Kim Hessels (Agent) was present
Kim Hessels comments that the applicant had previously discussed this application and wanted to do a boundary adjustment, but planning staff had concerns and stated that it would not be supportable through a boundary adjustment application. Now, a boundary adjustment is being required for this application, while the surplus farm dwelling severance is being refused. She also expressed concerns about the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) requirement, stating that she is unsure why this is needed, as no development is being proposed.
Mark Andrews replies to Kim Hessels’ comments on the EIS and explains that an EIS is triggered because the surplus farm dwelling severance still creates a new lot, which is considered development. Since there are woodland features on the subject lands, the surplus farm dwelling severance triggers the requirement for an EIS. He adds that further discussion can take place with planning staff and forestry staff to explore possibilities for mitigating or waiving this condition.
Kim Hessels responds that she had discussions with the GRCA and that they had already received their approvals.
Don Ricker comments that he has not previously seen an EIS being required, so he questions why it is coming up now.
Mark Andrews replies to Don Ricker that every application is reviewed independently. Due to the woodlot on the property, it triggered the EIS requirement through the forestry division.
Don Ricker then asks why this is not being addressed at the time of building permits.
Mark Andrews replies that these comments are typically addressed during planning applications.
Don Ricker asks if the committee would consider proceeding with a boundary adjustment instead and suggests deferring the application for reevaluation.
Chris Tang comments that there are multiple issues with this application. A boundary adjustment would be considered a "land swap," which planning staff would be unable to support.
Brian Snyder asks planning staff what a "lot swap" is.
Shannon Van Dalen responds to Brian Snyder’s question, explaining that, according to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), no new residential lots are permitted unless through surplus farm dwelling severance. Even though no new buildings are being created, the surplus farm dwelling severance still results in the creation of a new farm lot that did not exist before.
Brian Wagter comments that part of the refusal is due to the applicant not owning a sufficient amount of farmland.
Chris Tang confirms that the property owners do not own two farm parcels that have dwellings on the properties.
Kim Hessels responds that they have a farmhouse on the dairy farm and recently purchased a dairy farm in West Lincoln, which does have a dwelling on the property.
Brian Wagter asks planning staff if the applicant were to return at a later time with two farm dwellings, would the application then be supportable?
Chris Tang replies that yes, the application would be supportable if they had two farm dwellings.
Kim Hessels comments that the boundary adjustment and farm dwelling severance application are essentially the same in this case.
Mark Andrews replies to Kim Hessels that the proposal involves surplus land from a property that does not have a farm cluster. Additionally, this application would cause a landlock on the retained lands. Planning staff could consider a boundary adjustment more likely to be supported than the surplus farm dwelling severance.
Paul Makey comments that he is not opposed to the severance, but the landlock issue is a concern. He suggests that amalgamation followed by severance seems like the best option.
Shannon Van Dalen comments that the application is worth exploring, but at this time, it would be best to set up a meeting with Kim Hessels and the applicant to discuss the options