by SUSAN MANN
Three groups are appealing a Huron County council committee of the whole severance decision that created a non-farm rural residence in a prime agricultural area.
The groups are: the ministry of municipal affairs and housing, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and Frieshaven Farms Ltd. They’re appealing the decision the committee made to approve the application of Robert Vodden and Joanne Palmer to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
Scott Tousaw, director of the Huron County planning department, says in an email it typically takes four to six months for the OMB to schedule a hearing.
The committee of the whole approved the severance in May. The parcel is located in East Ward (Hullett) in Central Huron. Central Huron Council recommended the application be approved with conditions.
The county’s planning department recommended denying the application because it didn’t conform to the Provincial Policy Statement, the county’s Official Plan or the Central Huron Official Plan. None of those planning documents permit the creation of a non-farm residential lot, Huron County planner Susanna Reid said in an earlier interview. But the committee approved the severance application with conditions.
There weren’t any objections to the severance application either from surrounding landowners or anyone else prior to the committee’s decision to approve the application, Reid said in an earlier interview. BF
Comments
My farm is less than a mile away from the proposed severance, and, as such, I have seen this property almost every day for over 50 years.
For about the first half of my life to date, the property proposed to be severed was used as a cow pasture, simply because it was too low-lying, and therefore, too wet to be used for anything else - for the past 30 years, it has been re-forested and not used for any agricultural purposes at all. Therefore, to say this subject property is, in any way, shape, or form, prime agricultural land, is somewhat of a mis-representation - more to the point, it isn't even good residential land, but I digress.
It's just as much of a stretch to say this severance would restrict local agricultural operations because the closest farm is already limited by three existing houses, and the addition of another house, wouldn't adversely affect that farm any more than the already-existing residences.
Ther biggest problems farm groups face in this situation, is that they're trying to re-argue the politics of "domino theory", and that could easily backfire on them because Hearings Officers sometimes get quite-testy with people who aren't prepared to focus on the merits of the case at hand.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Agreed, as most planners and OMB decision makers will tell you, one of the key overriding principles of the planning act is to be “flexible” in interpreting local and provincial guidelines in conjunction with each application's merits. Therefore, the weights of the "merits" of "each individual severance application" have the "flexibility" to trump local and provincial guidelines. Furthermore, each OMB decision is NOT to be deemed as “precedent setting” as in initiating the “domino effect”.
If everyone stopped the hand-wringing about what this severance will "mean", but instead looked at this property, then looked at the properties adjoining it, and then looked at the properties adjoining them, and then asked themselves - "Does this severance make sense?", I suggest the answer would not only be a resounding "yes", it would also be, to quote Central Huron Reeve, Jim Ginn, a "no-brainer".
Anyways, it doesn't bode well that each side is claiming their point of view is effectively a "no-brainer" - this not only means somebody is going to lose, it also means somebody is going to be a sore loser.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment