Province appeals Leeds Grenville’s Agricultural Area Review

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is appealing the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville’s Agricultural Area Review, sending the case to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a decision.

In a letter addressed to the counties, the ministry says the county government’s plan (OPA 5) removes or does not designate as Agricultural Area, representing the municipality’s prime agricultural area, approximately 3,000 hectares of lands identified in the Land Evaluation and Area Review study as meeting the provincial criteria for prime agricultural area.

“The decision of council to adopt the OPA 5 is not consistent with provincial policies related to the protection of prime agricultural areas for long-term use for agriculture set out in the Provincial Planning Statement,” reads the letter sent by the ministry’s counsel.

The ministry says those inconsistencies include the requirement of municipalities to maintain and enhance a geographically continuous agricultural land base as part of their agricultural system, the requirement that prime agricultural areas be designated and protected for long-term use as agriculture, and the prohibition of the removal of lands from prime agricultural area designations except for settlement area expansions or identification of new settlement areas.

Officials at the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville declined to comment on the appeal by the ministry, as the matter is before the Ontario Land Tribunal. They added that an update from the counties will be provided when the matter is resolved.

Along with the ministry, there are four other appellants who claim their land that has been designated as agricultural should not receive that classification.

“The property is only 7-8 acres and only 1.5 acres could be farmed, which would be at great expense and would not be feasible,” reads the appeal filed by Allen Harris in Edwardsburgh Cardinal. “The designation reduces the property value by more than $50,000. It prevents me from dividing the land for my three daughters. I support agriculture but this lot is not feasible and other lands in the area make more sense to be agricultural.”