A proposal to create five new lots in Cedar Valley has raised a red flag for local residents concerned with how this will affect the rural landscape.
A public information meeting was held on July 16 regarding a request to rezone a property to R3 residential from A agricultural.
The zoning amendment application has been compliance as a condition of severance applications made to Wellington County.
The applicant also asked to redesignate surrounding land included within the hamlet designation which is part of the Wellington County Official Plan review.
Town planner Sally Stull said the property is at 9141 Sideroad 24 in the hamlet of Cedar Valley.
She explained this meeting stems from applications made by Barry Rathbun.
Stull said the proposed five severances were approved by Wellington County’s land division committee subject to the rezoning.
However, hamlet boundaries are being refined under a review of the Wellington County Official Plan five year review and would impact two-and-a-half of the five lots to be severed.
Stull said the hamlet boundary is conceptual and in the past there was some flexibility where the boundary could be deemed – while zoning bylaws were firmly fixed.
She said that with the Wellington County plan review, a GIS is being used to determine boundaries, while making use of Erin official plan maps.
Stull stressed the hamlet boundary being proposed is not an official boundary at this time. Based on that, it is a best guess where the official plan boundary will be.
However the proponent has asked the larger area be rezoned rather than the two-and-a-half lots.
This would leave a section of land behind the severed lots also rezoned as residential.
“At this point there is some discrepancy regarding the boundary.”
Stull said there needs to be discussion whether the proposal to rezone the larger area of land could result in yet another lot being created at the rear of the severed lots.
Mayor Lou Maieron noted that typically, developments of five lots or more require a plan of subdivision.
Stull added that from a planning perspective, the creation of the lots within the hamlet has been approved by the county.
“There is further consideration to be made as to the appropriateness of a lot being created behind these five severed lots.”
Councillor Barb Tocher asked for clarification as to whether the rezoning was for all the lots or just those outside of the hamlet boundary.
She said that even with the matter explained twice, it is still not clear to councillors.
Tocher wanted clarification as to whether the rezoning is for the lots as per the severance application, or for all of the land located in the hamlet.
Stull said the applicant has now applied for the lands within the interpretive hamlet boundary – which is beyond the original application.
Maieron asked how the rear property would even be able to be serviced with a driveway or whether it would be landlocked.
Councillor John Brennan said the actual hamlet boundary is still under discussion.
He suggested if the lots were rezoned now, the remaining land could be dealt with in a zoning review.
Rathbun’s planned stated the intent was to rezone the remaining land within the hamlet.
Audience members voiced concern with the current proposal. One of those was landowner Lynn Monroe. Her property backs onto the land to be developed.
She said when she moved there she was assured by Rathbun that if the property were to be sold it would be as one large lot. She asked what else may happen once this is approved.
Maieron said if land is within an urban boundary – such as a hamlet – it can be used either as residential or agriculture.
Resident Pauline Follett said the Town of Erin has its own official plan which allows the municipality to be more restrictive in its planning policy than the county.
“The Planning Act is believed to state that five lots should be classed as a plan of subdivision. If my memory is correct, this would require a Class 4 septic system. At this time, the town has more residential lots than required: about 30 years worth.”
Follett said, “Residential growth does not help the tax base. What we need is commercial/industrial development.”
She also had concern with the parcel of land at the back of the proposed five lots which looks at though it has a driveway access from Station Road.
“The province has stated that residential growth should occur in built up areas. I do not consider Cedar Valley as a built up area.”
She added the town has infrastructure at Cedar Valley (road/bridge) which require major upgrades before any further development takes place in the hamlet. In allowing this application, the town is only exacerbating the infrastructure deficiency in that area.
“All development in Cedar Valley should be put on hold until the town has decided what happens with the SSMP and if it is practical to extend services to the hamlet.”
The proponent’s planner stated the intent was to use private wells and septic systems.
Stull said a staff report will come before council later this year.
