Planned Sprawl in the GTA

[innsertnamehere]

Article from The Star detailing yet another suspect use of an MZO and a strange decision at Markham Council in respect of a redevelopment application for farmland at the Markham/Stouffville border.

The land isn't even serviced yet!

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

Outline is a free service for reading and annotating news articles. We remove the clutter so you can analyze and comment on the content.

outline.com

That's an odd one for sure.

It's just a request though - we have to see if the province actually issues it. They have gone oddly quiet on MZO issuing over the last few months.

 

[lenaitch]

But the article does highlight the fact that a lot of the surrounding land in the so-called 'white belt', although it may still be in crop, is already owned by developers. I'm not sure the average person realizes this.

 

[innsertnamehere]

But the article does highlight the fact that a lot of the surrounding land in the so-called 'white belt', although it may still be in crop, is already owned by developers. I'm not sure the average person realizes this.

The average person is probably completely oblivious, but basically any farm that is within a 15 minute drive of an existing urban boundary in the GTHA is already owned by a developer. They love to bank land for decades waiting for urban boundary expansions.

 

[Northern Light]

The average person is probably completely oblivious, but basically any farm that is within a 15 minute drive of an existing urban boundary in the GTHA is already owned by a developer. They love to bank land for decades waiting for urban boundary expansions.

An excellent reason to downzone all of the land by provincial fiat; then contract the urban boundaries while we're at it; and/or shift it into the Greenbelt.

Stifle speculation for at least 2 generations.

 

[Northern Light]

An encouraging {to me) story; The City of Welland was in the process of expropriating a long-time family farm of ~70 acres to build itself a new industrial park.

Arguing that existing, service-ready industrial plots were pretty much all taken.

The woman who refused to sell, rallied the community; and Welland has reversed its decision.

As well it should.

It has brownfield land available which no one apparently wants to eat the cost of remediating.

The idea that one would destroy top tier agricultural land for industry, where there's contaminated industrial land available and in need of remediation is just offensive.

Her farm, however, is still zoned industrial by the town, so the next battle will be to repeal that, and re-zone it as agriculture.

More battles need to go this way...............

More land needs to be downzoned (if still in agricultural production)

Its the literal flipside of the need to upzone arterials throughout Toronto and the outer burbs; as well as permit 4-plexs and low-rise apartments in every damned subdivision.

Story link here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/expropriation-niagara-welland-farm-land-1.5954783

 

[W. K. Lis]

Warehouse sprawl shows need for regional approach to planning, advocates say​

From link.

Is it time for New Jersey’s municipalities to loosen their grip on deciding whether warehouses can be built within their boundaries?

A current surge in warehouse construction is raising concern among planners and environmentalists that scarce open space is being eaten up by giant warehouses that generate truck traffic on rural roads, increase contaminated stormwater runoff from more paved surfaces, and industrialize the state’s few remaining rural enclaves.

Municipalities, which have authority over land use, are attracted to the local taxes and jobs that come with new warehouses and many approve the plans over the objections of local critics. But advocates argue that the trend raises wider issues that should also be addressed by county or statewide authorities, particularly given the industry’s economic importance — as shown by the fact that Amazon is now New Jersey’s largest private employer, with some 40,000 workers.

“Leaving the fate of one of New Jersey’s most important industries, and the decisions about where its need for land is accommodated, solely in the hands of our myriad local governments and their fiscal self-interest is no guarantee of a regionally-optimal solution,” wrote Tim Evans, director of research for the nonprofit New Jersey Future, in a new paper titled “Warehouse Sprawl: Plan Now or Suffer the Consequences.”

Keeping farmland for farming​

He argued that a “regional perspective” is needed to ensure that increasing demand for the storage of imported goods does not result in the development of land that is better used for farming or recreation, and that the most suitable land for warehousing — such as that near the ports of Newark, Elizabeth and Bayonne — does not get used for another purpose that could easily be done elsewhere.

Adding regional authorities to the decision-making process over warehouse siting might involve county or state government, or regional planners like the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, in addition to local planning boards, so that all angles are covered, Evans said.

“Even if you are leaving the final call up to the local government, you should allow for projects in the warehousing business to have input from higher levels of government,” he said, in an interview.

But Evans acknowledged that any attempt to dilute the power of local government over land-use planning would prompt strong pushback from towns that don’t want any cut in their ability to increase tax revenue.

“It’s a home-rule state, and local governments have the final say,” he said. “It’s hard to reel that power back once you’ve handed it to the local governments; you are going to meet a lot of political resistance if you say you need to take some of it back.”

Mike Cerra, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, argued that land-use decisions are best left in local hands, and that the official State Plan — a document that recommends where and how the state should grow — has not been widely accepted since it was last issued in 2001.

Defending ‘the local touch’​

“We have yet to see a demonstration that placing decision-making authority further apart from the residents of a particular community results in better outcomes,” Cerra said. “The State Plan has never been bought into by the respective state agencies, and has led to disjointed outcomes. Planning decisions impact the residents of the community directly, and good planning is therefore reliant upon the local touch.”

Municipalities are not required to conform to the State Plan, which is a guidance document, said Donna Rendeiro, executive director of the state’s Office of Planning Advocacy. She said final land-use decisions are made locally but state or regional authorities can help towns with information or technical assistance, in cases that have a wider impact.

“Regional planning for issues that have statewide impact can provide a blueprint for maximizing economic opportunity while ensuring environmental and infrastructure protection,” she said in a statement.

Regional coordination of warehouse development “would make a lot of sense,” said John Hasse, a Rowan University professor who monitors land-use patterns. It’s unclear what policy tools might enable that to happen, but regional management of impervious surface expansion might allow coordination while retaining local authority over the issue, he said.

Jim Gilbert, a former chairman of the New Jersey State Planning Commission, urged Gov. Phil Murphy, who appoints the panel’s chairman and executive director, to empower the commission to require counties to coordinate planning.

He acknowledged that such a change would reduce municipalities’ power over land-use decisions, but argued that it would reduce the threat of warehouse development on greenfield sites, as proposed in White Township, Warren County, where a developer wants to build 2.8 million square feet of warehouse space on farmland, a project that Gilbert said would “destroy” the county.

“There are responsible developers who redevelop existing industrial sites, and others who want to build in the middle of a cornfield,” he said.

What’s happening in Warren County​

In a step toward a regional approach, some towns in Warren County have proposed coordinating local zoning to control a potential explosion in warehouse development on greenfield sites in the mostly rural area. Critics there fear that new warehousing will spill over from neighboring Lehigh County, Pennsylvania where available land is dwindling as logistics centers have sprung up in recent years.

A Warren County study released in September on the impacts of possible warehouse projects found that, if built, they would result in 45 million square feet of warehouses on 4,000 acres across 11 towns. The extra traffic generated would result in “unacceptable” conditions on local roads, according to the report.

James Kern, director of the Warren County Board of Commissioners, said he is trying to get towns to respond jointly to the pressure for new warehouses. He urged municipalities not to be tempted by the prospect of higher tax revenues, arguing that any extra income would be overwhelmed by the need for more and bigger roads and other infrastructure if all the proposed warehouses were built.

“If we’re talking a full buildout of these sites, our infrastructure would not be able to handle it,” Kern said. “For a municipality to build because of what they perceive to be a tax ratable, it’s flawed logic.”

Many towns changed their zoning to light industrial to protect themselves from residential sprawl and “big-box” retail in the early 2000s and they are now finding that the light-industrial parcels are being targeted by warehouse developers, he said.

Towns often don’t find out about warehouse projects until after a plan has been submitted — when it is more difficult for the town to deny permission, based on its zoning at the time of the application. But better communication between municipalities would give them a better chance of changing their zoning in anticipation of future applications, Kern said.

Razing woodland in Ocean County?​

In the latest local approval of a warehouse project in early March, officials in Jackson Township, Ocean County, approved the construction of about 1 million square feet of warehouse as part of Adventure Crossing, a new mixed-use retail, residential and sports complex. The warehouse component will require clearing 72 acres of woodland and will generate truck traffic on the edge of a residential area as well as creating runoff into the Barnegat Bay watershed, critics say.

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, predicted the new phase of the project will worsen local traffic congestion and pollute nearby wetlands.

Despite concerns about warehouse “sprawl,” most of the new development so far has been on previously used sites, said Evans of New Jersey Future.

But site reuse can’t continue indefinitely, and warehouses have crept southward along the New Jersey Turnpike over the last 20 years as land becomes harder to find, especially near the ports where many goods enter the country, he said.

Short of integrating state or regional authorities into the local planning process, Evans urged officials to encourage further reuse of industrial sites; to promote “high-cube” warehouses that build up instead of out, and to enable more goods to be moved by rail, a more energy-efficient mode than trucks.

But regional planning would help the state avoid the worst impacts of the warehouse boom which is underpinned by e-commerce and fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A regional perspective would help make sure that port-oriented storage and distribution functions “aren’t consuming outlying lands that are better used for farming, recreation, or some other non-industrial use,” Evans’s report said.

 

[afransen]

Well, warehouses are the price we way for the convenience of e-commerce. If you include warehouse space that supports ecommerce as retail sqft (it essentially is retail), I don't think retail sqft is declining. Malls are dying and being replaced with ecommerce warehouses.

Amazon is up to around 7 million sqft of warehouse space in the GTA. That's 5 Vaughan Mills of space.

 

[Divas S.]

One thing that I've been thinking about for a while is why is there no multi story warehouses if land is so expensive? It's not as efficient for operations odivously but it would help a lot to increase density in the very large and low rise employment areas in the gta.

 

[W. K. Lis]

One thing that I've been thinking about for a while is why is there no multi story warehouses if land is so expensive? It's not as efficient for operations odivously but it would help a lot to increase density in the very large and low rise employment areas in the gta.

In Japan, Amazon uses multi-storey warehouses...

From link.

Even IKEA in Japan goes multi-story with the car garage on TOP of the store.

From link.

 

[afransen]

One thing that I've been thinking about for a while is why is there no multi story warehouses if land is so expensive? It's not as efficient for operations odivously but it would help a lot to increase density in the very large and low rise employment areas in the gta.

It requires very expensive land indeed to be justified, and then only for certain uses. It makes sense for Amazon as they don't actually store a lot of weight. What you might see if taller warehouses that utilize vertical space effectviely, even if they are only '1 level'.

 

[Northern Light]

I'll just insert this NIMBY of the year award nominee story here:

'There will be some red faces on council': Newmarket neighbours plan to fight proposed townhouses

'Managing growth and its impact on residents is as old as the history of Newmarket'

www.thestar.com

From said article:

This development is contemplated for 1015, 1025 and 1029 Davis Dr. and 22 Hamilton Dr in NewMarket.

He did, sorta, get one bit right.............

"Langford believes the proposed homes are part of an effort by governments to justify the millions of dollars they have spent on public transit infrastructure on Davis, only to see buses driving along the road with few passengers aboard."

Of course, that's what you're supposed to do, put density next to transit!

 

[Northern Light]

Also in sprawl news:

York region can't sprawl much further due to insufficient sewer capacity.

A proposed solution was a new sewage plant at Lake Simcoe for the northern part of York Region.

While the province is now apparently musing about shipping the sewage south to Lake Ontario in Durham Region.

The latter is not acceptable environmentally would be rightly contentious as it results in sending water outside the watershed, it involved digging though the Oak Ridges Moraine (our groundwater recharge area for the entire region); and sending it an absurdly long distance. It would also add phosphorus load to an area already experiencing algae problems (Ajax)

The former is not ideal either given Lake Simcoe is under strain environmentally.

Article here:

‘We can’t plan for our future’: Doug Ford’s government wants to dump more sewage into Lake Ontario. Local residents think there’s a better solution

After spending 10 years and $100 million on a proposed state-of-the-art sewage facility in York, Ontario is now looking at sending millions of litres more into Lake Ontario.

www.thestar.com

Behind paywall:

outline.com is available for purchase - Sedo.com

outline.com

John Michael Mcgrath made this observation, with which I concur:

From:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1388106513613524993

 

[innsertnamehere]

I mean even if growth is directed to the existing built up area of York Region.. it's still going to need sewage capacity.

Toronto is building large expansion of Ashbridge's Bay for a reason right now, including extensive lake fill.

Population growth has impacts, even if it is 100% intensification.

I'm also really not sure a growth policy directing growth to spare sewage capacity is the best idea.. I mean I guess we should be looking to make Nanticoke the next mega city of the province as there is an underutilized sewage plant there capable of handling about 200,000 people dating from the Townsend days and only being used by about 20k... (Norfolk County is currently planning to build multi-million dollar tunnels to connect Simcoe and Port Dover to it, but even that would leave it vastly underutilized).

 

[Northern Light]

I mean even if growth is directed to the existing built up area of York Region.. it's still going to need sewage capacity.

Toronto is building large expansion of Ashbridge's Bay for a reason right now, including extensive lake fill.

Population growth has impacts, even if it is 100% intensification.

I'm also really not sure a growth policy directing growth to spare sewage capacity is the best idea.. I mean I guess we should be looking to make Nanticoke the next mega city of the province as there is an underutilized sewage plant there capable of handling about 200,000 people dating from the Townsend days and only being used by about 20k... (Norfolk County is currently planning to build multi-million dollar tunnels to connect Simcoe and Port Dover to it, but even that would leave it vastly underutilized).

There are serious environmental implications in shifting water between watersheds and in digging under the Moraine.

This plant is not aimed at meeting York Region's needs in the south; those are already met by the Big Dig pipe to Ajax.

This is entirely to serve the area north of the Moraine.

Which 'Orbit' notwithstanding, would not likely see dense development, but predominantly low-rise sprawl.

****

A further problem w/the 'southern' solution is that it actually displaces existing capacity in Ajax/Durham; and does so by sending sewage to a plant without tertiary treatment facilities.

The northern solution is the better of these, but not great for the type of development it would likely facilitate, and where (mainly the broader Holland Marsh area).

****

Development should go where support already exists or is easy/low-cost to add accretively.

If it goes where there is extraordinary cost to service, it does not produce a material benefit to the rest of us; AND has adverse ecological impacts.

The notion here is not one of moving development to Nanticoke.

But moving development close to major sources of Fresh Water (ie. Lake Ontario) which reduces the cost of piping and pumping substantially and disturbs, if need be, only already build up/degraded areas.

****

When we are building this:

In Toronto, close to the Lake (this is on Lakeshore in Etobicoke) there really is no excuse for a 700M sewage plant so we can develop this:

 

[W. K. Lis]

Also in sprawl news:

York region can't sprawl much further due to insufficient sewer capacity.

A proposed solution was a new sewage plant at Lake Simcoe for the northern part of York Region.

While the province is now apparently musing about shipping the sewage south to Lake Ontario in Durham Region.

The latter is not acceptable environmentally would be rightly contentious as it results in sending water outside the watershed, it involved digging though the Oak Ridges Moraine (our groundwater recharge area for the entire region); and sending it an absurdly long distance. It would also add phosphorus load to an area already experiencing algae problems (Ajax)

The former is not ideal either given Lake Simcoe is under strain environmentally.

Article here:

‘We can’t plan for our future’: Doug Ford’s government wants to dump more sewage into Lake Ontario. Local residents think there’s a better solution

After spending 10 years and $100 million on a proposed state-of-the-art sewage facility in York, Ontario is now looking at sending millions of litres more into Lake Ontario.

www.thestar.com

Behind paywall:

outline.com is available for purchase - Sedo.com

outline.com

John Michael Mcgrath made this observation, with which I concur:

View attachment 316118
From:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1388106513613524993

This is Doug Ford we're talking about. For Doug, only plans that benefit corporations, and only corporations he is friends with, are acceptable.