Erin residents speak out against land severance policy changes

GUELPH – Emotions ran high at a recent Wellington County public meeting. 

Thirteen county residents shared their concerns and wishes at a Feb. 12 public meeting regarding Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 131, which includes rural area and growth policies.

The amendment includes various changes, but two in particular have caught the public’s attention.

The first is the county’s plan to transfer 120 units of rural severances from Erin to Puslinch. 

A change is also proposed that makes it possible for Puslinch landowners to receive more than one rural residential land severance. Currently, they can’t get another severance if they’ve had one in the past 20 years. 

But to encourage more Puslinch development to hit a 2051 growth target, the county wants to remove that limit for landowners there. Erin landowners would remain subject to the 2005 limitation.

This change does not prevent Erin landowners eligible for a rural residential severance from receiving one.

Currently, the projected household growth in Erin (from 2021 to 2051) is 4,340 urban and 630 rural, totalling 4,970 households. The town also has a shortfall of 120 units and a 460-unit supply.

Puslinch is projected to grow by 710 rural households with a 250-unit shortfall and a 350-unit supply. 

Resident concerns 

“We in our community are asking you to cut the red tape. We do not feel the current form of OPA 131 should be passed,” said Erin resident Marieke Wevers.

She added the proposed policy discriminates against  Erin residents – a sentiment echoed by others during the meeting. 

Wevers requested that Erin residents be allowed to build “much needed” rural homes to the benefit of local businesses, farm families and succession planning.

“We are asking you to update ... to a reasonable date that would allow severances in Erin and stop stealing our resources,” Wevers added.

She asked for clarification on decision making matters.

When county council has passed OPA 131, could the province say “No we think you are being unfair to the Erin residents and then change the severance date?” Wevers asked.

“I would assume the government could put any narrative behind their decision,” said meeting chair James Seeley. 

“I would highly doubt they would say we are being unfair to Erin residents because we are not being unfair. What they could do is abolish the severance date entirely.”

Erin resident Ed McKelvey said, “In 2005 we severed a lot off our farm.”

Six years ago his daughter was retiring and asked if McKelvey could sever off another lot where she could live “and help care for her aging parents,” he said.

McKelvey was denied another severance as he previously severed a lot in August of 2005 – a few months past the March 2005 cut-off date.

He recently heard of the proposed OPA 131 changes and has been “perplexed.”

“I’m here for two reasons,” McKelvey said. “Number one: it’s unfair. Number two: it’s discriminatory.”

“I will comment on the discriminatory component,” Seeley said. “County planners ... have to fill our policies in compliance with [the province].”

He added, “[Planners] go and discuss with the lower-tier municipality, your local tier does not support additional severances in your community at this time.”

Seeley acknowledged numerous people have delegated to the county’s land division needing a severance for their loved one, but “unfortunately that does not dictate whether severances are permitted.”

McKelvey finished the discussion stating, “The Erin planning department are not really concerned that the rural landowners in Erin are being discriminated against.”

The gallery applauded his closing remark.

After almost three hours of speakers, the meeting was adjourned. 

County staff are to compile comments and submissions to then prepare a final draft of OPA 131. A recommendation will come to county council for adoption at the end of the month. 

Once council approves the amendment, the decision will be forwarded to the province for final consideration.