Clearly defining what constitutes an accessory structure is becoming a sticking point in the township’s deliberations on a proposed development charge for farm construction.
Mapleton’s current development charges bylaw includes a 100 per cent exemption for buildings constructed for “a bona fide farm use.” A proposal presented at a public meeting on Oct. 11 would see the exemption reduced to 75%.
That would mean someone building a new barn, for example, would pay 25% of the non-residential rate of $2.65 per square foot of gross floor area, which works out to 66 cents/ft2.
The proposal has drawn opposition from the Wellington Federation of Agriculture (WFA) and area farmers.
Under the proposal, structures defined as “accessory” to the farming operation would continue to be exempt from development charges. At the Dec. 13 council meeting, CAO Brad McRoberts asked council to provide staff with “direction and clarity” on the definition of accessory use for bona fide farm use.
“Staff wish to have the definitions clear without the need for interpretation,” McRoberts explained in a report to council.
“In defining accessory use for bona fide farm use council may wish to ensure that any definition of accessory use for bona fide farm use does not make development charges biased to a particular sector of agricultural farming operations.”
The report continues, “For example, if development charges on bona fide farm operations were only applicable to structures which house livestock, then the development charges would be applicable to livestock operations and not to cash crop operations.
“On a principle basis, the use of development charges is intended to be growth and expanding farm operations, including cash crop operations, are considered to have growth-related impacts.
“Excluding cash crop operations would unfavourably place the onus on livestock operations and exclude growth related to cash crop operations. On the other hand, there are certain structures which council could consider accessory such as manure pits/tanks, silos, granaries, generator rooms, etc.”
Councillor Lori Woodham said arriving at an acceptable definition for accessory structures might prove impossible. She suggested council should not implement the new charges at this time.
“I think there’s a easy solution. Let’s just defer it and not put in a development charge. I searched everywhere to try to find a township that had a definition that would stand and it just didn’t work,” said Woodham, who suggested the proposal be put off until the next time the township is required to review its development charges bylaw.
“I ask we totally defer this and keep our development charges bylaw exactly the way it is.”
Councillor Dennis Craven suggested council go ahead with plans to hold a public meeting on the topic.
“I think we certainly owe the citizens of this municipality an opportunity to have a public meeting, because I have heard from some people in town that it is not needed,” he stated.
Councillor Michael Martin said he had also been unsuccessful in a search for a practical definition of accessory structure.
“It seems to me that the issue of fairness that surrounds this particular portion of the bylaw, in this report anyway, is that the cash crop operations are seemingly exempt … it seems to be primarily targeting the livestock section of the agricultural community.”
Martin said the township is going to have “a very, very difficult time” defining accessory as it pertains to any specific farm.
“I’m not even sure I’m qualified to define it at this time because it changes from year to year.”
Martin explained that on a dairy operation “everything outside the barn is accessory” but you might have another operation that’s cash cropping one year but not the next.”
Martin continued, “There’s so many separating factors that for a one-time charge, I think we’re going to struggle with this. For me that’s one of the biggest issues in this. I don’t support it anyway.”
Chief building official Patty Wright pointed out part of the problem for her department is that “development charges speak to use” so the type of building being constructed doesn’t help with the definition. It doesn’t matter if a building is a Coverall or standard construction.
Also, she asked, “Are you going to consider an implement shed an accessory use to a livestock operation and a primary use to a cash crop operation? I do not have an answer for that.”
“Is the answer some sort of size limit to define accessory or primary?” wondered councillor Marlene Ottens. “Because if it’s just a small shed on the side of the livestock operation … your equipment is going to be a lot smaller than if you have a huge cash crop operation that’s holding 10 implements.”
Martin suggested all drive sheds and storage areas should be considered accessory structures.
“Particularly for a driving shed, I would like to see that exempt,” Martin stated.
“Doesn’t that kind of defeat the whole purpose?” Ottens replied.
Craven said he would like more information before settling on a definition.
“If you’re a cash cropper it might be the only building you have is a driving shed. You might have 10 pieces of equipment but those 10 pieces of equipment are going to do more damage to (roads ) than the guy that’s running 300 acres and has 100 cows,” Craven stated.
McRoberts reminded council the development charges are applied based on the use of a building, so attempting to limit them to “buildings of a certain size” might not be workable.
“Maybe it’s premature at this point to define and determine what an accessory use is,” said McRoberts, who noted council would have the opportunity ask for input at the public meeting on Jan. 26 at 7pm at the Maryborough Community Centre.
Martin pointed out “Tractors, combines, large equipment seems to be one of the talking points of people’s support for the development charge.
“If that is indeed council’s target out of all this, perhaps it should be only driving sheds that are addressed. I’m not going to support that … I’m just throwing it out there.”
A motion to accept the staff report requesting council provide direction and clarity on the definition was withdrawn.
“Pending council’s decision on development charges, it’s a little premature to have it out there,” said Mayor Neil Driscoll.
