Skip to content

'Does not blend': Residents slam plan for 23-unit Belle Ewart development

Homes supposed to have individual wells, but neighbours want to know who will provide water 'not if but when my well runs out'

INNISFIL — A plan to build 23 single-detached dwellings in Belle Ewert was met with strong opposition from area residents during a special meeting of Innisfil council recently.

The statutory meeting was required for the Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendments requested by Ballymore Building (Innisfil) Corp. for the lands at 1015 Cumberland St. Dozens of residents crowded into Innisfil council chambers during the nearly 2.5-hour session on the matter.

They were unanimous — and mostly unified — in their displeasure.

Concerns about the health of wells for the current residences were at the top of mind for many of the residents who opposed the development.

“The doubling of water demand resulting from 23 new wells packed tight in a row, 36 feet apart and immediately adjacent to our property, could easily impact the quality and quantity of our water supply,” said Ron Purchase.  

The prospect is “pretty scary,” he added, noting his family has already replaced a well on their property in the past decade.

“There’s simply no clarity as to who will be responsible … if they negatively impact the water supply,” Purchase said.

Carol Griffith, who has lived in the area for 56 years, echoed those comments and was one of many to suggest the developer should bear any costs associated with a dip in water quality or availability potentially caused by the addition of 23 new homes on private wells in the area.

“Upgrades to residents’ wells, if partial services are approved, should be enforced and payable by the developer. If not them, the burden should rest on the town, not residents,” she said. “Who will provide me with water, not if, but when my well runs out?”

Keith MacKinnon of KLM Planning Partners, the retained planning company for the project, told councillors about the water testing done in the lead-up to the application.

The owners brought in Cambium Environmental for borehole and pump testing. Two new wells were dug and tested on the site, in addition to the 2007 well, which a previous owner had dug. While it still meets ministry guidelines for pumping, the 2007 well is not in a good state of repair, council was told.

As part of the testing, consultants reached out to the neighbouring properties to gauge what, if any, impact there could be on the wells. Of the 48 residences in the area, 15 provided information to the consultants, with a further five allowing for testing. The tests showed, MacKinnon said, no impact to the upper or lower aquifers.

That wasn’t the experience of Marlene Dunn, who told council her home was one of the five that allowed for testing.

“My husband measured it, and it was down about an inch-and-a-half; the (consultant) came back and said, ‘no, (my husband) measured it wrong' … They would not admit that it went down,” Dunn said.

Even if the water had returned by the next day, Dunn and her husband know what they saw.

“Not a significant amount, maybe; maybe that is a significant amount — we only have a 20-foot well, so I don’t know,” she said.

Many of the residents in the room Jan. 22 were likely involved in the previous attempt to develop the lands. In 2007, an application was submitted for a 19-unit development on the property, with a public meeting taking place in 2008. No decision was rendered, and the applications before council now are revisions of those previous proposals, staff indicated in its report released ahead of the meeting.

“Back then, it was determined that the building would not take place until town water was put in,” recalled Ian Andrews, who is equally concerned about this proposal as he was with the last one. “The surrounding wells that are different levels would be affected; this has not changed, so 23 homes proposed would have a definite effect.”

Others had also previously been before council themselves, asking for permits on their own properties, only to be met with resistance or red tape. If the development was to be approved, the same standards needed to apply, they say.

Geita Perkus’ family brought a proposal to council six years ago, asking to build a garage on their property with a second-floor apartment, giving their kids a place to stay in the community.

“At that time, we were told that we couldn’t build the garage to the specs that we had wanted. We had to stay within the bylaw based on the fact that it did not blend with the character of the neighbourhood,” she said. “This development … does not blend with the existing neighbourhood (and) I think they need to take that into account.”

The 1.13-hectare parcel is currently vacant and zoned residential low density one, allowing for a maximum of 13 units per hectare. To put 23 units in the lot, 18 units per hectare are required.

Paula Barkin felt building any homes on the property would hasten the decline of the natural environment of the area, specifically Lake Simcoe. The lake her husband grew up swimming in can’t handle any more swimmers, she said, because today it is nothing but sludge.

“You’re telling me that you want to appeal to these 23 new homeowners about the fact they can walk to the beach and bring their children for a picnic to the beach? Be careful because those children will not be able to kick their feet in sludge,” she said. “The town has done nothing, in our perspective, to deal with the erosion of the beach, and yet we want to put more density.”

The public commentary — which Mayor Lynn Dollin lauded for the effort and research behind it — curtailed councillors from discussing the development at the Jan. 22 meeting. At the mayor’s suggestion, council saved sharing its opinion on the matter for when it is brought back to a future regular meeting for deliberation.