Response to The Conservative…

Response to The Conservative Provincial Governments;
Proposal to Change the Provincial Policy Statement.

20 June 2023

I support the recent May 2023 Joint Statement of 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. I believe this is not only in the best interest of the farming community but for all Ontario residents.
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 these residential properties. The proliferation of rural residents in Norfolk County has impacted farmers' normal agricultural practices negatively. 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. These residential properties also are more expensive to provide municipal services, plus the urbanites complain about the lack of municipal services as provided in an urban setting. 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 and where the sale price is based on farm acreage prices going to the adjacent farmer while the remaining residential rate goes to a different municipal account to support all farmers.
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 the additional wind-fall of selling off an acre for a financial gain. But over time as more and more urbanites moved into the rural area, they began to put pressure on farmers and their normal farm practices. Urbanites complained about noise, smells, dust and use of chemicals on crops. Government and Farmers created this problem by allowing farm severance to occur easily and regularly. The situation came back to haunt them, having opened up a pandora's box. Now that the rural residents are established in the agriculture zone; what to do to stop their pressure on farmers. 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 the rural resident from complaining; the very rural resident 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, to in essence stop the rural residents from complaining, is clear evidence that lot severances negatively impact a farmers ability to farm, so why would this same government that created the “Right to Farm Legislation” want more urbanites in the agricultural zone placing more pressure on farmers? Encourage urbanites into the rural area then enact legislation to stop their complaints; a complete contradiction! If any one should know better it is the current Conservative Government. We have planning departments for a reason as they provide well thought out public policy for development that includes public processes and as much consideration of impacts, positive and negative, as possible. I see no evidence that allowing three severance per farm or any severances for that matter, is based on good Planning Principles. 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. This is one of the hardest situations for Politicians. Pressure from stakeholder individuals or groups is hard to resist. Politicians must broaden their knowledge to include what is best for the long term and for the public greater good.
Do not allow agricultural farm lot severances as proposed. The costs far outway the benefits of residential intrusion into the agricultural areas. Base the Provincial Policy Statement on Good Well Established Planning Principles.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to outline the problems associated with allowing rural lot severances.