HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-043-16 Planning Services
Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal
Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: June 6, 2016
Report Number: PSD-043-16 Resolution Number:
File Number: PLN 2.10 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance
of Abutting and Non-Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) - Comments
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-043-16 be received;
2. That Clarington support the severance of surplus farm dwellings from abutting or non-
abutting properties through the Regional Land Division process contingent on a local
municipal rezoning which restricts the farm parcel from obtaining a residential building
permit;
3. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and all lower
tier municipalities in Durham be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-043-16 and Council’s
decision; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-043-16 and any delegations be advised of
Council’s decision.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-043-16 Page 2
Report Overview
The Region of Durham is undertaking a review of its Official Plan policies related to the
severance of surplus farm dwellings (policies 9A.2.9 and 9A.2.10) as outlined in the Region’s
Report No. 2016-P-18. The Region requested comments by June 30, 2016.
Clarington staff recommend the continuation of allowing for the severance of surplus farm
dwellings and that the process be streamlined to a Regional land division contingent on a local
rezoning.
1. Background
Protection of the agricultural land base is important to maintain a viable agricultural
industry in the Region. Agriculture continues to be the largest economic activity in the
Region. The number of farmers is decreasing while the acreage farmed is stable. For
farmers to remain viable as economic entities they are continually evolving their farming
practices and processes.
The land use policies of Ontario are designed primarily around the 40 hectare (100 acre)
farm. W hile this is the way lands were historically subdivided, it is not the way farmers
farm any longer. The ongoing trend is for farmers to work more acreage on a number of
properties. This is possible because of mechanization, technology and crop yield.
The Region is presently undertaking a review of its Official Plan policies related to the
severance of surplus farm dwellings (i.e. Policies 9A.2.9 - abutting and 9A.2.10 – non-
abutting). Provincial Plans currently permit the consideration of surplus farm dwelling
severances. The Region has historically supported more restrictive policies that protect
the land base against fragmentation and the introduction of incompatible uses.
The Region is seeking input on whether further restrictions should be placed on the ability
to sever existing rural residential homes from non-abutting farms when they are
purchased by farmers. The Region is considering deleting policy 9A.2.10 as set out in
Report No. 2016-P-18 (Attachment 1).
Currently the process requires four applications. While it is possible to make concurrent
applications for Regional Official Plan Amendments and Regional Land Division;
Regional staff place the land division application on hold until the Regional Official Plan
amendment has been finalized. Typically farmers do not make local Official Plan and
local rezoning amendments without knowing the result of the Regional process. The
Regional Land Division is contingent on the local Official Plan amendment and zoning
bylaw amendment. Each process includes the requirement for a pre-consultation meeting
with staff, committee report and public meeting. All of these applications can be appealed
to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-043-16 Page 3
2. Policies
2.1 Provincial Policies
Provincial policies are generally restrictive toward lot creation in agricultural areas. This
includes policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014), the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and the Greenbelt Plan (GBP). The most recent update to
the PPS in 2014 includes specific goals with respect to the protection of the agricultural
land base. The elimination of retirement lots for farmers occurred in the 2005 update of
the PPS. The PPS presents minimum standards, and does not prohibit planning
authorities from being more restrictive than the minimum standards established in specific
policies, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of the PPS.
The provincial policies, until 2005 allowed for retirement lot creation in the rural area with
certain restrictions. Because retirement lots were allowed the policies of the Regional and
Clarington Official Plans required OP Amendments to allow for an additional residential
lot if a retirement lot had already been allowed.
2.2 Regional Policies
The Region in their Report 2016-P-18 identified issues related to farm severances as:
land fragmentation, potential for land use conflicts with non-farm residents, and long term
implications of zoning challenges for the retained parcels. Regional staff are concerned
that policy 9A.2.10 is allowing for too many severances and have recommended that
policy 9A.2.10 be deleted from the Official Plan.
Policy 9A.2.10
Notwithstanding Policy 9A.2.9, the severance of a farm dwelling rendered
surplus as a result of a farmer acquiring a non-abutting farm may be allowed,
by amendment to this Plan, provided that:
a) the dwelling is not needed for a farm employee;
b) the farm parcel to be acquired is of a size which is viable for farming
operations;
c) within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan Area, the dwelling
was in existence as of December 16, 2004; and
d) the farm parcel to be acquired is zoned to prohibit any further severances
and the establishment of any residential dwelling.
No further severances shall be permitted from the acquired farm parcel.
Regional staff indicate that the necessary rezoning at the time of severance could at a
future date be changed. While possible, the Region is notified of all zoning amendments
made by local municipalities and has the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if
provincial and/or regional policies are not being adhered to.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-043-16 Page 4
3. Comments
3.1 Clarington Official Plan Policy
Currently the severance of an existing residence from an agricultural parcel requires
farmers to apply for a land division (Region), a Regional Official Plan Amendment
(ROPA) and a local Official Plan Amendment (COPA) and zoning bylaw amendment.
As part of Clarington’s Official Plan Review, it was determined that given the changes
which further restrict how agricultural lands can be used, specifically the elimination of the
retirement lot policies from the PPS in 2005, that it was no longer necessary to require an
Official Plan Amendment for abutting and non-abutting farm severances. The draft
Clarington Official Plan eliminates the need for a local Official Plan Amendment, rather it
relies on the Regional Land Division process subject to a local rezoning as the process to
ensure the goals established under Policy 9A.2.10 are adhered to.
The zoning enacted at the time of severance prohibits agricultural lands from further
severance and building of non-farm structures on agricultural lands. Clarington staff
believe rezoning the parcel is sufficient to achieve the policy objective.
Clarington properties listed in the Official Plan or where zoning restrictions as the result of
Regional land division applications have been enacted are shown in Attachment 2.
3.2 Economic Development
Clarington has the greatest agricultural area of the lower tier municipalities in Durham,
with 22,260 ha (55,000 acres) of farmland. Agriculture is the largest economic activity for
both the Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington. Removal of policy 9A.2.10
would alter the feasibility of property acquisition for local operators, and impact the rural
residential community in the long term.
To ensure that farms remain in agriculture productivity the economic viability of farmers
has to be considered. The benefits of allowing local farmers to grow and improve their
operations outweighs any minor abuse that might have occurred with the existing policy.
Removal of the policies allowing for abutting or non-abutting severances would have
major impacts on farmers and their ability to purchase land and expand their businesses.
Farming has evolved over the past several decades, additional dwellings on agricultural
lots are no longer needed for farm help. Many farmers own numerous parcels and live on
the home farm. Farming will further evolve over the coming decades and land use
policies need to remain flexible and adaptable to local farmers’ needs; within the overall
context of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Allowing for the severance of surplus residential buildings has a positive economic effect.
It means that these homes are purchased rather than rented or abandoned. Typically the
assessed value of the residential property is higher for owned single residential properties
because of the maintenance, expansion and upkeep by property owners.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-043-16 Page 5
Demand for rural properties continues to grow with population growth. The elimination of
“estate residential” subdivisions in the rural area by the 2005 PPS increased the demand
for rural lots. Removing the non-abutting policy may increase the number of abandoned
houses in the rural area if farmers are unable to sever the surplus dwelling or do not wish
to become landlords. In the long term, the restriction on the supply of rural homes is
resulting in an increase in demand for rural residential living opportunities. Increased
demand for rural properties ultimately increases rural residential property values, forcing
some buyers to purchase much larger parcels of land, commonly referred to as the 100
acre estate lot. This can lead to the demolition of the existing house many of which are
heritage homes and the loss of the land from agriculture production.
3.3 Agricultural Community
The majority of the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC) felt the existing
policies are tools used by the agricultural industry to grow their businesses, avoid
landlord/tenant issues and provide a housing option when they retire.
The Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC) support the comments made
by DAAC. Our committee members indicated that the impacts of eliminating the
severance option for existing surplus residences may result in:
forcing farmers to be landlords; which in turn could mean the dereliction and
demolition of rural homes, many of which are heritage resources;
further loss of rural population and housing options has a domino effect on the fabric
of the rural community, support for hamlet stores, churches and community halls;
limiting how farmers expand their businesses by eliminating the revenue from the
sale of the dwelling to offset the cost of land purchase and/or equipment; and
promoting ownership by larger, often non-local corporations.
The AACC members believe that the severance of abutting and non-abutting farm
residences should be treated in the same manner. Further they support the staff opinion
that requiring 4 applications to obtain a severance is cumbersome and confusing. If the
process could be stream-lined and costs reduced through the elimination of certain
applications they should be. Committee members indicated that one of the uncertainties
when purchasing a property is whether the severance will be allowed and worry that the
length of time required to process the applications is not conducive to real estate
transactions.
4. Recommendations
Clarington staff met with Regional Planning staff and provided comments prior to the
Region’s Report No. 2016-P-18. Clarington Planning Services staff recommended the
continuation of the policies allowing for severing of non-abutting agricultural lots. Further,
Clarington staff having already recommended the elimination for the local Official Plan
Amendment and suggested that the Region do so as well to help stream-line the process.
Staff suggested that while the Region may choose to continue to list severed properties in
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-043-16 Page 6
the Official Plan, if the policy established that a severance is contingent on rezoning there
are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that lands cannot be rezoned in future.
Staff believe the changes to Provincial Policies in 2005 combined with the policies of the
Greenbelt Plan sufficiently protect agricultural land from fragmentation. Requiring OP
amendments given these provincial safeguards is an added financial burden on farmers
when purchasing property.
A Regional land severance which is contingent upon a local rezoning could have a higher
application fee to account for the staff time needed to review these types of applications.
A two tiered system much like the major/minor definitions that Clarington uses for
variance and rezoning applications could be established for the Regional fees for land
division.
Land fragmentation concerns may be addressed by using the farm corporation number
(as part of the land severance application) as a way of avoiding a farm entity from taking
advantage of the non-abutting severance policy. Land use conflicts through introduction
of non-farm residents can be mitigated with acknowledgement of farm uses as a
condition of severance, enshrined on the property deed.
5. Strategic Plan
The recommendation of this report conform to the strategic plan, in particular Section 1.1,
expansion of existing businesses and support for agriculture.
6. Conclusion
The Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington, the agricultural community and staff
support the severance of surplus farm dwellings from abutting or non-abutting properties
through the Regional Land Division process contingent on a local municipal rezoning
which restricts the severed farm parcel from obtaining a residential building permit.
It is recommended that Council not support the proposal by Durham Region to eliminate
policy 9A.2.10 from the Regional Official Plan and thus restrict non-abutting farms from
obtaining a severance for surplus residential homes. Alternatives to steamline the
severance process should be explored by the Region to make the process, more timely,
affordable and predictable.
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564
Header
To: The Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development
Report: #2016-P-18
Date: March 22, 2016
Subject:
Review of Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of
Abutting and Non-Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) File: L35-04
Recommendations:
That the Planning & Economic Development Committee recommends to Regional
Council:
A)That staff be authorized to consult with the Area Municipalities, the Durham
Agricultural Advisory Committee, the farming community and other interested
stakeholders on the Durham Regional Official Plan: Policy Review – Surplus Farm
Dwelling Severance Policies Discussion Paper; and
B)That a copy of Commissioner’s Report #2016-P-18 be forwarded to the Area
Municipalities, Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Durham Federation of
Agriculture and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Report:
1.Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Discussion Paper entitled Durham
Regional Official Plan: Policy Review – Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies
(Attachment 1) and to seek authorization to consult with the Area Municipalities
(AMs), the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC), the farming community
and other interested stakeholders.
Report #2016-P-18 Page 2 of 6
2. Background
2.1 The Region has been experiencing an increase in the number of non-abutting
surplus farm dwelling severance applications in recent years. Issues related to farm
related severances include:
Land fragmentation;
Potential for land use conflicts; and
The long term implications of zoning the retained parcels to prohibit the
construction of a dwelling in perpetuity.
2.2 In response to the growing number of these applications, on November 10, 2015 the
Planning and Economic Development Committee directed: That staff prepare a
report analyzing the issues and implications of surplus farm dwelling severances,
including the current situation, future implications and suggested policy changes.
2.3 This report provides an overview of the research and analysis, initial consultation
and proposed approaches to address the identified issues.
3. Initial Consultation
3.1 As part of the background work, preliminary consultation was conducted with internal
departments, AMs and DAAC. Through this initial consultation, the following
alternatives were discussed:
No changes or modifications to existing surplus farm dwelling severance
policies;
Prohibit severances for non-abutting parcels and continue to permit
severances for abutting parcels;
Amend non-abutting policies to be more restrictive;
Prohibit severances for both abutting and non-abutting farm parcels.
3.2 The following provides an overview of the discussions on potential alternatives, by
issue area:
Policies related to abutting farm parcels a.
Overall, no concerns were raised about the abutting severance policies;
and
It was suggested that there should be more clarity to ensure abutting
parcels are required to merge for farm operations.
Report #2016-P-18 Page 3 of 6
Policies related to non-abutting farm parcels b.
From an economic development perspective, farm businesses may use
the sale of the dwelling to help fund the purchase of farmland;
Deleting the non-abutting policy may increase the number of abandoned
houses in the rural area if farmers are unable to sever the surplus
dwelling;
The majority of DAAC felt these policies are tools used by the
agricultural industry to grow their businesses, avoid landlord/tenant
issues and provide a housing option when they retire. As such, they
would support further restricting these policies, but not deletion;
A number of comments acknowledged the significant challenges these
applications may cause in the future (e.g. if the zoning on the retained
lands is reversed);
The northern AMs were generally supportive of restricting or
investigating the removal of the non-abutting policy;
Strengthening the non-abutting policy language may reduce a few
severances, but a large number will still qualify;
The requirement to prohibit any future dwellings on the retained lands
ultimately undermines the flexibility of the farm parcel in the future;
The elimination of this policy would protect existing farm infrastructure
from premature destruction (due to Minimum Distance Separation
(MDS) setback requirements); and
It was suggested that the requirement for a Regional Official Plan
Amendment (ROPA) should be removed, to make the application
process less cumbersome and expensive for farmers seeking to sever
surplus farm dwellings.
4. Overview of Discussion Paper
Durham’s Agricultural Industry
4.1 Protection of the agricultural land base is important to maintain a viable agricultural
industry in the Region. Agricultural production in Durham generates significant
returns and is the main economic activity in the rural area.
Provincial Policy Review
4.2 Provincial policies are generally restrictive toward lot creation in agricultural areas.
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Greenbelt Plan (GBP) and Oak Ridges
Report #2016-P-18 Page 4 of 6
Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) include the following policy directions related
to the consideration of farm related severances:
Lot creation may only be permitted in specific circumstances;
MDS compliance is required;
New dwellings are to be prohibited on the retained parcel; and
The policies represent minimum standards for lot creation.
Further, the Provincial Plans do not distinguish between abutting and non-abutting
farm severances.
4.3 In February, 2015 the Province initiated a co-ordinated approach to reviewing four
provincial land use plans (i.e. the Growth Plan; GBP; ORMCP; and Niagara
Escarpment Plan). The Review is ongoing and the Province anticipates proposed
amendments will be released for input in late spring, 2016.
Durham Regional Official Plan Policies
4.4 The Regional Official Plan (ROP) aims to protect and maintain the agricultural land
base for future generations. Lot creation policies within the ROP for rural areas have
traditionally been more restrictive than the Provincial Plans.
4.5 Since 1991 the ROP has differentiated between abutting and non-abutting farm
parcels. The 1991 ROP permitted retirement and surplus farm dwelling severances
(abutting and non-abutting), subject to certain criteria.
4.6 The ROP Review in 2000 (ROPA 114) addressed farm-related severance issues in
the context of the updated Provincial Policies and the Regional experience. ROPA
114 had the effect of:
Removing the provisions to allow retirement lots;
Retaining the provisions to allow the severance of surplus dwellings for
abutting farm parcels; and
Retaining the provisions to allow the severance of surplus farm dwellings for
non-abutting farm parcels. However, prior to the approval of the GBP, the
recommendation was to delete the non-abutting policy because it was
deemed to increase fragmentation, restrict the location of new farm-related
buildings and potentially increase the number of dwelling units in agricultural
areas.
Report #2016-P-18 Page 5 of 6
Existing ROP - Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies
4.7 Policies 9A.2.9 and 9A.2.10 address surplus farm dwelling severances for abutting
and non-abutting farms respectively.
Abutting Farms (Policy 9A.2.9): a.
The ROP continues to encourage the consolidation of farms, wherever
possible, provided the farms are merged into a single parcel. Policy 9A.2.9
permits the consideration of the severance of a habitable farm dwelling
rendered surplus as a result of consolidation of abutting farms, without
amendment, subject to certain criteria. The result of such severances is the
creation of larger farm parcels through the merging of farms and no new
parcels are created. This type of severance creates opportunities for more
viable farm operations, and assists in protecting the agricultural land base.
However, to ensure that land consolidation proceeds as intended, the policy
should be amended to clarify that in circumstances where a “farm operation”
owns two or more abutting farm parcels, the abutting parcels should be
merged in order to ensure that no new parcels are created.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to retain the abutting farm severance policy, with
appropriate revisions to apply to “farm operations”.
Non-Abutting Farms (Policy 9A.2.10): b.
Policy 9A.2.10 permits the consideration of the severance of a farm dwelling
rendered surplus as the result of the consolidation of non-abutting farms, by
amendment, subject to certain criteria. Although this policy may provide a
financial benefit to farmers, the fragmentation of the agricultural land base is
of paramount concern from a land use planning perspective. In addition, the
other concerns raised in the 2000 ROP Review remain, including:
Loss of land for food production;
Potential land use conflicts;
Restrictions on the ability to locate new farm related buildings due to
MDS criteria; and
Notwithstanding the provisions of the GBP that attempt to ensure that
no new residential dwellings will be permitted on the retained farm
parcel, there is no solid legal basis to ensure that zoning restrictions will
not be overturned in the future.
Report #2016-P-18 Page 6 of 6
In order to restrict the further fragmentation of the agricultural land base through the
creation of non-farm parcels, consideration should be given to deleting Policy
9A.2.10.
5. Conclusions and Next Steps
5.1 This exercise reviewed the appropriateness of the ROP’s surplus farm dwelling
severance policies and confirmed previous concerns raised in the 2000 ROP
Review. Given the level of fragmentation in the rural area, the existing supply of
vacant rural parcels and the rural development potential, it is prudent to place further
restrictions on the ability to create additional non-farm rural residential lots.
5.2 It is recommended that staff be authorized to consult with the Area Municipalities,
the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, the farming community and other
interested stakeholders on the Durham Regional Official Plan: Policy Review –
Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies Discussion Paper.
5.3 Following consultation on the Discussion Paper, staff will provide final policy
recommendations and if appropriate, seek authorization to initiate an amendment to
the ROP.
5.4 This report has been prepared in consultation with the Corporate Services
Department, Legal Services Division.
6. Attachments
Attachment #1: Durham Regional Official Plan: Policy Review – Surplus Farm
Dwelling Severance Policies
Respectfully submitted,
Brian Bridgeman
Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning and
Economic Development
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Garry Cubitt
G.H. Cubitt, MSW
Chief Administrative Officer
DURHAM R EGIONAL
O FFICIAL P LAN (ROP):
POLICY REVIEW
SURPLUS FARM DWELLING S EVERANCE
POLICIES
DISCUSSION PAPER
March, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………1
2. Background……………………………………………………………………………..2
2.1 Overview of Durham’s Agricultural Industry………………………………………….2
2.2 Durham’s Contribution to Ontario’s Economy………………………………………..3
2.3 Existing Rural Parcels…………………………………………………………………..4
3. Provincial Policy Review……………..……………...............................................5
3.1 Provincial Policies……………………………………………………………………….5
3.2 Co-ordinated Provincial Plan Review…………………………………………………6
4. Durham Regional Official Plan Policies………………………..………………….7
4.1 ROP Policy Directions………...………..……………..……………..…………………7
4.2 1991 ROP Policies………...………..……………..……………..……………….……7
4.3 2000 ROP Review………..……………….……..……………..………………………9
4.4 Existing ROP – Surplus Farm Dwelling Policies………………………………...….11
5. Conclusions……………....…………………….…………..……………..………….15
6. External Information Source…………….…………..…………….…..…………..16
2
1 . PURPOSE
The Region has been experiencing an increase in the number of non-abutting surplus farm
dwelling severance applications in recent years. Issues related to farm related severances
include: land fragmentation; potential for land use conflicts; and the long term implications
of zoning the retained parcels to prohibit the construction of a dwelling in perpetuity.
In response to the growing number of these applications, on November 10, 2016 the
Planning and Economic Development Committee directed: That staff prepare a report
analyzing the issues and implications of surplus farm dwelling severances, including the
current situation, future implications and suggested policy changes.
The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to provide an overview of the research and
analysis, initial consultation and proposed approaches to address the identified issues. The
focus of this exercise is to evaluate the appropriateness of the Regional Official Plan’s
(ROP) surplus farm dwelling severance policies: 9A.2.9 (abutting) and 9A.2.10 (non-
abutting).
These lot creation policies have a history of being a complex matter in Durham.
From a land use planning perspective the creation of new rural residential lots presents the
following issues:
Creation of vacant (potentially undersized) agricultural parcels, zoned to prohibit
the construction of a dwelling in perpetuity;
Viability of the retained agricultural lands if farming trends change over time;
Lack of flexibility for future generations of farmers;
Fragmentation of the agricultural land base;
Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback requirements may prohibit the
expansion or construction of a livestock barn on the retained lands;
Potential for land use conflicts through the introduction of non-farm residents; and
The long term effectiveness of zoning retained parcels to restrict the construction
of new residential dwellings.
From an agricultural industry (economic) perspective, the ability to sever surplus farm
dwellings addresses the following issues:
Avoids tenant/landlord issues;
Expands the farm operation by using the revenue from the sale of the dwelling to
purchase land and/or equipment;
Restrictive zoning on the retained lands helps to moderate the cost of agricultural
parcels;
Allows for estate or retirement planning; and
Provides housing options in the rural area.
1
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Overview of Durham’s Agricultural Industry
Protection of the agricultural land base is important to maintain a viable agricultural industry
in the Region. The rural area plays a significant role in supporting large blocks of
agricultural land for food production and the predominance of good soils, proximity to
markets and a relatively long growing season supports a prosperous agricultural industry.
Agricultural production in Durham generates significant returns and is the main economic
activity in the rural area. According to Statistics Canada, the value of gross farm receipts
(GFR) has risen constantly over time. Between 2006 and 2011, GFR grew by
approximately 14% from $240 million in 2006 to $273 million in 2011.
While the returns in agriculture are increasing in Durham, the number of farms and the
acreage farmed is decreasing. This is partially due to the ongoing trend of farm
amalgamations with individual operators farming larger areas.
Table 1 identifies the number of farms by type, in 2006 and 2011. The farm type with the
largest increase over the period was “Cash Crops”, which experienced a 60% increase
worth $27,090,478 (GFRs by Commodity).
Table 1: Number of Farms by Farm Type
Source: Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance, 2014
The proportion of cash crop operations increased from 24 percent in 2006 to 31 percent in
2011. Cash crop operations generally require large acreages to be viable in the current
agricultural economy. Therefore, cash crop operations account for an increasing proportion
of the prime agricultural land base in Durham. Additionally, although the number of dairy
and cattle operations is decreasing, they also represent a considerable proportion of the
total number of farms and require large land holdings, for feedstock, pasture, and nutrient
management purposes.
2
Durham has experienced a decline in farmland acreage between 1981 and 2011. Total
farm land area declined 20% from 151,195 ha (373,611 acres) in 1981 to 120,475 ha
(297,702 acres) in 2011.
2.2 Durham’s Contribution to Ontario’s Economy
In 2014, the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance (GHFFA) prepared an
economic impact analysis of the agriculture industry. The report entitled, “Agriculture and
Agri-Food Economic Profile for the Golden Horseshoe” indicates that agriculture in Durham
contributes significantly to the economy of the Province.
According to the GHFFA report, in 2011, Durham’s Gross Farm Receipts (GFR) generated:
$179 million of direct impacts;
$487 million of indirect impacts;
$332 in induced impacts;
An employment impact of 6,485 jobs; and
GDP impact of $460 million.
Durham’s total annual economic contribution to the provincial economy in 2011 was $999
million.
3
2.3 Existing Rural Parcels
Table 2 provides an overview of rural parcels by size that are not government owned
(including Conservation Authority and Ontario Power Generation lands) and not committed
for other specific non-farm uses (e.g. resource extraction areas and rural settlement areas).
The results indicate that there are a significant number of rural parcels under 40 hectares
(100 acres) in size (13,431 parcels). Most importantly, there are almost 8,000 parcels under
4 hectares (10 acres) in size. This indicates that a significant amount of fragmentation has
occurred in the rural area.
Table 2: Number of Rural Parcels by Size (Acres)
Source: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)
Table 2 also identifies that there are over 1,400 rural parcels over 40 hectares (100
acres) in size.
In total there are 2,032 vacant lots of record in the rural area. Therefore, there is
considerable existing rural development potential in the Region.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 200 200+
Number of Rural Parcels by Size (Acres)
Parcel Size (in acres)
4
3 . PROVINCIAL POLICY REVIEW
3.1 Provincial Policies
Provincial policies are generally restrictive toward lot creation in agricultural areas. This
restrictive approach was introduced in 1997 when the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
removed the ability to sever intra-family lots and restricted retirement lots to those farmers
who were actively farming prior to January 1994.
The 2000’s introduced new planning reforms including new provincial plans and policies
through the 2002 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), 2005 PPS, and 2005
Greenbelt Plan (GBP). The PPS was most recently updated in 2014. These plans include
specific goals with respect to the protection of the agricultural land base.
Provincial Policy Statement (2005 and 2014)
The 2005 PPS removed the ability to sever retirement lots regardless of when the farm was
established. However, the PPS retained the ability to sever a surplus farm dwelling.
Section 2.3.4.1 of the 2014 PPS addresses lot creation in prime agricultural areas. The
creation of new lots is discouraged and may only be permitted for a residence rendered
surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation. The PPS further clarifies
that the new lot must be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and
appropriate sewage and water services; and that new residential dwellings are prohibited
on any remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance.
According to Section 4.9, the policies of the PPS represent minimum standards. The PPS
does not prevent planning authorities (i.e. the Region) from being more restrictive than the
minimum standards established in specific policies, unless doing so would conflict with any
policy of the PPS.
The PPS also requires that new land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or
expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae
(MDS). The lot creation policies of the PPS do not distinguish between abutting and non-
abutting farm parcels.
Greenbelt Plan
Policy 4.6.3 of the GBP addresses lot creation within specialty crop and prime agricultural
areas. W ithin these designations of the GBP, the severance of a residence surplus to a
farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation can be considered under the following
circumstances:
the residence was an existing use as of December 16, 2004;
the planning authority must ensure that a residential dwelling is not permitted in
perpetuity on the retained (farm) lot; and
5
the severance should be limited to the minimum size needed to accommodate the
dwelling, including sewage and water services.
The policies of the GBP are consistent with the PPS, with the added restriction of the date
the residence was in existence. Section 5.3 of the GBP also states that there is nothing in
the Plan that limits the ability of decision makers (i.e. the Region)to adopt policies that are
more stringent than the requirements of the GBP, unless doing so would conflict with any of
the policies or objectives of the Plan. The GBP specifically identifies “lot creation policies”
as an area where official plans and zoning by-laws may contain more restrictive provisions.
Consistent with the PPS, the GBP also requires new land uses, the creation of lots, and
new or expanding livestock facilities to comply with MDS. Additionally, the lot creation
policies of the GBP do not distinguish between abutting and non-abutting farm parcels.
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
Section 32 of the ORMCP addresses lot creation within the Plan area. The ORMCP
policies permit severances for farm retirement lots and surplus farm dwelling lots. However,
only one such severance is permitted for each rural lot and all consents granted on or after
January 1, 1994 are included in the calculation of the cumulative total.
However, consistent with the PPS and GBP, the ORMCP does not prevent municipalities
from adopting official plan policies and zoning by-law provisions that contain more
restrictive lot creation policies. Additionally, the lot creation policies of the ORMCP do not
distinguish between abutting and non-abutting farm parcels.
3.2 Co-ordinated Provincial Plan Review
In February, 2015 the Province initiated a co-ordinated approach to reviewing four
provincial land use plans: the Growth Plan; GBP;ORMCP; and Niagara Escarpment Plan.
The Region’s submission (Commissioner’s Report 2015-P-37) included the
recommendation that the GBP and the ORMCP be amended to remove permissions for
non-abutting farm related severances, and that the ORMCP be further amended to remove
permissions for farm retirement lots.
The Co-ordinated Review is ongoing. The Province anticipates that proposed
amendments will be released for input in late spring, 2016.
6
4. DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
4.1 ROP Policy Directions
The ROP aims to protect and maintain the agricultural land base for future generations.
The Region recognizes the importance of supporting a healthy and productive agricultural
industry as an important element to the Region’s heritage, identity and economy.
Additionally, the ROP aims to limit land use conflicts by requiring new land uses, lot
creation and new or expanding livestock facilities to comply with MDS.
Lot creation policies within the ROP for rural areas have traditionally been more restrictive
than the provincial plans. The ROP policies discourage the fragmentation of the
agricultural land base by encouraging the consolidation of agricultural parcels, protecting
the minimum lot size for agricultural uses, prohibiting retirement lots and only permitting
surplus farm dwelling severances in specific circumstances. These policies apply to both
the ROP’s Prime Agricultural and Major Open Space Areas designations.
4.2 1991 Regional Official Plan Policies
Since 1991 the ROP has differentiated between abutting and non-abutting farm parcels.
Surplus Farm Dwellings - Abutting Farms
The 1991 ROP encouraged the consolidation of farms, wherever possible, provided that
the farms were merged into a single parcel. Severance of a farm dwelling rendered surplus
as a result of consolidation of abutting farms could be granted provided that the farms were
merged into a single parcel and that such a dwelling was not needed for a farm employee.
Figure 1 illustrates a common abutting surplus farm dwelling severance situation. The
applicant owns farm parcel ‘B’, which contains a farm dwelling and is acquiring farm parcel
‘A’, which also contains a farm dwelling. To sever the surplus dwelling from parcel A, the
applicant must merge the two farm parcels into one.
7
Figure 1: Abutting Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance
Surplus Farm Dwellings - Non-Abutting Farms
The 1991 ROP permitted the consideration of the severance of a farm dwelling rendered
surplus as a result of a farmer acquiring a non-abutting farm, provided that such dwelling is
not needed for a farm employee, the farm to be acquired is of a size which is viable for
farming operation, and no further severances would be permitted from the acquired farm. In
this case, farm consolidation (merging) would not take place.
Figure 2 illustrates a common non-abutting surplus farm dwelling severance situation. The
applicant owns the “non-abutting” parcels outlined in yellow, in addition to the subject
parcel. The application would see the farm dwelling severed from the retained agricultural
parcel in this instance.
8
Figure 2: Non-Abutting Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance
Recognizing that these policies had the potential to increase the number of dwelling units in
the rural area, attempts were made by the Region to prevent the construction of new
dwellings on the retained farm parcel. In the 1990’s, the Region requested one-foot
reserves be placed on retained farm parcels to control site access and restrict new
residential access (i.e. driveway) permissions. This method proved to be ineffective once
ownership changed on the retained parcel.
As such, in early 2000, it was the Region’s practice to include a zoning condition to prohibit
the construction of a residential dwelling on the retained farm parcel.
4.3 2000 ROP Review
The 2000 ROP Review (ROPA 114) addressed farm-related severance issues in the
context of the updated Provincial Policies and the Regional experience.
Retirement Lots
The research and analysis completed through the 2000 ROP review identified that the
majority of retirement lots created over the period from 1991-2000 were not used for
retirement purposes. As such, the policy permitting them was found to be contributing to
the fragmentation of the agricultural land base and allowed the introduction of potentially
incompatible land uses into active agricultural areas. Accordingly, the policy was deleted.
9
Surplus Farm Dwellings - Abutting Farms
The research and analysis completed through the 2000 ROP Review identified that over a
10 year period (1991 to 2000), 7 surplus farm dwellings were severed as a result of the
consolidation of abutting farms. While the severance of the surplus farm dwelling may have
contributed to fragmentation of farmland and potentially incompatible new land uses (non-
farm residential use), no additional land parcels were created (i.e. 2 parcels remained).
The overall effect was the creation of larger farm parcels through the merging of farms.
This created opportunities for more viable farm operations, and assisted in protecting the
agricultural land base. In addition, since no new land parcels were created, there was no
potential for an additional farm or non-farm residence to be developed. This policy resulted
in larger farm parcels being created, which in turn provided good protection to farming
activities and supported the agricultural industry.
As such, it was proposed that no changes be made to the abutting farm severance policy.
Surplus Farm Dwellings - Non-Abutting Farms
The research and analysis completed through the 2000 ROP Review identified that over a
10 year period (1991 to 2000), the ROP was amended to permit the severance of 13
surplus farm dwellings, resulting from farmers acquiring non-abutting farms. In these
instances, a single farm parcel was divided into two separate parcels: one for farm use and
the other for a non-farm residential use.
Recognizing that the non-abutting severance policy had the potential to increase the
number of dwelling units in agricultural areas, attempts were made by the Region to
prevent the construction of new dwellings on the retained farm parcels. As previously
noted, the Region’s practice had been to include a zoning condition to prohibit the
construction of a residential dwelling on the retained farm parcel.
It was recognized that the new non-farm residential lots had the potential of creating land
use conflicts with the surrounding agriculture use. It contributed to fragmentation of the
agricultural land base and resulted in the loss of land for food production. Also, the
retained farm parcel surrounding the newly created non-farm residential lot became subject
to MDS, which restricted the location of new farm-related buildings and/or structures on the
retained farm parcel. Even though the Region had adopted the approach of requiring a
zoning condition to prohibit the construction of a new residential dwelling on the retained
parcel, it was recognized that the opportunity existed for that provision to be overturned in
the future.
As such, the original recommendation proposed that the policy, which provides for the
consideration of the severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by
amendment be deleted.
However, when the GBP was released, it did provide for the consideration of surplus farm
dwellings for non-abutting farms (i.e. no distinction between abutting or non-abutting). It
further required that a residential dwelling would not be permitted in perpetuity on the
retained farm parcel. As such, the final recommendation was amended to permit non-
10
abutting farm dwelling severances under those conditions.
4.4 Existing ROP - Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies
Abutting Farms (Policy 9A.2.9)
The ROP continues to encourage the consolidation of farms, wherever possible, provided
the farms are merged into a single parcel. Policy 9A.2.9 permits the consideration of the
severance of a habitable farm dwelling rendered surplus as a result of consolidation of
abutting farms, without amendment, subject to the following criteria:
the farms are merged into a single parcel;
the dwelling is not needed for a farm employee;
within the Protected Countryside of the GBP Area, the dwelling was in existence as
of December 16, 2004;
the retained parcel is zoned to prohibit any further severances and the establishment
of any residential dwelling; and
that no further severances from the retained farm parcel shall be granted.
Consultation
Preliminary consultation was conducted with internal departments, AMs and
DAAC. Key comments arising from the discussion related to abutting farm
parcels include:
Overall, no concerns were raised about the abutting severance policies; and
It was suggested that there should be more clarity to ensure abutting parcels are
required to merge for farm operations.
Policy Discussion
As noted in Section 4.3, 7 surplus farm dwellings were severed between 1991 and 2000.
Since 2000, 38 non-farm rural residential lots have been created through the consolidation
of abutting farms.
Consistent with the previous ROP Review, the result of the more recent severances was
the creation of larger farm parcels through the merging of farms and no new parcels were
created (i.e. 2 parcels remained). This has created opportunities for more viable farm
operations, and assisted in protecting the agricultural land base. In addition, since no new
land parcels are created, there is no potential for an additional residence to be developed.
However, the recent research has identified a situation whereby farm operations retain
separate individual ownership of adjoining parcels to prevent the parcels from merging,
while seeking to sever surplus farm dwellings from the individual parcels.
Figure 3 below illustrates an example of this type of application. The applicant owns Parcel
3, which includes the farm dwelling to be severed. Parcels 1 and 2 also form part of the
same farm operation, but are registered in different names on title.
11
Figure 3: Exception to Policy 9A.2.9
To ensure land consolidation proceeds as intended in Policy 9A.2.9, provisions should be
added to the ROP to clarify that in circumstances where a “farm operation” owns two or
more abutting farm parcels, the abutting parcels should be required to merge in order to
ensure that no new parcels are created.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to retain the abutting farm severance policy, with appropriate
revisions to apply to “farm operations”.
Non-Abutting Farms (Policy 9A.2.10)
Policy 9A.2.10 permits the consideration of the severance of a farm dwelling rendered
surplus as the result of the consolidation of non-abutting farms, by amendment, subject to
the following criteria:
the dwelling is not needed for a farm employee;
the farm parcel to be acquired is of a size which is viable for farming operations;
within the Protected Countryside of the GBP Area, the dwelling was in existence as
of December 16, 2004;
the retained parcel is zoned to prohibit any further severances and the establishment
of any residential dwelling; and
that no further severances from the retained farm parcel shall be granted
12
Consultation
Key comments arising from the preliminary consultation related to non-abutting
farm parcels include:
From an economic development perspective, farm businesses may use the sale of
the dwelling to help fund the purchase of farmland;
Deleting the non-abutting policy may increase the number of abandoned houses in
the rural area if farmers are unable to sever the surplus dwelling;
The majority of DAAC felt these policies are tools used by the agricultural industry to
grow their businesses, avoid landlord/tenant issues and provide a housing option
when they retire. As such, they would support further restricting these policies, but
not deletion;
A number of comments acknowledged the significant challenges these applications
may cause in the future (e.g. if the zoning on the retained lands is reversed);
The northern AMs were generally supportive of restricting or investigating the
removal of the non-abutting policy;
Strengthening the non-abutting policy language may reduce a few severances, but a
large number will still qualify;
The requirement to prohibit any future dwellings on the retained lands ultimately
undermines the flexibility of the farm parcel in the future;
The elimination of this policy would protect existing farm infrastructure from
premature destruction (due to MDS setback requirements); and
It was suggested that the requirement for a ROPA should be removed, to
make the application process less cumbersome and expensive for farmers
seeking to sever surplus farm dwellings.
Policy Discussion
As noted in Section 4.3, the ROP had been amended to permit the severance of 13 surplus
farm dwellings between 1991 and 2000. Since then, an additional 33 non-farm rural
residential lots have been created through this policy. Table 3 illustrates the number of lots
created per year since 2000. There has been a noticeable increase in the last 5 years (23
lots).
13
Table 3: Number of Lots Created (Non-Abutting) 2001-2015
Source: Durham Region Planning and Economic Development Department.
Although this policy may provide a financial benefit to farmers, the fragmentation of the
agricultural land base is of paramount concern from a land use planning perspective.
In addition, the other concerns raised in the 2000 ROP Review remain, including:
loss of land for food production;
potential land use conflicts; and
restrictions on the ability to locate new farm related buildings due to MDS criteria.
Finally, notwithstanding the provisions of the GBP that attempt to ensure that no new
residential dwellings will be permitted on the retained farm parcel, there is no solid legal
basis to ensure that zoning restrictions will not be overturned in the future.
In order to restrict the further fragmentation of the agricultural land base through the
creation of non-farm parcels, consideration should be given to deleting Policy 9A.2.10.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of Lots Created (Non-Abutting)
2001-2015
14
5 . CONCLUSIONS
This exercise reviewed the appropriateness of the ROP’s surplus farm dwelling severance
policies and confirmed previous concerns raised in the 2000 ROP Review. Given the level
of fragmentation in the rural area, the existing supply of vacant farm parcels and rural
development potential, it is prudent to place further restrictions on the ability to create
additional non-farm rural residential lots.
Although Provincial Plans currently permit the consideration of surplus farm dwelling
severances, the Region has historically supported more restrictive policies that protect the
land base against fragmentation and the introduction of incompatible uses.
It is acknowledged that the existing policies provide a financial and operational benefit to
farmers. However, the long term implications of further fragmenting of the agricultural land
base is of paramount concern. The concerns outlined in the previous ROP Review in 2000
and through the updated research completed for this subsequent review are consistent.
15
7. EXTERNAL INFORMATION SOURCE
Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance (2014). Agriculture and Agri-Food Aconomic
Profile for the Golden Horseshoe, A Profile of Agriculture in the Region of Durham. Project
Coordinated by: Planscape in collaboration with: North-South Environmental Inc., Regional
Analytics, and TCI Management Consultants.
16
Attachment 2 to
Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-43-16