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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 2
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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 3
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 4
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 5
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 6
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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 7
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
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
Existing Planning Scenario A: 124,000 peopleExisting Planning Scenario A: 124,000 people
20 Year PPS Time Horizon20 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)Compact City Scenario B: 139,000 people (+15,000 people)
New Official Plan Time Horizon to 2031
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 8
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:
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 9
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 10
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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 11
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 12
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 13
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:
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 14
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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 15
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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 16
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 17
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 18
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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 19
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 20
• 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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 22
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 23
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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 24
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 25
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).
Scenario 2 – Assessment of wastewater trunk sewer and water transmission
main extensions to the external boundaries of Area 1, water and wastewater
pumping upgrades and water storage and water and wastewater treatment
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 26
expansions to accommodate the first phase of Area 1 growth (16,500
persons plus ICI) by 2046.
Scenario 3 – Assessment of wastewater trunk sewer and water transmission
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.
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 27
Summary of Total Water and Wastewater Servicing Costs
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 28
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
City of Brantford – Growth Management Strategy March 2006 29
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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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.
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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.
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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.
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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.
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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.
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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.
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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:
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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.
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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.
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 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.
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 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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
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
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 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
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 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
Appendix 1 City of Brantford Population and Employment Projections
Page 19
Table 9 Employment to Population Ratios by Mayor Employment Sectors,
Brantford: 2001 – 2046 Employment to Population Ratios
Year Pop. Primary/ Industrial
Comm./ Pop.
Related Instit. Work At Home Total
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
Growth Scenario ‘B’ Compact City - 2
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
Y517-A Brantford Growth Study N:\Y517\A\Reports\Final Mar14 Report\Appendix 2 Revised.doc
Growth Scenario ‘B’ Compact City - 3
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)
Y517-A Brantford Growth Study N:\Y517\A\Reports\Final Mar14 Report\Appendix 2 Revised.doc
Growth Scenario ‘B’ Compact City - 4
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%
Y517-A Brantford Growth Study N:\Y517\A\Reports\Final Mar14 Report\Appendix 2 Revised.doc
Growth Scenario ‘B’ Compact City - 5
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
Y517-A Brantford Growth Study N:\Y517\A\Reports\Final Mar14 Report\Appendix 2 Revised.doc
Growth Scenario ‘B’ Compact City - 6
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
Y517-A Brantford Growth Study N:\Y517\A\Reports\Final Mar14 Report\Appendix 2 Revised.doc
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.
Area 4 – Medium Constraint Rating (4th Overall)
• 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.
• Terrestrial features - Features include Conservation Lands and lands identified with susceptible slopes. These lands collectively represent 10% of the total area within this block.
Area 7 – Medium Constraint Rating (5th Overall)
• 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.
• Terrestrial features - Features include Conservation Lands and lands identified with susceptible slopes. These lands collectively represent 1% of the total area within this block.
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
SECTION 2 LAND USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
COUNTY OF BRANT OFFICIAL PLAN PAGE 34 November, 2000
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.
SECTION 2 LAND USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
COUNTY OF BRANT OFFICIAL PLAN PAGE 35 November, 2000
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
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 2
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)
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 3
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
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 4
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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 5
• 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
The topographic information suggests that the majority of water supply to Area 2 will be from Zone 1
via Zone 2/3. The following system upgrades are required to service 30,000 persons in Area 2:
• Additional Zone 1 Pumping Capacity Requirement = 9.7 ML/day
• Additional Zone 2 Storage Capacity Requirement = 2.0 ML
1.2.3. Area 3
The topographic information suggests that the majority of water supply to Area 2 will be from Zone 1
via Zone 2/3. The following system upgrades are required to service 30,000 persons in Area 3:
• Additional Zone 1 Pumping Capacity Requirement = 9.7 ML/day
• Additional Zone 2 Storage Capacity Requirement = 2.0 ML
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:
• Additional Zone 1 Pumping Capacity Requirement = 9.7 ML/day
• Additional Zone 1 Storage Capacity Requirement = 9.0 ML
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:
• Additional Zone 1 Pumping Capacity Requirement = 9.7 ML/day
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 6
• Pumping Capacity for New Zone Requirement = 51.8 ML/day
• Storage Capacity for New Zone Requirement = 14.8 ML
1.2.6. Area 6
The topology of Area 6 and system separation by Grand River necessitates that a new pressure district
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:
• Additional Zone 1 Pumping Capacity Requirement = 9.7 ML/day
• Pumping Capacity for New Zone Requirement = 51.8 ML/day
• Storage Capacity for New Zone Requirement = 14.8 ML
1.2.7. Area 7
The topology of Area 7 and system separation by Grand River necessitates that a new pressure district
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:
• Additional Zone 1 Pumping Capacity Requirement = 9.7 ML/day
• Pumping Capacity for New Zone Requirement = 51.8 ML/day
• Storage Capacity for New Zone Requirement = 14.8 ML
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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 7
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.
1.3.2. Area 2 Constraints
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.
1.3.3. Area 3 Constraints
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.
1.3.4. Area 4 Constraints
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
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 8
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.
1.3.5. Area 5 Constraints
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.
1.3.6. Area 6 Constraints
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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 9
1.3.7. Area 7 Constraints
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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 10
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)
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 11
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
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 12
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.
Figure 2: Sanitary Sewer System Servicing Area 2
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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 13
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.
Figure 3: Sanitary Sewer System Servicing Area 3
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
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 14
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.
Figure 4: Sanitary Sewer System Servicing 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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 15
Figure 5: Sanitary Sewer System Servicing 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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 16
Figure 6: Sanitary Sewer System Servicing Area 6
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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 17
Figure 7: Sanitary Sewer System Servicing Area 7
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
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 18
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.
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 19
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.
2.4.1. Area 1 Constraints
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).
2.4.2. Area 2 Constraints
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).
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 20
2.4.3. Area 3 Constraints
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).
2.4.4. Area 4 Constraints
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
operational costs (medium constraint).
2.4.5. Area 5 Constraints
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
operational costs (medium constraint).
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 21
2.4.6. Area 6 Constraints
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). 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). 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).
2.4.7. Area 7 Constraints
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
constraints). A River crossing and land accusation for new pumping facilities will be needed (high
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).
File Location: N:\Y517\A\Final report\App 7 Part 1.doc
Appendix 7
Part 2
Brantford Growth Management Strategy
Water and Wastewater Servicing Upgrades and Costs for Growth Area 1
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 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.
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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
Table 5 – Scenario 2 System Pumping Capacity Requirements
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.
C) Water Transmission
The analysis indicates the need for water transmission upgrades to accommodate the projected growth in
the amount of $3.8 million which represents the prorated growth component directly attributed to the
servicing of that portion of Area 1 that services the 2046 growth projection. The following water
transmission main upgrades are planned for this timeframe. The location of these upgrade projects can be
reviewed on Drawing W-1(shown in green).
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 6
Table 6 – Scenario 2 Water Transmission Capacity Upgrade Requirements
Project No. Year Description Cost ($) in Million
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
Additional Storage: $4.8 million
Additional Pumping: $0.1 million
Water Transmission Upgrades: $3.8 million
Water Treatment Upgrades: $14.2 million
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
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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
Table 8 – Scenario 3 System Pumping Capacity Requirements
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
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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.
C) Water Transmission
The analysis indicates the need for water transmission upgrades to accommodate the projected growth in
the amount of $1.4 million which represents the prorated growth component directly attributed to the full
build out of Area 1 (beyond 2046). The following water transmission main upgrades (for full build out)
are planned for this timeframe. The location of these upgrade projects can be reviewed on Drawing W-1
(shown in yellow).
Table 9 – Scenario 3 Water Transmission Capacity Upgrade Requirements
Project No. Year Description Cost ($) in Million
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)
Additional Storage: $1.2 million
Additional Pumping: $0.9 million
Water Transmission Upgrades: $1.4 million
Water Treatment Upgrades: $12.9 million
Total Area 1 Water Servicing Costs $16.4 million
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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
Proj ID Year of Construction Project List Total Cost
(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
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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
Trunk Sewer Upgrades: $4.4 million
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)
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 12 Table 12 – Scenario 3 Wastewater Trunk Sewer Upgrade Requirement
Proj ID Year of Construction Project List Total Cost
(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
Trunk Sewer Upgrades: $4.0 million
Pumping Station Upgrades $3.0 million
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion $9.8 million
Total Area 1 (build-out) Wastewater Servicing Costs $16.8 million
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
Earth Tech Canada Inc. Page 13 Summary of Water and Wastewater Servicing Costs
Project Funding from Development Charges ($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
File Location: N:\y517\a\Appendix 7 Part2April 13.doc
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