Firstly, i would like to…

Firstly, i would like to thank you for hearing our concerns and extending the comment period.
and would like to be clear I am not opposed to growth & development as I too want to see housing options fo support youth , weniors, families , workers and newcomers to our rural communities.

As a farmer and landowner in Ontario, the changes proposed regarding up to 3 severances are of a great concern.

In my region i have dealt with concerns from farmers that have purchased land with surplus houses and wanting lot severances thus removing a house from agricultural land and the frustration that entails with new owners unfamiliar with regulated farming practices and the idea for landowners to have the ability to have more houses appear in the agricultural /rural workplace does not make planning sense, while some may see it as a financial option, as this would benefit the few, and not the industry as a whole, and where i feel this government needs to ensure there is a plan our future.

I support the position taken by all three farming organizations as well as farm land trust and hope that you see the benefits and the legacy of keeping agricultural lands together and protected.

Farmland is a precious resource and dividing the agricultural systems lanscape does not make the best sense and will be detrimental to all living in Ontario

Bill 97 and the Proposed Provincial Planning Statement threatens to:

Fragment and permanently remove irreplaceable farmland,line rural concession roads with non-farmer residential housing,overwhelm municipal/regional service providers, and inflate farmland prices for the benefit of speculators and developers and to the detriment of future farmers as well as disrupt agricultural operations

I am also concerned that amending the Planning Act in a way that would allow for planning decisions that are inconsistent with the PPS 2020 could open up the floodgates for a rash of developments that run counter to farmland preservation

I agree the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020)’s Agriculture policies [Section 2.3] that require municipalities protect their prime agricultural areas for their long-term agricultural use. And further support the flexibility afforded to farmers to engage in on-farm value adding of primary farm products, as well as agriculture-related, on-farm diversified and agri-tourism uses. Although the PPS 2020 defines prime agricultural land as Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Class 1- 3 soils plus specialty crop areas, the OFA believes that prime agricultural lands should be defined as Class 1 to 4 soils plus specialty crop lands. Class 5-6 soils that are part of an ongoing agricultural operation deserve protection too. These soils can support agricultural activities such as grazing livestock or growing crops for biofuels, and their productivity can be improved through activities such as tile drainage, stone picking and the addition of lime. Where Class 1-4 soils are not present in a county or region, the best agricultural lands in that county or region should be recognized and protected for their agricultural use.

I support the the OFA position of the preservation of Prime Farmland classes 1, 2, 3 & 4 plus specialty crop lands across rural Ontario. We believe strongly in the PPS 2020 Agriculture policies that governs farmland and rural areas protecting the right to farm and the Agriculture System in Ontario. In addition to this, OFA believes strongly that lot creation and further fragmentation of farmland in the rural area is counterproductive for the agricultural business structure in Ontario’s rural areas. However, OFA supports additional residential units on existing farm parcels (but not on a severed lot from the farm parcel), and in rural hubs, hamlets, and communities to support our agricultural system.