A new business park could be in the cards near Highway 400 in Innisfil.
A public meeting was held June 15 to give Innisfil town council and residents a first look at the proposal for lands at 7131 5 Sideroad, near the southwest of Highway 400 and Innisfil Beach Road. The draft plan of subdivision submitted for approval calls for five industrial/employment lots and two stormwater management blocks to be created on the 26.37 hectares.
An internal road would be created as well to provide access to Line 7 in the south and future employment land to the north.
The draft plan submitted conforms to the industrial business park zoning already in place for the land.
Town staff stated the proposal aligns with the community strategic plan by promoting “economic development with the goal of creating well-paying local jobs and a more diversified commercial and industrial tax base,” and “will fit in with the surrounding character of the existing built form within the Innisfil Heights Employment Area.”
Innisfil councillors were enthusiastic, particularly after seeing all the development begin along the highway corridor to the south.
“We drive down the 400 and see that it’s happening in Bradford and other municipalities,” said Coun. Ken Eisses. “It’s great to see that it’s happening in ours.”
“I was getting a bit jealous of what was going on down in Bradford, every time I drove past it,” said Coun. Alex Waters.
Councillors had more concerns with the proposal heard in the second public meeting that evening.
A zoning-bylaw amendment was requested for nearly 42 hectares of land with frontage on Webster Boulevard, 20 Sideroad and Line 9. The owners of the land require a zoning change from agricultural general to second residential to allow for lot additions to the three existing approved deficient lots in the existing registered plan of subdivision.
Coun. Donna Orsatti said she didn’t think that was something council should necessarily agree to, as all three lots had at least one-third of their individual areas being designated as environmentally protected.
“How is it that we would allow residential development to go to a Residential 2 on environmentally protected land?” she asked.
Chris Cannon from the town's planning department explained part of the research done as staff determines its recommendation to council on the project is to figure out exactly where the environmentally protected area is.
“The applicant submitted a natural heritage evaluation, so we will be reviewing that as part of the process to ensure that it does not intrude on the actual environmental protection plans,” he said. “The (Lake Simcoe Region) Conversation Authority and staff will make sure that we ensure that the drip lines are maintained and the environmental areas aren’t disturbed.”
Area resident Shaun Allen also spoke at the public meeting in opposition to the zoning-bylaw amendment. He lamented the changes made to environmentally sensitive areas near his home in the seven years he’s lived in town, including the moving of a stormwater pond to accommodate the expansion of an unrelated subdivision.
He wasn’t arguing against growth, but more to ensure what brought him and countless others to the community remained intact.
“We have to have some trees around here,” Allen said. “It can’t all be homes.”
A third public meeting was held regarding 1321 and 1335 Line 9, which is adjacent to the land discussed in the second public meeting. Eisses declared a conflict of interest on this file, as his son and daughter-in-law own the land in question.
No recommendations were made by staff in any of the public meetings, nor were decisions made by council. That part of the process will be completed at a later date.
