1. What is your interest in…

1. What is your interest in and/or experience with the implementation of enhanced development standards at the lot level (outside of buildings)? For example, are you a municipal staff member, homebuilder, planner, Indigenous representative, or member of the public?
S. Llewellyn & Associates is a civil engineering consulting firm operating in southern Ontario, primarily on behalf of land developers. Our office has been involved for many years in the design and construction of LID features across the region on residential, commercial, and industrial projects.

2. In your experience, are enhanced development standards applied consistently across municipalities? Please provide examples where possible.
No, enhanced development standards are not applied consistently across municipalities. Several municipalities have integrated the new CLI ECA permissions framework from the draft LID SWM Guidance Manual (2022) and are applying the hierarchical LID practice criteria (Retention, Filtration, Conventional) as site plan conditions on private site development. Other municipalities are not applying these criteria to private site plans at all.
Some municipalities reference these MECP criteria as provincially mandated requirements for all catchments within a CLI ECA catchment area. However, based on our understanding, these CLI criteria are intended to apply only to municipal works and are not mandated by the province for private site development. It would be beneficial for the province to clarify which, if any, criteria from the draft LID SWM Guidance Manual (2022) are intended to apply to private site development (governed under the Ontario Building Code) and which are strictly intended for municipal projects.
For example, the City of Hamilton is currently enforcing Green Development Standards that generally follow the same hierarchical approach as the Ministry’s LID manual. However, they have applied even stricter criteria by requiring that LIDs used to satisfy the first priority in their hierarchy—retention—must be prioritized as surface-based LIDs (e.g., bioretention systems, rain gardens, bioswales, green roofs, permeable pavement, etc.). This emphasis on surface-based LIDs is very difficult to incorporate on many private sites, particularly residential developments. It often results in a loss of units, reduced parking supply, and an inability to provide sidewalks on both sides of private roads. Additionally, site specific characteristics (such as soil type) have not been considered in applying the requirements of the surface-based LIDs with respect to infiltration/retention methods.
3. What types of standards, should municipalities be allowed to apply outside of buildings and how do these requirements maintain the health and safety of the site if at all?
It is our opinion that private sites should incorporate LIDs to a feasible extent, appropriate to the site-specific water balance, and not necessarily in strict accordance with the MECP hierarchical approach, which is often not suitable for private developments. Where a site-specific water balance is not available, a reasonable standard retention target could be applied. In our experience, this has typically been 5 mm in many municipalities, but should be refined based on the soil conditions present on the site and with due consideration given to high groundwater, poor permeability and shallow bedrock.
It is our hope that municipalities will stop enforcing unrealistic retention targets where native soils are not conducive to infiltration. There is no benefit in providing infiltration-based LIDs that cannot infiltrate due to native soil permeability.
An important note to surface-based LIDs is that although it reduces the storm runoff entering storm sewer systems, it provides more area of runoff prior to being captured within inlet structures. This creates an added stress onto above ground infrastructure (such as roads and walkways) and could create additional hazards during the freeze and thaws cycles of southern Ontario.
4. Do you / your organization have information about the short- and long-term costs of enhanced development standards at the lot level?
The short-term and long-term costs are very significant. For instance, Hamilton’s application of the Green Development Standards usually results in the loss of residential housing units and the implementation of costly surface-based LIDs that are expensive to construct and maintain. The maintenance of these LIDs affects landowners for the entirety of their ownership of the site, as well as puts added costs to the individual home owners
5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions relating to site plan control or other related subjects?
The loss of residential housing as a result of the implementing LID features (whether surface based or below ground) is contrary to the Provincial governments goal of building more affordable housing. Less density on development projects leads to increased cost for the consumer in order for the developer to compensate for the added cost of LIDs.