It might not be the answer council was seeking, but it still leaves flexibility for new residential lots to be created here.
On March 20, Mayor Dennis Lever noted council’s interest was specifically regarding the county official plan five-year review and severance policy update.
Council had earlier made a recommendation to Wellington County.
Consideration followed a report by senior policy planner Mark Paoli to the planning and development committee.
Last year, the planning committee directed staff to seek input from those local municipalities which have a ‘Secondary Agricultural Area’ designation about options to revise the effective date for the lot creation policies.
Lever noted council had talked about the issue before and noted council’s preference for a specific date relating to the severance policy. The date refers to a cutoff time when severances would be allowed.
The county planning committee recommended that the 2005 date be picked.
Lever said this basically means if a property has had a severance between 1999 when the policy first came into effect, and 2005, they could apply for another. If the severance was between 2005 and the present, they would not be allowed to apply for a severance.
He stressed even if an application is made, there are still other criteria which must be met – including the designation as secondary agricultural lands.
Councillor Susan Fielding considered it unfortunate that each of the municipalities which would be most affected had a different preference for what that date should be.
She maintained the Puslinch preference of having the date brought forward to 2013 was well thought out by council.
“I’m disappointed that it is not going to go that way.”
She said the option date of 2005 is better, but it could present some problems.
Lever explained the cutoff date for new severances would be reviewed again in five years.
“In the next five-year cycle, the date can be changed again.”
He noted, with the option of having the date as this year, someone granted a severance last year could apply again.
“I don’t believe that was our intent.”
Councillor Wayne Stokley remained concerned that a lot of information was based on whether Puslinch would achieve its predicted population growth.
“It was also based on the fact we have about 150 potential sites already prior to 1999.”
That figure now could be around 180.
He said that while there is potential for growth happening if the date was moved to 2013, he questioned how many new lots would be created each year in Puslinch.
He didn’t see a huge turnaround in people developing severed lots locally.
Lever said when the township reviewed its development charges, it looked at the growth rate of the municipality as well – estimated at 40 to 50 homes per year. At the same time, there remains a large number of undeveloped lots in the municipality.
“What the county is saying is that if a municipality has a large number of undeveloped lots, it does not need more undeveloped lots to cover the growth.”
Stokley agreed, but pointed to the potential for more local development.
“We’re all speculating on what could happen.”
However, he felt reducing the number of potential lots, would also reduce potential revenues for the municipality.
Lever agreed that more people are needed to help share the tax burden – both in the residential and commercial/industrial sides to keep a balance in the tax base.
He added, “There is still a sizeable contingent within the county who believe there should be no more severances in rural areas – anywhere there can be farmland – primary or secondary (designated land).”
Stokley was pleased to see the plan will be reviewed in five years, to ensure the municipality is moving towards its projected growth rate.
Lever agreed that he did not want to see constraints on potential growth, “but I think this is a compromise which will satisfy us for the next five years.”
Councillor Ken Roth noted the amount of growth is market driven. Roth said if Puslinch was running out of lots, or potential lots, in five years, he believed the county would be ready to take another look at the severance policy.
“If there’s no demand for building, there will be a lot of vacant lots.”
Municipalities primarily involved in the outcome are Minto, Erin and Puslinch.
When the Wellington County Official Plan was approved in 1999, the municipalities in the county had a ‘Prime Agricultural Area’ designation. Minto and Puslinch also had a ‘Secondary Agricultural Area’ designation.
Council later adopted several amendments to the official plan to reflect approval of the new Erin Official Plan which had added a ‘Secondary Agricultural Area.’
In Paoli’s report he stated that in comparing the severance date options against the growth forecasts, it appears that:
– leaving the date unchanged would not affect Minto or Erin, while Puslinch would run out of lot creation opportunities and not reach its growth forecast;
– changing the date to 2005 would also not affect Minto or Erin, while Puslinch would have a balance between its supply and growth forecast; and
– changing the date to 2013 would not greatly affect Minto, while Erin and Puslinch would have surpluses relative to their growth forecasts.
