Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-168-85 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE r =' REPORT Fiie # Res. # By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee/Council Meeting DATE: November 4, 1985 REPORT #: PO-168-85 FILE #: DEV 84-17 SUBJECT: ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING APPEAL BY WILHELM ULRICH RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. THAT Report PD-168-85 be received for information. BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: As the Members of Council are aware, on September 3, 1985 the Ontario Municipal Board concluded its Hearing in respect of an appeal by Mr. Wilhelm Ulrich in respect of his application for rezoning to permit an abattoir in conjunction with an existing meat-cutting and meat-smoking operation. On October 28, 1985, Staff received the Board decision allowing the appeal subject to conditions and directing the Town to submit the necessary by-law to the Board for approval . A copy of the Board * decision is attached for the information of the Members of the Committee. Respec mitted, T. . Edwards, M.C.I .P. Director of Plannin TTE*j ip *Attach. October 30, 1985 42 C1 Z840095 �®r Ontario Ontario Municipal Board f J Jr. U it IN THE MATTER OF Section 34(11) of The OCT ;30 1,485 Planning Act, 1983 AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to this Cl:,., - Board by Wilhelm Ullrich for an order -- --- directing an amendment to By-law 84-63 as amended by By-law 84-158 of the Town of Newcastle to change from Special Purpose Commercial Exception (C4-9) zone to Agricultural Exception (A-18) zone with reference to subsection 6.4.18 to permit the construction and operation of an abattoir in conjunction with an existing meat cutting and meat smoking operation 'on subject property described as lands located on Lot 11, Concession 5, former Township of Darlington (now in the Town of Newcastle) representing a 73 acre farm owned by Wilhelm Ullrich C O U N S E L : Bryan T. Davies - for Wilhelm Ullrich David J.D. Sims, Q.C. - for Town of Newcastle R.N. Poole - for James Slyfield Jean Anna Fraser Paul Scattergood et. al. DECISION OF THE BOARD delivered by G.M. HOBART This is an appeal by Wilhelm Ullrich for an order directing an amendment to By-law 84-63, as amended by By-law 84-158 of the Town of Newcastle, to permit the erection of an abattoir. The appellant applied for such a by-law and the Town refused. _. The applicant lives and conducts his business on a 73.05 acre property, situated on part of Lot 11, Concession 5 of Darlington. The land is designated "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" in the Durham Official Plan. The District Official Plan designates the land as Rural and it is zoned Agricultural. The property is surrounded by ten-acre sites which are primarily used for residential purposes and the raising of horses. There are also some farms in the area. The neighbours objected strenuously to the application ti� Ct - 2 - Z840095 because the Committee that they formed believed that the use was not an agricultural use, that the noise and odours would be obnoxious, and that the area was not suited for an abattoir. They viewed this as an extension of a commercial use. The Durham Official Plan permits agriculture-related uses in the Agricultural Reserve designation. The objectors argued that the proposed abattoir was a commercial use rather than an agricultural related use. The planner called by the objectors was of the opinion that the proposed abattoir was an extension of a commercial use, that the odours resulting from the slaughtering operation would be obnoxious to the neighbours and that because of the residential use of the area, particularly on the 10-acre parcels, the impact would be unfavourable. Terrence Edwards, the planner for the Town of Newcastle, testified that the proposal conformed with the Official Plan, that the Regional Municipality of Durham, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Local Health Unit had no objections to the proposed abattoir. Nestor Chornobay, a planner with the Operations Branch of the Regional Municipality of Durham, testified that the application conformed with the Durham Official Plan because he considered it to be a farm-related use. Dale Toombs, a land use specialist with the Food Land Preservation Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, testified that the application conformed with the Food Land Guidelines. He further stated that an abattoir does not contain live animals, and the Agricultural Code of Practice does not apply. The size of the proposed building is such that the loss of land underneath it is not a consideration. In any event, because the abattoir is a farm-related use, the Guidelines as to loss of agricultural land, do not apply. He stated that abattoirs should not be located in hamlets or villages or towns but should be located in the country-side. He testified that an abattoir was not an obnoxious use. I I - 3 - Z840095 Mr. Toombs indicated that as a casual observer odours did not emanate from the abattoirs with which he was familiar. Joseph Ferren, a supervising meat inspector employed by the Meat Inspections Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, testified that there were approximately eight slaughter-houses in the Region of Durham. He testified that when an existing plant is putting on an extension he checks the plans to ensure conformity with Ministry requirements. He testified that the proposal would conform with all the requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with respect to meat inspection. He said that the only odour would be from manure in the holding pens and that the manure was ordinarily spread on the land of the farm or trucked to another farm. The inedible offal disposal is regulated by the Department and must be delivered to a plant licensed under the Canada Agriculture or Dead Animal Disposal Act of Ontario. The inedible offal must be kept in a separate room which was often refrigerated and that was the plan for the proposed slaughter-house. He said that there was no odour problem with a slaughtering plant from a distance of 200 or 300 feet. His evidence was that if the plant is maintained in a clean sanitary condition, there is no reason for odours except when the manure is spread, and this would be normal in any farming operation. He testified that there were three abattoirs in the area, one fifteen miles to the west on Highway 7 near Port Perry and one at Ponty Pool and one east of Port Hope. Mr. Wilhelm Ullrich testified that he had a farm of approximately 74 acres. If he was permitted to do so, the proposed slaughter-house could be erected close to or adjacent to his existing meat cutting and meat smoking operation. He testified that he usually had about twenty cattle on his farm. He buys cattle which are three-quarters finished. He feeds them, and after they have gained the required amount of weight, has them slaughtered. He stated that the closest slaughter-house was seventeen miles away in Ponty Pool. His business was custom cutting and wrapping and his customers requested him to build an abattoir on the premises. He stated he would process fifteen to twenty animals per week. His busy time was in the fall. The rest of the year he was much slower. I - 4 - Z840095 Mr. J. Schmegmer testified that he operated a mink operation some four miles distant. He stated that he could use all of the waste from Mr. Ullrich's operation, and that if he didn't, there were seven other mink farmers in the area who would. He stated that the slaughter-house as proposed by Mr. Ullrich was a worthwhile addition to the agricultural community. Mr. Karl Schwartz, a farmer in the area, testified that if he could use the services of Mr. Ullrich's proposed slaughter-house, it would save him a lot of time and money as opposed to driving to Ponty Pool. Gordon Barrie, a farmer in the Town of Newcastle and president of the Durham Federation of Agriculture, speaking on behalf of that organization, stated that the abattoir was part of the agricultural chain and you couldn't have cattle if you didn't have slaughter-houses. John Bomsma, a farmer in the Town of Newcastle who operates a 2,000-acre farm and has a feedlot operation consisting of 2,500 to 3,000 cattle, stated that if there were no small local abattoirs, that the farm could not exist. He often has animals that break a leg or are otherwise injured. Such animals are taken to the local abattoir to be killed under inspection. Lawrence Avery, a feedlot operator in the Town of Newcastle who operates a cow-calf farm, stated that he would use the Ullrich abattoir as it would save him the drive to Welcome, a distance of twenty miles. Mr. Michael Mofeed, Commissioner of Planning for the Durham Region, stated that in his opinion the application conformed with the Official Plan, and that an abattoir that slaughtered fifteen cattle a week was definitely a farm-related use. I I I I t� - 5 - Z840095 y Mr. Neil Dekoker, the operator of the abattoir at Ponty Pool who slaughtered 650 cattle and 600 pigs each year testified that he was 100 per cent busy in September and October and 65 per cent busy the rest of the year. He stated that there was no odour from his abattoir, otherwise he would be closed up. Given the size of the proposed operation, the evidence is clear that the abattoir as proposed by Mr. Ullrich is a farm-related use. It is located in an agricultural area surrounded by homes that under present day regulations would not be permitted in this prime agricultural land area. The objectors located on this land because they wanted an urban and country style of living and indeed most of them keep horses on their own property. The Board is satisfied that noxious odours would not emanate from the proposed abattoir and that the use would be compatible with a surrounding agricultural area. The Board is also satisfied that there is a need for such a use in this particular area and it would be a benefit to the farming community in and around the Town of Newcastle. The Board will therefore allow the appeal subject to the following conditions: 1. the building be located adjacent to but not necessarily connected with the existing meat processing operation, 2. the offal room be refrigerated, 3. the proposed building be subject to a site plan agreement between the Town of Newcastle and the applicant, and 4. the building is restricted in size to 1,800 square feet inside dimension or in accordance with the plans submitted as Exhibit 15 by the applicant. Counsel for the Town indicated that if the appeal was allowed, that the Town and the appellant would draw up the necessary by-law and submit it to the Board. - 6 - Z840095 The Board will then amend By-law 84-63 as amended by By-law 84-153 in accordance with the draft submitted by the Town and the appellant. In the event of problems, the Board may be spoken to. DATED at Toronto this 28th day of October 1985. LANCASTER VI -CHAIRMAN G.M. HOBART MEMBER I i