Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-035-22Clarftwn Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: September 12, 2022 Report Number: PDS-035-22 Submitted By: Carlos Salazar, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#: JC-032-22, C-185-22 File Number: ZBA2022-0005 By-law Number: 2022-046 Report Subject: Application for Zoning By-law Amendment to permit agri-tourism uses including a special events venue at 3582 Morgans Road, Clarke. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-035-22 and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That the By-law attached to Report PDS-035-22, as Attachment 1, be approved; 3. That once all conditions contained in PDS-035-22 with respect to Removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied and Site Plan Approval has been granted, the By-law authorizing the Removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved; 4. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department be forwarded a copy of Report PDS-035-22 and Council's decision and 5. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-035-22 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Report Overview Page 2 The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment application (ZBA2022-0005) submitted by Clarke Consulting Services, on behalf of Deborah and Oswin Mathias, to permit agri-tourism uses including a special events venue at 3582 Morgans Road in Clarke. The proposed development conforms with the Clarington Official Plan. This Zoning By-law amendment is subject to a Holding provision to meet the conditions of site plan approval including reports that would be addressed through the ongoing Site Plan application. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner/Applicant: 1.2 Agent: 1.3 Proposal: `FERN 1.5 Location: 1.6 Roll Number: Deborah and Oswin Mathias Clarke Consulting Services Zoning By-law Amendment To amend the "Agricultural Exception (A-91)" Zone to incorporate agri-tourism uses including a special events venue • The total lot coverage for agri-tourism uses would be a maximum of 2% with a total floor area maximum of 305 square metres. • Special events would include weddings accommodating up to 150 patrons and 15 staff in a designated event space operating from May through October. Events would take place two to three times per weekend not exceeding 30 events per year. 16.2 Hectares Concession 3, Part Lot 17, Former Township of Clarke. 3582 Morgans Road, Clarke (See Figure 1) 181703003016520 1.7 Within Built Boundary: No Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Figure 1: Site Location 2. Background Page 3 2.1 The subject site was part of previous applications for Clarington Official Plan Amendment (COPA2015-0005) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA2015-0015). In January 2017, the Planning and Development (PDC) Committee approved the applications. Subsequently Clarington Council: Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Page 4 a. Refused to adopt an OPA to allow a seasonal event venue as an accessory on -farm diversified use; b. Refused to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit a seasonal special event venue accessory to a farm; and c. Adopted ZBL 2017-009 to permit meat processing accessory to a farm but not including an abattoir on the site, to rezone a part of the site associated with the Graham Creek valley to the EP (Environmental Protection) Zone and to apply a holding ("H") provision to the part of the site that allows meat processing. 2.2 The Owners appealed the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). In July of 2018, the Tribunal Order (See Attachment 2) provided the following decision: a. The appeal of the refusal of the OPA is dismissed; b. The zoning appeal is granted in part and ZBL 2017-009 is approved subject to a three-part modification: the addition of a regulation which caps the floor space devoted to meat processing accessory to the farm at 61 sq. m., the addition of a regulation that restricts the meat processing use to meat raised on the farm, and the deletion of the Holding "H" symbol; Clarington is to modify, in a timely manner, ZBL 2017-009 in accordance with this Order and the modified ZBL 2017-009 to have an effective date coincident with the date of issuance of this Order; and c. This Member may be spoken to should any matters arise respecting the implementation of this Order. 2.3 The Official Plan Amendment (OPA) was deemed to no longer be required. At the time of Clarington Council's decision, the 1996 Clarington Official Plan was in force. At the time of the LPAT hearing, Official Plan Amendment 107 was in force, which permits on - farm diversified uses and agri-tourism uses such as a special events venue. 2.4 In the Tribunal Order, direction was provided on the special events venue. The Tribunal concluded that the public interest would best be served by requiring that any proposed new regulations or matters related to the special events venue be part of a public process involving Clarington Council and the public. As such, the Tribunal provided parameters to guide the future processing of the planning application related to the special events venue including that the size and scope of the special events venue be clearly defined (i.e., maximum number of guests). The Tribunal noted that provisions should include a municipal by-law which deals with issues such as noise, licensing, hours of operation, etc. 2.5 On September 17, 2018, Council approved Resolution #PD-167-18 whereby Council enacted the Zoning By-law Amendment contained in Attachment 3 of Report PSD-070- Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Page 5 18 in accordance with the Order of the LPAT to establish additional regulations and remove the holding symbol for the meat processing use accessory to a farm. 2.6 Council and staff discussed the issue of on -farm special events for several months following the release of the LPAT decision. This was to regulate on -farm special events due to the interest from farmers pursuing special events as an agri-tourism option on farms. These discussions culminated in Council Resolution #C-142-19, which directed staff to work in consultation with all stakeholders and to report back with proposals to regulate on -farm special events. 2.7 Based on the guidance found in the LPAT order, subsequent discussions with Council, and input from the public and a working group of the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC), Legislative Services and Planning and Development Services staff identified potential elements of a regulatory scheme for on -farm special events. Those components included a Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan approval, application of existing regulatory by-laws (e.g., Noise By-law 2007-071), and the possibility of a bylaw exclusively devoted to the regulation of on -farm special events. On May 25, 2021, Council enacted By -Law 2021-049 (See Attachment 3) being a by-law to license on - farm special events. The By-law establishes the regulatory framework for on -farm special events to ensure that they are compatible with ongoing farm operations and do not have an undue impact on neighbouring properties. 2.8 On March 21, 2022, the applicant submitted a revised application for Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA2022-0005) and Site Plan Approval (SPA2022-0005) for agri-tourism uses including a special events venue. 2.9 A Public Meeting was held on May 16, 2022. 2.10 The applicant has submitted the following updated studies in support of the applications: • Planning Justification Report and Addendum Report, • Hydrogeological Assessment Report and Opinion Letter, • Minimum Distance Separation Assessment, • Preliminary Noise Assessment, • Sight Distance Review, • Site Screening Questionnaire; and • Stage I and II Archaeological Assessment. 2.11 A summary of these studies will be provided in Section 7 of this report. Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-035-22 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The subject lands are 16.2 hectares in area with approximately 10 hectares of tillable lands that are used for farming purposes. The northern portion of the property includes approximately 6 hectares of forested land including a tributary of Graham Creek which bisects the northern area of the subject site and is unusable for farming. On the property is a residential detached dwelling, garage, three barns, a cattle shelter and a cover -all (fabric covered structure) to be used as the event space (See Figure 2 and Figure 3). The location where all special events will take place is within the open-air coverall -all structure (See Figure 4). A cleared outdoor area dedicated to ceremony space is also proposed (See Figure 5). 3.2 The subject property is used for agricultural and residential purposes. The agricultural use includes raising beef, Iamb, chicken, goats, and hogs for commercial sales. 3.3 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Environmentally protected lands including Graham Creek and rural residential East - Environmentally protected lands including Graham Creek, rural residential and an auto wrecking facility (230 metres from the site) South - Agricultural and rural residential West — Agricultural Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Page 7 SrrE PLAN AppuCAriorg SKETCH ,erty, Aid�4�: 3581 Mora rs. Road NewtssaEe, Omtarip umww Subjertlands ExiwnZSuurtur44 C_- Proposed mobiie Units 0 (:ettle sh#d Graham C Z 1. #— Septic 5Fri C • Well uxatjorn . , ......... fire Ratir'te nN.. ' fist of Exleting54rueture� #1- Owner's Marne(215.59 m'l Special Events Venue fknr 42 • &aR%9arrl f148-52 m') Arrt ' k•-. N3 • Ewmnt 3uildinO504.86 m) #d - Garage jifid. �5 'M 4- - iffl( el rrato[ s WWV & Wks) i95 - Cattle Shelter (}4 mr 05 . Poic Buildin 1557.41 m'� ill - i19w Fty►c Bean {557.� m'f Lot DimMme nr. Lot Area: 408c�rC9 - = lot Frontage: 5d2,47 metres i� i - hBRIDd&yG Lark Lanw4ir+t5ervioes Am_- Juie 263$ LtdXdj3zW Juna 2Q36 -UhdWLwd March 201$, jw-,e MSi �r[oher#}L4, rlohvrn[p ;Qj9 June 2=, Augusa 2a2Q, O?Wber 2M. February 2tiY.Z OIm¢nssanL 2MpeCt Xk-; t9ktn ham Avmultura[ IrrfnrrnaMm Ar -CLRF Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 0 14K A Special Events Venue �". -" Ar �y� f Page 8 T�+ - Figure 3: Special Events Building Location - . I Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 r�- Figure 4: Existing Cover -all Structure to be used as Special Events Venue Figure 5: Outdoor Ceremony Space for Special Events Page 9 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 4. Provincial Policy Provincial Policy Statement Page 10 4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) encourages opportunities to support a diversified rural economy by promoting and protecting agricultural uses and on -farm diversified uses. It also states that proposed agriculture -related uses and on -farm diversified uses shall be compatible with and shall not hinder surrounding agricultural operations. 4.2 On -farm diversified uses are defined as uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, are limited in area, and include agri-tourism uses, which are defined in the PPS as those farm -related tourism uses that promote the enjoyment, education or activities related to the farm operation. 4.3 The proposed agri-tourism uses conform to the Provincial Policy Statement. Greenbelt Plan 4.4 The subject site is located within the Protected Countryside designation of the Greenbelt Plan and within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System (NHS). A full range of agricultural uses, agriculture -related uses and on -farm diversified uses are permitted within rural lands. Criteria for these uses shall be based on the provincial Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas. 4.5 Proposed agriculture -related uses and on -farm diversified uses shall be compatible with and not hinder surrounding agricultural operations. 4.6 The proposed agri-tourism uses conform to the Greenbelt Plan. 5. Official Plans Durham Regional Official Plan 5.1 The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands Major Open Space Areas. The predominant use of land in the Major Open Space Areas shall be conservation, and a full range of agricultural, agricultural -related, and secondary uses. 5.2 Agri -tourism uses are permitted as secondary agricultural uses, provided such uses are directly related to, or exclusively devoted to the existing farm operation. 5.3 The proposed agri-tourism uses conform to the Durham Regional Official Plan. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Clarington Official Plan Page 11 5.4 The Clarington Official Plan designates most of the northern portion of the property as Environmental Protection Area and most of the southern portion of the property as Rural. 5.5 The subject site is within the Natural Heritage System and partially within the floodplain. Development is not permitted within a natural heritage feature or hazard. 5.6 On farm diversified uses including agri-tourism uses, are permitted in Prime Agricultural Areas and Rural Areas, subject to the provisions of the zoning by-law provided that such uses: a) Are located on a farm and are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property; b) Are limited in area; c) Are compatible with the existing and/or designated land uses in the surrounding areas and do not generate excessive amounts of odour, traffic, and other nuisances; and; d) Do not conflict with, detract, or hinder any surrounding agricultural operations from carrying on normal farm practices. 5.7 The proposed agri-tourism uses conform to the Clarington Official Plan. 6. Draft Economic Development Strategy 6.1 In June 2022, Council adopted in principle Clarington's `Draft Economic Development Strategy (EDS).' The EDS is Clarington's first such study and is intended to reinforce the work currently being done by the Municipality and our community partners, while also highlighting areas for improvement to build our community's capacity to support economic development initiatives. The EDS also identifies major catalyst type projects, which have the potential to drive further economic development and include agricultural diversification and rural tourism. 6.2 The subject application generally aligns with the EDS aspirations to a) ensure the long-term sustainability of agriculture in Clarington and b) support rural tourism development that enhances the Municipality's quality of life. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 7. Zoning By-law Page 12 7.1 The southern portion of the property is zoned "Agricultural Exception (A-91)" and the northern portion is zoned "Environmental Protection" in Zoning Bylaw 84-63. In addition to the Agricultural use permissions, the A-91 Exception Zone permits meat processing accessory to a farm (through the LPAT decision). The meat processing is limited to 61 square metres and the meat to be processed must be raised on the property. 7.2 A Zoning By-law Amendment is required to permit the proposed agri-tourism uses including the special events venue. Other agri-tourism uses that the applicant proposes on site include culinary -related uses such as cooking classes, picnics, tastings and pairings, and farm to table activities such as lessons in cutting and smoking. 7.3 The agri-tourism uses would be subject to site specific regulations that include a maximum total lot coverage of 2% for all agri-tourism uses and a maximum total floor area regulation of 305 square metres. 7.4 The special events venue would be subject to regulations that include a maximum of 150 event guests, a maximum of 70 parking spaces, and would be subject to an event maximum of two to three events per weekend. This would be between May and October. 8. On -Farm Special Events By-law 8.1 On May 25, 2021, Council adopted an On -Farm Special Events By -Law. This was to offer farmers an opportunity to add to their income and support local tourism. The On - Farm Special Events licensing is required in addition to successful rezoning and site plan approval applications. License holders are required to retain records for the license period which assist in enforcement to ensure matters such as capacity, noise and traffic are not problematic. Applicants must have a valid Ontario farm registration number for the property. 8.2 The proposal conforms to the regulations of the On -Farm Special Events By-law. 9. Summary of Background Studies Planning Justification Report and Addendum Report 9.1 The Planning Justification Report, prepared by Clark Consulting Services in 2015 and the Addendum Report, prepared in 2021, summarizes Provincial and local policy within the context of the proposal. It provides policy direction on how the application complies and meets the criteria for agri-tourism and on -farm diversified uses. This Report also Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Page 13 summaries the application details including the size, location and season of the proposed special events venue. Hydrogeological Assessment Report and Opinion Letter 9.2 The findings of the Hydrogeological Assessment, prepared by Geo-Logic in 2015, indicates that the drilled well on site will provide long term groundwater supply to the proposed agri-tourism uses without interference to neighbouring wells. The Opinion Letter, completed by GHD in 2017, states that the Hydrogeological Assessment conducted in 2015 is adequate and that conducting additional testing will provide no relevant information and thus, is not required. Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Assessment 9.3 The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Assessment, prepared by Clark Consulting in 2017, states that there are seven livestock facilities located within 1 kilometre of the subject site and one of those facilities is located within 750 metres of the site which is not shielded by four or more non -farm residential uses. The assessment includes a statement of MDS Conformity and calculations. The statement concluded that there is no potential for odour conflict. Preliminary Noise Assessment 9.4 The preliminary Noise Assessment, prepared by J.E. Coulter Associates Ltd. in 2017, indicates that due to the type of structure for the building (open -style building and light- weight roof membrane) that the noise from the speakers' sound levels will be above Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (now the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks) criteria. 9.5 The applicant's response to the preliminary noise assessment included as part of the submission indicates that noise will be addressed through the site plan approval phase of the planning process. Quieter music options such as acoustic music may be explored. The response from the applicant acknowledges that the applicant is aware that noise must be mitigated. Sight Distance Review 9.6 The Sight Distance Review, prepared by Engage Engineering in 2015, indicates that based on the results of the field review, the existing entrance location meets the minimum sight distance requirement of 140 metres to the north, in accordance with the Transportation Association of Canada JAC) Manual requirements for a 70 kilometre per hour speed and that the existing entrance location is acceptable from a sight distance perspective. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Site Screening Questionnaire Page 14 9.7 A Site Screening Questionnaire was prepared by Golder Associates in 2015 and did not identify any issues of potential environmental concern associated with the site. Stage I and II Archaeological Assessment 9.8 The Stage I Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Advance Archeology in 2015, required a Stage II Archaeological Assessment be completed. The Stage II Archeological Assessment, prepared by Northeastern Archeological Associates in 2022, indicates that no evidence of archaeological resource was found. The report has been submitted to the Ministry for registration. 10. Public Notice and Submissions 10.1 A Statutory Public Meeting was held on May 16, 2022. Staff have received a total of 13 written comments on the proposal. Eight written comments were received in support of the applications and five were in opposition. 10.2 There were six main concerns from the public including: • Increased noise and traffic from the special events venue • A lack of lighting on Morgans Road • Enforcement concerns for the special events venue • Questions as to how the agricultural use will remain the primary use • Questions as to how the area for on -farm diversified uses is calculated • Questions as to if the Site Screening Questionnaire is considered acceptable. These concerns will be addressed in Section 11 of this report. 10.3 Comments in support of the applications included the need for more special event venues in Clarington, the economic value in allowing agri-tourism uses and support for local businesses. 10.4 The Ontario Federation of Agriculture Member Service Representative for Durham Region provided a letter in support of the application. 10.5 A list of concerned citizens was provided by a local resident. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Page 15 10.6 A notice of this Recommendation Report being presented for consideration of Council's Planning and Development Committee has been sent to all interested parties per the Planning Act. 11. Agency Comments Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development 11.1 The Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department has no concerns with the proposed rezoning of the subject site, subject to the proponent providing appropriate documents to address archaeological potential, environmental noise impacts and potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the Region, prior to the passing of this zoning by-law amendment, or alternatively be subject to a Holding (H) provision. Region of Durham Health Department 11.2 At the building permit stage, the Region of Durham Health Department has indicated that approvals will be required for food premises on the property and designation as a Small Drinking Water System. Approval from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) may or may not be required. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) 11.3 The GRCA has no objection to the rezoning application. A permit will not be required from the GRCA for this proposal. 12. Departmental Comments Planning and Development Services — Building Division 12.1 The Building Division of the Planning and Development Services Department has no concerns with the proposal subject to the applicant obtaining the required building permits and obtaining consent from the Region of Durham Health Department with regard to the septic system capacity. Public Works — Development Engineering 12.2 The Development Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the above -noted application and have no objection to this proposal in principle. 12.3 The Development Engineering Division notes the existing entrance for the site does not meet stopping sight distance requirements as per the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) manual. The documents submitted as part of the application did not use Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Page 16 the correct object heights for the analysis. As per the email dated May 19, 2016, from Jacqueline Mann at Clark Consulting Services, the applicant's Engineer confirmed that a new entrance located directly across from Cowanville Road would meet the stopping sight distance requirements if the driveway way entrance was 0.10 metres above the existing edge of asphalt. Further analysis will be required through the site plan approval process. Legislative Services - Municipal Law Enforcement 12.4 The Municipal Law Enforcement Division of Legislative Services has no objection to proposal in principle. Comments note that the applicant will need to obtain an On -Farm Special Events license. Emergency and Fire Services 12.5 The Emergency and Fire Services Department have no concerns with the proposal. 13. Discussion 13.1 The applicant is proposing to amend the Zoning By-law to add land use permissions for agri-tourism uses including a special events venue. Site -specific regulations to permit a special events venue are required per the LPAT Order. 13.2 The special events would include weddings, anniversary parties, birthday parties etc. and would take place in a cover -all (fabric covered structure) to be used as the event space. An outdoor designated event space is located adjacent to the coverall structure. This space would be used to host ceremonies. The special events would accommodate up to a maximum of 150 patrons and 15 staff in the designated event space. The parking area would accommodate 70 parking spaces. Special events would run from May to October of each year. 13.3 The Owner would be required to keep a calendar and a log of scheduled events for the purpose of monitoring compliance. This log would include start and end times, number of attendees, number of vehicles, and usage of sound amplification equipment. 13.4 Agri -tourism uses would include culinary -related uses such as cooking classes, picnics, tastings and pairings, and farm to table activities such as lessons in cutting and smoking. 13.5 An application for site plan approval has been submitted concurrently. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Noise and Traffic Page 17 13.6 Through the site plan approval process the applicant will be required to submit a Noise Impact Study which must include mitigative measures for any noise including noise from the use of sound amplification equipment. This Report must be completed by a qualified Noise Consultant to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington. Lighting 13.7 Existing lighting on Morgans Road is in keeping with the regulations for rural roads in Clarington. The Development Engineering Division of the Public Works Department have no concerns with lighting on Morgans Road. Enforcement for the Special Events Venue 13.8 Regulations related to the number of events, the event season and the location of special events will form a part of the site plan agreement. The special events venue is proposed to occur on a seasonal basis and be restricted to a designated area outside of the lands zoned Environmental Protection. Special events would accommodate up to 150 patrons and 15 staff in a designated outdoor ceremony area and in a coverall structure. Events would run from May to October, with two to three events per week not exceeding 30 events annually. 13.9 The site plan agreement will include a condition that upon request by the Municipality, the owner will provide a calendar of scheduled events for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the agreement and any applicable by-laws. Also included shall be a condition that the owner will maintain a log of events including any details specified by the Municipality. This would include start and end event times, number of attendees, number of vehicles, and usage of sound amplification equipment. 13.10 The proposal, more specifically related to the event venue, may have impacts on surrounding properties due to noise. With approximately two to three events a week and a maximum of 150 attendees and most likely the use of noise amplification systems, all efforts to mitigate, maintain, and periodically monitor noise is required. Agricultural Use as the Primary Use and Calculation for Area 13.11 Provincial and local policy support agri-tourism and on -farm diversified uses provided that the agricultural use remains the principal use of the property. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs' (OMAFRA) Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas recommend that on -farm diversified uses be limited in area relative to the size of the farm property. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Page 18 13.12 OMAFRA's guidelines recommend that the standard for the acceptable area occupied by an on -farm diversified use is up to 2% of the farm parcel to a maximum of 1 hectare. 13.13 Site Screening Questionnaire 13.14 An Environmental Site Screening Questionnaire was prepared by Golder Associates in 2015, in support of the application. The Region notes that this report is seven (7) years old. The Region's s Soil and Groundwater Assessment Protocol (SGAP) and Ontario Regulation 153/04, as amended, state that all environmental work must be based on current work not exceeding 18 months. As such, the Region requires that an updated report be submitted to the Region's satisfaction. This revised Report shall be submitted by a qualified person. 14. Financial Considerations 14.1 The rezoning in and of itself does not have any significant financial implications to the Municipality. The eventual use of the property to include On -Farm Special Events will generate minimal revenues in user fees. 14.2 In accordance with By-law 2021-049, On -Farm Special Events requires a license. The application fee for the license is $250. 14.3 The economic development opportunities which could be generated are addressed earlier in this report. 15. Concurrence The Deputy CAO/Treasurer has reviewed this report. 16. Conclusion 16.1 It is respectfully recommended that in consideration of all agency, staff and resident comments that the application for Zoning By-law amendment to permit agri-tourism uses including a special events venue at 3582 Morgans Road in Clarke be approved as contained in Attachment 1 of this report. Staff Contact: Toni Rubino, Senior Planner, 905.668.3379 ext. 2431 or trubino(a)_clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment 2 — Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Order Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-035-22 Attachment 3 — On -Farm Special Events By-law 2021-049 Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 19 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-035-22 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2022- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2022-0005; Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 6.4.91, "Agricultural Exception" (A-91) Zone is hereby amended by adding the words "agri-tourism uses including special events" before the word "meat" and deleting "subject to the following regulations:" 2. Section 6.4.91 is amended by adding a new subsection a. as follows: a. Regulations for Agri -tourism Use i) Total lot coverage (maximum) ii) Total floor area (maximum) 2 percent 305 square metres 3. Section 6.4.91 is amended by adding a new subsection b. before Section i. and ii. as follows: b. Regulations for Meat Processing Use 4. Section 6.4.91 is amended by adding new subsections c. and d. as follows: C. Regulations for special events venue i) Number of special events guests (maximum) 150 guests ii) Number of Parking Spaces (maximum) 70 spaces iii) Seasonal period for special events May 1st to October 31st iv Frequency of special events (maximum) Three per weekend up to 30 annually d. Only the uses permitted in Section 6.1 a. and b. and 6.4.91 b. are permitted prior to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol. 5. Schedule `3' to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended as illustrated on the attached Schedule `A' 6. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this day of 12022 Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2022- , passed this day of , 2022 A.D. a 0 0 Zoning Change From 'A-91'To'(H) A-91' w - F s Clarke • ZBA 2022-0005 • Schedule 2B Attachment 2 to Report PDS-035-22 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d'appel de I'amenagement local ISSUE DATE: July 25, 2018 � s Ontario CASE NO(S).: PL170178 The Ontario Municipal Board (the "OMB") is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Deborah and Oswin Mathias Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Refusal of Existing Designation: Proposed Designation: Purpose: Property Address/Description Municipality: Approval Authority File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: request by the Municipality of Clarington Rural Areas and Environmental Protection Site specific To permit an agri-tourism use 3582 Morgans Road Municipality of Clarington COPA 2015-0005 PL170178 PL170178 Mathias v. Clarington (Municipality) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Purpose: Property Address/Description Municipality: Municipality File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Deborah and Oswin Mathias Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 84-63 - Refusal of Application by the Municipality of Clarington Agricultural (A) and Environmental Protection (EP) Site specific To permit an agri-tourism use 3582 Morgans Road Municipality of Clarington 2017-009 PL170178 WNWISM'7 PL170178 Heard: APPEARANCES: Parties Municipality of Clarington Deborah and Oswin Mathias April 23 -27, 2018 in Bowmanville, Ontario Counsel N. Macos S. Chin (student -at -law) D. Donnelly A. Whyte (student -at -law) S. Gray (student -at -law) DECISION DELIVERED BY THOMAS HODGINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL INTRODUCTION Disposition [1 ] After considering the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal: A. dismisses the appeal of the refusal of the Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") as an OPA is no longer required; B. refuses the request for a zoning change to permit the seasonal special event venue accessory to a farm on the Site; and C. allows in part the appeal of Zoning By-law Number 2017-009 ("ZBL 2017- 009") by approving said By-law subject to a three-part modification. [2] Relevant matters from the hearing and the Tribunal's reasons are set out in this Decision and Order. 3 PL170178 Background [3] In 2015 Deborah and Oswin Mathias ("Applicants"), who own a small farm at 3582 Morgans Road ("Site") in Clarington, applied to Clarington for an OPA to the 1996 Clarington Official Plan (1996 COP") to permit agri-tourism uses including on -farm special events and for an amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63 to permit said agri-tourism/special events and the processing of meat raised on the Site (meat smoking, barbeque, sausage making) and the sale of meat products. [4] In January, 2017 Clarington Council: A. refused to adopt an OPA to allow a seasonal event venue as an accessory on -farm diversified use; B. refused to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit a seasonal special event venue accessory to a farm; and C. adopted ZBL 2017-009 to permit meat processing accessory to a farm but not including an abattoir on the Site, to rezone a part of the Site associated with the Graham Creek valley to the EP (Environmental Protection) Zone and to apply a holding ("H") provision to the part of the Site that allows meat processing. A copy of ZBL 2017-009 appears as Attachment 1. [5] The Applicants appealed Council's refusal of the OPA and the adoption of ZBL 2017-009 to the Board. ZBL 2017-009 was appealed because it does not include permission for a seasonal special event venue accessory to a farm on the Site. [6] Clarington's Director of Planning Services, in a Staff Report dated January 9, 2017, recommended that the Planning and Development Committee approve the subject applications by adopting the OPA which appears as Attachment 2 and the ZBL which appears as Attachment 3. In the balance of this Decision, the OPA in Attachment El PL170178 2 is referred to as the "SROPA" (the Staff Recommended Official Plan Amendment) and the ZBL in Attachment 3 is referred to as the "SRZBL" (the Staff Recommended Zoning By-law). Applicants' Request [7] David Donnelly, on behalf of the Applicants, requested that the Tribunal: A. grant the appeal and approve the SROPA; B. grant the appeal and approve the SRZBL save and except the inclusion of the H provision; the Applicants are agreeable to negotiating and executing a site plan agreement, which is delegated to staff, but want to avoid Council's involvement in the site plan process via having to lift the H; and C. hold its Decision until it is determined whether OPA 107 is in effect and, if it is, approve the SRZBL without the SROPA. [8] As well, the Tribunal understands from the hearing that the Applicants want ZBL 2017-009 approved by the Tribunal, with the exception of the H provision, in order to, amongst other matters, permit the meat processing use on the Site in the event the Tribunal does not allow the special event venue. Clarington's Request [9] Nicholas Macos, on behalf of Clarington, requested that the Tribunal: A. dismiss the appeals and support the decision of Council; or B. in the alternative refer the applications back to Council to "... confirm the restrictions on the proposed use to be set out in the zoning by-law 5 PL170178 including definition of and limits on area of use, frequency of use and limits on sound." Three Issues [10] Based on the foregoing, there are three issues for the Tribunal's determination in these appeals: 1. Is an OPA required to permit a seasonal event venue as an accessory on - farm diversified use on the Site and, if yes, is the SROPA appropriate? 2. Is the SRZBL appropriate and is it consistent with and/or in conformity with the applicable policy planning framework? 3. In the event the SRZBL is not acceptable, is ZBL 2017-009 appropriate and is it consistent with and/or in conformity with the applicable policy planning framework? EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS General [11] In support of the Applicants' position, Mr. Donnelly called four witnesses: A. Deborah Mathias, an owner and operator of the farm on the Site; B. David Crome, Clarington's Director of Planning Services, who appeared under summons and who was qualified to provide independent expert opinion evidence in land use planning; C. Robert Clark, a consultant who was qualified to provide independent expert opinion evidence in agrology and land use planning; and n PL170178 D. John E. Coulter, a consultant who was qualified to provide independent expert opinion evidence in acoustical engineering and vibration. [12] In support of Clarington's position, Mr. Macos called two witnesses: A. Michael Hoffman, a consultant who was qualified to provide independent expert opinion evidence in agronomy, planning policy and agrology related policy: and B Mark Dorfman, a consultant who was qualified to provide independent expert opinion evidence in land use planning. [13] The Tribunal also heard from six Participants. The Site [14] The Site fronts onto Morgans Road (a paved two-lane road with a rural cross section and ditches) in the south-eastern portion of Clarington, north of Highway 401. The Site is about 16.2 hectares ("ha") in total size. Approximately 10 ha of the Site are tillable and about 6 ha are unusable for farming as a result of being forested and/or associated with Graham Creek which runs diagonally across the north-east part of the Site. The Site includes the Applicants' home, a bank barn, a large open-ended Quonset Hut, a pole barn, a garage, pastures, ponds and other typical farm features as can be seen on the conceptual site plan provided as Attachment 4. The Site is privately serviced with septic and water well systems. The Applicants raise livestock on the Site and have 10 beef cows and about 40 ewes. Ms. Mathias describes the farm as small in scale and said that they raise and sell beef and Iamb and, on occasion, goats, hogs, eggs and chickens. Meat is butchered, inspected and stamped off site at a licenced facility. 9 PL170178 The Context [15] To the south of the Site is an existing agricultural field and rural residential dwellings. To the north is Graham Creek and an extensive wooded area and beyond that a rural residential dwelling. An existing agricultural field abuts to the west. To the east, across Morgans Road, are Graham Creek and a wooded area, an existing rural residential dwelling and an existing auto wrecking facility located about 250 metres ("m") from the Site on Cowanville Road. The Proposal [16] As noted, the Applicants want the Tribunal to approve two specific uses on the Site: A. meat processing accessory to a farm but not including an abattoir; this use is described by Ms. Mathias as a smokehouse and kitchen facility for the art of charcuterie to further add value to meat sales as an on -farm diversified use; the Staff Report references meat smoking, barbeque and sausage making and says that 61 square metres ("sq m") of the 241 sq m bank barn will be dedicated to meat preparation and sales; sales will focus on the primary cuts of beef; and B. a seasonal special event venue accessory to a farm with associated regulations as set out in the SRZBL. [17] The special event venue is to have the following key characteristics based on the collective evidence and submissions of Ms. Mathias and Messrs. Crome and Clark: A. General Concept: will be centred on the farm's produce, animal raising practices and the uniqueness of the farm experience; will offer a BBQ centred event hosting experience; pasture and wildflower raised meat from the Site, primarily the secondary cuts of beef, will be served at the PL170178 special events; other products which are required to "round -out" a special event, such as vegetables, will be locally sourced; B. Types of Events: will range from corporate and family gatherings to presentations and displays of local interest; other possibilities include local food fairs, family gatherings, local business fairs, community forums and gatherings and special celebrations for sporting teams; weddings are only one of the potential events that could take place; the event can include catered meals, workshops, socializing and music for listening and dancing; C. Number of Events: 32 events per year were referenced in much of the evidence; however, no cap on the maximum number of events to be held per year was identified or committed to; D. Seasonality: a period from mid -May to November was referenced in the evidence; however, no definition of the term "seasonal" was identified or committed to; E. Site Design and Facilities: will be laid out generally according to the conceptual site plan in Attachment 4; events will take place in the existing buildings, primarily the Quonset Hut, and in natural outdoor settings; the Quonset Hut is 205 sq m in size; a new driveway is to be built opposite the intersection with Cowanville Road; F. Water Supply: will be from a private well system; a Hydrogeological Assessment Report indicates that sufficient groundwater is available from the existing well to accommodate the proposed uses; G. Kitchen Facilities: will initially utilize mobile culinary facilities for food preparation and cooking; Mr. Clark indicates that the portable unit can be converted to a permanent accessory structure with a septic system when er PL170178 warranted; the Hydrogeological Assessment Report indicates that the Site is suitable for the construction of a septic system with a raised bed; H. Washroom Facilities: will initially utilize mobile portable washroom facilities; Mr. Clark indicates that the portable washroom facilities can be converted to a permanent accessory structure with a septic system when warranted; Occupancy/Capacity: there were several references made to the occupancy/capacity of the proposed special event venue: 1) Ms. Mathias said that the average size of a wedding is 129 guests and that this is "all she can handle"; 2) Mr. Clark said the expected occupancy is 195 persons based on the parking to be provided but notes in his Reply Witness Statement that there is space available for overflow parking and in the Agreed Statement of Facts ("ASOF") that lessees of the event facility could arrange transportation to deal with any insufficient parking issues (this suggests to the Tribunal the possible use of multi -person vehicles such as vans, limousines and buses and the possibility of additional occupancy/capacity); 3) Mr. Clark said the Site will have a capacity of 233 persons per event when the intended permanent septic system is installed; and 4) Mr. Crome in the Staff Report advises there will be up to 233 patrons. J) Parking: 65 grass covered spaces adjacent to the new driveway; Messrs. Clark, Dorfman and Hoffman agree in the ASOF that there is insufficient parking for 233 guests plus staff; Mr. Clark indicates that this limitation 10 PL170178 would become part of the lease agreement and that the lessee would have to arrange transportation to deal with this limitation (this again suggests to the Tribunal the possible use of multi -person vehicles such as vans , limousines and buses to transport guests to the Site). The ZBLs The SRZBL [18] Messrs. Crome and Clark recommend the SRZBL (see Attachment 3) to the Tribunal for approval. An examination of the SRZBL shows that it proposes to amend Clarington's Comprehensive Zoning By-law to: A. change the zoning of a portion of the Site from A to (H)A-91; B. change the zoning of a portion of the site from A to EP; C. permit meat processing accessory to a farm but not including an abattoir on the Site as an exception in the A-91 Zone; D. permit a seasonal special event venue accessory to a farm on the Site as an exception in the A-91 Zone; E. apply three regulations to the seasonal special event venue - a cap on the maximum total area of the lot to be used for this use (2.5%), a cap on the maximum total floor area (340 sq m) to be used for this use and a cap on the maximum number of parking spaces (65); and F. place a Holding ("H") symbol on the lands zoned A-91 and on which the meat processing and special event venue are to be allowed. [19] The Tribunal was not advised why the SRZBL permits "a seasonal special event 11 PL170178 venue accessory to a farm" and not the `Agri -tourism use' that is defined in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and which was used in the re -zoning that allowed another event use in Clarington known as Events by Grace. [20] The SRZBL does not indicate the conditions or prerequisites to be fulfilled prior to the lifting of the Holding (H) symbol but Recommendation 4 in the Staff Report states: "That a Zoning By-law Amendment to remove the `Holding (H)' be forwarded to Council at such time as the applicants have entered into a development agreement for the agri- tourism use on the subject lands." The Staff Report also indicates that "The applicant will require site plan approval through which Staff will review the proposed development and contain (sic) provisions that noise is limited as much as possible and, if necessary, monitored at the applicant's expense, parking areas are well -screened, any entrance lighting is directed away from neighbouring properties, the floor area used for the events is limited and the uses are secondary and accessory to the primary agricultural use of the property." [21 ] There was no evidence that the SRZBL needed to be altered in the event the SROPA was not required. [22] Messrs. Hoffman and Dorfman do not support the SRZBL because it includes permission for the special event venue. They feel that the special event venue, as set out in the SRZBL, is inappropriate in this location for a number of reasons, including its potential scale. ZBL 2017-009 [23] ZBL 2017-009 (see Attachment 1) does all of the things the SRZBL does, save and except permit a seasonal special event venue accessory to a farm on the Site. [24] The Tribunal was not provided with any evidence on the conditions or prerequisites to be satisfied prior to the lifting of the H in ZBL 2017-009. 12 PL170178 [25] No Witness or Participant had any objection to the matters dealt with in ZBL 18411IValle] 0 Provincial and Regional Policy Framework General [26] Any decision by the Tribunal to approve the SRZBL or ZBL 2017-009 must, in accordance with the Act, have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS") and conform to, or not conflict with, any applicable Provincial Plan. Any ZBL approved by the Tribunal in this case is also to conform to the Durham Region Official Plan ("DROP"). Matters of Provincial Interest [27] The Tribunal considers the following matters of Provincial interest to be of particular note in this proceeding: the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; the protection of agricultural resources of the Province; the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; and the appropriate location of growth and development. Messrs. Crome, Clark and Hoffman did not provide evidence in respect to Provincial interests. Mr. Dorfman said that the special event venue is not in the Provincial interest. PPS [28] In their Joint Document Book, the Parties submitted excerpts from the applicable PPS plus excerpts from two related documents: An Introduction to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014: Rural Ontario (August, 2016) and Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas (2016). The Introduction document was not published at the time the Applicants applied to Clarington and it is not relied upon in this Decision. The Guideline is required to be considered by the Tribunal as a result of a policy in the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 and is discussed later in the Greenbelt section of this Decision. 13 PL170178 [29] Messrs. Crome, Clark and Dorfman agree that the Site is within a Rural Area and is considered Rural Land for the purposes of the PPS. Although there was some evidence from Mr. Hoffman that the Site includes prime agricultural land there was no compelling evidence to suggest that the Site should not be treated as Rural Land in a Rural Area for the purposes of the PPS. [30] The PPS defines "agricultural uses", "agri-tourism uses" and "on farm diversified uses" and these definitions are reproduced in Attachment 5. [31] Messrs. Crome and Clark believe that the special event venue, as set out in the SRZBL, is an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism and is permitted on the Site consistent with by the PPS. Messrs. Hoffman and Dorfman do not agree. They do not believe that the special event venue, as set out in the SRZBL, is an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism. Mr. Hoffman objects to the special event use on prime agricultural land. Mr. Dorfman feels that the PPS directs such a use to a settlement area not a rural area. Even if the special event use is deemed to be an on -farm diversified use/agri- tourism, Mr. Dorfman still believes it is not permitted on the Site consistent with the PPS largely because of its potential scale. [32] The Tribunal finds that a seasonal special event venue, at face value, can be considered an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism consistent with the PPS. The Tribunal also finds that meat processing accessory to a farm produces value-added agricultural products and, at face value, can also be considered an on -farm diversified use consistent with the PPS. [33] Based on the above -noted findings, the policies in the PPS of most interest to the Tribunal are those that deal with on -farm diversified uses and agri-tourism uses in Rural Areas and on Rural Lands. In this regard, Policies 1.1.4.1, 1.1.5.4, 1.1.5.7., 1.1.5.8 and 1.7.1 are identified and appear in Attachment 5. [34] It is important to note, as well, that the PPS requires the protection of natural features and areas and cultural heritage resources, like archeological features. 14 PL170178 Growth Plan, 2017 [35] Messrs. Clark, Hoffman and Dorfman agree that the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 ("Growth Plan") is an applicable Provincial Plan to this proceeding. Messrs. Crome and Hoffman provided limited, if any, evidence on the Growth Plan. [36] Messrs. Clark and Dorfman also agree that the Growth Plan considers the Site as rural land in a rural area outside of a settlement area and that Policy 2.2.9.3 of the Growth Plan, which is reproduced in Appendix 5, is applicable. Mr. Dorfman also notes a Greenbelt Area notation in the Growth Plan. Both planners also referenced the Agricultural System policies of the Growth Plan. Mr. Clark believes that the special event venue set out in the SRZBL meets all of the criteria in Policy 2.2.9.3, is compatible with the area and complies with the Growth Plan. Mr. Dorfman is of the opinion that the event venue is a commercial/non-agricultural use not permitted on the Site by the Growth Plan. He feels that the Growth Plan calls for this type of use, at its potential scale, to be located in a settlement area. Even if the special event use is considered to be an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism, Mr. Dorfman believes it is not permitted because of its potential scale and because it will not be compatible with the area and will negatively affect agricultural uses. [37] The Growth Plan also requires the protection of natural features and areas and cultural heritage resources, like archeological features. There was no evidence to suggest that the meat processing use did not comply with the Growth Plan. Greenbelt Plan, 2017 and Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas, 2016 [38] Messrs. Crome, Clark, Hoffman and Dorfman agree that the Greenbelt Plan 2017 ("GBF) is an applicable Provincial Plan for this proceeding. [39] The GBP requires the protection of natural heritage features, areas and functions and cultural heritage resources, like archeological features. 15 PL170178 [40] Messrs. Crome and Clark advise that the Site is Rural Land within the Agricultural System of the Protected Countryside in the GBP. Mr. Dorfman submitted that the Site is within the Natural Heritage System of the Protected Countryside. Mr. Hoffman did not provide any substantial evidence on the GBP. [41 ] The Tribunal considers the Site as Rural Land within the Agricultural System of the Protected Countryside pursuant to the GBP and finds that a seasonal special event use on a farm can, at face value, be an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism according to the GBP. Messrs. Clark, Hoffman and Dorfman agree in the ASOF that there are no agri-tourism policies in the GBP. The Tribunal takes issue with this statement as agri- tourism is included in the definition of an on -farm diversified use in the GBP and, accordingly, the policies for on -farm diversified uses apply to agri-tourism. [42] On -farm diversified uses are defined in the GBP in accordance with the PPS and are supported and permitted on Rural Land. Policy 3.1.4.2.of the GBP states, in part, that "Normal farm practices and a full range of agricultural uses, agriculture -related uses and on -farm diversified uses are supported and permitted. Proposed agriculture — related uses and on -farm diversified uses should be compatible with and should not hinder surrounding agricultural operations. Criteria for all these uses shall be based on provincial Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas." The latter document is referred to as the "Guidelines". [43] The Guidelines focus on land uses permitted in prime agricultural areas but also have relevance on rural lands and state that permitted uses on rural lands are more permissive than in prime agricultural areas. For the purposes of the Guidelines, the Tribunal considers the Site as rural land. [44] The Guidelines advise that five criteria must be met in order for a use to qualify as an on -farm diversified use on prime agricultural land and the sections from the Guidelines on these criteria are reproduced in Attachment 5. [45] Messrs. Crome and Clark are of the opinion that the seasonal special event 16 PL170178 venue, as set out in the SRZBL and to be governed by a development agreement, complies with the GBP and satisfies all of the criteria in the Guidelines. Messrs. Hoffman and Dorfman do not agree. Mr. Dorfman advises that the proposed special event venue is a non-agricultural use that should not be located in the Protected Countryside pursuant to the GBP. In the event the special event use is considered an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism, Mr. Dorfman still believes the use is not permitted by the GBP. Mr. Hoffman believes that the proposed special event venue does not meet the criteria in the Guidelines largely because of its scale and as such fails to comply with the GBP and the Guidelines. [46] There was no evidence which indicated that the proposed meat processing use did not satisfy the above noted criteria in the Guidelines and did not comply with the GBP. Durham Region Official Plan [47] The Durham Region Official Plan ("DROP") designates the Site as Major Open Space Areas of the Greenlands System. The predominant use of Major Open Space Areas is for conservation and a full range of agricultural, agriculture -related and secondary uses. [48] In the Staff Report, the following is included as the Region of Durham's ("Region") comments on the subject applications: The Durham Region Planning Department has indicated that special events and farm tours appear to meet the definition of a secondary agricultural use as an agri-tourism use provided they operate on a part time basis, are seasonally based, are based on the existing farm operation; use only meat produced on the farm and other food sourced from local area farms. Subject to the limitations in scale presented in the application, the application appears to conform to the Regional Official Plan. Any increase in the existing nature and scale of the uses proposed would be contrary to the Regional Official Plan. [49] Both Messrs. Crome and Clark advise that the seasonal special event use, as set out in the SRZBL, is a secondary agricultural use that complies with the DROP. Mr. 17 PL170178 Clark also said that it conforms to the DROP as a non-agricultural use. [50] Mr. Hoffman did not address the DROP in any detail. [51] Mr. Dorfman feels that the proposed special event venue, by nature and scale, is a non-agricultural use that is not permitted in a Major Open Space Area as it does not meet the criteria for such uses in the DROP and, as such, the SRZBL does not comply with the DROP. Participants [52] Four Participants (Mary -Anne Muizelaar, Beth Meszaros, Annette Weykamp and Rhomey Manns) spoke in opposition to the event venue being permitted on the Site. Collectively, their key concerns are: the undefined, unlimited and unregulated nature of the event use; the wedding venue will not be secondary to the farm but, rather, will be the dominant use on the Site; traffic and road safety issues; trespass from event patrons onto other properties in the area; noise impacts from the events on surrounding properties; potential negative impacts to wells in the area; general incompatibility with the rural area; and the lack of a monitoring or enforcement framework to ensure that events comply with the required regulations and by-laws. Inconsistency with the PPS was another stated objection. No Participant stated any concern with occasional events on the Site or with the proposed meat processing use. [53] Two Participants appeared in support of the Applicants and their request for additional uses on the Site. Mark Torrey spoke on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture ("OFA"). The OFA believes that value-added on -farm diversified uses should be encouraged through policies that enable innovation and additional revenue streams for farm businesses that enhance the viability of farmers. The OFA feels that the venue proposed by the Applicants aligns with the PPS, GBP and OFA's Land Use Policy. Steve Lawrence appeared on behalf of the Durham Farm Fresh Marketing Association ("DFF") a not -for -profit membership based organization that helps "...local producers, and others committed to local food, market their local products to our local community." In PL170178 DFF supports the Applicants' proposal and does not feel that the new on -site activities will conflict with agricultural production. DFF also believes that the Applicants' proposal will heighten the profile of local farm products and experiences and increase opportunities for more farms in the Region. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Technical Issues [54] The evidence indicates that there are no significant technical issues associated with the applications. The Staff Report indicates that Clarington's Engineering Department is satisfied with the new driveway proposal, the ability of Morgans Road to accommodate the expected volume of traffic to be generated from the proposed uses and did not require a traffic study as part of this application. Clarington's Building Division and Emergency and Fire Services Department can deal with their requirements during any site plan approval or building permit processes. The Municipality's Operations Department, the Durham Region Health Department and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority have no objections. A Stage 1 Archeological Assessment was submitted which indicates that the Site has a high archeological potential. There was no evidence to suggest that archeological resources, which are to be protected pursuant to Provincial and Regional policy, could not be addressed as part of any site plan approval or building permit process that involves the disturbance of the ground. The Hydrogeological Assessment Report concludes that water and sewage facilities can be accommodated. Mr. Macos did not produce any technical evidence to rebut the foregoing and the Participants did not persuade the Tribunal that there were technical concerns. [55] Based on Mr. Coulter's evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that a seasonal special event venue on the Site can employ certain reasonable noise mitigation measures that will allow it to operate within the applicable noise standard. He advised that the mitigation measures can be addressed as part of any site plan control process and Mr. Donnelly advises, in his Written Closing Submission, that the Applicants have accepted 19 PL170178 the mitigation measures proposed by Mr. Coulter. Mr. Coulter also advised that event traffic would not engender sufficient noise to be a concern under the applicable standard. Mr. Coulter told the Tribunal that his findings apply to special events occurring on the Site at any frequency. Mr. Macos did not call an acoustical/sound expert and neither Clarington nor the Participants raised any doubt in the Tribunal's mind that Mr. Coulter's evidence and opinions should not be accepted and relied upon. Issue 1: Is an OPA Required? [56] The Tribunal finds that an OPA is no longer required to permit the use specified in the SROPA - a seasonal event venue as an accessory on -farm diversified use. The Tribunal's rationale for this finding is set out below. [57] On September 3, 2015, when the Applicants submitted their OPA application, the 1996 COP was in effect and it did not permit a seasonal event venue on the Site. [58] On November 1, 2016 Clarington Council adopted OPA 107 which, amongst other matters: A. brings the 1996 COP into conformity with the DROP and various Provincial policies; B. re -designates the Site Rural Area and Environmental Protection; C. permits on -farm diversified uses, including agri-tourism uses, in Rural Areas subject to a zoning by-law amendment and certain conditions; and D. defines an on -farm diversified use and agri-tourism (these definitions are included in Attachment 5). [59] On June 7, 2017 the Region approved much of OPA 107 and its decision was appealed, on a site specific basis by a number of parties, to the Board. The Applicants 20 PL170178 are not one of the appellants and the Site is not subject to any of the site specific appeals. [60] On March 19, 2018 this Member, by Oral Decision, approved OPA 107 save and except those parts subject to the site specific appeals. This was followed by a written Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order, issued on May 9, 2018, which put OPA 107 into force effective July 10, 2017. The Tribunal's Decision was made with the support of Clarington, the Region and the site specific appellants to OPA 107. [61 ] At the time of this hearing, then, OPA 107 was in force. [62] Mr. Crome is of the opinion that a special event venue can be considered as agri- tourism and that OPA 107 permits agri-tourism on the Site as an on -farm diversified use subject to a zoning by-law amendment and compliance with certain other provisions. In addition, Mr. Clark testified that the event venue is agri-tourism. The Clarington Agricultural Advisory Committee also considers special events agri-tourism provided they are scoped and compatible. [63] The Tribunal finds that the seasonal event venue identified in the SROPA can be considered an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism permitted by OPA 107 and that the SROPA is no longer required. This finding is supported collectively by the above -noted opinions of Messrs. Crome and Clark and the Clarington Agricultural Advisory Committee, a review of applicable Provincial policy and an examination of the definitions in the COP as amended by OPA 107 in conjunction with Clarington's definition of Agri -tourism in its Comprehensive Zoning By-law which is: Agri -tourism: shall mean an activity or use that is accessory to a farm operation, and which promotes and educates the public about farming and agricultural activities. Such activities shall have a direct relationship to the agricultural activities on the farm, and may include farm/educational tours, observation and participation in agricultural activities. It may also include seasonal events and social events (charity events and wedding receptions) that benefit from the farm/rural setting. (Emphasis added). 21 PL170178 [64] On the issue of whether the event use is an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism permitted by OPA 107, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Messrs. Crome and Clark to that of Messrs. Hoffman and Dorfman. The Tribunal notes that the latter opinions are largely based on the possible scale of the proposed event venue — an issue the Tribunal has considerable sympathy for and which, in the Tribunal's opinion, is best dealt with as part of the request for the approval of the SRZBL. At face value, however, the use specified in the SROPA can be considered to be permitted by OPA 107. [65] The Tribunal further finds that the Applicants are not prejudiced in any way by the finding that the SROPA is not required. The SROPA does not contain any special site specific provisions or concessions which need to be preserved in the interest of the Applicants' case for the approval of the SRZBL. The SROPA is quite straightforward and simply adds to the Site an additional permitted use (a seasonal event venue as an accessory on -farm diversified use) subject to site plan control and a size restriction (2.5% of the subject lands). The Tribunal was not advised that the site plan control or size restriction provisions in the SROPA need to be preserved for the Applicants in the event the Tribunal determined that an OPA for the event venue is no longer required. Further, the Tribunal's Decision does not rely on the "new" performance policies for on - farm diversified/agri-tourism uses in OPA 107. Issue 2: Is the SRZBL Appropriate and Consistent/Compliant? [66] The Tribunal finds that not all parts of the SRZBL are appropriate and consistent/compliant with Provincial and Regional policy and, accordingly, will not approve the SRZBL. [67] The Tribunal finds that those parts of the SRZBL which are intended to permit meat processing accessory to a farm and to rezone certain lands to the EP Zone are supportable and will allow these by modifying and approving ZBL 2017-009 as set out later in this Decision. [68] The Tribunal further finds that a seasonal special event venue, including one 22 PL170178 which accommodates weddings, can be permitted on the Site as an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism in accordance with the applicable Provincial policy framework provided it is appropriately defined and scoped. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied with the definition and scoping of the event venue as set out in the SRZBL. It is not sufficient to advance the event venue in a manner that is consistent with or in conformity with Provincial policy. Also, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the SRZBL addresses the issues identified by the Region in respect to compliance with the DROP. [69] The SRZBL allows an undefined number of seasonal special events with an unrestricted number of guests on the Site seven days a week, 365 days a year provided the events are "accessory" to the farm, do not occur on more than 2.5% of the Site, do not utilize a building of more than 340 sq m in floor area and are not served by more than 65 parking spaces. [70] The word "seasonal" in the SRZBL is not defined and can be interpreted any number of ways. For instance, it could mean year round events tailored to the applicable season in which the event is taking place (e.g. Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc.) or it could mean spring through fall, etc. [71 ] The word "special" is not defined in the SRZBL but suggests something out of the ordinary and occasional and is inconsistent with the balance of the SRZBL which permits a wide variety of events on a recurring basis at any time. There is nothing in the SRZBL which addresses or scopes the frequency or timing of events. The types of possible events are varied and are not necessarily tied to a weekend, a particular time of day or season and allow the Site to be marketed for availability throughout the week and throughout the year to different types of events and client groups without limits on frequency or timing. [72] The term "accessory" in the SRZBL is defined in the Comprehensive Zoning By- law as "... a use established during or after the establishment of the main use which is customarily incidental and subordinate to, and exclusively devoted to, the main use of the lot, and located on the same lot as such main use". This term cannot, without 23 PL170178 extreme difficulty, be used to appropriately scope and regulate the event venue and to undertake, as necessary, enforcement. The Tribunal prefers the concept of "secondary" as referenced in Provincial and Regional policy and notes the ability, perhaps the obligation, of a municipality to define "secondary" in a meaningful way for uses such as an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism and to not simply invoke the use of the generic "accessory "definition for these types of uses that are clearly meant to be relatively limited in an understandable and enforceable way. Mr. Crome said the word "accessory" ensures that if the farm use ceases so would the special event venue. The Tribunal prefers a more appropriately defined relationship on the issue of secondary than one which simply says "if the farm exists, the special event venue can exist." [73] The lot area and floor area regulations in the SRZBL are ineffective in controlling the number of guests given the availability of an extensive outdoor area and its ability to accommodate large numbers of people. [74] The parking restriction in the SRZBL is effective in controlling the number of parking spaces established on the Site but is ineffective in controlling the size of an event given the possible use of multi -person vehicles such as buses, limousines and vans to deliver guests to the Site. [75] It was stated that the occupancy/capacity of the event venue would be restricted to 233 persons by virtue of the size of the future planned septic system. There is no regulation, however, in the SRZBL which caps the capacity and the septic system could be increased in capacity or augmented by mobile washrooms. Initially, mobile washroom facilities could be brought to the site of sufficient capacity to accommodate an unrestricted number of guests in the absence of a permanent septic system. [76] It was also suggested that the limited amount of livestock raised on the Site would control the frequency and size of events. There is nothing in the SRZBL which addresses this link and there was no evidence or commitment suggesting that this link would be included as part of any regulatory framework. Mr. Donnelly, in cross examination of Mr. Hoffman, even raised the ability of the Applicants to introduce 24 PL170178 chickens as a farm raised food source for the events. [77] Put concisely, the type of loosely regulated event venue set out in the SRZBL does not align with the Provincial and Regional policy planning framework for rural -type areas. The SRZBL does not make sufficient effort to advance an event venue that is required to be secondary to the farm and fit within the rural area. Allowing an unrestricted number of events at a significant scale does not adequately protect the agricultural use on the Site or agricultural uses in the area and is not sufficiently respectful of Provincial and Regional policy which requires that on -farm diversified uses/agri-tourism be secondary to the principal use of the Site for agriculture. A large number of events will, in the Tribunal's opinion, allow and encourage this small farm to restrict its agricultural operations during both the potentially significant event times (for instance, to limit the operation of farm machinery to avoid noise, the raising of dust and safety/liability issues, etc.) and significant non-event times (for instance, to avoid having manure dropped on a large part of the Site in advance of the showing of the venue to potential lessees, in advance of events and during the set-up of events which Mr. Clarke said will occur on the morning of event days). The SRZBL allows an event venue that can become the dominant use of the Site, overwhelm and disrupt the operation of the farm, change the nature of this rural area/community and create land use conflict. The SRZBL would also set an unwarranted precedent — imagine every farm in the rural area of Clarington being allowed such a large and loosely regulated event venue. In this regard, the SRZBL is not in the public interest. [78] With respect to its examination of the loosely regulated nature of the special event venue in the SRZBL, the Tribunal was struck by the following from Mary -Ann Muizelaar's Participant Statement: It is the permanent limitless of this application that will forever expropriate my rural lifestyle. I have no marker to measure unlimited, I cannot prepare for unlimited and I cannot visualize the impact of unlimited on our community... This application is unlimited in time allowance, unlimited in event allowance, and unlimited in patron allowance... Applications approved without specific limits set by measurable numbers and times disregards the disruption to the long established rural life style and that of the local residents. 25 PL170178 [79] Given the number, nature and size of events permitted, the SRZBL does not have sufficient regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Although the Provincial interest is expressed in broad terms, the Tribunal finds that the SRZBL does not have sufficient regard to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities and the appropriate location of growth and development. A large event venue capable of being used frequently and year round is not appropriate on the Site. The proposed event venue must be better defined and scoped in order to have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest. [80] The SRZBL is not consistent with the PPS which requires that on -farm diversified uses/agri-tourism be secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property and be compatible with the rural landscape. The SRZBL permits an uncontrolled number of special events with an unlimited capacity year round on the Site and this is not consistent with the intent of the PPS that such uses be secondary to the principal agricultural use and fit harmoniously within the host rural area. [81] The SRZBL does not conform to the Growth Plan as it allows an event venue as an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism that is not adequately defined and scoped to ensure that it is, and will remain, secondary to the principal agricultural use of the Site, will not adversely affect the protection of agricultural uses and is compatible with the rural landscape and surrounding local land uses. [82] The SRZBL does not conform to the GBP and the Guidelines it invokes. The SRZBL does not define and scope the event venue sufficiently to ensure that it will be and remain secondary to the principal agricultural use on the property, be compatible with the area and not hinder surrounding agricultural operations. Effective and clear temporal considerations, consistent with the Guidelines, are not included in the SRZBL and the Guidelines suggest that events are to be intermittent and permitted on an interim basis and not on a large scale, repeated or permanent basis. [83] The Tribunal was advised that the Region has no objection to the proposed special event use. Based on the comment from the Region in the Staff Report, as 26 PL170178 presented earlier, this appears to be an over simplification of the Region's position. In this regard, the Tribunal was not provided with a copy of the application, as referenced in the Region's comments, and accordingly cannot assess the "limitations in scale presented in the application" with the limitations included the SRZBL. Comments such as those reported from the Region are typically provided to a lower tier municipality in response to the circulation of an application by the lower tier municipality and prior to the drafting of a staff report with a recommendation on the application or the drafting of an implementing zoning by-law. The Tribunal was provided with no evidence from the Region, in writing or otherwise, which confirmed that it had ultimately reviewed the SRZBL and considered it to conform. A comparison of the SRZBL to the Region's comments suggests to the Tribunal a significant conformity issue. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the SRZBL conforms to the DROP. [84] The Tribunal considers post ZBL controls to be an important consideration and can be used to ensure compliance with certain critical policy documents and to advance good planning. The Tribunal does not believe, in this case, that the shortcomings in the SRZBL related to the definition and scoping of the event venue are intended to be addressed, or can be addressed, in a site plan agreement or development agreement based on the examples submitted to the Tribunal in this proceeding and the evidence presented. Issue 3: Is ZBL 2017-009 appropriate and consistent/compliant? [85] Based on the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal finds that ZBL 2017-009 is appropriate and will approve it subject to a three-part modification as set out in the Order. The approval of ZBL 2017-009 will permit the meat processing use and rezone a portion of the Site to the EP Zone. [86] The Tribunal did not receive any oral evidence on the floor space to be devoted to the meat processing use. However, the Staff Report indicates in Paragraph 11.9 that it is 61 sq m. The Tribunal feels that the addition of a floor space cap for the meat 27 PL170178 processing use and a requirement that the meat processed be raised on the farm is good form and appropriately acknowledges in a proactive, positive manner the intent of the Provincial and Regional policy planning framework to scope these types of uses and is consistent with the evidence of intent as presented to the Tribunal at this hearing. [87] The pre -requisite for lifting the H is not set out in ZBL 2017-009 and the Tribunal did not receive any evidence on the applicable pre-requisite(s). The Tribunal will remove the H from ZBL 2017-009 for this reason. Further, the small meat processing use in an existing building can be accommodated without the need for site plan control. [88] ZBL 2017-009 provides additional protection for the Graham Creek valley and adjacent lands by rezoning portions of the Site from the Agriculture (A) Zone to the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. This aligns with the relevant policy planning framework. [89] Clarington Council approved ZBL 2017-009 and no Witness or Participant had any objection to the addition of meat processing accessory to a farm as a permitted use on the Site or to the rezoning of additional lands into the EP Zone. Other Considerations [90] The Tribunal is satisfied that its Decision has appropriate regard for Provincial interests, is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the applicable Provincial Plans. [91] In making its Decision, the Tribunal had regard to the relevant Council decision(s) and the material and information Council considered in making its decision(s) as provided. [92] Rural areas are a critical part of the agricultural system and way of life in Ontario. Although they are not prime agricultural areas, they are important and subject to relevant and thoughtful Provincial policy and protection. On -farm diversified uses/agri- tourism in rural areas are appropriate but, as noted at the hearing, do not get a "free PL170178 pass" simply because they are on a farm and will help a farmer(s). They must align with Provincial policy and, in this case, the SRZBL proposing to allow the on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism does not do that. [93] The Tribunal considered affording the Applicants an opportunity to provide additional evidence and/or submissions on how the SRZBL could be modified with additional regulations to address the Tribunal's concerns and/or to propose restrictions to be included in a site plan agreement or other agreement, along with a reply opportunity by Clarington. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the public interest was best served by requiring that any proposed new regulations or related matters be considered as part of a public process involving Clarington Council and the public. [94] The Tribunal also notes that it could have approached this matter in two ways both of which would have resulted in the refusal of the event venue in the SRZBL. It could have deemed the event use in the SRZBL a non-agricultural use because of its potential size and scope — too big to be an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism - or it could, as it did, accept that a seasonal special event venue can be an on -farm diversified use/agri-tourism and then deal with the size and scope issue. Messrs. Hoffman and Dorfman may have preferred the former approach but the Tribunal chose the latter because it better recognizes the Provincial and Regional policy direction that a seasonal special event venue can be permitted on the Site to assist with the viability of the farm subject to proper definition and scoping. Despite the alternative approach taken by the Tribunal, the evidence of Messrs. Hoffman and Dorfman in respect to the importance of scope and scale was helpful and compelling. [95] The Tribunal suggests that an applicant or a municipality might benefit from approaching a matter such as this with a chart that identifies the manner in which an event venue on a farm is to be collectively defined, regulated and scoped by: 1) provisions in a ZBL; 2) provisions in a typical site plan agreement and/or other agreement that is mutually negotiated, enforceable and which extends beyond the items in a typical site plan agreement; and 3) provisions in existing or proposed general 29 PL170178 municipal by-laws which deal with such issues as noise, licensing, hours of operation, etc. [96] The Parties each submitted previous decisions on cases in support of their positions. While each case before the Tribunal is evaluated on its own merits, the Tribunal reviewed the submitted cases in advance of reaching its Decision on this case. ORDER [97] The Tribunal orders as follows; A. the appeal of the refusal of the OPA is dismissed; B. the zoning appeal is granted in part and ZBL 2017-009 is approved subject to a three-part modification: the addition of a regulation which caps the floor space devoted to meat processing accessory to a farm at 61 sq m, the addition of a regulation that restricts the meat processing use to meat raised on the farm, and the deletion of the Holding "H" symbol; Clarington is to modify, in a timely manner, ZBL 2017-009 in accordance with this Order and the modified ZBL 2017-009 will have an effective date coincident with the date of issuance of this Order; and C. This Member may be spoken to should any matters arise respecting the implementation of this Order. "Thomas Hodgins" THOMAS HODGINS MEMBER 30 PL170178 If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format. Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 /_VIIaIr_TN:I►VA121►11d W-1 Planning Act, R.S:0.1990 4�xjzu, Notice of the Adoption of a Zoning By -Law Property: $582 Morgans Road, Part Lot 17, Concession 3, Former Township of Clarke TAKE NOTICE that taking Into consideration arty oral and written submissions, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington passed By-law 2017-009 on January 16, 2017. For an explanation of the effect of the oral and written submissions, see Staff Report PSD-007-17 and the minutes of the Planning & Develppment Committee meeting of January'9,2017. The purpose and effect of By-law2017-009 Is to permit meat processing accessory to a farm but not including an abbstoir. LA copy'of the by-law and a key map showing the location of the lands to which the by-law applies are attached. Any person, corporation, or agency may appeal the By-law,to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing With'the Clerk of the Munlelpality of'CJarington, not later than February 146 2017,' a notice of appeal which describes the objection to the By-law and the reasons for the objection, together -with a certified cheque or money order In the amount of $300.00 made payable to the "Minister of FinanW. Further information is available by contacting Gave Addington of the Planning Services Departmanf at 9QM23-3379, extension 2410. Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this 25r" y of Janaary, 2017 Af n& Greentree, Muni pal Clerk Municipality of Clarington FILE NO.'D142BA 2015-0015 , NOTE,. 1. The Planning Act provides for appeals to be fled by "persons": Croups or' associations, such as residents or ratepayers groups which do not.have incorporated status, may not be considered "persons" for purposes of the Act. Groups wishing to appeal this decision should do so in the name or names of individual. group members, and not In the name of the group. 2. No' person or public body shall be added as.a party to the hearing of an appeal unless, the person or public body made oral subrpission's at a public meeting or written submissions to the council before the by-law was passed, or in the opinion of the Ontario Municipal Board, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party. Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 201-1-009 being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington , Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2015-0016; and Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: ' 1, By-law 84-63 is amended as set out in Sections 2 through 4 of this By-law. 2. Section 0.4'SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS --AGRICULTURAL ZONE (A) ZONE" is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following new Special Exception, "SECTION 6.4.91 AGRICULTURAL EXCEPTION (A-81) ZONE a, 'Notwithstanding Sections 6.1, those lands zoned 'A-91" on the Schedules to this By-law, may in addition to other uses permitted in the Agricultural (A) zone, be used for: - i) meat processing accessory to a farm but not including an abattolr 3. Schedule 7 to By-law 84-63, as. amended, ,is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding — Agricultural Exception ((H) A-91) Zone". 4. Schedule 'A' attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 5. ' This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. By -Law passed in open session this ay of Januan► an17. ATTACHMENT 2 AMENDMENT NO. 108 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: To amend the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan to permit agri-tourism uses as an accessory use to a farm operation on the subject property, municipally known as 3582 Morgans Road, Clarke. BASIS: The amendment is based on an application submitted by Clark Consulting Services on behalf of the owner Deborah and Oswin Mathias to permit agri-tourism uses as an accessory use to a farm operation. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended by adding a new policy to Exceptions, Section 23.17.18 as follows: " 23.17.18 A seasonal event venue is permitted as an accessory on -farm diversified use on the subject property identified by assessment roll number 1817-030-030-16520 and municipally known as 3582 Morgans Road, subject to Site Plan Control and provided that such use occupies no more than approximately 2.5% of the subject lands." IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to the Amendment. Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2017 being a By-law to adopt Amendment No.108 to the Clarington Official Plan Whereas Section 17 (22) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, authorizes the Municipality of Clarington to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and Amendments thereto (COPA2015-0005); And Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend the Clarington Official Plan to permit the development of agri- tourism uses as an accessory use to a farm operation at 3582 Morgans Road, Former Township of Clarke; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment Number 108 to the Clarington Official Plan being the attached Explanatory Text is hereby adopted. 2. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of the passing hereof. By-law passed in open session this day of , 2017. Adrian Foster, Mayor C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk ATTACHMENT 3 Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2017- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2015-0015; and Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. By-law 84-63 is amended as set out in Sections 2 through 4 of this By-law. 2. Section 6.4 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS — AGRICULTURAL ZONE (A) ZONE" is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following new Special Exception: "SECTION 6.4.91 AGRICULTURAL EXCEPTION (A-91) ZONE a. Notwithstanding Sections 6.1, those lands zoned "A-91" on the Schedules to this By-law, may in addition to other uses permitted in the Agricultural (A) Zone, be used for: i) meat processing accessory to a farm but not including an abattoir ii) a seasonal special event venue accessory to a farm b. Regulations for Event Venue uses: i) Total Area of the Lot (maximum) 2.5% ii) Total Floor Area (maximum) 340 square metres iii) Number of parking spaces (maximum) 65 3. Schedule `2' to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding — Agricultural Exception ((H)A-91) Zone". 4. Schedule `A' attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. By -Law passed in open session this day of , 2017. Adrian Foster, Mayor C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2017- , passed this day of , 2017 A.D. y„a'4 _ - _ _ - s`"h.1'+� 'R s.. is Y•i � aG y a _ °0 Z a c� 0 COWANVILLE ROAD ® Zoning Change From 'A' To '(H)A-91' Zoning Change From 'A' To 'EP' /jV Zoning To Remain 'A' V Zoning To Remain 'EP' Adrian Foster, Mayor Clarke • ZBA 2015-0015 - Schedule 2 C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk Proposed Pale Barn .. 1 Stocked Pond eed i � ven d B ildin Po r .r N '' .1 i ;l •'-Kitchen en .. ...........�.. Proposed'+ the Ffeld Parkin Washroom aces) ,. ' " he 's ::: 11,51t^ . o 446 � %, ` ' onkamth+ Witt Prepes Pasture •—• ........... ra e Proposed �! '. Cattle Shed B Figure 4 - Conceptual Site Plan Property Address: 3582 Morgans Road Newcastle, Ontario Legend: Fence —••—••—••- Proposed Driveway List of Structures: Owner's Nome Garage Bank Barn With Meat Prep & Sales Covered Event Building Portable Kitchen Portable Washroom Lot Dimensions: Lot Area: 40 acres Lot Frontage; 502.47 metres cared By: Clark Consulting Services January 16, 2014 sed Date: February 23,2016 June 2016 January 2017 ate: March 2018 a Maps Prepared By: VELD architect CLA121C �k �,.n a,.,uvn„•,: rw.„., ,mna:;.,, n�,.,,•.,s: ti.n• mill. u„d,,,d r-,.1.n m, x ATTACHMENT 5 Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 1.1.4 Rural Areas in Municipalities Rural areas are important to the economic success of the Province and our quality of life. Rural areas are a system of lands that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and other resource areas. Rural areas and urban areas are interdependent in terms of markets, resources and amenities. It is important to leverage rural assets and amenities and protect the environment as a foundation for a sustainable economy. Ontario's rural areas have diverse population levels, natural resources, geographies and physical characteristics, and economies. Across rural Ontario, local circumstances vary by region. For example, northern Ontario's natural environment and vast geography offer different opportunities than the predominately agricultural areas of southern regions of the Province. 1.1.4.1 Healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by: a. building upon rural character, and levaraging rural amenities and assets; b. promoting regeneration, including the redevelopment of brownfield sites; c. accomodating and appropriate range and mix of housing in rural settlement areas; d. encouraging the conservation and redevelopment of existing rural housing stock on rural lands; e. using rural infrastructure and public service facilities efficiently; f. promoting diversification of the economic base and employment opportunities through goods and services, including value-added products and the sustainable management of resources; g. providing opportunities for sustainable and diversified tourism, including leveraging historical, cultural, and natural assets; h. conserving biodiversity and considering the ecological benefits provided by nature; and i. providing opportunities for economic activities in prime agricultural areas, in accordance with policy 2.3. 1.1.5.4 Development that is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels should be promoted. 1.1.5.7 Opportunitiesto support adiversified rural economy should be promoted byprotecting agricultural and other resource -related uses and directing non -related development to areas where itwill minimize constraints on these uses. 1.1.5.8 Agricultural uses, agriculture -related uses, on -farm diversified uses and normal farm practices should be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards. 1.7 Long -Term Economic Prosperity 1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: a. promoting opportunities for economic development and community investment -readiness; b. optimizing the long-term availability and use of land, resources, infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities; c. maintaining and, where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets; d. encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well -designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes; e. promoting the redevelopment of brownfield sites; f. providing for an efficient, cost-effective, reliable multimodal transportation system that is integrated with adjacent systems and those of other jurisdictions, and is appropriate to address projected needs to support the movement of goods and people; g. providing opportunities for sustainable tourism development; h. providing opportunities to support local food, and promoting the sustainability of agri-food and agri-product businesses by protecting agricultural resources, and minimizing land use conflicts; i. promoting energy conservation and providing opportunities for development of renewable energy systems and alternative energy systems, including district energy; j. minimizing negative impacts from a changing climate and considering the ecological benefits provided by nature; and k. encouraging efficient and coordinated communications and telecommunications infrastructure. 6.0 Definitions Agricultural uses: means the growing of crops, including nursery, biomass, and horticultural crops; raising of livestock; raising of other animals for food, fur or fibre, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; apiaries; agro- forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on -farm buildings and structures, including, but not limited to livestock facilities, manure storages, value -retaining facilities, and accommodation for full- time farm labour when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment. Agri -Tourism uses: means those farm -related tourism uses, including limited accommodation such as a bed and breakfast, that promote the enjoyment, education or activities related to the farm operation. On -farm diversified uses: means uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and are limited in area. On -farm diversified uses include, but are not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism uses, and uses that produce value-added agricultural products. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017) 2.2.9 Rural Areas 3. Subject to the policies in Section 4, development outside of settlement areas may be permitted on rural lands for: a) the management or use of resources; b) resource -based recreational uses; and c) other rural land uses that are not appropriate in settlement areas provided they: i. are compatible with the rural landscape and surrounding local land uses; ii. will be sustained by rural service levels; and iii. will not adversely affect the protection of agricultural uses and other resource - based uses such as mineral aggregate operations. Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas 2.3.1 PPS Criteria for On -Farm Diversified Uses All of the following criteria must be met to qualify as on -farm diversified uses, in accordance with the PPS. 1. Located on a farm. (from the label "on -farm" diversified uses and from the definition's requirement that the use be secondary to the principal "agricultural use" of the property) On -farm diversified uses must be located on a farm property that is actively in agricultural use. The on -farm diversified uses provisions in the PPS do not apply to small residential lots in the prime agricultural area. As noted in Section 2.1 of these guidelines, agricultural uses occur on a farm with the expectation of gain or reward. This does not include production primarily for use or consumption by members of the household of the owner or operator of the agricultural operation, for purposes of pastime or recreation, or in a park, on a property used primarily for residential purposes or in a garden located in a public space. The planning authority may require evidence that the property is actively farmed. For example, proof may be required that shows the property qualifies for the Farm Property Class under the Assessment Act, 1990. 2. Secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property. (from the PPS definition of on -farm diversified uses) While the PPS definition of on -farm diversified uses allows for a wide range of on -farm economic opportunities, it also requires those uses be secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property. In other words, agricultural uses must remain the dominant use of the property. This is measured in spatial and temporal terms. Spatially, the use must be secondary relative to the agricultural use of the property. The spatial limits are addressed below under the "limited in area" criterion. Temporal considerations apply to uses that are temporary or intermittent, such as events. Given that on -farm diversified uses (and agriculture -related uses) must be compatible with surrounding agricultural operations, the frequency and timing of any events must not interfere with cropping cycles or other agricultural uses on the farm or in the surrounding area. Even temporary uses must meet all criteria for on -farm diversified uses. Acceptable uses must be compatible with and able to coexist with surrounding agricultural operations, and: • permanently displace little -to -no agricultural land, within the limits discussed under the "limited in area" criterion • do not require site grading and/or drainage unless it improves conditions for agricultural production • are one-time uses or held infrequently when impacts to agriculture are minimal • any land used for a temporary use must be immediately returned to agriculture a harvestable crop is produced on the land the year in which the temporary use is implemented (if applicable) meet compatibility requirements (e.g., do not require significant emergency, water and wastewater services; maintain reasonable noise and traffic levels in the area) impacts to the site itself and surrounding agricultural operations are mitigated (e.g., compaction, drainage, trespassing) If all criteria are met, events may be accommodated through a temporary use zoning by-law under the Planning Act, 1990, provided no permanent alterations are proposed to the land or structures (e.g., stages, washrooms or pavilions). The temporary zoning must be structured in a way that the farmland is returned to agriculture immediately following the event (e.g., detailed provisions to avoid soil compaction, timing events to avoid impacts on cropping systems). The intention is that these uses are permitted only on an interim basis. The Municipal Act, 2001, authorizes municipalities to pass by-laws, issue permits and impose conditions on events. These by-laws may require site plans, traffic plans, emergency plans and security plans. These by-laws can help ensure uses are reasonable without the need for other approvals. Large-scale, repeated or permanent events are not on -farm diversified uses and should be directed to existing facilities such as fairgrounds, parks, community centres and halls, settlement areas or rural lands. Guidelines on new venues in prime agricultural areas are provided in Section 3.2 Limited Non -Agricultural Uses. 3. Limited in area. (from the PPS definition of on -farm diversified uses) While PPS policies enable a wide variety of on -farm economic opportunities, the PPS also requires those uses are limited in area. This criterion is intended to: minimize the amount of land taken out of agricultural production, if any ensure agriculture remains the main land use in prime agricultural areas limit off -site impacts (e.g., traffic, changes to the agricultural -rural character) to ensure compatibility with surrounding agricultural operations Many municipalities limit the scale of on -farm diversified uses by limiting the number or place of residence of employees, number of businesses, percentage of products sold that are produced on the farm or floor area of buildings and outdoor storage. However, these factors do not have a direct bearing on the amount of farmland displaced or fully account for all the land occupied by the uses. A preferred approach is to base "limited in area" on the total footprint of the uses, on a lot coverage ratio basis. Guidance on the "limited in area" criterion is based on a review of existing municipal approaches in Ontario, observations and experiences of OMAFRA staff across the province, benchmarking against existing diverse farms, development of scenarios and stakeholder input. Realistic scenarios to predict how much land could be used for on -farm diversified uses on small, medium and large farms are provided in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 offers an example of an existing, diversified farm with a combination of permitted uses, illustrating how the on -farm diversified uses portion of the property is calculated. The approach to the "limited in area" criterion is intended to: achieve the balance between farmland protection required by the PPS and economic opportunities for farmers • improve consistency among municipalities in terms of the land area that could be used for such uses • level the playing field for different types of on -farm diversified uses • provide flexibility as on -farm diversified uses and owners change • simplify implementation The "limited in area" requirement should be based on the total land area that is unavailable for agricultural production as a result of the on -farm diversified use (i.e., the footprint occupied by the use, expressed as a percentage of lot coverage). The area calculation should account for all aspects related to an on -farm diversified use such as buildings, outdoor storage, landscaped areas, berms, well and septic systems, parking and new access roads. The lot coverage ratio should be based on the size of the individual parcel of land where the use is located, not the total area of a farm operation which could include several parcels. The rationale for using a lot coverage ratio is built on the premise that a large property is generally able to accommodate a larger on -farm diversified use than a small property while meeting compatibility requirements. Where available, uses should be within existing agricultural buildings or structures no longer needed to support agricultural production. Reusing existing buildings or structures can help to: reduce the amount of farmland consumed maintain the agricultural/rural character of the area ensure existing buildings are kept in good repair or improved As farmers expand and modernize their agricultural operations, they often prefer to build new structures based on current standards rather than retrofit older buildings. This can result in surplus buildings that could be repurposed. It is recommended that for "limited in area" calculations, the area of existing buildings used for on -farm diversified uses be discounted at an appropriate rate (e.g., 50%). Be aware that a change in the use of a building may result in a change in building code requirements (Section 2.5.7). If an on -farm diversified use occupies the same footprint as a demolished building, the land area for the use may be similarly discounted. This recognizes that it is unlikely that land under a demolished building will be returned to an agricultural use. However, preference should be given to reuse of existing buildings where possible. It is recommended that the area of existing laneways not be included in area calculations. This will encourage on -farm diversified uses to locate within existing farm building clusters and minimize impacts on agricultural production. If an existing barn (or a barn destroyed by fire,) is restored for an on -farm diversified use with the same footprint as the existing barn, only 50% of the building's footprint is counted in the area calculations. Likewise, the footprint of a home occupation in an existing residence or outbuilding may be calculated at 50% of the area of the office. However, 100% of the area needed for parking and outdoor storage would be included. Existing Ianeways are not counted in the area calculations but 100% of the area for new Ianeways would be included. These guidelines recommend that "limited in area" be relative to the size of the farm property on which the on -farm diversified use is located. The size of the entire farm property, including land subject to an easement, and not just the portion of a farm that is in agricultural use, should be considered. For example, a use occupying 1 ha on a 50 ha farm may be "limited in area," while a 1 ha use on a 15 ha farm may not be. These guidelines recommend that the standard for the acceptable area occupied by an on -farm diversified use is up to 2% of a farm parcel to a maximum of 1 ha (10,000 m2). The examples of on -farm diversified uses in Appendix 2 show the variety of uses that could be placed on different -sized parcels of land, while staying within the recommended maximum lot coverage of 2%. In the case of on -farm diversified uses that are intermittent, such as events, "limited in area" may mean an area greater than the general recommendations above (Section 2.3.1.1). When calculating the area for agri-tourism uses such as wagon rides or corn mazes, lands producing a harvestable crop are agricultural uses that are not included in area calculations. However, areas such as playgrounds and loading areas for hayrides should be included. If more than one on -farm diversified use is proposed on a single property, the combined area of all on -farm diversified uses should be within the above area and lot coverage guidelines. If the area of a proposed on -farm diversified use exceeds the recommended area thresholds in these guidelines, give consideration to PPS Policy 2.3.6 on non-agricultural uses in the prime agricultural areas. On -farm diversified uses that are proposed to grow beyond the area limits, either incrementally or otherwise, are not supported. Since the PPS requires settlement areas to be the focus of growth and development, large-scale industrial and commercial buildings appropriate in settlement areas (due to servicing, accessibility, etc.) are not permitted in prime agricultural areas. It is recommended that the gross floor area of buildings for on -farm diversified uses be capped at a scale appropriate to prime agricultural areas. Municipalities may set the building size cap based on a maximum lot coverage ratio (i.e., proportion of the 2% of the property that may be used for on -farm diversified uses to be covered by buildings).5 Alternatively, municipalities may define maximum gross floor area limits numerically (e.g., maximum gross floor area for properties 15-20 ha is 600 m2, and so on for different sized properties). Regardless of how the cap is set, the area of existing buildings, should not be discounted when calculating the gross floor area of buildings for on -farm diversified uses. Recommended Area Calculations for On -farm Diversified Uses • existing laneways shared between agricultural uses and on -farm diversified uses are not counted • area of existing buildings or structures, built prior to April 30,2014 , occupied by on —farm diversified uses is discounted (e.g. 50 %) • area of new buildings , structures, setbacks , outdoor storage , landscaped areas, berms, laneways, parking, etc. are counted at 100% • on -farm diversified uses may occupy no more than 2% of the property on which the uses are located, to a maximum of 1 ha • the gross floor area of buildings used for on -farm diversified uses is limited (e.g. 20% of the 2%) 4. Includes, but is not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism uses and uses that produce value-added agricultural products. (from the PPS definition of on -farm diversified uses) The PPS definition provides a number of examples of on -farm diversified uses. Beyond these examples, other uses may also be suitable, subject to meeting all PPS criteria. The PPS language related to uses that are not related to agriculture (i.e., home occupations, home industries), suggests that in prime agricultural areas, these operations must be at a reasonable scale, as discussed under the "secondary to..." and "limited in area" criteria. Municipalities may wish to encourage on -farm diversified uses that relate to agriculture (e.g., agri- tourism and value-added uses) by streamlining approvals for these uses. 5. Shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. (from PPS Policy 2.3.3.1) Refer to the discussion of this policy under agriculture -related uses (Section 2.2) as it applies equally to on -farm diversified uses. Some uses that meet other on -farm diversified uses criteria may not meet the compatibility criterion. For example, uses that attract large numbers of people onto the farm for non -farm events or for recreational purposes could result in soil compaction on the farm itself, excessive noise and trespass issues that may be incompatible with surrounding agricultural operations. Commercial or industrial uses that have a large number of employees or attract a large number of customers may also not be compatible in the prime agricultural area. In addition, some uses may be better suited to settlement areas where municipal services are available (PPS Policy 1.6.6). Municipalities should consider how effectively any impacts can be mitigated before allowing different uses in prime agricultural areas. Compatibility Considerations • does not hinder surrounding agricultural operations • appropriate to available rural services and infrastructure • maintains the agricultural /rural character of the area • meets all applicable environmental standards • cumulative impact of multiple uses in prime agricultural areas is limited and does not undermine the agricultural nature of the area Nano or micro -breweries and small distilleries may fit the definition of on -farm diversified uses if they are able to meet all PPS criteria for that category of uses. However, these uses should be appropriate to available rural water and wastewater services. High water use/effluent generation operations are generally inappropriate in prime agricultural areas and may require capacity beyond what is available on the site. The appropriate scale to qualify as an on -farm diversified use needs to be assessed on a case -by -case basis. In prime agricultural areas with multiple on -farm diversified uses on several farms, the collective impact of these uses should be limited and not undermine the agricultural nature of the area or the health of the environment. Whether a proposed new on -farm diversified use is compatible depends on other uses in the area and how the area would be affected by all of these uses. Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, 2017 24.2 Definitions Agri -Tourism: means those farm -related tourism uses, such as farm tours, education courses, wineries, including limited accommodation such as a bed and breakfast and farm vacation homes that promote the enjoyment, education or activities related to the farm operation. On -farm Diversified Uses: means uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property and are limited in area. Uses include, but are not limited to, farm gate sales and seasonal farm produce outlets, and uses that produce value added agricultural products from the farm operation. Attachment 3 to Report PDS-035-22 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2021-049 Being a by-law to license On -Farm Special Events WHEREAS subsection 11(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, authorizes the Municipality to pass by-laws respecting the health, safety and well-being of persons; WHEREAS under Subsection 8(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, a by-law respecting a matter may (a) regulate or prohibit the matter; (b) require persons to do things respecting the matter; and (c) provide for a system of licences respecting the matter; WHEREAS under Sections 150 and 151 of the Municipal Act, 2001, a municipality may provide for a system of licences with respect to any business wholly or partly carried on within the municipality, including the sale or hire of goods or services on an intermittent or or one-time basis; and AND WHEREAS subsection 128(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, provides that a local municipality may prohibit and regulate with respect to public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of council, are or could become or cause public nuisances; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows; PART 1 - INTERPRETATION Definitions 1.1 In this By-law, "Applicant" means a person seeking a licence pursuant to this By-law; "Director" means the Municipality's Director of Legislative Services or a designate; "Enforcement Officer" means a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer whose duties include the enforcement of this By-law; "Licence" means a licence issued pursuant to this By-law; "Licensee" means a person to whom a Licence has been issued in accordance with this By-law; "Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the geographic area of Clarington, as the context requires; "On -Farm Special Event" means an event or activity that is not permitted as -of right as an on -farm diversified use, on lands specifically zoned to permit special events as a use that is secondary to the agricultural farming operations; "Owner" means the registered or beneficial owner of farm property; "Person" means an individual or a corporation, and "Persons" has a corresponding meaning; and "Zoning By-law" means a by-law passed by the Municipality pursuant to section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. PA 3 and includes Zoning By-law 84-63 and Oak Ridges Moraine Zoning By-law 2005-109, or their successors. References 1.2 In this By-law, reference to any Act or by-law is reference to that Act or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, references in this By-law to Parts and sections are references to Parts and sections in this By-law. Word Usage 1.4 This By-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context requires. 1.5 In this By-law, a grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding meaning. Application 1.6 This By-law applies to all On -Farm Special Events in the Municipality unless otherwise specified. 1.7 This By-law does not apply to any property that was granted land use planning approval for On -Farm Special Events on a date prior to the date of enactment of this By-law, until such time as the property is made subject to an arm's length transfer. PART 2 — PROHIBITIONS Operation 2.1 No person shall conduct an On -Farm Special Event without a Licence. 2 2.2 The Owner or designate must be on scene during the On -Farm Special Event. 2.3 No Person shall contravene any condition of site plan approval, or any provision within a site plan agreement made pursuant to section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, that is applicable to land that is subject to this By-law. 2.4 No Owner shall permit any activity on their property within the Municipality that is prohibited by this By-law. 2.5 Nothing in this By-law exempts an Owner of a farm property from any requirement in any Zoning By-law, or in any way changes the land uses permitted for a farm property pursuant to any Zoning By-law. Attendance 2.6 No person conducting an On -Farm Special Event shall permit more than the maximum number of attendees as stated in the zoning permission to attend the event, including persons participating in or working at the event. PART 3 — LICENSING Applications 3.1 Every application for a Licence shall be completed and submitted on forms prescribed by the Director. 3.2 Every application for a Licence shall include, (a) a licensing fee of $250.00; (b) the address of the property proposed to be used for On -Farm Special Events; (c) written proof, satisfactory to the Director, that the Applicant is the Owner; (d) proof of a valid Ontario farm business registration number for the property, or proof of exemption from the registration requirements; (e) confirmation of a Municipally approved site plan; and (f) proof of commercial general liability insurance acceptable to the Director of Financial Services and subject to limits of not less than five million dollars inclusive per occurrence for bodily injury, death and damage to property including loss of use thereof. 3.3 Every Licence shall be posted in a conspicuous location on the premises of the On -Farm Special Event. 3.4 A Licensee shall comply with all conditions of a Licence. Review 3.5 The Director is authorized to receive and consider all applications. 3.6 The Director is authorized to issue, suspend or revoke any Licence in accordance with Section 151 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001. C. 25, and to refuse the issuance of any Licence if there has been a previous material breach of the Licence, or in accordance with Section 3.8 of this By-law, including conditions consistent with zoning. 3.7 In addition to any other condition or requirement of this By-law, every Licence issued shall be subject to the condition that compliance with all applicable Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws, by-laws, rules, regulations, orders, approvals, permits, standards, and all other governmental requirements is required. Refusal 3.8 The Director shall refuse to issue or renew a Licence if, (a) the Applicant is not the Owner of the subject property; (b) the Applicant is not at least 18 years of age; (c) the application is incomplete; (d) the prescribed Licence fee has not been paid; (e) the Applicant submits false, mistaken, incorrect or misleading information in support of the application; (f) an Enforcement Officer, by way of inspection, has determined that the property is not in compliance with the approved Site Plan Agreement; or (g) There is reason to believe that the carrying on of the On -Farm Special Event(s) at the property would contravene any applicable condition, rule, or law. General 3.9 Licences are not transferrable. 3.10 The issuance of a License does not represent a commitment by the Municipality or the Director to issue a Licence in a subsequent year. Term 3.11 A Licence is valid from the date of issuance until December 31 in the calendar year that is two years after the calendar year in which it is issued, unless revoked or suspended at an earlier date. PART 4 — MANAGEMENT AND RECORDS 4.1 Every Licensee shall retain records of all On -Farm Special Event activity during the period of the License, for the period of six months following the end of the term of the Licence. PART 5 — ENFORCEMENT 5.1 Where any Person contravenes any provision of this By-law, an Enforcement Officer may direct such Person to comply with this By-law. Every Person so directed shall comply with such direction without delay. Powers of Entry 5.2 An Enforcement Officer, whether alone or accompanied by an individual possessing special or expert knowledge or skills, may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with: (a) this By-law; (b) a direction or order of the Municipality made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 or this By-law; or (c) an order made under section 431 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. 5.3 For the purposes of an inspection under this By-law, an Enforcement Officer may: (a) require the production for inspection of documents or things relevant to the inspection; (b) inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection for the purpose of making copies or extracts; (c) require information from any person concerning a matter related to the inspection; and (d) alone or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs necessary for the purposes of the inspection. 5.4 In addition to any other provision of this By-law, and subject to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, a provincial judge or justice of the peace may issue an order authorizing the Municipality to enter on land, including a room or place actually being used as a dwelling, for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with: (a) this By-law; (b) a direction or order of the Municipality made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 or this By-law; or (c) an order made under section 431 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. Obstruction 5.5 No Person shall hinder or obstruct, or attempt to hinder or obstruct, an Enforcement Officer from lawfully carrying out a power, duty or direction under this By-law. Suspension of Licence 5.6 The Director may suspend a Licence if the Licensee fails to comply with any provision of this By-law and such non-compliance is not remedied within 7 days, or other time period as deemed appropriate by the Director, following notice from the Municipality specifying the particulars of the non-compliance. Revocation of Licence 5.7 The Director may revoke a Licence if, (a) it was issued in error; (b) it was suspended in accordance with the provisions of this By-law and no satisfactory evidence of compliance has been filed with the Municipality within 60 days from the date of suspension; (c) it was issued as a result of false, mistaken, incorrect, or misleading statements, information or undertakings contained in the application or any supporting materials; (d) the Licensee is not in compliance with any Licence condition; or (e) upon the request of the Licensee. 5.8 The Director shall immediately inform the Licensee of a revocation and the reasons for it by means of contacting the Licensee at the address provided in the application. The Director shall also notify all affected agencies. 6 Offences and Penalties 5.9 Every Person, other than a corporation who contravenes any provision of this By- law, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, for every occurrence, day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not more than $10,000 for a first offence; and not more than $25,000 for any subsequent conviction. 5.10 Every corporation which contravenes any provision of this By-law, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, for every occurrence, day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first offence, and not more than $100,000 for any subsequent conviction. 5.11 Without limiting any other section of this By-law, every Person who contravenes any provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine in accordance with the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33. 5.12 If any Person is in contravention of any provision of this By-law, and the contravention has not been corrected, the contravention of the provision shall be deemed to be a continuing offence for each day or part of a day that the contravention remains uncorrected. 5.13 Where any Person contravenes any provision of this By-law, such Person shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the Municipality directly related to the contravention. PART 6- GENERAL Severability 6.1 Each section of this By-law is an independent section, and the holding of any section or part of any section of this By-law to be void or ineffective for any reason shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other sections of this By- law. Conflict 6.2 In the event of a conflict of a conflict between any provision of this By-law and any applicable Act or regulation, the provision that is the most restrictive prevails. Schedules 6.3 The following Schedules are attached to and form an integral part of this by-law: Schedule "A" — Set Fines Short Title 0 6.4 The short title of this By-law shall be the "On -Farm Special Event Licensing By- law". Effective Date 6.5 This By-law shall be effective on the date that it is passed. Passed in Open Council this 25°i day of May, 2021 , Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Muni al Clerk Schedule "A" MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PART I Provincial Offences Act By-law 2021-049: On -Farm Special Event Licensing By-law ITEM COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Short Form Wording Provision creating Set Fine or defining offence 1 Conduct an On -Farm Special Event s. 2.1 $500.00 without a valid Licence 2 Contravene a condition of site plan s. 2.3 $300.00 approval 3 Failure to display License in a s. 3.3 $50.00 conspicuous location 4 Failure to comply with conditions of a s. 3.4 $300.00 Licence "NOTE: The penalty provision for the offences indicated above is section 5.11 of by-law no. 2021-049, a certified copy of which has been filed". TI-E HONOURABLE ES HLR ROSENBERG �.r "•" � `� q-L'FIONORABLE FSTHERRQSENBERL REG70NALSENIOR)usnCE _, JUGE PRIN©PALREGIONAL ONTARIOODURTOF)USLICE f 000R DEJUSTICE DE UONTAR10 CENTRAL EAST REGION a, REGION DU CENTRE -EST 50 EAGLE STREET WEST 50, RUE EAGLE OLIESr NEWMARKET, ONTARIO BY6611 NEWMARIET(ONTARIO) BY661 TELFPHONUTtiEPFK)NE (905) 853-4890 rA)(/rtLEmPIEUR(9D5) 853-4891 June 7, 2021 Mr. Robert Maciver Municipal Solicitor Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3AB Dear Sir: Re: Set Fines — Part I The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Enclosed herewith please find the Order and the schedule of set fines. The setting of the fines does not constitute my approval of the short form of the wording used to describe the offences. Please forward a copy of the Order and the Schedule of Set Fines to the POA Court in Whitby. Your truly, )�17 s er Rosenberg Regional Senior Justice Central East Region Ibmw Enclosures PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT Part I IT IS ORDERED pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act and the rules for the Ontario Court of Justice that the amount set opposite each of the offences in the attached schedule of offences under the Provincial Statutes and Regulations thereunder and Municipal By Law 2021-049, for the Municipality of Clarington , attached hereto is the set fine for that offence. This Order is to take effect June 7, 2021. DATED at Newmarket this 71h day of June, 2021 Esther Rosenberg Regional Senior Justice Central East Region Schedule "A" MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PART I Provincial Offences Act By-law #2021-049: On -Farm Special Event Licensing By-law ITEM COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Short Form Wording Provision creating Set Fine or defining offence 1 Conduct an On -Farm Special Event s. 2.1 $500.00 without a valid Licence 2 Contravene a condition of site plan s. 2.3 $300.00 approval 3 Failure to display License in a s. 3.3 $50.00 conspicuous location 4 Failure to comply with conditions of a s. 3.4 $300.00 Licence "NOTE: The penalty provision for the offences indicated above is section 5.11 of by-law no. 2021-049, a certified copy of which has been filed".