Retiring farmer clause returns

BY KIRK STARRATT

kstarratt@kentvilleadvertiser.ca

NovaNewsNow.com

The provision to allow residential development in the Agricultural District on lots 4.5 acres or smaller is still out, but a clause to allow retiring farmers to build homes in the agricultural district is in.

Kings County council continued to debate Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and Land Use Bylaw (LUB) amendments recommended by the agricultural working group and planning advisory committee (PAC) at the Tuesday, Sept. 2 session. Council gave first reading to the amendments and set Thursday, Sept. 25 at 7 p.m. in council chambers in Kentville as the time and place for the public hearing. Second and final reading of the amendments is expected at the Tuesday, Oct. 7 council session.

Council struck a committee to examine non-farm residential development in the Agricultural District in 2005 following site-specific MPS amendments to allow retiring farmer Henk Gerrits to build a home on his farmland in Atlanta. The agricultural working group met over two years and held three public consultations. Based on this work, the working group made a series of recommendations to PAC regarding amendments to the MPS and LUB.

Council gave first reading to the recommended amendments May 6, 2008 and added a provision to allow non-farm development on all agriculturally zoned lots less than 4.5 acres created by a specific date. A public hearing was held July 31 and the amendments were considered for second reading Aug. 5. However, council made a substantive amendment to the resolution by removing the small lot provision and the amendments were sent back for first reading.

Amendments give farmers more flexibility

Planning Manager Chrystal Fuller said, in terms of farmland protection, the county protects Class 2, 3 and Active Class 4 soils. By getting rid of a 1985 map and replacing it with a 1998 map, 628 acres would be released from active agricultural status. This land is in little bits and pieces across the municipality.

The amendments would increase the setback for new residential dwellings from livestock operations to 600 feet to give farmers more flexibility.

A site plan approval process would be used for non-farm residential development so there would be as little impact on agriculture as possible.

There is a provision for agricultural impact assessments to be used to help determine the effects of development on agriculture. Fuller said this would be an extra tool for planners.

There is a provision clarifying agricultural suitability reports, also referred to as agrologist reports.

Under “Agricultural Suitability Report”, it states that council shall permit the development of lots in the Agricultural District if a non-farm dwelling may be constructed by site plan approval and if an agricultural suitability report demonstrates to the satisfaction of the development officer that a minimum of 60 per cent of the lot is not Class 2, 3 or active Class 4. It states the development officer may circulate the report to the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and the Kings County Federation of Agriculture for comment and input.

Could be subjective and not fair: Spinazola

Councillor Madonna Spinazola said if an applicant pays for a report and it’s not to the satisfaction of the development officer, that could be subjective and not fair. She said the wording that the report “may” be circulated to the Department of Agriculture is subjective as well.

Fuller said the provision indicates that the development officer can circulate the report if, for example, there is something in the report he or she doesn’t readily understand. She said this is a clarification more than a change. The wording “to the satisfaction of the development officer” is to help ensure consistency in terms of the quality of reports. However, she said council could remove it.

“If you want it removed, do so now so it doesn’t have to return,” she said.

Spinazola made a motion to remove section “B” under “Agricultural Suitability Report”, which indicates that the development officer may circulate the report. However, the motion was defeated in a tie vote. Spinazola moved to change the wording from “may” circulate the report to “shall” but there was no seconder.

Spinazola said the working group debated the retiring farmer provision and wanted it included. She said she hoped council would reconsider and put it back in.

“The retiring farmer recommendation was removed by PAC, but it came from the working group,” Fuller said.

Councillor Janet Newton said the committee recommended the clause and the chair has asked that it be put back in. Fuller said the age requirement would have to be taken out according to legal advice.

Council voted in favour of putting the clause for retiring farmers back in, without the age specification.