Loading...
06 16 1993 Public Minutes .. , THB CORPORATION 01' THB TOWNSHIP 01' ORO SPECIAL PUBLIC KBBTING WBDNBS~Y. JUNB 16 1993 . 7:15 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAKBBRS TWBNTY-THIRD KBBTING 1991-1994 COUNCIL The following members of Council were present: Reeve Robert E. Drury Deputy Reeve David Caldwell Councillor Joanne Crokam Councillor Leonard Mortson Absent: Councillor Alastair Crawford Also Present Were: Mr. Hartley Woodside, Ms. Joyce Strachan, Mr. Robert Strachan, Mr. Marshall Green, Ms. Jacquie Besse, Robert Besse, Mr. Dean Warner, Ms. Margaret Degen, Mr. Stephen Woodrow, Ms. Mavis Devoe, Mr. P. Capobiano, Ross Bradley and Mr. G. Pappa. Reeve Robert E. Drury chaired the meeting. Reeve Robert E. Drury opened the meeting by explaining to those present that this Public Meeting was to receive public comments respect to a proposed Official Plan Amendment, pursuant to provisions of the Planning Act, 1983, section 17. The applicant applied to rezone certain lands described as the North Part of Lot 23, Concession 8, (Strachan). To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro not made a decision on this application, other than proceeding to this Public Meeting. Only after comments are received from the Public, requested agencies and Township Staff, within the appropriate time period, will Council make a decision on this application. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed out on May 27, 1993 to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. Notice of the Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie Examiner and Orillia Packet and Times on May 27, 1993. Reeve Robert E. Drury then asked the Clerk if there had been any correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that the following letters had been received: 1) Ministry of Agriculture and Food (June 6, 1993) - stating the Ministry disagrees with the redesignation. 2) Ministry of Agriculture and Food (June 16, 1993) - withdrawal of June 6, 1993, disagreement with the redesignation as an error was made in the cross-referencing of the file and previous severance application. 3) Robert and Jacquie Besse - stating their objection to the amendment. 4) Jacquie Besse, Member of Committee of Adjustment - stating objection in her Committee of Adjustment capacity, to the amendment. - 2 - Reeve then stated that those persons present would be afforded opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed He then turned the meeting over to the Township . Kris Menzies, to explain the purpose and effect of the icial Plan Amendment. Menzies: The lot is on Part Lot 23, Concession 8. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to afford Council the opportunity to hear public comment on the Official Plan Amendment, prior to making a decision. effect of the policy would allow a site specific policy which means it only appl to this legal description, to allow the Committee of Adjustment to consider a severance on this property. One of the current requirements for a severance on a piece of Agriculturally designated land that the original lot, prior to the severance taking place, must be a minimum of 40 hectares or be an original township lot. It is the understanding of this office that this is not an original township lot, thus it would have to fall under the 40 hectare minimum requirement, which is approximately 100 acres. The applicants are asking leave of the municipality to consider that in this cas that the municipality change the policies to allow this severance requirement to state that the policies should be on a piece of property of a minimum 20 hectares which is approximately 50 acres. They are not requesting that any of the other agriculture requirements be changed only the minimum lot size for the originating parcel. I believe Marshall Green is here and he is representing the owners and he may wish to speak further the matter. Marshall Green: If I could start on a bit of a lighter note. Typical of the problem that the Strachans have had is what we have seen tonight with the Agriculture and Food. Last year when I was discussing the: with the Planning Staff, your consultants and Council, who had indicated that an important hurdle for us to get over would be getting OMAF'S approval. After I went and got AMAF to write a letter to Council and get their none objection as Herman would call it, here we are a year later, gets circulated and Herman dashes off the standard, I object to every severance in the agriculture and wrote you a letter without evening realizing that this is one last year he approved. To give you a little insight, more than you probably about the problems that Mr. and Mrs. Strachan have had since they have been trying to get this retirement lot. I won give all the history because Council it. I think Mrs. Besse is the only one here and perhaps you could ask if anybody else would like to hear the history. ( Reeve inquired if there was anyone who wished to hear the history of the application. No one replied.) - 3 - Green Let me just address the concerns set out Mrs. Besse's letter. Jacquie is a client and I am the one who did the hearing for her so I am familiar with her application as well and the problems she had, in the beginning. What I wanted to stress with Council is that we are in a planning process, we are under the Planning Act, are looking at your planning documents. The planning process is not a static st still kind of fit into the pigeon hole process. This isn't like criminal law where if you step over the line you are guilty if you don't step over the line are innocent. Everything isn't codified your Official Plan. When we are dealing with an Official Plan, is what we are asking here to amend, are policies and these policies are meant to be a general guideline for the future development of Township. When you are drawing your general guidelines and these things only get drawn once every five, ten years and you ask anyone who draws these documents and they will be the first to admit to that because they are general guidelines they are not going to fit all situations. There may be a lot of situations and a of guidelines that end up being open to interpretation. We have both those problems here. Mr. and Mrs. Strachan, probably clearer than 90% of the people come to you asking for retirement lot, f the profile of the persons you are trying to help. They are bonifide farmers. T have farmed for over forty years. During their farming life they have farmed well excess of 100 acres of land, over 200 a of land. They genuinely want to retire the land they worked all these years. are willing to take a lot on part of the property that is less viable agricultural use. So in terms of the profile of the person you are looking for, it is them. However, they have trouble meeting what might be a letter of your policy. Now do I say might? There are some interpretational problems to the way the Official Plan is being approached. When first got involved with the Strachans, had already been to the Committee of Adjustment and been denied on their sec application. The O.M.B. which was going hear their appeal, called the Strachans told them to get a lawyer because they s a problem with their application. They thought that if they applied for a minor variance along with their consent, they might have a chance of success. That is how a Planner at the ontario Municipal Board interpreted their application. I applied for that variance. I didn't the Planner was right, but I applied for the variance and it got turned down on variance as well. The Planner that I talked to said no, no, no, it is not a minor variance problem, it is a policy problem and you have to amend the policy. - 4 - Green: I wanted to point out that another has interpreted your Official Plan a different way. The Planner who we now have got working us, he and I sat down in this situation we looked at another problem with your Official Plan, as well. There is a possibility that the wording in your Act that says or was an original Township Lot in 1983, might be at an ontario Municipal Board think that if it is an original lot as it was in 1983 then you meet the pol So we have one Planner who says maybe all you need is a minor variance and another Planner who says you already meet the policy because you havn't changed the lot since 1983, but the Strachans are saying, look we don't want to set these kind of awful precedents for the Township. You don't want everybody who farms since 1983 asking for a retirement lot, so we will the whole nine yards. We will pay the several thousands of dollars to hire Planners and pay your application fees get a site Specific Official Plan for this particular piece of lot land I think that is being honourable and I think that is being realistic and as well when we get to the precedent of the that Mrs. Besse raises in her letter, I think that is the way you avoid the whole problem. I personally agree that the Committee of Adjustment was likely right in turning the application. To grant it would have created a dangerous precedent. Similarly if we continue with that appeal or if the Official Plan Amendment is refused and we decide we want to appeal it that way, could be a dangerous precedent for the Township as well. Lets have a look at the question of precedent. In order to have a flood of applications based on granting the Strachans an Official Plan Amendment, you are going to have to come up with applicants who are genuinely retiring, have farmed for forty years, who got a than two acre lot and who have Agr and Food support. These things are all being covered in the background papers to your Official Plan Amendment. You look a the profile of your Township. How many other retirement farmers are going to fit this profile. I don't think that is go to form much of a precedent as well. I think what is much more dangerous for you is if this were to go ahead based on the things that are now before the Township, without any amendment, without any site specific amendment and you end up with a less than strict ontario Municipal Board. I act for several rural municipalities I defended agricultural policies as well. - 5 - Green: But just as Mrs. Besse will refer you to the Peck O.M.B. appeal case, I am not familiar with that one. But I can give yo five from Essa Township, from Flos Townshi and Innisfil where the O.M.B. has also taken a very strick approach. But I can also give you three or four where the O.M.B. has been less than sympathetic to the Town and more sympathetic to the farmer. There are two farmers who sit as O.M.B. Chairmans. One of them gave a decision last week that has the entire Province worried, because he has pretty well said that anybody that has ever farme can have a retirement lot. You people here, ears picked up, but I will send you the decision if you like. It has caused tremendous ripples among some of the rural Townships. That was decided by Mr. Crosslan, O.M.B. Chairman, who is a retire farmer. Getting someone like that as an O.M.B. Chairman on an appeal from a technical decision, will be a much worse precedent than if you as this Township wer to grant an O.P.A. that is so site specifi that no one else could ever use. I think, to boil it all down, the Strachan got into a box, not of their own making, i a situation where they could have made every single one of the policies absolutel black and white. In an attempt to get themselves out of that box in a way that will not harm the Township down the road, they decided to go to stage one of the planning process and do this in a way that will maintain the integrity of this Township's Planning documents. I do not see that this will cause the Township any harm, it will not open the flood gates. I think that in this way it will prevent it. It will send a signal out that unless you meet this profile and are willing to go th nine yards, we won't consider it. It will be a good guideline to give to your Committee of Adjustment and show them what has to be done and who they have to satisf before they can get this kind of extra attention. It will solidify the other policies in your Official Plan. I would be most pleased to answer any othe questions of Council, Ms. Menzies, the Public. Jacquie Besse: You talk about the precedence aspect of this, if this OPA were approved. We are talking about something that the Council has put in place deliberately to allow the Committee of Adjustment because otherwise the Committee of Adjustment isn't in the position. We won't necessarily challenge Council on their decision. You are suggesting that the next person who comes in would have to prove himself a bonifide farmer, the same as the Strachans. I am not for one minute saying that the Strachans are not eligible in the personal - 6 - Jacquie Besse: aspect of this. Our Committee of Adjustment regulations specifically that a person has to be an eligible for a substantial number of years, specifically five. So everybody with f years and forty acres is going to come in. Maybe you are misunderstanding what I am saying Jacquie. What I am saying is by making the Strachans go to the Official Plan Amendment route, you have basically created a site specific amendment with a particular profile and the particular profile is that they have farmed for years and very important to the paper that is attached to that Offic Plan Amendment is the fact that the Strachans were farming 225 acres and that they have agreed to take off a corner that is not going to harm the remaining part of the land. The next guy that c up there with fifty acres and comes to Committee of Adjustment and says I want a severance because you gave the Strachans one. The first answer is that the Strachans particular piece of land has redesignated, yours isn't, go see Council. Council then can say, do you fit the e same profile as the Strachans? Have you farmed for forty years? Did you farm in excess of 200 acres for the forty years? Have you selected a site that is marginal suitable for agriculture? Do you have OM backing? If they meet all those criteria, maybe the Council wants to grant them one. But somebody that comes in with anything less than that, doesn't meet this one precedent that has been set. I did not take a survey across your Township, but I think you are not going to find one thousand people to fit that profile? Are you going to find five people to fit that profile? Marshall Green: Jacquie Besse: What brought the Strachans to Council an approach like this was taking out a microscope and looking at the regulations for an agriculture severance and saying 0 I fit this one, a bonifide farmer. The next person is going to do the same thing and when they appear before Council they don't have to meet the forty years. They only have to meet the criteria that is out in the Official Plan. Marshall Green: But there is no general criteria going to be set out. This is a site specific amendment. We are not asking to change a of the general criteria. It is a site specific amendment which is being passed, pursuant to an Official Plan Amendment has attached to it all the specifics of this case. What brought the Strachans to this, wasn't taking a microscope, it was three Planners saying that the only way that they could be conscientious about recommending the Strachans, is if they could make a case to be site specific and - 7 - Marshall Green: do it forthright by way of an Official Amendment. Don't come and try to twist words around to get a severance or minor variance, do it from the bottom up. Jacquie Besse: Why not a rezoning then to a residential designation? Marshall Green: We couldn't get a rezoning. First of all the rezoning that you got for your lot deleted by the Township. Jacquie Besse: There are lots of others. Marshall Green: There are not any others. Jacquie Besse: Estate Residential Marshall Green: We couldn't fit the Estate Residential policies. If that had been recommended would have taken that. Jacquie Besse: Kris, could they have? Kris Menzies: What the Strachans would have to have is explain to Council and justify to council that there should be an Estate Residential Plan of Subdivision on their or 50 acres, whatever it may be, of land. Similarly as you did with your Country Residential, then come back and ask for a lot or two or twelve or fifteen or many fit on the particular piece of property. My understanding, and correct if I am wrong Mr Green, but the Strachans want one lot. Jacquie Besse: All I ever wanted was one lot, Marshall. Marshall Green: I will ask Mr. Strachan, would you like turn your forty acres into 20 lots? Mr. Strachan: We are on Agriculture land, I doubt it much if Jacquie was on Agriculture. We have cattle, machinery, etc. Jacquie Besse: Bob was a farmer. The issue of bonifide and all the other issues were never addressed, Marshall. We couldn't get point one. Reeve Drury: Mr Green and Mrs. Besse I think we want get back to the specific one we are deal with here tonight and not draw references to the other. Jacquie Besse: Wasn't rezoning considered to Res Marshall Green: Believe me but a rezoning is easier than Official Plan Amendment. An Official Amendment goes to the Minister. If the three Planners who looked at this would have been able to support a rezoning as opposed to an Official Plan Amendment, we would have jumped at it. Jacquie Besse: Who are the three Planners? - 8 - Marshall Green: Gary Bell, Jerry Jordan and Gordon Knox. They are three of the senior Planners in the County. All three of them were unanimous in saying that I shouldn't have gone to the Committee of Adjustment in first place. All three of them were unanimous in saying that the only way it could be honestly dealt with where it would not do damage to the Township's Official Plan or other planning documents, was by way of an Official Plan Amendment. That Official Plan Amendment if passed by Council will go to Queens Park, will get circulated to half a dozen Ministries as opposed to a rezoning which could be handled right in this Council Chambers approved by the Clerk. We would have rather done it that way. If Kris can up with a way we can do it by rezoning, will have my letter do withdraw our application and have the new one put in tomorrow. Kris Menzies: Maybe I can try to clear some of this up from a Planning Technical standpoint. A municipality, through its various bodies looks at severance, they are obligated to look at their planning policies. Those policies guide the Committee of Adj or in some municipalities, the council, in some municipalities, the Province, in looking at whether that severance is applicable. Mr. Green in my opinion has two courses of action. One, an Official Plan Amendment, similarly to what he is asking for tonight which says in our particular case these are the rules. For an Official Plan Amendment as Mrs. Besse has suggested which says on our entire we want to change it from Agriculture to Estate Residential in the Official Plan, because that would get them into another category which may put them into a situation to qualify for a severance. Likely, and I certainly don't want to put words in the three Planners mouths that Green spoke to, but he likely received advise that to go for a full Official P Amendment to Estate Residential on a 40 hectare piece of land is one, probably what his clients were looking for. They want one lot is my understanding. Two, may be more of a difficult task to prove that an Estate Residential Amendment for hectares is appropriate for one lot. is likely why Mr. Green received the that he did that technically this is the best route to go. Council certainly has make a decision based on its concept of policies whether that is appropriate and that is why they are receiving comment evening. Marshall Green: There are polices I believe in your Official Plan as well, Kris, that Estate Residential should not be considered of 11. Kris Menzies: 1 Green: Kris Menzies: Marshall Green: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Kris Menzies: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Kris Menzies: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Kris Menzies: Marshall Green: - 9 - The policies speak to on lands which are considered good for Agriculture purposes. Generally everything south of 11. A good deal of it, yes. And that I believe is one of the other reasons why our Planner is telling us to that route, would seriously offend that policy of Oro's Official Plan. We are trying to do the least offensive thing to the Official Plan. A question through to Kris. If Council were to consider granting this Official Plan Amendment, would a further be that the lot be zoned differently than the rest of the Agricultural land. The way the process works now, if a lot comes in that fits the criteria for a severance and if Council adopts this and subsequently the Minister of Municipal Affairs adopts this, it is my opinion on this particular property the rules say, on this lot you have a minimum of 20 hectares. Subsequently the Strachans qualify, assuming everything else runs true. They are bonifide farmers, no severance, so on and so forth and they not contending the other policy It is common practice for the Committee Adjustment when they are looking at a severance on an Agriculture or Rural of property that a condition of that severance, that the severed lot would to be rezoned to a residential category accurately reflect its use. Commonly Council will then look at a rezoning for Rural Residential Zone on the severed lot The remaining parcel of land would remain zoned and designated Agricultural. This would be a decision that would be by the Committee of Adjustment, whether they wish to make a condition or not? That is correct. Traditionally we have been in the last eight years, doing that, requiring that be rezoned properly to reflect its use. Yes, and I would anticipate that if this application comes before the Committee again, that would be a condition. If that's the case, I wasn't aware of being a usual condition. I know it is usual in some municipalities. I think preference would likely be to ask you for zoning amendment. I will work with Kris see what she thinks would be appropriate. - 10 - Jacquie Besse: In your comments you said, and I am going to sort of put this through to Council too I think that most of the reason that this is here because for anyone else to walk in and ask for this type of thing, as you say they have to be bonifide, they have to hav met all this criteria, but the Strachans also bring with them a very strong, please Council there has been a wrong done and we want to be righted. There is an issue prior to this that certainly blends itself to a lot of compassion. Marshall Green: We would hope so. Jacquie Bessie: You talked about they got into a box and that box mayor may not have been of their own making. My question is, who's making was it if it wasn't theirs? Marshall Green: You indicated in your letter that you were fully aware of the circumstances from the old severance. In the old severance the Strachans farm was in two sections, there was a 175 acre section and a 50 acre section. The strachàns had an offer to purchase the 175 acre section and in that offer they had the right to apply for a retirement lot off that and they would hav had no problem meeting all the requirement off that property. They hired a lawyer. The lawyer attended the Committee of Adjustment. My understanding is that the Committee of Adjustment was concerned abou the size of the retirement lot, the location of the retirement lot and asked the Strachans to go back and defer the hearing and asked the Strachans to go back and reconsider the size and the location. In that period of time the lawyer didn't get around to it and the land got sold without the severance and all that was lef to the Stachans was the 50 acres. Jacquie Besse: They were before Committee of Adjustment with an Offer to Purchase. It was deferre for one month. They were to come back at the next month with some more considerations and I believe the Committee was quite prepared to give them the severance but there was a size problem, etc. In that month a lot transpired. The property was sold. Did they not have any control over that situation? Mr. Strachan: Our deal wasn't drawn up, that the sale wa subject to us getting this lot. The closing date was May 30th. When the two lawyers came together, the lawyer for the buyer said is this deal subject to you getting this lot or do we go to court over it? Jacquie Besse: You still had a thirty day appeal period. - 11 - Mr. strachan: In the first five minutes of our original application, the chairman of the said we are going to give you a lot. had some disagreement about the size of It was 400 feet frontage because that was the way the parcel was set up one hundred years ago. Not that I wanted a 400 foot frontage but it was designed this way. very same Committee has already given a to Pat Kinn, the same frontage. That encouraged the thought for that and I agreed for them to split it in half, but they wanted to split it again the other way. Jacquie Besse: So there was a bit of a mexican standoff. The Committee had some concerns that they wanted addressed and the strachans had a little bit but unfortunately that time period caught everybody in a trap. Not Committee of Adjustment, it had nothing do with the Committee of Adjustment. Marshall Green: We have never blamed the Committee of Adjustment at all. Jacquie Besse: The fact remains that when they applied the severance they knew that it was going to close on May 30th. Time was of the essence. Marshall Green: Committee of Adjustment was aware of that too. We all know that. That is the problem that we have. Whether or not it should have been explained to the of Adjustment, whether or not the lawyer should have hustled. Jacquie Besse: My point through to Council is that, yes its an unfortunate situation. There are many, many times that we all do things we wished we hadn't and we get ourselves into that box and sometimes you just have to deal with the consequences. What they are left with is 50 acres that they can build on. I fail to understand why the need for a site specific change like this that in essence is going to create two lots. There is one lot now that can be built on. Marshall Green: We could build on the entire 50 acres. likelihood of those 50 acres being used farming would be fairly remote. However, if a one or two acre retirement lot is severed off, the rest of the remaining 50 acres will be used for Agriculture. I think that promotes your Official Plans Agriculture policies as opposed to using the whole lot, the whole 50 acres as a retirement lot. That is not the point policy tries to promote. originally we had asked Council through Menzies that you consider making the decision tonight. I would like to ask to defer it for a couple of reasons. of all I would like to have our Planner may be even myself more thoroughly Marshall Green: Reeve Drury: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Marshall Green: Jacquie Besse: Marshall Green: Mr. strachan: Marshall Green: Mr. Strachan: Jacquie Besse: Bob Drury: Mr Strachan: - 12 - by way of a supplementary planning report to the comments that Ms. Besse has raised. They are worthy of a more thorough con Quite frankly, Councillor Crawford has a lot to say about this application from the beginning and his absence tonight and it would give him an opportunity as well be heard on the matter. I think it would benefit everyone, regardless if you for it or against it. I think a final report is really needed this case. I would recommend to Council after hearing all the discussion here evening to think about it. A lot of have come forward this evening. In light of the Council's past practice requiring a rezoning and the Committee in cases of 90% or more put that as a condition. I can see this being dealt as an Official Plan Amendment, perhaps an appeal, going to the Committee of Adjustment, perhaps an appeal and then a zoning application and then an appeal. T me it would make more sense if you are going for an Official Plan Amendment, knowing the zoning requirement might be required, that be dealt with at the same time, so that at least Council's position is clearly defined on both the O.P. and zoning. Then the Committee of Adjustment only has to deal with the decision of severance. The ontario Municipal Board wouldn't even hear the appeal if there is a possibility that you need a rezoning. One more question for Mr. Green and then would really like to address Council. size are you proposing for this lot? 2 acres. My application was for 197' X 300'. What we are finding Jacquie, in the last three or four months is that the Health unit is now not including anything less than 2 acres. We are flexible on this. As I brought up in my letter. Five years ago, Bob and I faced pretty well the same situation we have now. My question to Council is, why is it ok for this and not ok for us? That is something Council will consider get back to you. If this is the way that things work, we wouldn't had any problems at all because there already was a lot off the 49 acre parcel by the very same Committee. - 13 - Marshall Green: I think what Mr. Strachan is saying is when it comes down to the bottom line of our proposal, Planning is not a situation where you can apply the same rules to single application that is before you. are dealing with individual pieces of I think if I sat down with Mrs. Besse for few minutes, and when I do a report she will understand what the difference were her situation and this situation. There are rarely two situations that are ever exactly alike. I do thank the Council. This Council has been very receptive to us on numerous occasions. We are still at round 0, but do appreciate the time that Council and Kris has spent in trying to accommodate u I hope you realize that the Strachans are trying to do it this way because they to do it the right way. There being no further questions or comments, when being called the third time, the Reeve in closing the meeting, thanked those in attendance for their participation and advised that Council would consider all matters before reaching a decision. He then advised those present that if they wished to be notified of the passing of the proposed By-law, they should leave their name and address with the Clerk. MOTION NO.1 Moved by Mortson, seconded by Crokam Be it resolved that this Special Public Meeting of Council (Strachan, North Part Lot 23, Concession 8) now be adjourned p.m. 4 . ..~ A.L~J2/ (~V'i? L!;;I- ryt? ~ CdERK DARLENE SHOEBRIDGE