Get the latest alerts and news by email.
Make a donation.
Perhaps "infill" isn't the correct term, what I mean by it is that the development falls (as I recall, anyway) within the existing developed (residential) boundaries of Midhurst, rather than expanding those boundaries outward. This is, of course, in contrast with the Barrie annexation of Innisfil. And I use the term in contrast with the use of the term "sprawl", which (in my book) applies to development typifying the following qualities: low-density, single-use (primarily residential or big-box shopping), unsuitable for transit, etc. The term sprawl generally does not refer to whether or not a development is on greenfield; sprawl (due to land requirements) must always be built on greenfields, but the converse is not necessarily true: not all greenfield development is sprawl. As to the watersheds, it is my understanding that the Simcoe watershed is under much higher development stress than the Nottawasaga (which feeds into a much larger lake system); so when comparing watershed impact, any given amount of impact on the Simcoe watershed is proportionally much more problematic than the same amount in the Nottawasaga.
Just curious: how many of the homes on estate lots in Midhurst are 200 years old?