The Township of Mapleton is working on a solution for a local couple who say their rights as farmers have been impacted by a change to the municipality’s comprehensive zoning bylaw.
Alwyn and Lori Woodham attended the Oct. 9 council meeting to seek an update on concerns they have raised about a section of the bylaw that waives Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements for existing lots that are less than 9.9 acres. Mapleton passed the revised comprehensive zoning bylaw in 2010, however it did not come into effect until June 2012 due to an OMB appeal of the bylaw on an unrelated matter.
Several small lots, created in the 1970s, exist near the couple’s farm. Because the lots are within MDS 1 radius, building could not be permitted without a specific waiver. However, the Woodhams believe the change to the comprehensive zoning bylaw would allow the lots to be built on, effectively restricting future expansion on their farm, as the farm would then be bound by MDS 2 regulations.
The couple, who run a cash crop operation in the Moorefield area and drew the issue to council’s attention at the Sept. 25 meeting, returned on Oct. 9 to seek more information from council. A special council meeting was held in closed session on Oct. 5. for education and training on MDS and receiving of advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
At the Oct. 9 meeting, the Woodhams asked council if they had anything they could share from the “training session” on Oct. 5.
Mayor Bruce Whale responded, “The whole situation is being reviewed by our lawyer and the (Wellington County) planning department.”
In response to questions from the Woodhams, Linda Redmond of the Wellington County planning department reported there are 80 vacant small agricultural lots in the township.
Redmond explained the owners of the lots went through the MDS process that was in place at the time they were created. She said the waiver was included in the Mapleton comprehensive zoning bylaw, at the initiative of the planning department, “so they didn’t have to go through another process in order to build.”
Similar waiver clauses exist in the comprehensive zoning bylaws in five of the seven municipalities in Wellington County. However at the Sept. 25 meeting, all of the councilors who were in office at the time of the bylaw change stated they were unaware MDS regulations were being impacted.
Alwyn Woodham told council the couple feels the waiver clause disregards their rights.
“What this bylaw says to us is that anyone can build a house as close to our farm as they want. Where are my rights as a farmer and property owner?” he asked, adding, “We can’t expand any buildings on our farm or our manure facility.
“Where are my rights? Or, apparently, I don’t have any. I used to have them and with one sentence in a bylaw you took them away.”
Woodham said the municipality never publicized the fact the comprehensive zoning bylaw change would affect MDS requirements prior to its passage.
“How would anybody know to object to it?” he wondered.
“You would have to read the new zoning bylaw,” stated Whale.
“I voted for you councillors to be in this council chamber to protect me. I trusted you,” said Lori Woodham.
The mayor said councillors were being honest when they earlier stated they were unaware of the impact of the new bylaw.
“We spoke truthfully. We didn’t catch it,” he stated.
Whale said council is working on a solution for the Woodham’s situation.
“We think there are ways that – and we may not be able to correct it 100 per cent – but we think there are ways that your potential to build a livestock facility won’t be restricted.”
Alwyn Woodham expressed concern a decision like this one would be made in an agricultural community.
“You just make a bylaw and slip it though and – boom – it affects the people who have lived here all their lives. I don’t think that’s right in an area that depends on agriculture,” he stated.
Another special council meeting on the MDS situation was held in-camera on Oct. 11.
“We’re still working on resolving the issue,” said CAO Patty Sinnamon, following the Oct. 11 meeting.
