This is not a good idea,…

This is not a good idea, especially since it is so very vague.

For example – what is defined as a “major employment use”? Would this include high-risk polluters such as a quarry, a factory, or a tannery, for example?

Is there any sort of time requirement for the 50 -100 jobs? Or can a business just up and leave after a couple of years, thereby leaving the land open for redevelopment as other uses? Or, what happens if the business automates and as a result employs less people?

Also, what is the definition of “primary use”? The way this is worded, residential, commercial and retail uses can still be allowed, as long as they aren’t “primary”. I can sure see developers using that as a loophole for a variety of money-making opportunities that would not be in the best interest of local communities at all.

There just isn’t enough clear detail in this proposal to merit creating this tool which also would allow developers to avoid environmental protections and public consultation. Please don’t pass this.