For some, this could be considered the best of both worlds.
Wellington North Township has agreed to a rezoning that allows a farm property severance, yet still allows the residence and agricultural buildings to function, albeit at restricted levels.
The rezoning affects 8185 Line 10, in West Luther, which has about 74.6 acres for owner Arlene Barbara Pronk, who plans to sell the land.
The amendment rezones the retained farm parcel to restrict future residential development on the agricultural portion of the property and to rezone the severed parcel to recognize existing non-complying accessory buildings and requires that the number of livestock meet Minimum Distance Separation 2 setback as measured from the severed parcel property line.
Planner Linda Redmond said the move is a requirement of consent.
She said the provincial policy statement and the county official plan allow for the severance of surplus farm dwellings provided the retained lands are rezoned to prohibit future residential dwelling.
Redmond added it is not unusual to maintain the existing barn for storage and restrict its use for livestock.
She further proposed the site specific zoning would require the MDS 2 standard is met to the property line of the neighbouring dwellings..
Currently the entire property is zoned agricultural.
She said regarding the portion with the house and farm buildings, the request is to keep the barn and to keep a minimum amount of livestock.
She explained the applicant originally wanted maximum of five nutrient management units.
Rather than writing a bylaw to restrict it to five units, making it meet MDS 2 requirements would be adequate, she said.
The reasoning is the proposed five units did not meet the MDS 2 requirements for all types of livestock.
Chief building official Darren Jones had a number of concerns with the proposal since the severed 5.5 acre parcel would typically be allowed a 650 square foot hobby barn, compared to the existing 3,000 square foot structure.
Jones said that while the applicant had requested limiting the animal use to five units, the existing barn capacity is much greater.
As well, the property has a 2,600 square foot accessory building, compared to the zoning bylaw which allows for accessory buildings to be only a maximum of 1,000 square feet on agricultural properties of less than 25 acres.
“The building department has concerns with this proposal because limiting animal use within barn with a much greater capacity will be very difficult to enforce and possibly costly to the municipality if action has to be taken to bring the property in conformance to the zoning bylaw.”
He added that while the current purchasers of the property may be aware of the requirements and restrictions, future owners may not fully understand those requirements.
Jones recommended the zoning prohibit all agricultural use on the severed property, or that the barn be removed and replaced with a hobby barn that complies with the township’s existing bylaw.
However, when councillors discussed the matter, there was a reluctance to tear down a barn to construct another.
Broomhead noted the bylaw would be considered later on that night .
Councillor John Matusinec echoed comments he has made when similar proposals have come before council.
“I don’t see the sense in tearing down a perfectly good barn in this day and age of conserving and trying to reduce landfill, to build another barn.”
Councillor Ross Chaulk clarified that in the previous application, there was just a barn.
This time, he said, there is a barn and the accessory building to be considered.
“My question is that since this is 5.5 acres – I take it after the severance it will no longer be classed as agricultural land, and will be taxed at the residential rate … all 5.5 acres.”
Treasurer John Jeffrey agreed it would, unless it qualifies as a farm business.
Chaulk had some concern with the proposal.
“We opened the door about a month ago, and this seems to open it wider and wider.”
Even though he was willing to vote in favour of this specific proposal, he said he is having some concerns over the issue.
Councillor Bob Mason agreed with Matusinec’s comments.
“I don’t think there’s a point in tearing down a perfectly good barn.”
Mayor Mike Broomhead said one of the concerns from staff is that it falls under a whole new issue of property standards.
He agreed if the barns are kept in good condition and well taken care of, it is not a problem.
Even the number of animal units agreed to in the bylaw could be fine, he said.
But he said it seems more and more people feel the bylaw enforcement officers should be driving down the road looking for infractions.
“In reality, they don’t drive around the roads looking for infractions. They do if concerns are pointed out or brought forward,” Broomhead said.
But he believes there seems to be agreement that this particular proposal is an acceptable thing to do.
