HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-40-81 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1.10 TEL.(416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY
16, 1981.
REPORT NO. : P-40-81
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Part of Lot 3, Concession 4, former Township
of Darlington - Brooks, Lovell, McLellan
Our File: 75-29/D (Revised)
BACKGROUND:
The subject application was first submitted to the Town for
review and comments in November of 1975. At that time, the applicants
were proposing to develop a 60 ha (150 ac.) site for five large, 10-13
ha (25-33 ac.) , estate residential lots. In December of 1976, Council
gave conditional approval to that proposal. In February of 1979, the
Region of Durham requested the Town's updated comments in respect of
this application, since no attempt had been made by the applicants to
satisfy the imposed conditions. During the course of our staff review,
it was revealed that the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
was interested in acquiring all, or a portion of, the subject site.
In March of 1979, Council advised the Region that no further approvals
should be granted to this proposal pending C.L.O.C.A. 's acquisition of
the site.
ek
2 _
In July of 1979, the applicants submitted a revised appli-
cation which proposed the development of 41 estate residential lots
of between 0.6 and 1.6 hectares each (1.5 to 4 ac.) . Subsequently,
in November of 1979, the Conservation Authority reached an agreement
with the applicants for the purchase of a portion of the site. The
subject application was accordingly revised, proposing 15 lots on
approximately 14 ha (35 ac.) . In January of 1980, Newcastle Council
advised the Region of Durham that the Town had no objection to this
latest proposal. The basis for this recommendation was, primarily,
the fact that the Conservation Authority's acquisition resolved, to a
certain extent, the concerns which had been identified to that point
in time. However, subsequent to this approval, additional concerns
were identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources in respect of
conflicts with the future operations of licenced gravel pits located
in the vicinity of the site. These concerns were reported on in March
of 1980, at which time, it was felt that these concerns could best be
addressed through conditions of draft plan approval.
On July 15, 1980, the Durham Regional Planning Committee con-
sidered the subject application, at which time deputations were received
from the owners of adjacent properties. As a result of the concerns ex-
pressed by these residents, it was recommended to Regional Council that
the application be denied. This recommendation was subsequently with-
drawn at the Regional Council meeting of July 23, 1980. On September 23,
1980, this matter was again considered by the Regional Planning Committee
and Regional staff were directed to undertake further investigation in
conjunction with the Town of Newcastle.
3 -
On October 27, 1980 the Commissioner of Planning for Durham
Region requested that the Town's Planning Committee give this matter
further consideration. As a result, Resolution PD-342-80 was passed
directing staff to meet with the objectors and report back to this
Committee.
On November 4, 1980, staff met with the residents of the area
in order to identify and discuss their concerns. As a result of that
meeting, it was determined that while the residents were not opposed
to the proposed development they were concerned about the possible
negative effects upon both future residents and their own farming
operations arising from the intrusion of residential uses within an
established agricultural area.
The most significant of these concerns were the following:
a) The noise generated by the operation of irrigation
pumps associated with adjacent farm operations. It
was noted by the residents that these pumps may be
operated 5 or 6 times in a season, 24 hrs. a day
and up to 5 days at a time.
b) Drift and odour of chemical sprays associated with
crop production.
c) Odours associated with existing intensive livestock
operations.
It was suggested by the residents that, if this proposal
is approved, a warning should be registered against title of the
new lots to ensure that prospective purchasers are aware of the
potential problems and to offer some protection to farm operators
against future complaints. The residents also provided staff with
a written brief, originally prepared for presentation to Regional
Council, and a letter from Mr. Stork of the Ministry of Agriculture
and Food. These have been included for the Committee's information
as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively.
- 4 -
Subsequent to this meeting, staff contacted the Ministry
of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of the Environment in order
to obtain further information in respect of the residents' concerns.
Their responses to our enquiries have also been included for the Com-
mittee's information as Attachments 3 and 4.
COMMENTS:
Based upon our review of this new information brought forward
by the residents and the recent comments of the two provincial minis-
tries, it is evident that a potential does exist for conflict between
the proposed estate residential development and existing agricultural
operations; and that the development of the subject site for non-farm
related residential purposes could be an intrusion into an established
agricultural area. Such an intrusion has a potention for restricting
the present and future use of adjacent lands for agricultural purpose.
However, as the neighbouring property owners appear to be satisfied that
a warning on title would protect their interests and as the Ministries
i
of Environment and Agriculture and Food do not specifically object to
the proposal, then staff feel it would be appropriate for the Region to
proceed with the Official Plan Amendment with the understanding that the
Town will be requiring specific clauses to be incorporated into the nec-
essary subdivision agreement, notify prospective property owners of the
potential land use incompatibilities and further requiring that specific
design measures be incorporated into the final plans in order to reduce
adverse impacts (e.g. ; screening, berming, setbacks, etc.) .
Staff note that prior to development occurring, an environ-
mental analysis of the site is required (Amendment 19 to the Durham
- 5 -
Regional Official Plan) and that the applicant is also required
to submit details of site development and engineering prior to
draft plan approval and in accordance with Sections 10.3.2.3 and
10.3.2.4 of the Official Plan. Staff also note that Town Council
adopted the following resolution in respect of this proposal on
February 25, 1980:
"1. That the Region of Durham be requested to consider
the revised amendment application with regard to
the Town's comments and recommendations contained in
staff report P-11-80 as adopted by Committee Resolution
PD-27-80 and endorsed by Council on January 28, 1980;
and that
2. The applicant be advised that the maximum number of
lots to be permitted shall not exceed 15 and that the
Town reserves the rights to reduce that figure if nec-
essitated by the required detailed engineering reports
i
or environmental analysis."
Staff feel it would be appropriate for Committee to forward the
following resolution to Council for approval and transmission to the
Region of Durham.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the following resolution
be forwarded to Council for approval:
"WHEREAS Dr. Michael, Commissioner of Planning for the
Region of Durham, has met with the Newcastle Planning
and Development Committee in respect of Official Plan
Application 75-29/D (revised) ; and
- 6 -
WHEREAS Town of Newcastle staff have met with the
concerned property owners in the vicinity of the appli-
cation; and
WHEREAS it appears that through various measures to be
included within the necessary subdivision agreement that
the residents' concerns may be alleviated; and
WHEREAS the applicant is required to submit engineering,
landscaping and environmental analysis reports prior to
consideration of draft plan approval on which the above
mentioned measures may be based,
BE IT NEW RESOLVED THEREFORE THAT the Town of Newcastle
hereby advises the Region that the Town reconfirms its
position to the effect that the Town has no objection
to a designation for "estate residential" development
for that portion of the subject lands located within
Lot 3, Concession IV, of the former Township of Darlington.
Respe, tfully submitted,
i J
DNS:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
February 6, 1981 Director of Planning
rAUN TON
/.
Q�t 010 010- 160
"j It S # Loco ion off'
v �.c� - i rrl5at W
PCPs
h
mImy,
LQ
F4 010 QZ
1 FOUR N /
Lrx. ro
d C Zod an
�• � O�/ / IG C6®
Cl
/ I T HIRO C INC •� •rc I ~
LOT 7 LOT 6 LOT 5
LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT Z LOT /
b24
;caLE IN YEEt
�. TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
A0.WiCwa„ a�ANrapG CON5MfANIS :0 00 o- KEY MAP 20
♦V.110 I.'1 VIII I __
�, . t
' NC,1 -
PW,;^!'`'_. Henry Eikens
July 23, 1980
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, 1 am Henry t.;ikens
and I dm Ltte ,.u.r• my ne.igN truut'S dnc] tttysel.i . a. overt
d tobacco farm on lot 35, concession 5 , Clarke and 1 also
own part of lot 1 and 2 concession 1f Darlington. On lot 112 n
I have a dugged :irrigating.; ponds �; {; �l� .i �, % ._ l :.t, .11'. �.,.• y,
People who buy homes in this subdivision should know
some things before they buy their home. One of those items
is the noise made from the 3 or 4 irrigation primps in the
neighbourhood and certainly about the odour from the mink
farm.
If this subdivision plan must go through , why could
this noise and odour factor not be registered on the land
titles? This would help the buyer ( who are often people
from the city) know beforehand about these noise-.,.and odour
factors. I find it very unfair that people who could not
possibly know anything about these 2 factors could not do
anything legal to nullify their contracts after they fin
out . They would pay the deposits on their property and
could not claim it back.
The yearly yield from the neipjibouring farms is
roughly worth about ';1, 1 ,000,000 per year and we all to-
gether employ about 75 people plus our own families.
If a tobacco farmer could not irrigate his crops for
one or another legal rnasona , his farm would riot be worth
50% of the present value. His risk of growing a good crop
would be tremendously high and he has a good chance that
within a year or two he would be broke---and that after
putting his whole life into it .
I am not a lawyer, hul- there ought to be a legal way
of protecting us as ncigrtbouring farmers-and not least ,
the future home-owners from hasse].i.ng each other over this
noise and odour :i s.:,iteo
-------------_
- 2
If 1, on my farm for instance, start my irrigation-pump
it has to go for 5 days straight -- 24 hours a day and that
just takes care of ane irrigation. is have had years in which
T irrigated 4 times in one season. Fy neighbours---Tax, Toel-
man and Pleasance have irrigated 5 tames in one season due to
dryer land., i 1 ,u--��� r JW �� 1 : 'is _
_I have lived on my present farm for I ? years, before that T
grew 7 crops on the Tax farm (in shares) and out of those 211
years T did not have to irrigate only twice--due to enongh rain.
Often you hear people condemning; the legion of Durham for
its existence. To me, the province of Ontario di.dn ' t have much
of a choice. There were too many mistakes made in the past
with the smaller towmshi.ps. The planning committee: in the Re-
gion of Durham is made to stay away from that kind of problems.
Preventing troubles is a lot eaAer and cheaper thou repairing
them afterwards.
I have been at a local township meeting before and the
quality of councillors left very much to be disi.red . Don ' t
.forget, these people were voted in by the people of that town-
ship. On that council there were 3 councillors who , T think,
could not say no to anyone , so they automatically went along
with the reeve and deputy-reeve. There was no planning board ,
no severence committee, no nothing, the whole business was
looked after at the council meeting. Simple and cheap, yes,
but give me the Region of Durham and anyone here can have the
rest.
Due to the outbreak of }flue (Mold in Vestern Ontario last
year, every tobacco crop han to be sprayed 4 times with a
chemical which is just licensed in a hurry by the provincial
government . The law is this : no spraying--no government
crop insurance benefits.
During 1977 and 1978, the New Brunswick government
sprayed all of the provincial forests for budworms. This was
done by planes. One child was allergic to the spray material
7
used and the government was warted in the summer of 1977.
They used it again in 1978 and the child- died in the hospital.
There is presently a court case pending over the mother who
tried to shoot down the plane. (This information is based on
a report on OBC -Country !-anada) .
On different occasions we have had to hire helicopters
for frost protection. The cost is presently POO/hr. This
whould also be a factor in the noise level o.f the area.
-This as well as the sound of the irrigation pumps, which
can be easily heard at my house which is I mile away ,
should also be considered.
We have a mink farmer as a neighbour and although his
operation is very clean, there are some humid days in which
he cannot keep that strong; odour of the manure on his farm
and as a result it spreads into the neighbourhood.
When T applied for a severance of a neighbours farm
some years ago , the band Division Committee granted it under
a condition that the PegTion of Durham has a 1 ft reserve as
frontage on my property. This is on title and will stay
there until removed by the P,egion. By doinn that there
cannot be any building; clone against their Wi Weo. 1
bought that land for farmingpurposes and T think it was a
clever and effective way for thy, region.
One more item of conni dero vi.op . As far ab T know, the
prolmBnj v u j v', vi s j 0r . :i t e jr o Ejvvcd depu1 i t . That gravel.
Udge startrs on the tovyli r e (ren rd 42) where it is quite
sarCy but further we 4'-- s g;'ooc; g;r� vc,.t. j. wouio lake some-
body answering; me on my next question. Are they going; to
build houses on tole of or - 25 ft. of cravol% Three
nits are in the area. One is known as #91 , located in lot
5, concession 4. This one has not been used for gravel
purposes. Are you- not- gentlemen of the -Regional-Gouncil t
creating another Leskar. d Yd pruulum??
Gentlemen , I hope I have rotten my 2 major Points across
to you.
1 . The extreme noise made by the Tax and Pleasance
irrigation motors.
2. The odour from the mink farm.
Before I finish At me make one thin; clear. None
of us is interested in a big court case 7 and that is pre-
cisely why we are here today.
Gentlemen I like my neighbours directly concerned
and involved to stand up to be recognized and I like to thank
you very much for your attention.
Y'
`l'he End.
r Ontario
Ministry of
Agriculture 234 King St. E. ,
and Food Bowmanville, Ontario
July 16, 1980
EXTENSION BRANCH
rdov a
To Whom It May Concern
a"•; ,
I have been asked to comment on the effect: that various farm
management practices might have on a proposed Estate Residential Subdivision
located on Concession 4, Lots 3 & 4 , Town of Newcastle, formerly Darlington
Township.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food in a letter of October 22,
1979 raised no objections to the rezoning application of the subject lands
from Major Open Space to Estate Residential. It was noted that agricultural
production was carried on to the south and east of the subject lands. The
most notable production is tobacco and a mink operation.
In my opinion, the farms surrounding -the subject land are well
managed, efficient farm operations. It should be noted, however, that
because of certain production practices, which are a vital part of carrying
on these operations, there are certain things that home owners , not familiar
with these agricultural operations might find to their dislike. These include:
1) Irrigation is a vital part of tobacco operations as the soils that grow
tobacco are quite porous and have low water-holding; capacities. During
the months of July and August and at other times as required, irrigation
is a regular practice. In this particular area, one of the tobacco farms
has their irrigation pond and pumping unit in close proximity to the subject
lands. The noise of the motor used for pumping is significant during these
times. Although this is periodic during the year, there are times when
irrigating could go for 24 hours a day.
2) The use of chemicals is, also, a vital part of any tobacco operation. While
these chemicals are applied very carefully, there is still the possibility
of having chemical odor and some spray drift, which, again, might not be
appreciated.
3) No matter how well run mink operations are, odor from such operations
continues to be a problem especially during hot, humid summer days. The
owner of the mink operation - east of the subject lands has been granted a
Certificate of Compliance, jointly issued by the Ministry of Agriculture
and Food and -the Ministry of the Environment. This means that this
operation meets distance requirements , manure storage requirements and
disposal requirements as spelled out by the Agricultural Code of Practice.
Although I don't believe the proposed Estate Residential lots encroach on
the distances mentioned above, there is still a concern with regard to
possible odor.
. . . . . . . . 2 � 9A-,it i
GOOD IIAINGS GROW W Or`n'ARIO O �r
��o
To Whom It May Concern "Con t 'o
These are a few of the concerns , which might ar in the area. I n my
opinion, it would seem that if this application is to he approved, then, such
things as berms and trees need to be part of the development. These two things
would help to act as a buffer for noise and possible odor. In addition, fences
might help to stop possible crop loss and damage.
1
These are some of my thoughts with regards to the surrounding land
uses and agricultural production.
Yourss truly,
RDS-.bl Rodney D. SLork,
Assoc. Agricultin-al Representative
1 .
DEC 3
Ontario
Ministry of 15-29JD
Agriculture 234 King Street E. ,
and Food BOWMANVILLE, Ontario.
L1C 1P5
December 1, 1980.
EXTENSION BRANCH
Mr. Terry Edwards, P
Long Range Planner,
Planning and Development Department,
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle,
HAMPTON, Ontario.
LOB 1JO
Dear Sir:
Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Part of Lot 3, Con. IV, former
Township of Darlington
File: 75-29/D
(Former File: O.P.A. #70)
I am writing in response to your letter of November
6th regarding the above noted property.
Mr. Brian Hall, Assistant Agricultural Representative
and myself viewed the proposed subdivision site and surrounding
area on November 26th. .
I would like to go back a little bit and bring this whole
proposal up to date. . In a letter to Mr. George Howden on April
27th, 1976 an objection was raised by our Ministry with regards
to rezoning of the land from agriculture to estate residential
on the grounds that the land was Class 2 and 3 and could be
suitable for agriculture at some time.
On October 22nd, 1979 a memo was sent to Mr. L. Kotseff
indicating that as the Durham Region Official Plan designated
this land Major Open Space and because agriculture on the
subject land was limited, we would have no objection. This
was confirmed in a memo on January 30th, 1980. Note was made,
however, that surrounding agriculture included tobacco farms
and a mink operation.
These two types of farm operations do have some unique
characteristics about them which I will note and comment on
later.
In your letter of November 6th you asked us to inspect
the site and report on:
. . . 2
MKIRL
Mr. Terry Edwards - 2 -
1) whether or not any of the proposed lots encroach
upon the minimum distance separation (MDS) under the Agricultural
Code of Practice as it applies to livestock operations, and in
particular, Mr. J. Schmenger's mink operation.
2) any comments we would have regarding normal farm
operations being carried on adjacent to the proposed site.
We have checked out the MDS and none of the lots in the
proposed plan encroach on Mr. Schmenger's mink operation.
However, I would point out that the Agricultural Code of Practice
and the formulas used deal with manure storage, type of livestock
and land available for disposal of manure but they do not deal
with potential odor problems. I will expand on this later.
Although we have not objected to the rezoning of the subject
lands, there are some very valid concerns with regards to
existing farms surrounding the site and how they might be
affected by the establishment of a subdivision in this particular
area. I would like to point these out now, rather than later,
when farmers who have established well run businesses start
hearing complaints from non farm rural neighbours about things
which are normal activities for a rural farm community. An
example of what I mean is a hog farmer who will have to spend
over $30,000 to try and stop an odor problem that has been made
into a major issue by neighbours in a subdivision adjacent to his
farm.
The concerns that we see are as follows:
1) Irrigation - this is a vital part of .any tobacco
operation. One of the tobacco farms has an irrigation pond
immediately adjacent to the proposed development. Irrigation is
best carried on in the evening, during the night and in the early
morning. Will people not familiar with this practice be prepared
for the noise of irrigation pumps and motors?
2) Chemicals - this is also a vital part of tobacco
production with at least 7 sprays being applied each growing
season. While these chemicals are applied very carefully, there
is the chance of chemical drift.
3) Livestock Odor - no matter how well a mink operation is
run, there is always an odor from these farms and much more so on
warm, humid days during the summer. This odor can drift for a
long way and can remain in the air for a good deal of time. The
mink operator in question has a Certificate of Compliance and as
I said earlier, this development would not encroach on this;
however, odor still has to be a concern.
4) Damage to Crops - whenever a development of this type is
located in a rural area, crop damage due to vehicles and people
seems to increase. Although the trespass laws have been
strengthened, it is still of concern to farmers and ourselves.
. . . . . 3
rY Mr. Terry Edwards - 3 -
i
It would seem to me that the developers, planners
and potential homeowners in this proposed development should
be made aware of these concerns if they are not already.
Further to this - if this application for rezoning is
granted, then such things as construction of earthen berms,
planting of trees and possibly erection of fences should be
requested of the developer.
As I have mentioned, these are concerns which may affect
surrounding farms and farm families. Granted, there may be
no problems or complaints; however, our experience has been
that if complaints do arise, it is too late for the farmer to
do anything about it. It would seem to me that the farmer who
has been in the area and is established in business should not
have to take 1tcorrective" measures after the fact.
I trust this information will be of use to you. If you
have any questions, please call me.
Yours truly,
Rod Stork,
RS/js Associate Agricultural Representative,
Durham County.
i
,)AP, C 6831
Ontario PI_l. :`
Ministry of the Central Region suite 700
Environment
150 Ferrand Drive
Don Mills, Ontario
M3C 3C3
(416) 424-3000
1980 12 17 \ f [ 1C �6Gdt� ittIt
l3 f
Corporation of the Town of
Newcastle
Planning & Development Department
Hampton, Ontario
LOD U O
Attention: Mr. T.T. Edwards
Long Range Planner
Dear Sir:
Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Part of Lot 3, Concession IV
Former Town of Darlington
Your File No. 75-29/D
Our File CR1816
This is in response to your letter addressed to our Mrs. P. Hollett,
dated December 1 , 1980.
As a result of your questions and submitted material , we have discussed
the concerns with representatives of our Noise Pollution Control Section
and our Pesticides Officer. Regarding noise emanating from irrigation
Pumps, it is our understanding that although the noise can be intense,
the frequency of the noise event can be very limited. The operation of
irrigation pumps is dependent on weather conditions and in some years
irrigation is not necessary, whereas in other years irrigation may occur
on 20 to 30 days. The average for this part of the province would
appear to be in the range of 5 to 6 days per year. Obviously, this type
of noise could irritate future residents and result in complaints. The
noise source, however, is not readily controllable nor is it possible to
accurately predict the resulting noise levels within this development
area. Consequently, there does not appear to be any viable means of .�
control .
Our Pesticides Officer has indicated that recently there has been a
number of complaints from residents in agricultural areas regarding
various sprays used by agriculture. Tobacco is a fairly intensive crop
which requires herbicides, insecticides and fungicides to be sprayed.
Some of these insecticides could be quite toxic and/or odourous. No
guarantee could be given, that the spraying of the crop would not affect
the residences adjacent to the tobacco fields. As a general rule, it is
not in our opini, i good idea to encourage residential development
adq,a�pnt to ti11c,2"-' ive agricultural operations. People, generally fear
What they do not know and usually Oidividuals know little about pesticides.
-z- (ql
The factors discussed are components of land use compatibility. The
nature of the factors do not lend themselves to be quantified. As a
result, we can only advise that they will have the potential to adversely
affect the proposed residential development. Means of control to avoid
apprehension on the part of future residents do not appear to be available.
The best means of control would be to consider an alternate land use. --
Recognizing that planning is a process choosing compromises , if the
planners believe that the benefits derived from this proposed development
outweigh this and other disbenefits and approval is given, a stongly
worded warning clause should be imposed on the titles. This would allow
future residents to assess these factors prior to their purchase.
Yours truly,
D Pirie, Chief
ppprovals & Planning
Technical Support Section
DB:fa
3-13
i
i
"P. Chairman , Membprr or tho Qqnn i n Poonoi l
�rnmbor:l, Ladles and 7ontlomnn .
Ket mr introdurp myself MO . r im goon lay , wiPn of-,
Peter Tax. Toypthpr with our Family wo 0-n qnd operate tY-
tobacco rearm adjarnnt to tho Part inj •oKh -idn or the
nro-
nosed subdivision . T would IMP to nrn--nt my Vow- on thil:�
matter.
Thorn is i vrowinr convorn qwon-• L "Irm-r- thqt thr,
Flight of urban Owollnry to the rouitry-i "- will "orno oh9nnnc.
on the rural li -roptylp and hammer our F• -m on-r9 tion- ,
The smell and round of many rarm on-ritlo w9v Q n-r-
Inctly acceptablp to -onnrationp 0 , rirTprr, but not Po
nocular with the urban raised nowromQr -hn hn- • "- t boilt
his dream home noxt door. Tf thorn aro nnw hom-p built , it
will start with fifteen , but •raOually thnrn will ho morn .
So when those poonle start romplainin- about Lhr -mnll , -nrgy- ,
noisn--let ' P call it nollution in on, word , thnr- j - nothin,r
up farmers can do about it.
What does thy' avergan p-r-on know bout nrrtiri"P�-Thorn is cons •ant •nriyin- in thn ""MT-QiMn , Tt rtgrt--
alroMy ten days bnPorn you put thn lirrL rinnt in thn --onno .
Thir rubdivinion will ho in the W- L or "q-m onornLioq- in ,l
9 mink farm. To qn ordin2ry ner-on Lhi - m9y Ponm liko 3
boautirol ulgen in th- nountpy to hivo 9 hom, ; how,wnr , thnv
are not aware of 911 the Kurt , Pmoll and -nrw thnt MY will,
be cubject to. All them operations arp nnrP--q-y in ordn'r
for the "armor to 7row hip Prop, ro My cannot ho rtonn-4 ., ---
the now residents complain .about. thnm .
Alro , are thorn proplp aware that th-rn is an onnn arqun ].
pit practically r0ht in their black yard .
Even if then numerous np7itivr Poi -tr worn nut in th-
QN , the buyer miqht just Phrup hip rhonlHorr nn rqy, "woll
it cah' t be that bad , wR ' ll Pee whnn thr Limn romor , " mhrr '
when he is even rli7htly bothrrod by qny or th— innonunninnnn- ,
he will start a votition to restrict the Parmnr-. mbnv -onj-'
demand no more nolpo beforn or after 9 rrrtnin hour of the &-ur
or ni7ht , and no dust or obnoxious odnurr to Q-tort thn- .
''Jell , let mn toll you that a Perm rqqnot onorgLo thi-,
way. A farm cannot be run as an offirr onon '-om Onr to
five .
T .p there i 1' rl g"bdi vi " ion bui l t , and if noonl r'
think l.iko one of the applicant-' 1,hnrn -ill W,
furthor trouble . Onn of the nnol.inant- told mn in n-r-nn
that we could always ^'row our tobanco '"o?Y'r?whnra el_ra .
This' was a vary silly ptatomnnt for anyone to make .
These sandy farms are Prime tobacco lann and it woulr,
be utterly r'idiculonr to ruct aeon r;ro line'' tobarno
on -uch moor= land .
This bride;° mn to an i mnort.nn t nn-- Lion ) T- bhnrn
a need foC' another subdivi rion j 44- -111 Mv - Kart
in nourti-cp . '":ghat ,`About the ` obdi vi " ion on T'`onra-
Avenue , and the other one on Mborhy Mrnnt North .
There ir the aril 1 or nark whorn Spy hone to hnv('
five hundred hogrrr . Who will fill all thorn nn- houvnQ .
[ feel that to leave thr for-pt nr it P , and In t
everyone operate their farms ; if it hr, tohnnno , Phi niro-
or mink as they have done for yoDrc and year- in& to
not build the subdivision is in the Inr't intnr.r -t of 911
involved . We , as farmers, must take -ton'' non. We n-P,i
nr otection against urban dwnll i n err". "oo many ti men, t;}fir,
farmer in nut out of business bncaupp the non- Pgmmnr q r_lrn
neither interestnd in , nor wymnathnti.n to t,hn -i -al
neople ' r vi ownointp. Rovorn you nounnil_ mnmbnrc , or
pl_annin- committee feel it i_s nnporpn -v to annrovn of 01 -
i
application , you rt urt be m rdQ awarQ t}'1'l t wo Feel it 1 -
thn full rrspon0bi.l i ty or the Corporation of Lh- '"o-n
of Mewcartle in care an,ythin✓o hanpnnr to the or r"ngntr-'
of the Manned hounns, 'lnythin- likn n tior-i n- , ,i nknop
headaches, ntc . from Pnrays and other thinr r"ho"10 bn
thou-ht about now.
Tn the A-ri cultural rode of Practi nn ("hip ip i too',
brought out by the novernmM) it P ta.trr that IMO Pont
distance from 3 farm Onerition i r "horn the ho"n, 'l vu Phnul ,
be . Tf the farmer^ ar- bound b- thi_`" , '' hv -hoUIdn ' t 1;? -
developers ho .
Then thorn is the noi_Qr nr'pecL of our Qr.m - . Nqvy
any of you nvnr room cl_orn rnn-o to Lh- nni ..r,
of an irr,ivation motor. Tf not , T invito all o " you on
a specific day and hour to our fir T and yo" Pan Pin& out
°or yourself what T am talkin^• ,about . "hn-r am no mna.r.-
of contr ollim tho oxtrmmn not `"nom' of On ngmn-.
Tt is recommended in thin rnnort that sho"Id the �
applicant be allowed to develop thip .`l"nn , notanti nl
homeowners must be made aware or Lho P„r ronnd i n,
a4ricultural hazardq.
i
I
It was suy ertnd that the noire qnq ojour paetons
( pertainY& to our snecialinno azriquiture - miqj qni-i
tobacco) be re7istnrnd on thn Inn, "itlo- 0- thy'` n"Onopnd
regidences . Rpniatrationp of thi - tynn ; on land title-
would not bo 1-nally on "orriblo . nnro-mnndqWon- rqn hr,
made ; but no one ran bn Wren" to follow thqT,
qntil now, none of un -,rjo"_jy bnji -v,v thit anVonr,
knowinn the surrounding nnv1ron-"nL would wnnt to buil (I
residential homer hem .
Boino part of 3 Farminy community, wo hnvo not , in
the past , Men expound to the 1p-nl ,
a ,,,t, p ,,h 1
proposal . That is why our disapproval wnr not voinmi
as strongly as it should have bann ,
are stronply anainRt tho big ildin" O qnv homes
here now, or in the Puturn .
Also in closin-, why 1p it that on julu jo, jQqq ,
the application Pon aunroval was donloo njo Lhnn Kho
Rnvional n01 r5il -hanned their MAP It Lhn mnnvinm on
July 23, 1980 , 1 Are the farmers boin " tooind ny •npon (i
MAP citizonp.
No -owl" like to npvrnrvo oH- rq -w- "nn kh- nnxl-,
.unneration . Mp K all we -Inc .
z7
/t
C