Scott Snider Professional Corporation 15 Bold Street Hamilton Ontario Canada L8P 1T3 Direct Line 905 526-6183 ext. 289 Receptionist 905 529 3476 (905 LAW-FIRM) Facsimile 905 529 3663 ssnider@tmalaw.ca VIA EMAIL June 2, 2017 Regional Municipality of Halton Halton Regional Centre 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario L6M 3L1 Attn: Planning and Public Works Committee Chair, Colin Best and Members of Committee; Re: Report No. LPS15-17 – Proposed Amendment to Permit Surplus Farm Dwelling Severances (File No. RQ58A) Our File No. 13388 We are counsel to the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture (HRFA) in this matter. As you know, the HRFA represents the interests of farmers in the Region. We are writing further to the Staff Report on the HRFA’s request to amend the Regional Official Plan to permit surplus farm dwelling severances in the Agricultural Area of the Region. Our client is extremely disappointed by the Staff recommendation to refuse the amendment but remains hopeful that the Region will advance the interests of farming and the farming community by approving the amendment. BACKGROUND: It is important to recall the context for this amendment request. The HRFA had a number of concerns with the last Official Plan review (ROPA 38), including the failure of the amendment to include the option of severing surplus farm dwellings (SFD) to facilitate farm consolidations. The HRFA appealed aspects of ROPA 38 to the Ontario Municipal Board. In March 2015, Burlington Council unanimously moved a motion to request Regional Council to direct changes to ROPA 38 to accommodate SFD severances. A copy of the motion is attached to our July 22, 2016 correspondence that accompanied the current application (see Attachment 1 ). The HRFA obtained delegate status to address Regional Council on the issue on April 1, 2015. However, at the meeting Council declined to hear the delegation as a result of the ongoing OMB appeal. Consequently, Burlington’s motion was never debated or addressed in open session. TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS
Attn: PPWC Chair C. Best Page 2 and Members of Committee June 2, 2017 Rather than litigate the issue, and with the sincere hope that the matter could be dealt with in a far more collaborative fashion, the HRFA decided to withdraw its appeal of the SFD issue without prejudice to its right to file this amendment application. We advised Council of the HRFA’s intent to do so in our letter of May 6, 2015- also in Attachment 1. In this way, Burlington’s motion could be addressed in a full and open way, with the benefit of the HRFA’s input, rather than being essentially lost in a host of other issues that were being debated before the Board. In short, the HRFA’s interest in having the option of severing surplus farm dwellings has been clearly articulated for years. This is a carry-over from ROPA 38, not a new initiative, and would have been addressed as part of ROPA 38 but for the procedural barriers related to the outstanding OMB appeals at the time. NO DISPUTE: THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONFORMS WITH PROVINCIAL POLICY: With one technical correction, there is no dispute that the proposed amendment conforms with provincial policy, including the Greenbelt Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. As staff note, lot creation is indeed generally discouraged in agricultural areas. However, SFD severances are one of the few exceptions. Why? Because they support agriculture and facilitate more efficient farming without the significant impacts associated with residential severances. If SFD severances caused significant harm to agricultural areas, they would not be permitted by provincial policy. Yet they are permitted in the PPS and the Greenbelt Plan. In fact, the renewed Greenbelt Plan (2017) was just released- and once again, it continues to permit SFD severances. SFD severances are also permitted in the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Contrary to the Staff Report, SFD severances do not “…contribute to a gradual fragmentation of agricultural areas…”and “…create land use conflicts as new non-farm residences are introduced to agricultural areas.” (p. 5) If they did, they would not be permitted by provincial policy. By definition, no new non-farm residences are introduced. Rather, existing non-farm residences will no longer have to be maintained and leased by Halton farmers or demolished with the severe capital consequences of such a proposition. Staff correctly notes that the proposed amendment included with the application did not expressly require that, for lands within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan, the surplus dwelling be an existing use as of the date the Greenbelt Plan came into force. This is a requirement of both the 2005 and 2017 Greenbelt Plans. This was simply an oversight. We have modified the proposed OPA to require that any SFD severance within the Protected Countryside also conform with any additional requirements of the Greenbelt Plan. While not necessary (because the NEC must also issue a development permit) we have similarly required that any SFD severance within the Niagara Escarpment Plan also conform with any additional requirements of the NEP. In this way, the Regional Plan will always be automatically TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS
Attn: PPWC Chair C. Best Page 3 and Members of Committee June 2, 2017 up to date with the latest requirements of both the Greenbelt Plan and NEP. The proposed amendment is included as Attachment 2 . RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS: Regional staff report on a peer review that was undertaken of the Planning Justification Report and Agricultural Impact Assessment submitted with the ROPA application. We provided the peer review to our agricultural expert, Mr. Hagarty, and he has provided a response. It is attached (see Attachment 3 ). As noted by Mr. Hagarty: “All of the agricultural advantages represent a significant opportunity for the enhancement of agricultural viability in a competitive agricultural environment. These advantages far outweigh any potential disadvantages. It is a clearly established fact, recognized in Provincial planning policy, that there are very minimal agricultural impacts associated with surplus farm dwelling severances. Within Halton the agricultural industry, through the HRFA, has put forward the proposed OPA to allow surplus farm dwelling severances since it recognizes this favorable cost-benefit analysis.” CONCLUSION: Staff emphasize repeatedly that SFD severances have not been recognized in Halton Region official plans since 1995. If they were recognized in the Plan, there would be no need for this amendment. Staff allege that the HRFA has not justified the proposed amendment. We respectfully disagree. We are attaching the May 2016 Agricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Mr. Hagarty in the event that it was not made available to members of Council (see Attachment 4 ). The AIA provides ample justification as does the Planning Justification Report. The question is whether there is some compelling reason for the Region to have more restrictive severance policies than the PPS, the Greenbelt Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, particularly when Halton’s agricultural community is requesting access to this tool to facilitate farming in the Region. With respect, Staff has provided no such reason. One of the goals of the Regional Official Plan is: “To develop and maintain a permanently secure, economically viable agricultural industry as an important component of Halton’s economic base, and as a source of employment for Halton’s rural community.” TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS
Attn: PPWC Chair C. Best Page 4 and Members of Committee June 2, 2017 The Region’s farmers have identified a policy tool that will assist in achieving this goal. We respectfully request that the Region equip its farmers accordingly. Yours truly, Scott Snider SS:nd Att’d. 13388/44 TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS
ATTACHMENT 1
Recommend
More recommend
