Street and Forest Road



2.2.4. Area 4

Area 4 is located at the southeast side of City of Brantford’s boundary. The potential connection for Area

4 development is the 1200mm sewer line on Delamere Street. Figure 4 presents the connection for Area

4.


The hydraulic model identified that 19 pipes with approximately 2.6km in length will be potentially

surcharging. The majority of the potential surcharging sections occur in the 1200mm/1350mm western

trunk sewer lines from River Road to Brantford Waste Water Treatment Plant.

2.2.5. Area 5

The potential sanitary sewer connection for this area is the existing 675mm sewer line on Shellard Lane.

Figure 5 presents the connection for Area 5.




With the total sewage flow applied to this connection, the hydraulic model identified 24 potential

surcharging sewer lines. The surcharging sections are approximately 3.0 km in length and the majority of

the potential surcharged sewer lines occur in the 1200mm/1350mm western trunk sewer lines from River

Road to Brantford Waste Water Treatment Plant.

2.2.6. Area 6

Area 6 could be serviced from the existing 1050mm eastern trunk system as indicated in Figure 6. With

the total sewage flow applied to this connection, 25 pipes with a total length of about 3.2 km were

identified as being subject to potential surcharging. Similar to Areas 4 and 5, the majority of potential

surcharging sewer lines occur in the 1200mm/1350mm western trunk sewer lines from River Road to

Brantford Waste Water Treatment Plant.




2.2.7. Area 7

Area 7 can be serviced from the existing 750mm eastern trunk system as indicated in Figure 7. With the

total sewage flow applied to this connection, 41 pipes with a total length of about 4.9km were identified

as being subject to potential surcharging. Similar to Areas 3, 4 and 5 the majority of the potential

surcharging sewer lines occur in the 1200mm/1350mm western trunk sewer lines from River Road to

Brantford Waste Water Treatment Plant.




2.3. General Comments

The main sanitary sewer system constraint in the western sanitary sewer trunk system is the

1200mm/1350mm sewer lines located between River Road and the Brantford Waste Water Treatment

Plant. Improvement works to these sections of sewer line are common to Areas 4, 5, 6 and 7.

One of the sanitary sewer constraints in the eastern sewer trunk system is the Empey Street Pumping

Station. According to the information provided by the City, the existing Empey Street Pumping Station

consists of 4 pumps (each with a rated capacity of 455 L/s). According to the City’s operational policy,

the Empey Street Pumping Station firm capacity consists of two pumps under normal operating condition

with the remaining two pumps only being used as backup pumps. Thus, the total available pumping

capacity is 910 L/s. The Empey Street Pumping Station may not have sufficient capacity to meet the

design sewage flows. As well, some sections of the sewer lines downstream of the Empey Pumping

Station are experiencing an extreme high velocity of 5m/s; which is higher than the maximum allowable

velocity of 3.0 m/s as recommended in MOE Guidelines. In the lower part of the eastern trunk sewer



system, the slope of two 1050mm sewer lines changes from steep to flat. Figure 8 presents the cross

section profile of these two pipes.

Figure 8: Sewer lines Profile – Forest Road & Mohawk Street

Using the City’s H2OMap Sewer Model, a potential surcharge was identified for an existing pipe

downstream of the Empey Pumping Station which has a very flat slope (pipe ID EC328-EC276).

However, the impact of this configuration on existing and future sewage flows cannot be properly

evaluated due to the limitation of a steady-state hydraulic model.

In order to more accurately determine the impact of increased sewage flows on the upstream sewer lines

and the downstream sewer lines with that are experiencing high velocities, a fully dynamic modeling

analysis is strongly recommended. The modeling analysis would identify appropriate operational

arrangements and/or specific pipe capacity improvements.



2.4. Sanitary Servicing Constraint

The sanitary servicing constraints for each of the seven growth areas are discussed in the following

sections. The following factors were considered in the assessment process:

1. Constructability constraints including the need for land accusation and river crossings.

2. Existing infrastructure constraints including available pipe capacity and the need for additional

pumping facilities.

3. Capital costs including the cost of new infrastructure to provide sanitary servicing.

4. Long term operational cost including pumping cost.


Growth Area 1 is situated to the north of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows that

the servicing of Area 1 can be made through a combination of both the Eastern Sewer Trunk and the

Western Sewer Trunk systems. The analysis has indicated that the servicing of Area 1 will result in a

potential surcharging of the existing sewer system resulting in a need for system improvements (medium

constraints). Operational constraints in the Empey Street Pumping Station need to be addressed to service

Area 1 through the Eastern Sewer Trunk (medium constraints). New sanitary infrastructure mainly in the

western part of Area 1 would also be required (medium constrain). Servicing Area 1 through the Western

Sewer Trunk will require the construction of a sewage pumping station within Area 1 due to the topology

of the area. This would necessitate the need for land accusation (medium constraint). There will also be a

need for multi pumping of sewage to the City wastewater treatment facilities resulting in long term

operational costs (medium constraint).


Growth Area 2 is located to the north east of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows

that Area 2 can be serviced through the Eastern Sewer Trunk system. There would be some potential

surcharging of the existing sewer system and thus the need for system improvements (medium

constraints). Operational constraints in the Empey Street Pumping Station need to be addressed to be able

service Area 2 through the Eastern Sewer Trunk (medium constraints). No river crossings are required

and a limited amount of new sanitary infrastructure would be required (low constrain). Compared to the

other service areas, the sanitary servicing of Area 2 would have limited pumping needs resulting in low

long term operational costs (low constraint).




Growth Area 3 is located to the south east of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows

that servicing of Area 3 can be made through the Eastern Sewer Trunk system. The analysis indicated

that servicing this will result in very limited potential surcharging in the existing sewers (low constraint).

No operational constraints in existing pumping stations need to be addressed (low constraints). A River

crossing would be required (medium constraint) and land acquisition for new pumping facilities would be

needed (high constraint). Furthermore, the subject growth area has limited existing sanitary infrastructure

and therefore a significant capital expenditure would be needed to build a new sanitary sewer system to

service the area (high constraint). The servicing of Area 3 across the river would require the construction

of a new pumping station with an outfall connection to the City wastewater treatment facilities resulting

in high long term operational costs (high constraint).


Growth Area 4 is situated to the south of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows that

servicing of Area 4 can be made through the Western Sewer Trunk system. The analysis indicated that

servicing of Area 4 will result in a potential surcharging of a few of the existing sewers (medium

constraint). No operational constraints in existing pumping stations need to be addressed (low

constraints). A River crossing and land acquisition for new pumping facilities would be required (high

constrain). As well, a capital expenditure would be needed to build a new sanitary sewer system to

service the area (high constraint). There would be limited pumping requirements resulting in long term



Growth Area 5 is located to the west of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows that

servicing of Area 5 can be made through the Western Sewer Trunk system. The analysis has indicated

that servicing of Area 5 will result in the potential surcharging of a few existing sewers (medium

constraint). No operational constraints in existing pumping stations need to be addressed (low

constraints). A River crossing and land accusation for new pumping facilities will be needed (high

constraints). Furthermore, capital expenditures will be needed to build a new sanitary sewer system to

service the area (high constraint). There would be limited pumping requirements resulting in long term





Growth Area 6 is located to the north west of the existing city boundary. The system assessment shows

that the servicing of Area 6 can be made through the Western Sewer Trunk system. The analysis has

indicated that servicing of Area 6 will result in a potential surcharging of several existing sewers (high

constraint). No operational constraints in the existing pumping stations need to be addressed (low


constraints). Furthermore, capital expenditures will be needed to build a new sanitary sewer system to

service the area (high constraint). The sanitary servicing of Area 6 across the river will require multiple

pumping of sewage to the City’s wastewater treatment facility resulting in long term operational costs

(medium constraint).


Growth Area 7 is situated to the north west of the existing city boundary. . The system assessment shows

that the servicing of Area 7 can be made through the Western Sewer Trunk system. The analysis has

indicated that servicing of Area 7 will result in the potential surcharging of several existing sewers (high

constraint). No operational constraints in the existing pumping stations needs to be addressed (low


constraint). Furthermore, capital expenditures will be needed to build a new sanitary sewer system to

service the area (high constraint). The sanitary servicing of Area 7 across the river will require multiple

pumping of sewage to the City’s wastewater treatment facility resulting in long term operational costs

(medium constraint).


Appendix 7

Part 2

Brantford Growth Management Strategy

Water and Wastewater Servicing Upgrades and Costs for Growth Area 1


1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the water and wastewater servicing assessment is to identify the capacity upgrades and

costs required to accommodate Brantford’s projected growth at three points in time. The following is a

description of the three growth scenarios:

Complete build-out within the existing City limits by year 2036

Growth Area 1 by year 2046

Growth Area 1 at build out beyond 2046.

The population of the City of Brantford is projected to increase to 155,500 by year 2046. The population

increase, hence water and wastewater servicing, is based on the Compact City Scenario B that uses the

following population projections:

• Total population projection by year 2046: 155,500 persons

• Scenario B City build-out population by year 2036: 139,000 persons

• Additional population in Area 1 by year 2046: 16,500 persons

• Additional population to build-out of Area 1 beyond year 2046: 15,000 persons

For the ICI land the servicing is evaluated based the following:

• Scenario B City build-out ICI land by year 2036: 582 ha

• Area 1 ICI land by year 2046: 371 ha

In the Water Servicing system assessment the following demand rates are used:

• Existing residential water demand: 274 l/cap/day

• Future residential water demand: 450 l/cap/day

• ICI water demand rate: 22,500 l/ha/day

• Max. day factor: 1.72

• Peak hour factor: 2.75

In the Wastewater Servicing system assessment the following demand rates are used:

• Existing residential sanitary flow rate: 302.8 l/cap/day (including ICI and I/I)

• Future residential sanitary flow rate: 450 l/cap/day

• Future ICI sanitary flow rate: 22,500 l/ha/day

• Future I/I rate: 13,306 l/ha/day

• Harmon peaking factor: 2

File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc

Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 2 2. WATER SYSTEM CAPACITY ASSESSMENT AND COSTS

2.1 Scenario 1 – Servicing City Build-Out by year 2036

This scenario assesses the ability of the existing water supply system to service the City to the projected

full build-out population of 139,000 by year 2036 as described in the following tables 1, 2 & 3.

A) Water Storage

Table 1 – Scenario 1 System Storage Requirements

Pressure District PD1 PD2/3 PD4 Res Population 2036 72,736 64,075 2,189 ICI Population 2036 979 9,759 18,368 Total Population 2036 73,715 73,834 20,557 Ave. Day Demand (L/s) 314.80 281.32 104.70 Max. Day Demand (L/s) 541.46 483.87 180.09 Water Storage Required as per MOE Fire Flow per area (L/s) 378.00 378.00 274.18 Duration (hr) 6 6 4.36 A - Fire Storage (m3) 8,165 8,165 4,304 B - Equalization Storage (m3) 11,696 10,452 3,890 C - Emergency Storage (m3) 4,965 4,654 2,048 Total Required Storage = A+B+C (m3) 24,825 23,270 10,242 Total Required Storage = A+B+C (ML) 24.83 23.27 10.24 Existing Storage (ML) 23.35 27.69 12 Storage Surplus (+) or Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) -1.48 4.42 1.76

The analysis indicates that to service the City at full build-out (2036) there will be an additional storage

requirement of approximately 1.5 million litres. An elevated storage facility is planned for 2016 at a cost

of $2.0 million in the south west portion of the City that will also serve the downtown.


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 3 B) Water Pumping

Table 2 – Scenario 1 System Pumping Capacity Requirements

Pressure District Total PD1 (PD1 Local + Transfer to PD2/PD3 &

PD4 PD2/3 PD4 Peak Hour Demand (L/s) 774 288 Max Day Demand (L/s) 484 180 Fire Flow (L/s) 378 274 Total Max Day + Fire Flow (L/s) 862 454 Required Pump Capacity (L/s) 1583 862 454 Required Pump Capacity (ML/D) 137 74 39 Existing Firm Pump Capacity (ML/D) 168 154 45 Additional Pumping Capacity (ML/D)

0 0 0

The analysis indicates that no additional pumping capacity is required to service the City full build-out

population.

C) Water Transmission

The analysis indicates the need for water transmission upgrades to accommodate the projected growth in

the amount of $7.9 million which represents the prorated growth component directly attributed to the full

build out (2036). The following water transmission main upgrades (for full build out) are planned for

this timeframe. The location of these upgrade projects can be reviewed on Drawing W-1(shown in red).

Table 3 – Scenario 1 Water Transmission Capacity Upgrade Requirements

Project No. Year Description Cost ($) in Million

1 2026 From intersection of Pearl St. & Nelson St. to Wayne Greztky PS $2.1

2 2026 Along Elgin St. from Wayne Gretzky Res to Hachborn Rd. $1.2

3 2026 Along Grandriver Ave. between Morrell St. & Waterloo St. $0.9

4 2016 From intersection of Brant Ave. & Parkside Rd. to Tollgate PS $1.9

5 2016 From Tollgate Res to King George ET $1.0

6 2016 Along Shellard Lane between Killarney St. & Hillcrest Ave. $0.8

Total $7.9


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 4 E) Water Treatment

Additional water treatment plant capacity will be required to service the anticipated build-out residential

population and ICI water demands in 2036. Based on a construction unit cost of $1.00 per litre and a

maximum day per capita equivalent flow of 860 litres, the prorated cost to provide additional water

treatment capacity is $19.6 million. This represents only the prorated growth component of a $50 million

Water Treatment Plant expansion planned for 2026.

Summary of Scenario 1 (2036) Water Servicing Costs

Additional Storage: $2.0 million

Additional Pumping: $0.0 million

Water Transmission Upgrades: $7.9 million

Water Treatment Upgrades: $19.6 million

Total Build Out (2036) Water Servicing Cost $29.5 million

2.2 Scenario 2 – Servicing the Preferred Growth Area (Area 1) by year 2046

This scenario only considers capacity upgrades and costs for water servicing beyond year 2036 and up to

2046 as described in tables 4, 5 and 6.

A) Water Storage

Table 4 – Scenario 2 System Storage Capacity Requirements

Pressure District PD1 PD2/3 PD4 Water Storage Required as per MOE Fire Flow per area (L/s) 378 378 378 Duration (hr) 6 6 6 A - Fire Storage (m3) 8,165 8,165 8,165 B - Equalization Storage (m3) 11,696 12,566 8,383 C - Emergency Storage (m3) 4,965 5,183 4,137 Total Required Storage = A+B+C (m3) 24,825 25,914 20,685 Total Required Storage = A+B+C (ML) 24.83 25.91 20.69 Existing Storage (ML) 23.35 27.69 12 Storage Surplus (+) or Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) -1.48 1.78 -8.69


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 5 The analysis indicates that to service Area 1 by year 2046 an additional storage (over and above the 1.5

million litres required in pressure district 1) of approximately 8.7 million litres is required in pressure

district 4 at a cost of $4.8 million. This represents only the prorated growth component of a 6.6 million

litres above ground storage facility expansion and a new 3 million litres elevated storage tank planned for

2026 at a cost of $6.0 million. The additional capacity provided is for growth beyond 2046 and is for the

full build-out of Area 1.

B) Water Pumping


Pressure Zone Total PD1 + AREA1

(PD1 Local + Transfer to

PD2/PD3, PD4 & AREA 1)

PD2/3 + AREA 1

PD4 + AREA 1

Peak Hour Demand (L/s) 930 621 Max Day Demand (L/s) 582 388 Fire Flow (L/s) 378 378 Total Max Day + Fire Flow (L/s) 960 766 Required Pump Capacity (L/s) 1889 960 766 Required Pump Capacity (ML/D) 163 83 66 Existing Firm Pump Capacity (ML/D) 168 154 45 Additional Pumping Capacity (ML/D)

0 0 21

The analysis indicates that to service Growth Area 1 by year 2046 an additional pumping capacity is

required at a cost of $0.1 million for the supply and installation of the pumps. This represents only the

prorated growth component of pumping upgrades at the pressure district 4 above ground storage facility

planned for construction in 2026 at a cost of $1.0M.



the amount of $3.8 million which represents the prorated growth component directly attributed to the

servicing of that portion of Area 1 that services the 2046 growth projection. The following water

transmission main upgrades are planned for this timeframe. The location of these upgrade projects can be

reviewed on Drawing W-1(shown in green).





7 2016 Within PD4 Boundary, North West of Hwy 403 $3.8

D) Water Treatment

Additional water treatment plant capacity will be required to service that portion of Area 1 that services

the 2046 growth projection. Based on a construction unit cost of $1.00 per litre and a maximum day per

capita equivalent flow of 860 litres, the prorated cost to provide additional water treatment capacity is

approximately $14.2 million. This represents only the prorated growth component of a $50 million Water

Treatment Plant expansion planned for 2026.

Summary of Water Costs for Scenario 2 – Servicing Area 1 by year 2046





Total Area 1 Water Servicing Costs $22.9 million

2.3 Scenario 3 – Servicing the preferred Growth Area (Area 1) to Build-Out

This scenario only considers capacity upgrades and costs for water servicing from 2046 to build-out in

Area 1 as described in tables 7, 8 and 9.

A) Water Storage

The analysis indicates that to service the remainder of Area 1 (from 2046 to build-out) an additional storage (over and above the additional storage required for scenarios 1 and 2 ) of approximately 2.0 million litres is required at both PD2/PD3 and PD4 storage facilities at a cost of $1.2 million. This represents only the prorated growth component of a 6.6 million litres above


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 7 ground storage facility expansion and a new 3 million litres elevated storage tank planned for 2026 at a cost of $6.0 million.

Table 7 – Scenario 3 System Storage Capacity Requirements

Pressure District PD1 PD2/3 PD4 Water Storage Required as per MOE Fire Flow per area (L/s) 378.00 378.00 378 Duration (hr) 6 6 6 A - Fire Storage (m3) 8,165 8,165 8,165 B - Equalization Storage (m3) 11,696 14,688 9,164 C - Emergency Storage (m3) 4,965 5,713 4,332 Total Required Storage = A+B+C (m3) 24,825 28,566 21,661 Total Required Storage = A+B+C (ML) 24.83 28.57 21.66 Existing Storage (ML) 23.35 27.69 12 Storage Surplus (+) or Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) -1.48 -0.88 -9.66

B) Water Pumping


Pressure District Total PD1 + AREA1

(PD1 Local + Transfer to

PD2/PD3, PD4 & AREA 1)

PD2/3 + AREA 1

PD4 + AREA 1

Peak Hour Demand (L/s) 1087 678 Max Day Demand (L/s) 680 424 Fire Flow (L/s) 378 378 Total Max Day + Fire Flow (L/s) 1058 802 Required Pump Capacity (L/s) 2024 1087 802 Required Pump Capacity (ML/D) 175 94 69 Existing Firm Pump Capacity (ML/D) 168 154 45 Additional Pumping Capacity (ML/D)

7 0 24

The analysis indicates that to service the remainder of Growth Area 1 (2046 to build-out) an additional

pumping capacity of 7 ML/D at PD1 Pumping Station and 3 million litres /day at PD4 Pumping Station is

required at a cost of $0.9 million in pump supply and installation cost. This represents only the prorated


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 8 growth component of pumping upgrades at the pressure district 4 above ground storage facility planned

for construction in 2026 at a cost of $1.0M.

Note: The additional 7 ML/D pumping capacity will be accomodated in the WTP upgrade improvements

planned for 2007/8.



the amount of $1.4 million which represents the prorated growth component directly attributed to the full

build out of Area 1 (beyond 2046). The following water transmission main upgrades (for full build out)

are planned for this timeframe. The location of these upgrade projects can be reviewed on Drawing W-1

(shown in yellow).



8 2046 From Tollgate Res to Powerline Rd.

9 2046 Along Wayne Gretzky Parkway between Edmondson St. to north of Brier Park Rd.

$1.4

D) Water Treatment

Additional water treatment plant capacity will be required to service Area 1 at build-out. Based on a

construction unit cost of $1.00 per litre and a maximum day per capita equivalent flow of 860 litres, the

prorated cost to provide additional water treatment capacity is approximately $12.9 million. This

represents only the prorated growth component of a $50 million Water Treatment Plant expansion

planned for 2026.

Summary of Water Costs for Scenario 3 – Servicing Remainder of Area 1 (2046 to build-out)





Total Area 1 Water Servicing Costs $16.4 million


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 9 3. WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY ASSESSMENT AND COST

The assessment included the available wastewater conveyance capacity, pumping capacity and

wastewater treatment capacity. Sewer line Qflow/Qcapacity is used as the criteria to identify the need for

sewer upgrades. In the assessment Qflow/Qcapacity = 0.8 indicates that the sewer has only 20% of its

capacity available for the future flow, thus increasing the risk of surcharge. Therefore, any sewer with

Qflow/Qcapacity ≥ 0.8 is flagged as a capacity constraint and must be upgraded.

3.1 Scenario 1 – Servicing City Build-Out by year 2036

The scenario assess the capability of the existing sanitary sewer system to service the City full

build-out population of 139,000 by year 2036

A) Trunk Sewers

Table 10 provide details of sewer upgrade projects required to accommodate the City build-out by 2036.

The estimated total cost of these projects is $9.7 million of which the prorated growth component directly

attributed to the City full build out (2036). The location of these upgrade projects can be reviewed on

Drawing WW-1 (shown in red).

Table 10 – Scenario 1 Wastewater Trunk Sewer Upgrade Requirement

Proj ID Year of Construction Project List Total Cost

(million)

1 2016 West Brantford Trunk from Erie Ave. to Greenwich St. PS and Mohawk St. Trunk from PS to Cayuga St.

$3.0

2 2016 Oak Hill Drive Bottleneck Twinning $1.2

7 2006 South of Hardy Rd. Collector Sewer $2.0

8 2016 North of Hardy Rd. Collector Sewer $3.5

Total $9.7

B) Pumping

Servicing the west part of the full build out of Area 1 will be through the new pumping station at Hardy

Road. Additional pumping capacity of 120 l/s will be required at the Hardy Road pumping station at an

estimated cost of $0.7 million. This represents the only the growth component of a planned $ 3.2 million

pumping station expansion planned for 2006


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 10 D) Wastewater Treatment

Additional wastewater treatment plant capacity is required to service the projected population of 139,000

persons at City build-out (2036). Based on a construction unit cost of $1.50 per litre and an average

annual daily per capita flow equivalent of 590 litres, the prorated cost to provide additional wastewater

treatment capacity (over and above the existing plant’s 25 million liters/day remaining capacity) is

approximately $3.2 million. This represents only the prorated growth component of a $50 million

wastewater treatment plant expansion planned for 2026

Summary of Wastewater Costs for Scenario 1 (build-out 2036)

Trunk Sewer Upgrades: $9.7 million

Pumping Station Upgrades: $0.7 million

Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion: $3.2 million

Total Wastewater Servicing Costs for Scenario 1 $13.6 million

3.2 Scenario 2 – Servicing the Preferred Growth Area (Area 1) by year 2046

This scenario assesses the ability of the existing wastewater system to service Area 1 by year 2046.

Consideration is given only to the additional upgrades and costs beyond year 2036 described as follows:

A) Trunk Sewers

The analysis indicates the prorated growth component directly attributed to servicing Area 1 (2046) will

be $4.4 million. The following trunk sewer upgrade is planned for this timeframe. The location of the

upgrade project can be reviewed on Drawing WW-1 (shown in green).

Table 11 – Scenario 2 Wastewater Trunk Sewer Upgrade Requirement


(million)

3 2026 South West Trunk Twinning (Winter Way to Birkett Lane) $4.4

B) Pumping

A pumping capacity constraint was identified at the Empey Street pumping station. An assessment

indicates that the total flow to the pumping station by year 2046 is estimated to be approximately 900 l/s.

which matches the existing total pumping capacity. The total estimated cost to upgrade the pumping


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 11 station to accommodate the full build out of Area 1 is $6.0 million of which the growth component to

service Area 1 (2046) is $3.0 million.

Servicing the west part of Area 1 will be through the new pumping station at Hardy Road. An additional

pumping capacity of 448 l/s will be required at the Hardy Road pumping station at an estimated cost of

$2.5 million. This represents the only the growth component of a planned $ 3.2 million pumping station

expansion planned for 2006.

C) Wastewater Treatment

Additional wastewater treatment plant capacity is required to service Area 1(2036). Based on a

construction unit cost of $1.50 per litre and an average annual daily per capita flow equivalent of 590

litres, the prorated cost to provide additional wastewater treatment capacity is approximately $11.2

million. This represents only the prorated growth component of a $50 million wastewater treatment plant

expansion planned for 2026.

Total Wastewater Costs for Scenario 2 – Servicing Area 1 by year 2046


Pumping Station Upgrades: $5.5 million

Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion: $11.2million

Total Wastewater Servicing Costs for Scenario 2 $21.1 million

3.3 Scenario 3 – Servicing the Preferred Growth Area (Area 1) to Build-Out

This scenario assesses the ability of the existing wastewater system to service the remaining portion of

Area 1 (2046 to build-out). Consideration is given only to the additional upgrades and costs described as

follows:

A) Trunk Sewers

The analysis indicates the prorated growth component directly attributed to servicing Area 1 beyond 2046

will be $4.0 million. The following trunk sewer upgrades are planned for this timeframe. The location of

the upgrade project can be reviewed on Drawing WW-1.(shown in yellow)


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 12 Table 12 – Scenario 3 Wastewater Trunk Sewer Upgrade Requirement


(million)

4 Beyond 2046 Eastern Circumferential Trunk Twinning (Along Mohawk St. from Greenwich St. to WPCP)

$1.0

5 Beyond 2046 Eastern Circumferential Trunk Twinning (Along Empey St. from Henry St. to Empey PS)

$1.0

6 Beyond 2046 South West Trunk Twinning (Kinnard Rd. to Oak Hill Dr.) $2.0

Total $4.0

B) Pumping

A pumping capacity constraint was identified at the Empey Street pumping station. Our assessment

indicates that the total flow to the pumping station by build out of Area 1 is estimated to be

approximately 1100 l/s. The pumping station currently has a total pumping capacity of approximately

900 l/s therefore additional pumping will be required. The total estimated cost to upgrade the pumping

station to accommodate the full build out of Area 1 is $6.0 million of which $3.0 million would be the

growth component required to service the balance of lands within Area 1 beyond 2046.

C) Wastewater Treatment

Additional wastewater treatment plant capacity will be required to service Area 1at build-out. Based on a

construction unit cost of $1.50 per litre and an average annual daily per capita flow equivalent of 590

litres, the prorated cost to provide additional wastewater treatment capacity is approximately $9.8

million.

Total Wastewater Costs for Scenario 3 – Servicing Area 1 at Build-Out


Pumping Station Upgrades $3.0 million

Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion $9.8 million

Total Area 1 (build-out) Wastewater Servicing Costs $16.8 million


Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 13 Summary of Water and Wastewater Servicing Costs

Project Funding from Development Charges ($million)

Capital Project Description

Total Cost

$million

Anticipated Year of

Construction

To City Build-

Out(2036) Area 1 (2046)

Area 1 Beyond

2046 Beyond Area 1 Build-

Out Water Storage Elevated Storage Tank in PD1 2.0 2016 2.0 0.0 In Ground Storage in PD4 3.0 2026 2.4 0.6 0.0 Elevated Storage in PD4 3.0 2026 2.4 0.6 0.0 Total Storage 8.0 2.0 4.8 1.2 0.0 Pumping New Pumps in PD4 Above Ground Storage Facility 1.0 2026 0.1 0.9 0.0 Total Pumping 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 Transmission Project 1 2.1 2036 2.1 0.0 Project 2 1.2 2036 1.2 0.0 Project 3 0.9 2026 0.9 0.0 Project 4 1.9 2016 1.9 0.0 Project 5 1.0 2026 1.0 0.0 Project 6 0.8 2016 0.8 0.0 Project 7 3.8 2016 3.8 0.0 Project 8 1.1 2046 1.1 0.0 Project 9 0.3 2046 0.3 0.0 Total Transmission 13.1 7.9 3.8 1.4 0.0 Treatment Major WTP Expansion 50.0 2026 19.6 14.2 12.9 3.3 Total Treatment 50.0 19.6 14.2 12.9 3.3 Total Water 72.1 29.5 22.9 16.4 3.3 Wastewater Trunk Sewers

Project 1

3.0 2016 3.0 0.0

Project 2

1.2 2016 1.2 0.0

Project 3

4.4 2026 4.4 0.0

Project 4

1.0 Beyond 2046 1.0 0.0

Project 5

1.0 Beyond 2046 1.0 0.0

Project 6

2.0 Beyond 2046 2.0 0.0

Project 7

2.0 2006 2.0 0.0

Project 8

3.5 2016 3.5 0.0 Total Trunk Sewers $18.1 $9.7 $4.4 $4.0 $0.0

Pumping Empey PS Upgrade 6.0 2046 3.0 3.0 0.0 Hardy Road PS Upgrade 3.2 2006 0.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 Total Pumping 9.2 0.7 5.5 3.0 0.0 Treatment Major WWTP Expansion 50.0 2026 3.2 11.2 9.8 25.8 Total Treatment 50.0 3.2 11.2 9.8 25.8 Total Wastewater 77.3 13.6 21.1 16.8 25.8 Total W&WW 149.4 43.1 44.0 33.2 29.1 Gross Area Serviced (Hectares) 1043 1083 500 Cost per Hectare* 0.413 0.409 0.458 * accumulated average cost


Appendix 8

Transportation Assessment

Brantford Strategic Growth Study Transportation Assessment 1) Introduction Through the population forecasting and land use assessment, forecasts for the City of Brantford have identified the need to secure sufficient lands to accommodate future population and employment growth. Based on current land consumption trends, reflected in the City’s Official Plan, approximately 630 ha of land is required to accommodate approximately 31,600 new residents. Through implementation of the Province’s new “Places to Grow” density targets, this land requirement is reduced to approximately 308 ha, representing 15,400 new residents. Based on the future employment forecasts, and the availability of industrial lands with the City, it is estimated that 8,100 new employee will need to accommodated in lands outside of the current City boundaries. Within this context, the transportation assessment focuses on two key aspects of the transportation-land use equation: • Marketability is an important criterion, particularly in terms of commercial and

industrial land. The old adage “Location, location, location” still plays a key role in the business decisions of companies when considering relocation or establishing a new operation. In addition to such factors as a skilled workforce, and available serviced lands; access to key transportation and trade corridors is seen as a key factor influencing where companies choose to locate their facilities. With Brantford’s proximity to the Highway 403 corridor, offering excellent and reliable access to both the Windsor and Niagara gateways, the marketability of industrial land in the Brantford area is largely centred on accessibility to Highway 403 for transportation and logistics dependant industries. Considering the marketability of lands is also an important consideration in terms of achievement of planning objectives. While it may make some sense to plan for industrial lands in certain areas of a City to minimize servicing costs or transportation impacts, the marketability of the site will determine if those lands actually develop into industrial operations. Poorly located industrial lands will often be identified by developers for rezoning due to lack of market demand.

• Impact on Existing Transportation Infrastructure is also an important criterion

which looks at the relative impact a certain land use may have on the operation and capacity of an existing transportation facility or service. In examining alternative locations for new growth, the current and projected transportation demands on existing roads, the availability or practicality of servicing the area by transit, and the presence of constraints that would limit new transportation infrastructure opportunities are all key indicators of how an area will impact the transportation system.

2) Transportation Assessment of Growth Areas 2.1 – Area 1 North – Located to the north of the current City boundary, is served by three key north south arterial road connections; Paris Road/Brant Street, King George Road (Highway 24), and Wayne Gretzky Parkway (WGP). Each of these routes provides direct access to Highway 403 and all three feature interchanges allowing for full movements. A fourth link to the Highway 403 corridor is provided via Oak Park Road, at the west end of the study area, allowing for development of a separate industrial road access to the west end of Brantford. This area has the overall best location of the seven alternative growth areas from an industrial location / marketability perspective. The western most section of Area 1 is directly adjacent to the current North-West Brantford Industrial Park, which is currently developing with new industrial employers. The City is currently looking at options to provide transit service to this area, and land use alternatives which increase the number of employees within a distinct node are much more economically feasible to service with conventional transit. In the East-West direction, Powerline Road and County Road 5, both are relatively free flowing and have reserve capacity to accommodate east-west travel between residential and employment areas. In the North-South direction, Paris Road and Oak Park Road have reserved capacity today to accommodate new growth. King George Road is currently operating near capacity in some segments, due to the need for a centre left turn lane. The current localized congestion on King George Road is forecast to worsen by 2031 based on the Status Quo growth scenario and the addition of a large residential area to north of the current city boundary will likely requiring additional widening of this facility. Wayne Gretzky Parkway, to the north of Lynden Road, is currently forecast to operate satisfactorily under the Status Quo growth scenario for 2031. Additional population growth on the lands to the north of Powerline Road will increase north-south travel demands in this corridor, and may accentuate the need for widening of WGP to six lanes across Highway 403. Urban expansion to the north along the WGP corridor would facilitate the eventual extension of WGP to connect to a future “Highway 424” linking Brantford to the Region of Waterloo area. 2.2 – Area 2 East – Located to the east of the current City boundary, Area 2 is bisected by Highway 403, which offers significant frontage for industrial land uses. Access to Highway 403 is via the new Garden Avenue interchange which currently has significant reserve capacity to accommodate additional growth. The access is essentially limited to one interchange location, however, which may strain the capacity of Garden Ave to service the industrial and residential highway access needs of this entire area over the longer term. As the lands to the east are constrained due to river and adjacent flood plain areas, opportunities to develop additional interchanges to service industrial expansion may be somewhat limited. To the north of Highway 403, the lands within Area 2 will use Lyndon Road and Powerline Road for east-west travel to the WGP corridor. The location of the river and flood plain lands in this sector would tend to focus the development opportunities around

the Lyndon Road corridor, which may result in significant growth on this key corridor. Current Status Quo forecasts show Lyndon Road operating near capacity on both sides of the WGP, but with reserve capacity east and west of this localized congestion. Given the existing commercial focus around this intersection, urban expansion in Area 2 (north) would likely require significant upgrades / widening through this intersection. There is one transit route providing half hour service along the Garden Avenue corridor today, as much of this area is lightly developed. Growth in this area would be difficult to service with conventional, fixed route transit services unless there is a significant density of residential and employment land uses to generate enough ridership to introduce additional routes. To the south of Highway 403 east–west access between Area 2 and the downtown Brantford area is primarily served by two road connections; Henry Street and the Colborne Street corridor. Elgin Street does not currently extend to the east of Garden Avenue, limiting it’s role in providing east-west capacity to service this growth area. Current forecast of future travel demands under the Status Quo land sue scenario indicate that Colbourne Street will be operating near capacity, from Garden Avenue through to the downtown area. Henry Street is forecast to operate at acceptable levels, except for localized congestion at the Henry Street / WGP commercial development node. 2.3 Area 3 – South East – The South East growth area is located to the south of Colborne Street and is located along the County Road 18 corridor. The land area is bisected by the Grand River, with the eastern most portion of the area located within the Oxbow Tract. Access to and from this area would need to be provided separate from the remaining lands in the south east growth area, unless a new crossing of the Grand River is built. The only opportunity to introduce access to the area within the Oxbow tract is via Oxbow Road, off Erie Street. Without a second access road to this area, growth potential for the area could be limited by capacity of the existing Oxbow Road. Emergency access would be forced to use this single route, which could prove problematic if the road is closed or blocked by an accident. With the land area bisected by the river, opportunities to integrate the land uses in this expansion area (i.e. employment areas near residential areas) are limited. The remaining lands on the east side of the Grand River have similar transportation challenges, and would prove difficult to integrate into the City’s overall road network. The primary access to these lands is via County Road 18, which is currently operating at free flow conditions. If this land area was developed to accommodate the population and employment levels necessary to accommodate project City growth, it is anticipated that additional access routes would be required to provide effective and reliable service to this area. Colborne Street east is already projected to be operating at or near capacity by 2031, based on current land use and population projections. Erie Avenue is anticipated to have some localized congestion, but generally is expected to have some reserve capacity to accommodate future growth.

From an industrial marketing perspective, the eastern most lands within this growth area dose have access to two major transportation corridors. Access to Highway 403 would be gained via Garden Avenue, which may require widening to preserve an acceptable operation in the future. Truck access could also be gained to and from the east via County Road 2/53. County Road 54 provides a secondary access to the Caledonia Area and the Hamilton International airport area. Industrial access to the West is not as good as the northern growth areas, and all truck traffic would need to use Garden Avenue to access Highway 403. There is no current transit service in this part of the City, with the exception of route 9 along Colborne Street. Route 1, via Erie Avenue currently does not extend far enough south to service this growth area and the route is currently structured to provide local service. Growth in this area would be difficult to service with conventional, fixed route transit services due to the long distances required to access the developable lands. 2.4 Area 4 - South - The South growth area is essentially an extension of the current West Brant community, located south and west of the Grand River. From an industrial marketability perspective, this area does not have acceptable access to the Highway 403 corridor to be attractive for industrial development. Access to the east, for trucks, would need to be gained via County Road 18, currently under the jurisdiction of Brant County. Access to the West would be difficult for trucks, and would likely result in truck traffic infiltrating through the downtown area. From an industrial land perspective, it is unlikely that Area 4 would be attractive enough to encourage new development. The growth potential of Area 4 is also constrained by the Grand River. The existing Erie Avenue (County Road 4) crossing has reserve capacity to accommodate some growth in the future, but would likely need to be widened if 15-31,000 new residents were to locate south of the river. Alternative access to this area can be gained via Mount Pleasant Road to the BSAR, although future forecasts suggest that the BSAR crossing of the Grand River may be approaching capacity under current land use conditions. The Colborne Street crossing is also anticipated to be at or over capacity by the 2031 horizon as well. This area is also difficult to service with conventional, fixed route transit services. Existing transit services do not extend this far south, and are currently structured to provide service to local areas. The long distance between the existing routes and the proposed growth area, combined with the barrier effect of the Grand River, would likely require the introduction of a new separate transit route to service this area. The routing to this area would involve long sections with very little development to generate ridership. It is likely that this area could only be serviced with “dial a bus” service. 2.5 Area 5 & 6 – South West – These two growth areas are similar in terms of their serviceability from a transportation perspective. The marketability of these lands from an industrial development perspective is not nearly as good as the northern growth areas, since there is no direct access to the Highway 403 corridor. Access to the west for truck traffic would be via County Road 53, while truck access to the east would need to route through the downtown, a fact that could limit the development potential of these lands.

The location of the industrial growth area would, however, provide good opportunity for shorter trip lengths and more live-work opportunities, due to the close proximity of the existing West Brant residential area. Industrial growth in Area 4 could provide opportunities for integration with the existing Brantford Municipal Airport, a potential key to the redevelopment and enhancement of this facility. County Road 53, Shellard Lane and Mount Pleasant Road all provide access to Area 4 to some degree, although the only practical access route to Area 6 is via Colborne Street West, unless a new crossing of the Grand River is constructed. An extension of the BSAR across the Grand River to Oak Park Road was recommended as a longer term project in the 1997 Transportation Master Plan. This route would likely border the east edge of Area 6. Access to Area 4 would be provided by County Road 53 (Colborne Street West), and Shellard Lane bisects the remaining land area. Integration with the remaining road network in the City from these two growth areas is highly dependant on the existing crossings of the Grand River. Current forecasts based on the Status Quo growth scenario indicate that the BSAR crossing of the Grand River may be approaching capacity under current land use conditions. The Colborne Street crossing is also anticipated to be at or over capacity by the 2031 horizon as well. Additional residential growth in Area 4 or 6 would almost certainly require the new Oak Park Road extension across the Grand River to ensure adequate access to the existing built up areas of the City. There are two transit routes that currently provide service to this area of Brantford. Transit service to either of these growth areas would be relatively easy to implement, although additional buses may be required to maintain the current half hour service. An additional crossing of the Grand River via Oak Park Road would provide new opportunities to provide transit service to the growing Northwest Industrial Park. 2.6 Area 7 – West – With it’s close proximity to the Highway 403 corridor, Area 7 is also well poised to attract industrial development, with primary highway access via the Highway 24 interchange. The Grand River, running along the east side of this growth area, would limit accessibility between this area and the existing Northwest Industrial Park unless a new crossing of the Grand River is constructed. The only means of access between these two areas would be via Highway 403 itself. Access to the existing road network in the City would be problematic for this growth area due to the barrier effect created by the river. A new arterial road connection to the south would likely be required to connect with Colborne Street west, likely to the west of the existing airport lands. Similar to Area 6, access to the downtown would put additional pressure on the existing Colborne Street and BSAR crossings of the river, both of which are forecast to be operating at or near capacity by 2031 under current land use forecasts. There is no current transit service in this part of the City, with the exception of “dial a bus” service to the Northwest Industrial Park area. Growth in this area would be difficult

to service with conventional, fixed route transit services due to the long distances required to access the developable lands. Summary Evaluation & Ranking of Growth Areas

Growth Area

Access & Marketability for Industrial

Lands

New Transportation Infrastructure Requirements

Integration With Existing Road

Network

Ability to Service with

Transit

Area 1-North Excellent

1

Moderate

1

Excellent

1

Very Good

1

Area 2- East Very Good

2

Moderate

2

Good

2

Good

2

Area 3-South East

Acceptable

4

Extensive

6

Poor

6

Poor

6

Area 4 – South Poor

7

Significant

3

Poor

5

Poor

5

Area 5 – South West

Poor

6

Extensive

5

Acceptable

4

Acceptable

3

Area 6 – West Poor

5

Extensive

7

Good

3

Acceptable

3

Area 7 - West Very Good

3

Significant

4

Poor

7

Poor

7

Appendix 9

Residential Monitoring Map – City of Brantford

Appendix 10

Vacant Industrial Land Map – City of Brantford

33

19192020

1818

2424

2626

2525

4141

2929

2727

3030

4040

38383737

3636

3535

3434

3232

3333

3131

11 22

44

8899 1010

1111

1212

2323

1717

1616

1313

1515

55 66

77

2121

3939

2828

Highway 403

Fairview Dr.

Kin

g Ge

orge R

d.

Paris R

d.

Tollgate Rd.Hardy Rd.

Charing Cross St.

Wes

t St.

Powerline Rd. Powerline Rd.

Park R

d. N

orth

Wayne G

retzky P

ky.

Lynden Rd.

Garden A

ve.

Colborne St. East

Wayne G

retzky P

ky.Dalhousie St.

Colborne St.

Cla

renc

e S

t.

Wes

t St.

Brant A

ve.

St. Pau

l Ave

.

Colborne St. West

Oak P

ark Rd.

Highway 403

Hardy Rd.

Brantford S

outhern Access M

ount

Ple

asa

nt S

t.

Erie A

ve.

Colborne St. West

Henry St.

Highway 403

Road

Icomm Dr.

Henry St.

1414

2222

Vacant Industrial Land

Prepared bythe City of Brantford Planning Department

Amended May, 2005

LEGEND

ServicingServiced

General Capability

Conditionally Sold

OwnershipCity owned

Privately owned

0 500 1,000250

Metres

Site No. Acres* Owner Servicing

Northwest Industrial Area1 93.8 Private General Capability2 207.0 Private General Capability3 30.0 Private General Capability4 18.6 City Serviced5 11.4 Private Serviced6 5.3 City Serviced7 12.3 Private Serviced8 16.2 Private Serviced9 7.0 City General Capability10 5.7 City Serviced11 2.0 Private Serviced12 31.5 Private General Capability13 75.0 Private General Capability14 50.0 Private General Capability

Total 565.8

Braneida Industrial Area - South of 40315 21.0 Private Serviced16 4.0 Private Serviced17 6.5 Private Serviced18 9.8 Private Serviced19 43.0 Private Serviced20 12.1 Private Serviced21 2.0 Private Serviced22 10.0 Private Serviced23 28.0 Private Serviced24 12.0 Private Serviced25 4.0 Private Serviced26 7.1 Private Serviced27 15.1 Private General Capability28 15.1 Private Serviced29 3.4 City General Capability30 29.5 City General Capability31 17.2 City General Capability32 27.9 City General Capability

Total 242.7

Braneida Industrial Area - North of 40333 3.6 Private Serviced34 5.5 Private Serviced35 6.6 Private Serviced36 22.0 Private General Capability37 5.8 Private General Capability38 1.2 Private General Capability39 3.7 Private General Capability40 1.2 City Serviced41 9.1 Private Serviced

Total 58.7

City-Owned30.8 Serviced85.0 General Capability

115.8 Total

Privately Owned241.2 Serviced535.1 General Capability776.3 Total

Total Vacant Industrial Land272.0 Serviced620.1 General Capability892.1 Total

* All areas are net