Tammy Gaudun Gies
City/Township Council · Wilmot Ward 3
Back to candidatesGrowth & Planning
- Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
- Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
- Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
- Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
- Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply
- Focus incremental density near transit, schools, and commercial areas
- Require area-specific planning studies before permitting additional density
- Maintain existing zoning; manage density primarily through new growth areas
- Recognize that density needs to reflect the community it is being added to. Wilmot attracts families and residents seeking a rural, small-town way of life, and planning should protect that character while ensuring that new housing is matched with the infrastructure, services and transportation options needed to support it.
- Phase or adjust density in response to neighbourhood concerns about design or servicing capacity
- Require demonstrated city-wide benefits to justify local impacts
- Balance provincial housing expectations with local realities by ensuring that proposed density is appropriate to the community, supported by infrastructure and services, and does not fundamentally change the character of established neighbourhoods.
- Pair density approvals with targeted infrastructure upgrades
- Use development charges or conditions to fund needed upgrades
- Require a clear assessment of infrastructure capacity—including roads, water, wastewater, drainage and emergency services—before approving significant increases in density, with the cost of necessary upgrades fairly allocated between new development and existing taxpayers.
Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words
I would support completing a comprehensive secondary plan for the Baden–New Hamburg growth corridor before approving further significant increases in density. That plan should identify where higher density is appropriate and ensure that roads, water and wastewater capacity, stormwater management, schools, parks, recreation, transit and active transportation are planned alongside the housing. I support growth, but I don't believe we should approve density first and then try to catch up with the infrastructure and services afterward. Wilmot's growth should create complete, connected communities that work for the people who live here, while protecting farmland, water resources and the small-town character that makes people want to live here in the first place.
Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words
I would support phasing major growth in the Baden–New Hamburg area around what the community actually needs. New development should include the infrastructure and services to create complete communities—things like grocery stores, local businesses, coffee shops, recreation and other everyday amenities—so residents aren't simply commuting elsewhere for everything they need. Housing should also reflect the character and needs of Wilmot. I would support primarily family-oriented housing that gives people an opportunity to live and put down roots here, rather than high-density housing that functions primarily as commuter housing. Before significant expansion, I would want a clear understanding of the full lifecycle costs for roads, water, wastewater, drainage, emergency services and recreation, with growth appropriately contributing to the costs it creates. Growth should add to the community we have, not simply increase the number of people living here.
Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on growth?candidate's own words
I understand that growth is coming to Wilmot, and I am not opposed to responsible growth. My concern is the pace, scale and form of that growth, and whether it is actually building the community we want to live in. Wilmot's appeal is rooted in its small-town character, agricultural community and quality of life. New development should respect those qualities while providing what residents actually need—family-oriented housing, local businesses, grocery options, recreation and other everyday amenities. It should be supported by the roads, water, wastewater, drainage, schools, parks and other infrastructure required to make a community function. Most importantly, I believe we need to think beyond the initial approval of a development and consider its long-term environmental, financial and community impacts. Growth should contribute fairly to the infrastructure it requires and should strengthen the communities of Baden, New Hamburg and rural Wilmot—not simply turn them into commuter communities.
Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words
Ensure new development is appropriate to the character, scale and needs of the community, not simply financially and technically feasible.
What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words
Municipalities should have stronger tools to discourage speculative land banking, particularly where land has already received approvals or infrastructure investment. I would support a vacant land registry and, where appropriate, holding charges or servicing agreements with reasonable timelines for development. The goal should not be to force development for its own sake, but to ensure that land benefiting from public investment contributes to the community rather than simply being held for future profit.