It was public opinion versus policy Monday night, as members of the planning committee voted to significantly ease rules surrounding the sale and use of rural lands in Greater Sudbury.
The spectre of communism and a rallying cry of “we want change” punctuated the lengthy debate, which brought out dozens of landowners who want to be able to divide and sell their properties for residential development.
The debate centred on rules designed to ensure residential development takes place in concentrated areas. Those rules make it much harder for people in Greater Sudbury whose property is zoned for farming to sell or divide their land. It has been a big issue for Ward 4 Coun. Evelyn Dutrisac, whose ward includes Azilda, where much of the rural land is located.
In their report, city planners gave an overview of how the policies evolved, beginning with regional government in the 1970s.
“In his 1970 report on the functions and responsibilities of local government institutions, J.A. Kennedy, the commissioner of the Ontario Municipal Board, described the Sudbury area as 'showing a sorry lack of any real planning' and, in a reference to lot creation, reported that 'some development appears to have proceeded notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning Act.' ”
The lack of planning let to spread out development across the region, putting tremendous pressure on municipal budgets to try build and maintain services such as water, sewer, road and snowplowing over a large but thinly populated area. The lack of planning is one of the major factors behind the city's billion-dollar infrastructure deficit for both roads and water/sewer.
In 1978, the region came out with its Official Plan to guide to all planning decisions and to ensure that development complied with provincial rules.
“The 1978 plan identified growth centres in each community and directed major investments in public infrastructure and services towards these areas to create the necessary platform to attract the majority of anticipated growth and development, which, in turn, would help establish the critical mass and density necessary to support the evolution of more and better service,” the report said.
The plan allows homes to be built on rural lands, but said the lots had to be at least two hectares and there had to be 90 metres of frontage, among other stipulations. The rules aimed to discourage development on rural land and funnel it to the growth centres.
The rules were effective – between 1978 and 2003, of the 7,310 residential lots created in the former region, more than 80 per cent were in the growth areas. So the restrictions were included in the new Official Plan, created in 2006 after amalgamation. Also included in the 2006 plan was a limit of three residential lots that could be created from any existing rural property.
A study of other northern and southern cities – North Bay, Hamilton and Ottawa among them – found they had similar policies, for similar reasons. So staff recommended keeping the existing rules.
But the rules have been unpopular with residents in those areas, particularly as real estate prices in the city have soared over the last decade. Nicole Richer of Azilda, who spoke at Monday's planning meeting, said she and her husband own 250 acres of rural land in Azilda, but can't do anything with it.
Richer said she has attended many meetings on the issue without results, and was particularly critical of planning staff for refusing to budge.
“This is the third meeting for the same reason in front of the same planning people,” she said. “We need planning staff in Sudbury who believe we are a distinct community encompassing a large Northern area.
“If the planning staff really embrace the southern philosophy, then they should check out the jobs down south.”
Richer said anyone who builds in rural areas knows they have to supply their own water and septic services, and said there's already an area for garbage. The road is already there, and police and fire cover those areas already.
“Wouldn't the addition of, let's say, 10 more houses cover the expenses entailed for snow plowing?” she said. “With the development of additional smaller lots, wouldn't everyone benefit? Look at the taxes you would get from the homes being built on these lots. It's all free money that the city would get.”
Ray Poitras of Hanmer said there would be more people to take the bus if there was development in rural areas, and building a house would be more affordable for some first-time homeowners.
Landowners like himself would like to subdivide his property and use the money to "subsidize (his) pension" and recover some tax money.
"There is no cost to the city, plus you're getting all those taxes," Poitras said. "And it's all free.”
For her part, Dutrisac said she has been working on getting the rules changed since 2007. She had a teleconference call with someone from Premier Kathleen Wynne's office recently, and was told if the city changed its policies, the province would look at it.
So she came up with an option in which rural property could be divided into two acres rather than two hectares, with 45 metres of frontage rather than 90, and the maximum severances from any single parcel would increase to six from three.
“If council will approve this, we will fight the province,” Dutrisac said. “People in Greater Sudbury are different than people in North Bay, than people in Sault Ste. Marie, in Timmins, in Barrie, in Toronto. Why would we not have a choice? We don't live in a communist country. We live in a democratic country.
“And I can't see what the extra costs would be.”
The option received unanimous support from the committee, but Ward 7 Coun. Dave Kilgour cautioned that even if it's approved by city council, there's still a long way to go. Changes to the Official Plan must go through a specific process – including public hearings – and then the province must approve it, as well.
"The battle is just beginning," Kilgour said. "If you want this to happen, don't stop here."
