Is it really a surplus farm dwelling severance, or a chance to create a new residential lot on a farm property?
A plan to sever a farm dwelling and shed raised some concern at council here after information suggested plans were afoot to demolish the existing residence.
The severance issue came to council here on April 19.
The proposal is to server a 3.6 acre parcel with a residential dwelling, shed, and trailer, while keeping a 142.8 acre vacant agricultural parcel at Part Lot 18, Concession 5.
The report to council noted that originally the application to sever the farm dwelling did not meet one of the criterium in the official plan. That portion of the policy states the surplus dwelling is habitable and not expected to be demolished by a future owner.
“It is the understanding of town staff that the owner [BJ&S Enterprises and J&K Agro Services Inc.] now intends to demolish part of the dwelling while retaining the original brick house.”
Originally it was believed that the companies intended to demolish the entire structure.
Chief Administrative Officer Bill White cited the concerns of the planning staff about the house being retained.
Councillor Ron Faulkner asked if it is simply a “nice statement” that the owner intends to retain the original brick house.
“There’s nothing legally that can stop a future owner from demolishing the house – unless it’s deemed a heritage property,” Faulkner said.
Mayor George Bridge agreed.
Faulkner said he was simply curious why the comment on the status of the house was included.
Planner Linda Redmond explained the farm dwelling severance policy is still relatively new. “We’re still working through all the glitches in it.”
Redmond said this is the first time an issue like this has arisen. She noted that while the application is being dealt with, another county planner was made aware of the original suggestion that the house was to be removed.
Proponents are stating the house was being lived in, but Redmond had her doubts.
“But it doesn’t have to be; that is not a requirement.”
But, she said, the intent of the policy is that the existing house is capable of being lived in, and would continue being used that way.
The overall theme behind the proposal is that the farmer does not want to be a landlord.
On the other hand, Redmond said if the house is being removed, then there was no need for a severance. She added there is nothing in the current policy to stop the owners from tearing it down.
“If we are aware of the issue, we have to address it,” she added.
Faulkner offered general comments that if he had won the lottery and purchased the property, there would be nothing to stop him from tearing the house down and building a new house.
Redmond said if the severance went through and the property is purchased, nothing would stop a demolition of the house.
Councillor Mary Lou Colwell asked if there is anything stopping the current owner from doing the same thing.
Again, the answer was “No.” Redmond said that is why the concern is being raised.
She said the issue is something neither the planning department nor the land division committee has dealt with before.
Deputy-mayor Terry Fisk asked if it was not policy that only one severance from a farm property is allowed.
Redmond said there are different policies for properties under different designations. In this particular instance, it falls under the surplus farm dwelling section, which allows the severing of an existing farm dwelling – even if there were previous severances from the property.
“The previous severances would be irrelevant.”
Redmond said there are a number types of severances that can be sought on prime agricultural properties.
Council later offered conditional consent of the proposal.
Conditions included: that zoning be in full force to deal with the frontage of the severed lot, residential dwellings would be prohibited on the retained lot, and that safe driveway access to the retained parcel be confirmed to the satisfaction of the town.
