Lengthy debate results in first reading for Greenwich market amendments

BY KIRK STARRATT

The Advertiser

NovaNewsNow.com

Following an hour-long debate on a controversial issue viewed by some Kings County councillors as being convoluted, first reading has been given to proposed amendments to rezone Greenwich farm markets to C13, farm commercial.

Councillor Chris Parker, who hosted a public meeting on planning matters in the community the week before that ended in a scene of chaos, said he wouldn’t support the C13 proposal. He said this entire matter stems from an application from four business operators who own farmland in Greenwich and they say C13 doesn’t do anything to help them by itself. They want a residential component to their zoning.

Parker proposed an amendment to the motion that would create a new zoning designation. It would establish a sort of residential holding zone that couldn’t be developed for a maximum of three years and the zoning would allow for commercial activity.

Parker said this could facilitate three years for study, if for example council determines a secondary planning strategy is needed for Greenwich and it represents a compromise with residents who are concerned with the development of farmland.

Doesn’t force farmers to develop: Parker

Parker said the county’s planning strategy and a past decision by the provincial Utilities and Review Board indicate that Greenwich should be developed as part of an urban corridor once municipal services go through.

“This keeps Greenwich the same from one end of Greenwich to the other,” he said. “It doesn’t force farmers to develop.”

However, he said it’s quite likely that a few acres would be developed by the owners in order to raise capital to pay for requested municipal sewer and water service extensions and to invest in infrastructure such as greenhouses. He said development should be directed to the urban corridor to alleviate pressures to develop farmland in other areas of the county.

Parker said the Fruit Growers’ Association has stated that farmland owners need to be able to use the resource to its full economic potential and urged council not to place limitations through zoning.

Councillor Ted Palmer said he wished council had received Parker’s new proposal beforehand and asked planner Ben Sivak, who holds the subject file, if he knew it was coming. Sivak said he knew something was coming, but he hadn’t had a chance to review it. Community Development Services director Bill Butler said he questioned whether Parker’s new proposal was an amendment or an entirely new concept.

Municipal solicitor Don Urquhart said he wasn’t sure if it was appropriate to consider the proposal as an amendment. As specified in the Municipal Planning Strategy, new concepts would have to be considered by the planning advisory committee (PAC) before coming to council.

Councillor Janet Newton, who chairs PAC, said the temporary holding zone referred to by Parker was discussed before and is not entirely new.

Councillor Jim Taylor said he doesn’t think a satisfactory compromise is within reach at this time.

“I think if we lose more agricultural land, we will lose our agricultural base. Land is the basis for agriculture,” he said. “If the two opposing parties come up with an item satisfactory to both, I’ll support it. Until then, I’ll stay within my principles and do what it takes to protect agricultural land.”

Matter is convoluted: Fuller

Councillor John Fuller said the entire matter is convoluted. Councillor Barry Peterson said every time council looks at the matter, it digs a bigger hole.

Warden Fred Whalen ruled Parker’s proposal out of order as an amendment and the original motion of the C13 farm commercial amendments - with no further action to be taken - was back on the floor.

Parker pointed out that the four farm business owners in Greenwich have said specifically they want C10 commercial zoning, not C13. He said he had no problem defeating C13 and sending his proposal, which is a viable option, to PAC.

Whalen told Parker councillors were supposed to be debating C13, “not your bag of tricks.” Newton said she doesn’t think Parker’s document should be called a “bag of tricks.”

However, councillor Wayne Atwater said he would continue to call it a “bag of tricks” for the remainder of the council meeting.

Atwater called for a recorded vote and first reading of the C13 farm commercial amendments was approved, with six councillors voting in favour and four against. The proposed amendments will now proceed to a public hearing before being considered for second and final reading. However, no dates were set as of press time for this edition.