Sends clear message on farmland protection

Kings County council has finally sent a clear message regarding support for local farmers and agricultural land protection.

As indicated by the groundswell of support of late for agricultural land protection resulting from county planning matters in Weston and Greenwich, there is at least a segment of the population that understands the value of agricultural land in Kings County and is ready to fight for it.

It could be argued that council’s track record when it comes to agricultural land protection is a bit sketchy because there are recent examples of farmland being rezoned and examples of farmland being protected. It is clear, however, that council is willing to consider each application on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, this could be easily interpreted as council being hypocritical or playing favourites.

Those favouring agricultural land protection over development would say council finally got it right Tuesday evening, Aug. 7, when they defeated amendments that would have allowed an application for a residential development on about 47 acres of prime agricultural land adjacent to the Berwick Heights Golf Course in Weston.

Perhaps it had something to do with the visual demonstration of support for farmland protection put on by Weston-area farmers riding through town on their tractors prior to the vote, or the copious amount of pressure applied at the public hearing -- but councillors must realize that if they’re going to espouse a “buy-local” message, they have to put their money where their mouths are, send a clear message and protect prime farmland.

Once paved, it’s gone for good and we can’t lose sight of the fact that agriculture is still the primary economic generator of our region.

On the flip side, however, farmers have to be able to make a living and they must have means to survive during market downturns or natural disasters. This could mean selling land or turning a profit through residential development. There is bound to be continued pressure for residential development due to increasing population and community growth.

This is not to say that council should throw the doors to residential development on farmland wide-open, but there are and will continue to be cases where it’s difficult to say “no.”

There was much discussion prior to council’s vote on the Weston matter on whether or not approving the amendments would set a precedent. Municipal solicitor Don Urquhart offered the opinion that allowing the development would be precedent setting in the sense that it would become more difficult for council to say “no” to others in the future.

Coun. Janet Newton said she is concerned that turning down the amendments would be precedent setting in the sense that council would have a more difficult time saying “yes” to farmland rezoning in the future. She will be supporting a future rezoning request for the growth centre of Port Williams.

Although council will almost surely continue to weigh each agricultural land rezoning application individually, it appears to those who support farmland protection that council has finally gotten off the fence and sent a clear message to the community.