Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-103-98~ .-; DN: PD-103-98-GPA-MILL THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAARINGTON REPORT PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File ~(~j q.C~PR, 9Fr 0p~ Date: Monday, September 2l, 1998 Res. #i~~R -grj(o-qg Report #: PD-103-98 FILE #: COPA 98-002 (X-REF: ROPA 98-002 By-law # Subject: CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: JAMES AND GLADYS MILLSON PART LOT 25 & 26, CONC. 7, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: COPA 98-002 (X-REF: ROPA 98-002) Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-103-98 be received ; 2. THAT application to amend the Clarington Official Plan, as amended, submitted by James and Gladys Millson, be referred back to Staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report upon receipt of all outstanding comments; and 3. THAT Durham Region Planning Department and all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: James and Gladys Millson 1.2 Clarington Official Plan Amendment: from Prime Agricultural Area subject to Section14.6 (Oak Ridges Moraine) to a designation to permit the severance of a dwelling surplus to a farm operation. 1.3 Regional Official Plan Amendment: From Permanent Agricultural Reserve subject to Section 14.3 (Major Open Space System) to a designation appropriate to permit the UU~ REPORT NO.: PD-103-98 PAGE 2 severance of a dwelling surplus to a farm operation. 1.4 .Area: 0.6 ha parcel from a 41.25 ha parcel 2. LOCATION 2.1 The subject lands are located in Part of Lot 25 and 26, Concession 7, former Township of Darlington. The municipal address is: 7466 Solina Road. It is located on the west side of Solina Road between Concession Road 7 and Regional Road 3. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 On March 25, 1998 Staff received a request from the Region of Durham to respond to an application to amend the Durham Region Official Plan. Staff circulated the application to various agencies for their comments on April 14, 1998. 3.2 On May 12, 1998, the applicants submitted an application to amend the Clarington Official Plan. The application was circulated on May 20"', 1998 to receive agency comments. 4. EXISTING AND SURROUNDING USES 4.1 Existing Use: Surrounding Uses: North - South - East - West - A residential dwelling established in 1895. The remainder of the lands are farmed. Agricultural and rural residential Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural 5. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 5.1 The Provincial Policy Statement specifies that a residence deemed to be surplus to a farming operation may be severed from the property and a new residential lot may be created. The Policy Statement defines a °Residence Surplus to a Farming 6u2 REPORT NO.: PD-103-98 PAGE 3 Operation" as "one or two or more existing farm residences built prior to 1978 and surplus to the farm, or an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (farm consolidation means the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation)." 6. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES 6.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the subject lands "Permanent Agricultural Reserve subject to Section 14.3 (Major Open Space System). This dual designation was applied in recognition of the agricultural potential of this portion of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Lands so designated shall be used primarily for agricultural purposes. The agricultural policies in the Durham Region Official Plan states that a surplus dwelling may be severed if a farmer merges abutting farms into a single parcel. 6.2 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands "Prime Agricultural Area Subject to Section 14.6 (Oak Ridges Moraine)" in conformity with the dual designation in the Regional Official Plan. Lands designated "Prime Agricultural Area" shall be used for farm purposes. 6.3 Section 13.3.8 of the Clarington Official Plan states that: "Dwellings which are rendered surplus as a result of the consolidation of abutting farms may be severed provided: a) the farms are merged into a single parcel; b) the dwelling to be severed is not required for farm employees; and c) the surplus dwelling lot is generally less than 0.6 hectares". The applicant can satisfy conditions b) and c). However, for personal and financial reasons, the applicant does not want to consolidate the farm parcels into a single parcel. As such, an amendment to the Clarington Official Plan is required in order to sever the surplus dwelling from the larger farm parcel. 603 REPORT NO.: PD-103-98 PAGE 4 7. ZONING BY-LAW 7.1 The subject lands are zoned "Agricultural Exception (A-1)". Farm uses shall prevail on lands zoned "Agricultural Exception (A-1)". A rural residential use is permitted within the A-1 zone provided all regulations contained within Section 9-2 of the Zoning By-law are met. 8. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8.1 In accordance with the Municipality's procedures and the requirements of the Planning Act, notice was given as follows: • Public Meeting signs for the application were installed on the site; and • Written notice was circulated to all assessed property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands, and to all interested parties identified through the previous application. 8.2 As of the writing of this report, the only comments received to date are the support of the Durham Federation of Agriculture who advised in writing that they support this application. 9. AGENCY COMMENTS 9.1 Staff circulated the application to a number of agencies. All agencies have responded to the circulation. The following agencies had no objection to the application: • Municipality of Clarington Works Department • Municipality of Clarington Fire Department • Central Lake Ontario Conservation 9.2 The Durham Region Health Department state that they shall be satisfied that the sewage system is completely contained on the proposed severed property. 6G4 REPORT NO.: PD-103-98 PAGE5 10. PROPOSED AMENDMENT 10.1 The applicants wishes to sever a 0.6 ha lot from a 41.25 ha agricultural parcel. They state that the dwelling is surplus to their needs. The Clarington Official Plan allows the conveyance of a lot supporting a surplus farm dwelling from an agricultural parcel if the subject agricultural parcel melds with a second farm parcel, hence creating one larger farm parcel. This is possible, since the applicants own abutting properties, but for personal and financial reasons they do not want to meld the farm parcel. The applicant wishes to keep all farm parcels as separate land holdings. (Attachment No. 1). The proposed amendment as submitted by the applicant can be referred to in Attachment #2 to this report 10.2 The house proposed to be severed from the property was built in 1895. This complies with the provision within the Provincial Policy Statement whereby only homes be built prior to 1978 may be severed from a farm as a surplus dwelling. The Provincial Policy Statement also states that a surplus dwelling may be removed if acquisition of additional farm parcels occurs and these farm parcels are operated as one farm operation. It is noted that the Provincial Policy does not require the legal consolidation of ownership, just that they be farmed as one farm operation. 10.3 In support of the application, Mr. & Mrs. Millson state that their current farm holdings previously supported three separate farms. The farmers on two of those farm parcels were offered lifetime leases by the Millsons. This they claimed eliminated the need to create two (2) additional farm retirement lots. The third farm's homestead is being used as the farm headquarters. 605 REPORT NO.: PD-103-98 PAGE6 The Millson's claim that through their past actions, particularly the lifetime lease arrangements, they have eliminated the need for the original farm operators to require retirement lots. Hence their past actions have not resulted in additional land being removed from agricultural production. 10.4 The Millson's future plans are to keep the Heifer Raising Operation and the Dairy Operation separate in order to pass these businesses on to their children. They state that amalgamation of these operations would make it difficult to manage the farms in a co-operative venture. They state that "the merging of farm parcels when taken to the extreme becomes an encumbrance on the management and flexibility of the farm business and is detrimental to the viability of the firm itself." 10.5 Lands, which the applicant proposes to sever, include an unused barn, garage and "open-front shelter" and the surplus house. In accordance with the Municipality's Zoning By-law, a barn cannot be located on a residential properly and the accessory structures must also comply with the provisions of the by-law. These issues can be resolved before Staff reports back to Committee and Council. 10.6 In support of the application, Dale Toombs (Agriculture and Rural Land Use Consulting) prepared an Agricultural Assessment which provides information regarding the Millson's farm operation including farm viability and housing requirements. The consultant states that the applicants are full time farmers and that the farm operation encompasses four farm parcels totalling 170 hectares. Mr. Toombs notes that the Millsons have operated a dairy farm since 1976 and that there is no need for year-round housing accommodation for farm employees, other than the owners. Mr. Toombs also states that in his opinion, the application complies with the Provincial Policy Statement and with the Minimum Distance Separation regulations. 6G6 REPORT NO.: PD-103-98 PAGE 7 11. CONCLUSION 11.1 The purpose of this report is to facilitate the Public Meeting as required by the Planning Act, to provide Committee and Council with some background on the application submitted and for Staff to indicate issues or areas of concern regarding the subject application. It is recommended the application be referred back to Staff for further processing and subsequent report . Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~J ~ `---' ~c`. Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Planning & Development HB*FW*cc*km 26 August 1998 W.H. Stockwell, Chief Administrative Officer. Attachment No. 1 - Key Map Attachment No. 2 - Proposed Amendment as submitted by the Applicant Attachment No. 3 - Millson's application submission Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: James & Gladys Millson 6899 Solina Road R. R. #1 Enniskillen, Ontario LOB 1J0 Dale Toombs Agricultural and Rural Land Use Consulting 15 Walker Street Lindsay, Ontario K9V 5Z8 607 ATTACHMENT 1!1 SUBJECT LANDS - LANDS TO BE SEVERED OTHER LANDS OWNED BY APPUCAQ~lT T 27 26 25 2 rii.w. ~ r. ,; iii ~~~'i i ~~ o J Q ~ ' w •: I ~ z . W z ~ !~, ~ U ~ A b 'J Attachment #2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT Clarington Official Plan 13.3.9 Notwithstanding Section 13.3.8, the removal by severance of a dwelling which is rendered surplus as a result of the acquisition of abutting farms without melding the parcels may be allowed in agricultural areas by amendment to this Plan provided: a) a retirement or intra-family lot was not previously severed since January 1, 1974; b) the farm to be acquired is a minimum of 40 hectares c) the dwelling to be severed is not required for farm employees d) the surplus dwelling lot is generally less than 0.6 hectares. e) it is registered on title that once a surplus dwelling lot is severed, no further severance is permitted from the parcel for retirement purposes. The following severances have been considered by amendment to this Plan and are permitted: a) A surplus farm dwelling as severed from a parcel identified as Assessment NO. XXX located in Part Lots 25 & 26, Concession 7, Former Township of Darlington, Municipality of Clarington. b~~ ATTACHMENT N3 Re: Application for an Amendment to the Durham Region and Clarington Official Plan Part Lots 25, 26, Con. 7, Darlington Twp. Town of Clarington, Roll No. 010-160-14300-0000 Jim & Gladys Millson 6899 Solina Rd., R.R. #1 Enniskillen, Ontario LOB 1J0 905-263-2183 ' January 27, 1998. To Whom it May Concern, With respect to Section 12.3.11 - Severance of a Surplus Dwelling, we find that from an estate and business management perspective, it is unacceptable to merge the two farms to create a 300 acre parcel. Our only option is to seek an Amendment to the Durham Region Official Plan to allow the retention of the existing lot line dividing the 101.92 Acre farm from the 200 Acre farm. (Refer to accompanying descriptive documents). It was brought to our attention that economic and estate management arguments alone, will not justify our cause. We are therefore compiling supporting evidence that relates more directly to land planning and the harmonious existence of a profitable family farm operation. We realize and respect that our neighbours have the right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes and property. The preservation of the lot line in question will in no way jeopardize that right. Until our purchase of Lot 24, Con. 6, our current farm land holdings existed as three independent farms run by three separate farm families. All three of these elderly farmers would have easily qualified for a retirement lot severance. Re: S.1/2 Lots 25,26, Con.7 -- the 200 Acre farm Eber Millson did not exercise his right to a retirement lot because we gave him a lifetime tenancy of the farmhouse in which he still resides. .....2 b~++~ 2 Aside: When he no longer needs this house, it will be inhabited by the farmer who milks the cows. Re: Lot 24, Con. 6 -- the 50 Acre farm The widow sold the entire 117 Acre farm when the old farmer died. Our family began in this house and this is our farm headquarters. It was a benefit to land planning and the preservation of farmland that we did purchase this farm for it is quite probable that it otherwise would have been sold for 10 acre lot development (as this was permitted and occurred all around us at that time). Aside: This is the home to be occupied by the farmer who raises the replacement heifers for the herd. Re: N.Pt. Lots 25,26, Con. 7 -- The Former Hoag Farm Frank and Bernice could have severed a retirement lot but we offered as a part of the purchase deal - a lifetime lease that they might retire in the farmhouse. In addition to the land holdings above with buildings, we own 67 acres of bare land (Lot 24,Con.7) and 11.6 acres of Cedar bush (Pt.Lot 21,Con.7) that we use to supply the farm with fence posts. We have no intention or desire to have buildings on these lands as we have enough existing buildings. We would like to point out that from a land planning perspective, our management has eliminated the possible creation of 3 retirement lot severances and we have consolidated the farm building sites housing animals, from 3 locations to 2 farmsteads. As well, we avoided the creation of 6 lots with our Ontario Hydro Easement Agreement. (3 Lots each parcel, on both sides of Solina Rd.) Most other expropriation agreements created severances all along the Tower Corridor. The reason for our purchase of the 101 Acres (the subject land) was to provide additional cropland to support an expanding dairy operation. Our farm renovations and automation upgrades of 1993 have more than tripled our herd size capacity. The 100 acres of bare land is used for feed production to support the ....3 III - 3 - expanding herd, and the surplus is cash crops. Land used as cropland is more compatible with the surrounding homes than would be animal husbandry. Furthermore, to set up additional animal housing facilities on the acquired farm would be to reverse our consolidation efforts, and threaten efficiency gains that we have accomplished. To refuse our request based on the fear that someday we will erect a farmhouse on the vacant land is misdirected. We already own 2 parcels of vacant land which could support a house and are entitled to our own retirement severance lot some day in the future. Just as our operation requires bare land to be viable, there are several local Cash Crop Operators who would find the 100 Acres remaining, to be a viable farm purchase as cropland. They in fact would prefer not to have to purchase the house. What bona fide farmer has time to be a landlord? This bare land is essential to the land base of our existing farm operation and the contemplation of its sale to a third party would have to be an act of desperation. We have worked hard to improve and expand our farm business. The potential work load here is great and we have relied heavily in recent years, on the help of our children. It is our opinion that at some time in the future, the farm could support two families (hopefully 2 of our children) housed on the 200 acre lot and the 50 acre lot. This still leaves the house on the Hoag farm as a surplus dwelling. Since the pride and responsibility of land ......4 bit - 4 - ownership motivates commitment, it would be appropriate to gift the land assets more or less equally between the Heifer Raising Operation and the Dairy Barn. If we should agree to create a 300 acre parcel of land, it will cause problems in the future management of a co-operative venture. Policy 13.3.12 of the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan allows for the creation of a new agricultural lot if the retained lots are intended for agricultural use, and if they are sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in type or size of agricultural operation and are a minimum of 40 Hectares in size. The subject land is a 41.25 Hectare Agricultural parcel with practically all of the acreage being arable. This quality of land lends to greater flexibility for future changes in type or size of agricultural operation. If the subject land meets the criteria for creation of a new agricultural lot, then our request to retain the lot line and keep the abutting parcels separate under Policy 12.3.11 is justified and should be acceptable and compatible with the philosophies of the Durham Regional Official Plan. Furthermore, under Regional Policy No. 12.3.12, the Council may grant by amendment, a severance of a surplus dwelling on a non- abutting acquired farm. We are requesting severance of a surplus dwelling on an acquired farm which is both non-abutting to our farm headquarters and abutting another acquired parcel of 200 acres. We wish to retain the existing lot line that separates these two adequately sized parcels. ,,,,5 b3 - 5 - If we did not already own the abutting 200 acres, Policy 12.3.12 would apply without prerequisite of merger. To enforce Policy 12.3.11 over 12.3.12 is to discriminate against the larger land owner which is contradictory to the Region's desire to maximize productive farmland use. To promote large scale farming does not necessarily require the creation of excessively large farm parcels. Excessive size can limit manageability and flexibility. We are aware of the pitfalls of creating a small parcel but this request to retain the existing lot line is not about creating a small parcel. This parcel satisfies the minimum acreage requirement. Even after the surplus dwelling is severed, there remains 40.65. Ha. Furthermore, following approval of the severance, the land use will in no way be altered from what it has been for the past decade. We have reviewed the Provincial Land Planning Policy 4.1 on Farm Splits and in every aspect, the subject land would qualify as a viable parcel. Reviewing section 2.1.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 1996, "the future viability of agriculture in Ontario depends considerably on maintaining farm parcels that are of an appropriate size not only for the area in which these farms are located but also for long-term agricultural use." In our area most farms are 100 acres in size. One of the main areas of expansion of agriculture in our area is the increase in cash cropping and custom farming. The farms that stay with Dairy or Animal Husbandry are continually .....6 ~i ~~ t - 6- forced to expand to survive, or supplement their income with an off farm job. There are very few farms in our area that do not have someone working off the farm. To survive in business means to be prepared for the worst. Within our farm plan, we made an effort to retain this parcel separate by registering ownership different to the abutting 200 acres. We are a family farm and are totally in the business of farming -- we are not developers. We do not intend on ever selling our acquired land, but no one can predict the future so we must value and protect our options. Clearly, ours is a case of circumstances which the original intentions of Sec. 12.3.11 of the Regional Official Plan did not anticipate. The merging of farm parcels when taken to the extreme becomes an encumbrance on the management and flexibility of the farm business and is detrimental to the viability of the farm itself. Farming today is a business of high capital outlay. Not only in set-up but continual reinvestment in terms of improvements, expansions, repairs and upgrades. If the 200 acres becomes a 300 acre parcel, it will put us in a position of placing the bulk of our assets at risk as collateral. The Ontario Farm Management Analysis Project shows that consistently over the past decade, the average dairy farm n Ontario manages between 230 and 250 tillable acres (this includes rented land). We already owned 330 acres before the purchase of the 101.9 acre farm. To merge the two parcels does not improve the viability of either farm. .....~ bl~ - 7 - Part of the Region's Planning Department Vision Statement is to implement a policy which improves the quality of life for the community by influencing its physical, social, environmental and ' economic well-being. Being sensitive to the diverse requirements of the farming sector in our region will have positive repercussions on the economic welfare of the entire region. In conclusion, our land management policy has benefited Durham Region repeatedly in that 3 retirement lots were never created; expropriation did not sever the 200 acres nor the 67 acres into a total of 6 parcels; and 3 additional houses could be constructed if it were our ambition (which it is not). As we have demonstrated after 25 years of land management, lot severances are a practice which we do not exploit. We have discussed our case with Ms. Judy Coward: Rural Community Advisor of the Agriculture and Rural Division of OMAFRA, Port Perry, and found her to be supportive and helpful. We have also retained the services of Dale Toombs: Agricultural and Rural Land Use Consultant and his evaluation is included with this application. We would be happy to show any of those whom it may concern, around our operation provided you prearrange your visit not to conflict with milking cr feeding times. Your consideration of this Amendment to the Plan is appreciated. Sincerely, ~~~ ~l~~ c