Though it is hardly the first time Centre Wellington council has had to deal with rural farm property severances, it seems to be an issue coming to a head here.
Following a public meeting on April 15, council approved an amendment to its zoning bylaw for a farm house and barn being severed from a farm property near the Fourth Line and Sideroad 6 North in the former township of Nichol.
Though few were at the meeting, letters of objection were filed with Wellington County’s land division committee which conditionally approved the severance – subject to the township rezoning of the property.
The rezoning restricts the number of animals which can be kept in the barn and restricts residential use on the agricultural property.
Managing director of planning and development services Brett Salmon explained this is another instance of a surplus farm dwelling being severed.
He added that Centre Wellington has faced a number of them recently.
Salmon further explained the rezoning is required to ensure a dwelling is not built on the farm parcel and because a barn will remain on the severed lot with the home, the practice has been to restrict the number of animal units to five or fewer.
He said the configuration created a flag-shaped lot in the centre of the farm parcel.
“It was done this way to minimize the amount of agricultural land taken out of production.”
Therefore the result is only a 15-metre road frontage for the severed home property – essentially limited to the driveway leading to the home and yard.
Salmon said the proposal went to land division a few times.
Initially, Salmon had made comments which were not supportive.
There were questions about the barn and also the hydro line crossing the farmland.
The current application includes a hydro easement.
Salmon originally suggested a larger lot which would include the hydro line.
But he said the policy of land division is to keep the severed farmhouse property as small as possible. This was the way land division approved it, Salmon said.
He added that since that time, a few more similar-shaped lots have been approved.
Salmon added there were no appeals to the land division committee decision so that decision is final – but still conditional on the township amending the zoning.
Councillor Mary Lloyd said it was “interesting” that council has seen a number of these types of severances, but there have never been applications for new driveways to be installed (to the farm property).
She asked if this meant there were shared driveways to access the farmland.
Salmon said if access was needed, the owner would apply for a entrance permit.
Lloyd asked whether council should be making an additional driveway a requirement.
Council was told an entrance permit is required as part of the severance providing a secondary property entrance did not already exist.
Councillor Kelly Linton questioned the council policy of making the severed lot as small as possible.
“It seems to be a really weird shape for a property in terms of resale value later on.”
Salmon said the small size is a key component in the county policy which is why the property ended up in its current shape.
Other policies speak to keeping regular lot lines or following local topography to determine the boundary.
He added that within the urban areas of Centre Wellington, council has supported unusual-shaped lots to make efficient use of the land.
“However, I think the county is struggling with these surplus farm severances.”
Salmon felt the front portion of the property should remain with the house. But then the residential parcel would grow to about four hectares.
“Ideally we’d like to see the property as small as possible, but often the farmhouses are set quite a bit back from the road.”
Salmon said “the county land division committee is putting more weight to keeping the lot as small as possible rather than other issues.”
Councillor Fred Morris asked if there was no requirement for a certain amount of frontage in rural areas.
Salmon said the only requirement is that there is “some” frontage.”
In this zone, the minimum frontage is 30 metres.
While it would double the frontage of the proposed property, Salmon contended it would have little impact to the overall flag shape of the lot.
Councillor Walt Visser commented if the lots were made larger, there would likely be objections raised from the agricultural sector because it would take more farm land out of production.
Salmon suggested there are mixed feelings on the issue at the land division committee level.
Salmon also noted Centre Wellington’s approach to these severances differs from other areas.
He did not object to the barn remaining with the house under certain conditions – such as limiting the number of animal units.
However, Salmon said that in some municipalities, proponents are being instructed to remove the barns or the severance will not be approved.
“My point is that we are in a prime agricultural area. If you can meet MDS and nutrient management … why would we take away the right to have some animals when the barn is already there.”
Salmon agreed that there are concerns on the maintenance of the barns if they are not being used for livestock.
“Will they become eyesores?”
Linton raised concern that if the barn can accommodate upwards of 40 animals, “who would do the policing to ensure number of animals remains limited to the bylaw.”
That is the responsibility of the local zoning bylaw enforcement officials.
“That’s the conundrum. Some places are saying the barns should come down and be gone – Huron County is doing that. Perth County is not even allowing the surplus farm dwelling severances.”
Salmon said in the provincial policy statement the choice is optional.
“The justification for the farm surplus dwelling severance policies is economics.”
He said farmers are having to acquire more farms to consolidate.
The rationale, he said, is that farmers should not have to become landlords (to the surplus farm dwelling) just because they want to make the farm bigger.
Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen said it would be a shame to knock down some of the old bank barns.
He suggested that the people purchasing the parcels have more money to maintain the barns as compared to farmers using the barns just to store hay.
Councillor Fred Morris noted that one of the letters regarding the application referred to a gravel pit.
Salmon agreed there clearly is an area where gravel was removed. He stressed that it was not a licensed pit, and as such likely for the farm purpose.
Objecting to the proposal was nearby resident Sandy Cleghorn.
He too was concerned about the barn condition and whether it would become derelict.
Cleghorn contended the septic system is located in the field beyond the severance line.
Lawrie Smith, of Elora, explained he was the prospective purchaser of the land. He wanted council to know it was his intent to invest in the property.
“We don’t intend to have a livestock operation.”
He added, “the current shape of the lot appeals to us immensely.”
Smith added, the part of the property being severed is more difficult to till.
“Having the barn was one of the bigger appeals for us. In an Ontario farmstead, they are a matching set.”
Later in the meeting, council adopted the zoning amendment.
