Letter: More farm severances not good planning

Article content

I support the 14 Ontario agricultural farm organizations on Bill 97 and Proposed Provincial Planning Statement. They are all adamantly against the proposal to allow three lot severances per farm.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Letter: More farm severances not good planning Back to video

Farm lot severances historically were allowed so a retired farmer could remain on the farm in their home while passing on the family farm to their sons and daughters, so they could raise their family in their own home on the farm. They should remain within the farm community and not be sold to non-farmers. Alternate options have not been completely explored such as more temporary type housing.

Farm severances have never been based on good planning principles, taking the normal broad range of planning criteria into consideration. When residential expansion is proposed in the urban areas the planning process is very rigorous exploring all aspects of their creation both positive and negative, such as for example, municipal servicing.

Over the years the cumulative impact of farm severances has resulted in mostly urbanites purchasing rural residential properties.

Urbanites see living in the rural area as some sort of idyllic living situation having no regard to the reality of how their neighbouring farms actually operate.

It is much more economical, efficient and effective to service residents in more compact areas such as existing urban centres like Simcoe, Waterford, Dover, Delhi and Port Rowan. There may also be opportunities to expand hamlets but only when considered based on good planning practices.

Having a few residential lots in the rural area may not have been a problem in the past but the explosion of urban inhabitants in the rural area has created a negative imbalance.

It seems ironic to me when governments in the past as well as farmers thought it was a good idea to create lot severances, as their focus at the time was limited to financial gain. But over time as more urbanites moved into the rural area, they began to put pressure on farmers and their normal farm practices.

Government and farmers created this problem by allowing farm severances to occur easily and regularly. The situation came back to haunt them.

The farmer’s answer a few years ago was to ask the Conservative provincial government of the day to create the “Right to Farm Legislation” that outlined normal farm practices in detail to stop rural residents from complaining; the very rural residents that were at one time welcomed by the farmers and government. Is this what they call having your cake and eating it too?

The need for provincial intervention through establishing legislation is clear evidence that lot severances negatively impact a farmer’s ability to farm, so why would this same government want more urbanites   placing more pressure on farmers?

Planning departments look at what is in the interest of the greater public good. They are not focused on one or a few self-interested groups or individuals.

From the individual farmer perspective I see how tempting it is to be given the ability to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling three building lots. This is short term thinking and 14 different farm organizations including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture have voiced their concerns to the province.

I suggest you ask planning staff their opinion and have them provide you with the current number of rural residential lots in the agricultural area. You will be surprised at the numbers. Also ask how many potential homes could be built on farm properties now.

Do not allow agricultural farm lot severances as proposed: The costs far outweigh the benefits of residential intrusion into the agricultural areas.

Peter Black

Simcoe