A different type of farm severance in Minto will prevent the use of an existing barn and manure storage facility for livestock.
On April 15, council held a public meeting on the proposed severance of a farm property just west of Teviotdale at 6692 County Road 109.
The proposal had recently received provisional consent from the Wellington County land division committee to sever most of the farm property, including the barn and liquid manure storage tank. That leaves a 1.6 acre retained parcel that has insufficient separation. The severed parcel would be added to a farm property to the east.
Beth Stickney, of Lot 1 Concession 2, wrote to council, “I support the amendment to prohibit the keeping of livestock and the use of the liquid manure tank on the subject land in order to comply with the MDS requirements.
“I think all the new liquid manure tanks should be banned province wide. These methods of spreading manure are a detriment to the whole environment no matter who is doing it.”
Mark Van Patter, of the Wellington County planning department, saw the amendment as a fairly standard application. He said similar applications have happened in the past few years, where a farmer is getting rid of a surplus farm property but keeping the farm residence.
The farmland is being merged on title with an adjacent farm.
The only issue in this case, Van Patter said is there is a barn and manure tank fairly close to the house being severed. As a result it would not meet the minimum distance separation formula regulations. Subsequently, the application made an offer of prohibiting the use of the barn for keeping livestock, or the use of the liquid manure tank.
As far as Van Patter was aware, no other issues were involved in the application.
Vince Starratt, solicitor for the applicant, Lambert and Janna Altena. Starratt agreed it is a straight forward application. Originally, the applicant considered demolishing the barn, but stated it is still useful.
Deputy-mayor Judy Dirksen asked if the amendment would mean a new residence could be built on the severed parcel.
Van Patter said it was different in that it was being added to another parcel of land.
He said if there was no residence on the parcel, “then yes, there is the potential.”
However, any new construction would still need to meet minimum distance separation requirements.
He said it really depends on what exists on the merged property.
