Klaus Wand, local director to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), argued with members of Powassan’s planning committee councillor Gerry Giesler, local OFA president Mark Kunkel, and councillor Peter MacIsaac. The men were arguing over the idea that acreage requirements should be eliminated from a proposed bylaw change that would make five acres of land the minimum allowed for keeping small livestock. Wand, and 30 other municipal residents, attended a public meeting on the proposed amendment held at Glendale Park on Jan. 17, all speaking against the suggested acreage recommendations.
POWASSAN – The municipality’s attempts to define a hobby farm met with fierce public opposition on Jan. 17 during a public meeting held at Glendale Park. Of the 30 people present at the meeting, not one spoke in favour of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment.
“This is nothing but hog-wash,” said resident Cletus Kunkel.
The municipality has been seeking to clarify what land use practices should be allowed on lots too small to fall under the current Official Plan definition of a farm, set at 25 acres or more, after a complaint was laid last spring about 10 laying hens being kept on a lot approximately one acre in size. Councillor Roger Glabb, chair of the municipality’s Planning Advisory Committee opened the public meeting by saying “this whole issue has come up as a result of a dispute between two neighbours and council has been asked to find a resolution through a zoning bylaw amendment. I would remind you, in making your comments, that this meeting is not about 10 chickens, but about a zoning amendment to farms.”
The proposed hobby farm designation would apply to a minimum property size of five acres and extend to 25 acres at which point it would fall under the definition of a farm. A hobby farm would be allowed to contain a barn or animal shelter, but must not have more animals than defined by the provincial Nutrient Management Act as five nutrient units. Five nutrient units equates to: five horses; four Holstein cows; five beef cows; 30 pigs or 1,250 broiler chickens. Any livestock raised on the property must be used for recreational purposes or consumed by the residents living on the property and not sold either at market or through private contract. No domestic livestock can be housed on property less than the proposed five acre hobby farm designation.
Although the new hobby farm designation does not apply to garden size or produce sales, when residents asked if they could grow wheat on their five acre property, they were told “only if that wheat is to be used for your own consumption,” said Powassan deputy clerk Nicky Kunkel. “Field crops (to be sold) are still restricted to a farm designation of 25 acres or more.”
“If you can’t raise a few rabbits or chickens on less than five acres of land, why in hell would anyone move to Powassan?” asked beef and sheep producer Klaus Want, former president of the local federation of agriculture and current member of the board of directors of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA). “Not everyone is going to cut acres and acres of lawn. You’d be better to let them graze a few sheep or horses because if the weeds grow up you’re going to have a real problem under the Noxious Weeds Act.”
Wand also said the proposed bylaw amendment “would kill the small rural fairs because you’re not allowing anyone (on less than five acres) to keep a few show chickens or a 4-H calf. What about the kids?” he asked. “Wouldn’t it be better to keep them occupied at home raising some small livestock than having them running in town at 11 o’clock at night causing all kinds of trouble? Without having a few critters what can you do on some of these small properties? Anyone outside of town limits should be able to have livestock if they aren’t bothering their neighbours,” he said. “And if they are, then the neighbours should sort it out themselves and not expect council to do it for them.”
The majority of those at the meeting agreed that as long as livestock use on smaller property met with provincial standards in terms of environment and building location, no acreage sizes need to be stipulated.
“I agree that we have enough provincial regulations in place now to address these issues,” said Sheila Latour. “If I can raise enough on my property for me and to sell to the neighbours, why shouldn’t I be allowed to do that. If neighbours make frivolous complaints, they’re the ones that should pay for it. We shouldn’t be paying for it out of our taxes through use of staff and council time.”
Roger George, former provincial president of the OFA, told the committee that “I’m not here tonight to talk about chickens. I’m here to talk about fish. This is nothing but a red herring. Acreage requirements for domestic livestock are insignificant because we’ve already got all of the provincial standards and laws in place to deal with all of these issues, regardless of property size. Why would Powassan want to try and redefine something that the province has already legislated?” he asked. George also pointed out that during his 20 years in farm politics and from current research “no jurisdiction in North America has been able to define a hobby farm or a hobby farmer. I implore council to take a serious look at this acreage business and rely 100 per cent on provincial definitions,” said George to the applause of the residents present.
Councillor Gerry Giesler, a member of the committee working to define hobby farms, explained that provincial standards “only apply when someone requests a building permit (for a barn or shelter) or has livestock in excess of five nutrient units. They don’t pertain to the zoning issues,” he said.
However, there was no indication given during the meeting as to why these provincial regulations could not be taken into account as the parameters in municipal zoning decisions and land use complaints and compliance.
Currently, the municipality has 491 properties between one and five acres in size and 164 properties between five acres and the 25 acres required for a farm designation.
“We know there’s the potential that there are animals squirreled away on these lots that are in violation of the current bylaw, (and many) that will be in violation of the new bylaw,” said George. “But I haven’t heard that we’re inundated with complaints about pigs or sheep. This zoning amendment, as proposed, will create a mountain out of a mole hill and runs the risk of creating serious problems for the municipality down the road.”
Glabb, however, pointed out that those on acreage less than the suggested five acres who wished to keep domestic livestock could apply for a minor variance. “The other thing is, we’re not going out looking for these violations,” he said. “We only deal with them when there’s a complaint.”
Giesler added, “you’re only guilty if you’re caught. If you’re driving at 110 kilometres in a 100 zone and you don’t get caught, what’s the harm? It’s the same analogy.”
Glabb assured the residents in attendance that “council has made no decision on this matter, and is neither in support or opposition (to the proposed zoning bylaw amendments). All comments and submission will be considered by council.”
Editorial
