Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-14 Minutes T—� CLARINGTON AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 14TH, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brenda Metcalf Don Rickard Tom Barrie Mary Ann Found John Cartwright . Les Caswe,l,:_ Gary J,effery Ted Watson Mark Bragg STAFF: Faye Langmaid, Kevin Jarus - REGRETS: Marlene Werry, Councillor Wendy Partner, Eric Bowman, Jenni Knox Gary Welcomed all to the meeting, everyone introduced themselves Adoption of Agenda 012-12 Moved by Mary Ann Found, seconded by Ted,Watson "That the Agenda for June 14th, 2012 be adapted CARRIED APpro'-val of Minutes - 012-13 Moved by Brenda`Metcalf; seconded by Donald Rickard "That.the minutes of the May`10th, 2012 meeting be' &roved." - - -_ CARRIED Presentation: Kevin Jarus, Intern Planner with the Municipality of Clarington, gave a broad presentation regarding secondary uses and their impact/relation to/on agricultural farming operations. The presentation touched on the following: 1. The issue of determining whether certain secondary uses are compatible or secondary to farming operations; 2. Some examples of secondary use operations within Clarington; 3. A review of the current provincial, regional, and municipal policies related to secondary uses; 4. A review of other Ontario municipal official plan and-zoning policies that are related to secondary uses; 5. A discussion of the concepts of`compatibility' and 'value-adding', and; 14 th Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington June 14 , 2012 6. A review of the methods for either measuring or controlling the scale and product mix of farm markets and other secondary uses. Following this presentation comments/concerns that committee members had regarding impacts that secondary uses, and other potential uses, have on their ability to farm were discussed. Within this, it became clear that secondary uses are not in fact the primary concern that agricultural operators have on their ability to farm. Rather, neighbours and other nearby new residents often complain about either the noise or smells that are a normal part of agricultural operations. These complaints can have a serious and lasting impact on the ability of farmers to carry on their operations, many of which have been conducting the activity for years or decades before the new residents/neighbors appeared and are considered a normal part of a-farm operation. It was also discussed that farms should be required to be viable farming operations if secondary uses are occurring on site. This would ensure that agricultural production remains the primary use within agriculturally-designated areas. An information sheet on the Farming and Food Productions Act is attached as it is an important background document to the preparation of what acceptable secondary uses are on agricultural properties. The Rural Discussion Paper being prepared by staff, and the proposed policy directions formed as a result of the rural portion of Clarington's Official Plan review, will play a major role in ensuring agricultural operators continue to be able to farm, without undue impact from neighboring uses. Staff will compile all comments from this meeting, and use them as reference in future policy formation. Business Arising Doors Open—Well attended over 300 at Knox Farm, not sure on Bowman farm, 250 at Hampton Creamery, over 300 at OPG-Darlington. Enfield Substation — Meeting held at Solina Hall on May 23`d, many were surprised at the scale of the substation, access is being planned from Langmaid Road, many in the community would like it from Townline. There will be another Public Information Centre in September. Volunteer Recognition —Ted, Tom, Mary Ann, Eric and Brenda were all recognized for their contributions to the Committee at the Municipality's event on May 23`d. They thanked the committee for the nomination and were very pleased with the evening. Gary attended as Chair of the Committee. Correspondence and Council Referrals — Exotic Pet By-law — Adopted by Council with exception for two pet pigs that already live in Clarington. Liaison Reports DAAC — No report DRFA —Joined with Cattlemen's for BBQ, which was highly successful, they had over 300 in attendance. Dr. Temple Grandin was the speaker and all were very impressed with her message. Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington June 14th, 2012 The format for the DRFA meetings is that the executive meet more often and then the general membership meet periodically. Mary Ann is wondering if it might be better to have an executive member on AACC to ensure that the information comes to the committee in a more timely manner. CBOT — The Region and local economic development officers organized a tour for OMAFRA business development personnel. The tour included properties on Lake Road (as development sites), Holburn and Algoma as examples of the businesses that are here and have facilities that can be used. Tours were provided at Holburn by Dr. Stead and at Algoma by Kirk Kemp. After the OMAFRA representatives left, Ken Knox spoke to the local economic development people about the opportunities in the agricultural sector for economic development. CBOT is moving into the Balmoral, looking forward to having more space and being in the downtown location. They hope to be in the new space by mid-July. Golf Tournament is next week. Other Business Wind Farm - The Environmental Assessment is underway for the wind farm proposed for the Newtonville area, 3 turbines on Lancaster Road just north of Lakeshore and one on Elliott just south of the first Concession. If a newer more efficient turbine is used they may go to a fifth tower which is proposed for Elliott Road. There will be another public session at some time in the future. Port Granby — the work on reconstruction of Elliott Road has begun. Works on the site will begin in the summer. The link between the existing site and the site north of the Lakeshore Road will be in a culvert under the road so as not to disrupt traffic on Lakeshore. CLOCA - Concern expressed regarding the information obtained from CLOCA about tile draining that has changed due to Provincially Significant Wetlands. Farmers are making business decisions to purchase property based on information received which then is being changed as time goes along (in this case within 6 months). This is troubling and worrisome, the CA should be able to provide more accurate information. By-law Enforcement — question about after hours enforcement, particularly on Solina Road adjacent to the park where it is signed no parking. Grass Cutting — roadside grass cutting has started, the Bloor/Holt intersection needs to be cut. Future Agendas August Meeting — suggestion of CLOCA about tile drainage October Meeting —suggestions? I John Cartwright moved to adjourn. CARRIED Next Meeting July 12th, 2012 Susan Todd and Don Lovisa from Durham College will be in attendance. They will provide a 20 minute presentation on what is currently offered at College with links to agriculture. Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington June 14th, 2012 FACT ) HEET h ORDER NO.05-013 MW FEBRUARY 2005 AGRICULTURAL AGDEX 700 ENGINEERING ® Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food TI-IE FARMING AND FOOD PRODUCTION PROTECTION ACT (FFPPA&) AND NUISANCE COMPLAINTS H W. Fraser and F. Desir (Replaces Factsheet The Fai7ning and Food Production Protection Act(FFPPA)and Nuisance Complaints, Order No, 03-113) INTRODUCTION Representatives of Ontario's agricultural community said Rural Ontario is changing. Farms are increasing in size that to conduct their business, they needed to be and complexity, and fewer people living in rural areas are protected from complaints and nuisance lawsuits farmers. In 2001, farmers made up only 1.7% of regarding normal fanning practices. They said that the Ontario's total population of 11.4 million people, and existing Farm Practices Protection Act, 1988 was out-of- only 10% of the rural population. That is, only about 1 in date and inadequate. 10 people living in rural Ontario actually farms, and the number of farmers is dropping. Rural, non-farm residents felt that fanning operations needed to be more clearly defined. They said that farming Urban residents are moving to towns and villages, rural practices should be better explained to create a better routes and concession roads, drawn by the quality of life understanding of the types of disturbances that stem from in rural Ontario. They value the tranquility, the sense of them, such as odours or noise. They wanted the Farm community and the lifestyle. Practices Board, which held hearings on nuisance complaints, to be more representative of rural Ontario. Farmers appreciate their lifestyles as well, but they also see rural Ontario as a place of business, where the agri-food Rural municipal leaders, who often deal with conflicting industry provides their livelihoods and contributes $25 interests, said that clearer definitions and greater billion a year to the provincial economy, understanding would better meet the needs of all rural residents. As in many areas where industry and residences are located side-by-side, conflicts about the way business is carried out sometimes arise between farmers and their MAIN THEMES OF THE FFPPA, 1998 neighbours. Not surprisingly, nuisance complaints There are two main themes in the FFPPA, sometimes come from farmers themselves. Farmers are protected from nuisance complaints made To ensure that the rights of all rural Ontario residents are by neighbours, provided they are following normal respected, the Ontario government passed Bill 146, the farm practices. Farming and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA), in May 1998. . No municipal by-law applies to restrict a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation. CONSULTATION PROCESS Before drafting the legislation, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food consulted widely with rural residents. Eight regional meetings drew close to 1,000 farmers, rural landowners and municipal leaders. Bringing the Resources of the World to Rural Ontario WHY AGRICULTURE NEEDS THE FFPPA any other agricultural activity prescribed by the In its preamble, the FFPPA outlines the reasons why this minister conducted on, in or over agricultural land, legislation is important. WHAT IS NORMAL FARM PRACTICE? "It is desirable to conserve,protect and encourage the The Act defines a normal farm practice as one which: development and improvement of agricultural lands for the production of food,fibre and other agricultural or "(a)is conducted in a manner consistent with proper and horticultural products.Agricultural activities may include acceptable customs and standards,as established and intensive operations that may cause discomfort and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar inconveniences to those on adjacent lands.Because of the circumstances,or pressures exerted on the agricultural community,it is "(b)makes use of innovative technology in a manner increasingly difficult for agricultural owners and operators to consistent with proper advanced farm management effectively produce food,fibre and other agricultural or practices". horticultural products. It is in the Provincial interest that in agricultural areas,agricultural uses and normal farm practices be promoted and protected in a way that balances Some believe normal farm practice means `customarily' or the needs of the agricultural community with provincial `commonly done'. However, just because something is health,safety and environmental concerns." commonly done, does not make it normal. The real question is, `Would a farmer with average, to above DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL average, management skills use this same practice on OPERATION his/her farm under the same circumstances?' The FFPPA broadened the definition of an agricultural operation to an: What is normal, or not, varies depending on location, type of farm, method of operation, and timing of the farm "agricultural,aquaeultural,horticultural or silvieultural practice. Normal is site specific for a given set of operation that is carried on in the expectation of gain or circumstances, and may change over time. reward". Examples listed in the Act include: Under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 (NMA) any practice that is consistent with a regulation made under draining, irrigating or cultivating land the NMA is a normal farm practice. Similarly, any practice, which is inconsistent with the NMA regulation, growing, producing or raising - livestock, poultry and ratites is not a normal farm practice. - fur-bearing animals - bees NORMAL FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION - cultured fish BOARD (NFPPB) - deer and elk The FFPPA established the Normal Farm Practices - game animals and birds, or Protection Board (NFPPB) to hear from parties involved - any additional animals, birds or fish prescribed by in formal complaints that cannot be resolved through the minister mediation efforts. In other words, holding a hearing with the production of agricultural crops, greenhouse crops, the NFPPB is to be used as a last resort. The NFPPB then maple syrup, mushrooms, nursery stock, tobacco, tree conducts a hearing to determine if the disturbance causing and turf grass, and any additional agricultural crops the complaint results from a normal farm practice. prescribed by the minister the production of eggs, cream and milk The very existence of the board aids in resolving nuisance the operation of agricultural machinery and issues. For those issues that cannot be resolved through equipment local mediation, the board provides a less expensive and • the application of fertilizers, soil conditioners and pesticides quicker forum for complaint resolution than the courts. • ground and aerial spraying In coming to a decision, the NFPPB hears from the • the storage, handling or use of organic wastes for farm parties involved and considers the relevant sections in the purposes • the processing by a farmer of the products produced Act.The NFPPB: primarily from the farmer's agricultural operation "may appoint one or more persons having technical or • activities that are a necessary but ancillary part of an special knowledge of any matter before the Board to assist agricultural operation such as the movement of it in any capacity in respect of that matter". transport vehicles for the purposes of the agricultural operation, and `Experts' must be summonsed by the NFPPB to ensure that they appear at a hearing. Each affected party can also call witnesses to speak on their behalf. The affected parties . smoke from burning tree prunings, or other organic and experts may offer their opinions about whether a wastes particular farm practice is normal. However, only the • flies from manure, or spilled feed NFPPB can render a legal decision concerning a normal • noise from crop drying fans,or irrigation pumps, and farm practice for that location; farm type, method of • dust from field tillage equipment, or truck traffic. operation, and timing of farm practice. Nuisance issues do not include activities that could be For example, consider a hearing about noise from harmful or dangerous to people or the environment. equipment used to scare birds away from vineyards. The These activities are covered under other legislation. NFPPB might decide that it was normal to use this equipment: BY-LAW ISSUES • in a location where few, if any, neighbours lived The FFPPA states that "No municipal by-law applies to nearby, but not normal if there were many residences restrict a normal farm practice carried on as a part of an nearby agricultural operation." A farmer who feels that a • in a vineyard in the Region of Niagara, but not normal municipal by-law is restricting his/her normal farm if used to scare coyotes from sheep pastures in Bruce practice may apply to the board for a hearing. The board County will determine if the practice restricted by the by-law is a • with a method of operation using automatic shutoff normal farm practice. If it is, then, under the FFPPA, the switches, but not normal using manual shutoff switches by-law does not apply to that practice at that location. • when bird pressure was greatest during the timing of The board cannot strike down the by-law. It can only rule early morning and late afternoon, but not normal on whether or not the practice under consideration is a during the middle of the day during hot weather when normal farm practice, at that location and under those birds eat less frequently. particular circumstances. Decisions by the NFPPB must be consistent with any A farmer who is planning to engage in a normal farm directives, guidelines or policy statements issued by the practice restricted by a municipal by-law can also use the Minister of Agriculture and Food in relation to legislation. For the board to hear his/her case, the farmer agricultural operations or normal farm practices. would have to prove that he/she is planning to implement the normal farm practice. The NFPPB consists of at least 5 members appointed by the minister, The minister also appoints the chair and When a hearing is to be held, anyone who owns property vice-chair. NFPPB members serve for 3 years, but can be within 120 m of the site of the farm practice is entitled to re-appointed for a maximum of 3 more. Members include be notified of the hearing and to participate in it. This respected farm peers from across the province, engaged in applies only in by-law cases. many types of farming. The chair or vice-chair plus 2 other members constitute a panel for hearings. The board tries to hold its hearings in the counties or regions WHAT THE FFPPA DOES NOT DO where the cases originate. To avoid conflict of interest, The FFPPA is intended to ensure that farmers can carry panel members for a particular hearing are always selected out normal farm practices knowing that there is from geographic areas away from the case. legislation to protect them against nuisance complaints. It does not mean that they will not get complaints. It also does not give farmers the right to pollute, or to violate SEVEN NUISANCES OUTLINED IN THE FFPPA the: The new legislation added light, vibration, smoke and flies to the previous list of noise, odour and dust as disturbances • Environmental Protection Act for which farmers are not liable, provided these • Pesticides Act disturbances result from normal farm practices. • Ontario Water Resources Act. The bulls of farm nuisance complaints are about odours The FFPPA has sometimes been incorrectly referred to as emanating from manure handling and storage. However, the `Right to Farm Act'. This gives the connotation that examples of other nuisance complaints might include: farmers can do whatever they wish on their own property, regardless of the consequences. This is not the case. • light from greenhouses at night, or farm equipment Farmers,are protected from liability concerning a nuisance used at night only when the activity causing the nuisance is a normal • vibration from trucks, fans, or boilers farm practice, At the same time, this legislation does not prevent anyone from pursuing an injunction against a Applications for nuisance complaints must state: farmer charged under another Act, the name,street and mailing address of the applicant (neighbour who is complaining about a nuisance and WHAT TO DO WHEN A NUISANCE CONFLICT malting the request for a hearing), including a ARISES telephone number where they can be reached during When a neighbour is bothered by any of the 7 nuisances normal office hours under the FFPPA, he or she should first try resolving the • the name, street and mailing address of the respondent matter by speaking with the farmer believed to be creating (farmer alleged to be creating the nuisance) and the the nuisance, This helps open up the lines of location of his or her operation communication, Many complaints are resolved this way. • the nature of the complaint, including; date(s) of However, if the complaint is not resolved, neighbours or complaint(s); pictures if they are helpful; how the farmers can seek assistance from the local Municipal nuisance affects the applicant; and what authorities Agricultural Advisory Committee or the municipality. If have been involved in trying to resolve the issue. further mediation is still needed, neighbours or farmers can call OMAF's Agricultural Information Contact Applications for by-law complaints must include: Centre at 1-877-424-1300. Staff will arrange for the most appropriate OMAF agricultural engineer to contact the • a-copy of the by-law in question parties and facilitate the conflict resolution process, with • the by-law number, the date it was passed, the name of the goal of avoiding a hearing. The OMAF engineers will the municipality that passed it and the address of the work with the parties to address contentious issues before municipal,office they escalate. Where necessary, they may call upon other • a description of the practice to be reviewed; and experts with knowledge of agriculture issues. This process • the name and address of the applicant. has proven to be very successful in resolving conflicts about nuisances. Over 98% of all such nuisance conflicts In short, the more information the applicant can supply, are resolved this way in Ontario, the better. The NFPPB makes decisions based only on what it hears from each of the parties involved at the Only after the mediation process has been tried will a case hearing. Information in the application is extremely be accepted for a hearing by the Normal Farm Practices important, since the NFPPB may refuse to hear an Protection Board. application if it is considered to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious, not made in good faith, or if it appears that the applicant has insufficient personal interest in the subject WHAT TO DO WHEN A BY-LAW CONFLICT matter. ARISES A fraction of one per cent of the complaints received by Once the NFPPB decides to hold a hearing, a date and OMAF involves municipal by-laws. This is because there location is chosen. It can be difficult to choose a suitable is usually much consultation between municipalities and date, since it must fit the schedules of the NFPPB, the OMAF when by-laws are being developed. Since any applicant, the farmer, any persons having technical or related conflicts involve contravention of a by-law, there is special knowledge of any matter in the hearing that may generally little room for negotiation or mediation. be testifying, and any lawyers that may be present for Farmers or municipalities involved in by-law conflicts either party. should call OMAF's Agricultural Information Contact Centre and OMAF's conflict resolution process will be Forward all applications to the: initiated. If not resolved, the case may then proceed to the Board for a hearing, Secretary Normal Farm Practices Protection Board Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food&Rural Affairs 1 Stone Road West,3d Floor HOW TO APPLY FOR A HEARING OF THE Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2 NFPPB Once all other voluntary or mediated efforts have failed, an applicant may make a formal application to the NFPPB. WHAT TO EXPECT AT A HEARING , The applicant outlines his/her version of events, why Applicants and respondents ("parties") should be aware of he/she believes he/she is aggrieved. This is followed by the following before attending a hearing. a cross-examination by the respondent, and questions from the board. Those invited or summonsed to speak • A hearing is not as formal as a court proceeding, but on behalf of the applicant then give their testimony, still very structured; the parties and audience should are cross-examined, then questioned by the board, remain courteous and respectful at all times. • The respondent outlines his/her version of events • For the convenience of the parties, hearings usually followed by a cross-examination by the applicant, and take place in local municipal buildings. questions from the board. Those invited or summonsed to speak on behalf of the respondent then • Hearings can be attended by anyone, but only those give their testimony, are cross-examined, then affected, or those invited to give testimony, are questioned by the board. allowed to speak. Experts summonsed by the board to attend the hearing • Lawyers are not necessary at hearings, but participants outline their expertise on the topic, and answer may decide that legal representation would be questions from the board, the applicant and the worthwhile, depending on the nature of their case. respondent. • Each party sits at a table facing the Board.As witnesses . The applicant then summarizes his/her case. are called to testify, they sit at a separate table. • Attendance usually ranges from as few as 10 to several The respondent then summarizes his/her case. hundred people, including the board panel, the . This completes the hearing and it is adjourned. The parties, witnesses, interested neighbours and members board panel then deliberates to arrive at a decision. of the general public. If a dispute has continued for a long period, the applicant • If the applicant or respondent wishes to ensure experts and respondent may not be on speaking terms. The attend to speak on their behalf, they can ask the board hearing might be the first time they have been in the same to have the(se) expert(s) summonsed. This must be room for a long period. It can be uncomfortable for them, done far in advance of the hearing date. However, hearings often become a `healing session', and a chance to finally air both of their concerns on the issue. • Board hearings range in complexity and there is no Often, concerns about farm practices arise from a fixed length of time to complete a hearing. However, misunderstanding or a lack of communication. it usually takes a minimum of one-half day to as many Comments such as, `I didn't know that', or `Why didn't as 5 days or more, you tell me first', or `I just want you to understand that the odour bothers me', are commonly heard at hearings. • Hearings are normally held in council chambers, but That is why OMAF continues to work with farm they can be held in big community halls if large organizations and rural municipalities to increase audiences are expected. awareness of the realities of rural living, and why OMAF's agricultural engineers offer abatement, conciliation and • As letters, pictures, aerial photos and other items are mediation services for nuisance and by-law complaints. referred to in the hearing, they become submitted as articles of evidence for consideration by the board, and are not returned to the people who brought them. THE DECISION OF THE NFPP13 The NFPPB has 3 options available to it after a hearing. • The board will not consider complaints about In a nuisance case the board shall: problems other than the 7 nuisances and the by-law issues outlined in the FFPPA' because it does not have . dismiss the application if it is of the opinion that the jurisdiction over other matters. disturbance results from a normal farm practice • order the farmer to cease the practice causing the The sequence of events in the hearing is normally disturbance, if it is not a normal farm practice, or outlined by the chair of the hearing panel at the outset of . order the farmer to modify the practice in the manner the hearing. set out in the order so as to be consistent with normal farm practice. If the board rules that the practice causing the disturbance ENFORCEMENT is a normal farm practice, the farmer is free to continue Like other regulatory agencies, NFPPB orders and the practice under the protection of the Act. The board decisions are enforced in the same way as court decisions, will not entertain further complaints unless circumstances The procedure for enforcement is established by the have changed appreciably. Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which governs agencies, boards and commissions of the provincial government. In a by-law complaint, the board may rule that the First, one of the parties or the board must file a certified practice in question is a normal farm practice, is not a copy of the decision or order with the Superior Court of normal farm practice, or that it will be a normal farm Justice itself. The decision or order then becomes a practice if the farmer makes specific modifications. decision or order of the court, and is enforceable as such. The party seeking enforcement would apply to the court The decision is issued in written form, with reasons at the court offices. explaining why the board decided the way it did. It normally takes 4-6 weeks after a hearing for the decision to be issued. This is quick compared to the court system. FURTHER INFORMATION For more information on solving nuisance complaints, Under the Act, any party to a hearing may appeal an pick up a copy of the following OMAF Factsheets, or visit order or a decision of the board, on any question of fact, our web site at:www.omaf.gov.on.ca. law or jurisdiction. The appeal must be made to the divisional court of the Superior Court of Justice, within 03-111, Odour Control of Livestock and Poultry 30 days of the date of the order or decision. 98-035,Bird Control on Grape and Tender Fruit Farms This Factsheet was written by Hugh W. Fraser, MSc, P.Eng., an agricultural engineer with OMAF at Vineland,who has given testimony at 6 board hearings, and Finbar Desir, P.Eng.,an agricultural engineer with OMAF and acting secretary to the board.This Factsheet was reviewed by: George Garland, P.Eng.,OMAF, Guelph Robert P.Stone, P.Eng.,OMAF, Brighton Robert Stephens, LLB., Chair, NFPPB.