Council here is making plans to remove a controversial exemption to Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) 1 requirements on small vacant lots in the township.
At the Jan. 22 meeting, council agreed to proceed with providing notice of a public meeting on a proposed zoning bylaw amendment to make the change.
Mapleton’s current comprehensive zoning bylaw waives MDS 1 requirements for existing lots (as of the passage of the bylaw) that are less than 9.9 acres. The bylaw was originally passed in 2010, and came into effect in June of 2012. Concerns have been raised about the change, which council members have stated they were not aware was being implemented, from owners of a farm property near several vacant lots which became eligible for development with the passage of the bylaw.
Wellington County planner Mark Van Patter presented council with two options for an amendment dealing with the removal of the exemption.
The first option would involve simply deleting the last line of the bylaw’s Section 6.17.1, which states that MDS 1 does not apply to any lot that existed, as of Oct. 12, 2010.
“This would result in MDS 1 having to be calculated for all vacant lots seeking a building permit. In some cases, lots that earlier complied with the MDS, may not comply today. These lots would be required to get zoning relief (i.e. minor variance or rezoning),” stated Van Patter in a written report to council. The county estimates there were 80 vacant, rural lots in Mapleton, as of July 2011. “We do not know how many vacant lots could require zoning relief for a MDS 1 deficiency,” commented Van Patter, who suggested this option “could create a backlash from vacant lot owners, and has the potential of legal proceedings against the township.”
Van Patter recommended, a second option, reverting to the wording of the previous comprehensive zoning bylaw passed in 2000.
“Then, only lots created prior to 1970 would be required to meet MDS 1. This would save on staff time as well as time for the Committee of Adjustment,” he explained, adding, “In my opinion it is also the fairer approach.”
“What’s the best option to protect farmland here? Because that’s our goal,” asked councillor Neil Driscoll.
Van Patter said that Option 1 would be the best option for that purpose.
“Also that’s the one which OMAFRA encourages municipalities to do,” he added.
Councillor Mike Downey suggested council proceed with Option 1, but remove a sentence which indicates zoning relief in the form of a minor variance or zoning bylaw amendment, which may or may not be approved, would be required before a building permit would be granted.
“That’s [true] with all of our bylaws,” he pointed out.
Councillor Andy Knetsch said, “I’ve made some efforts to put myself in the position of being the owner of a vacant lot and having someone say I can’t build on it and I don’t know if that’s fair.” He suggested council should go with the second option.
Van Patter noted there is no way to please everyone on the issue.
“You have to pick a side, one way or the other. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t thing – that’s the nature of it. It’s really an ugly scenario,” he pointed out.
Driscoll said, “I agree that people have a right to build a home, but farmers have a right to make a living. Yes, a lot might cost $80,000, but some of these farms are worth millions. We live out here and we farm here and by putting a house in front of us, it restricts what we can do to make a living.”
Mayor Bruce Whale wondered if council should look into how many lots would be potentially affected by the change and suggested getting a legal opinion before proceeding.
Downey said he felt a legal opinion was unnecessary, as council would be simply giving notice of a public meeting on the proposed zoning amendment.
Council passed a resolution directing staff to proceed with the notice of public meeting to amend Section 6.17.1 of the township’s comprehensive zoning bylaw, utilizing Option 1 of Van Patter’s report, but removing reference to options for obtaining zoning relief.
Councillors Driscoll, Downey and Jim Curry voted in favor, with only Knetsch opposed.
