Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Agricultural

  1. Town of Shelburne and Ice River Springs Water Co. Inc. v. Township of Amaranth

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicant applied for and was granted approval of the creation of two one hectare lots in the northern portion of the property, in the Township of Amaranth. These two lots front on a County Road which separates the Township of Amaranth from the Town of Shelburne, directly across from the Shelburne Industrial Park. They are also adjacent to a wetland, floodplain and a water feature and within a large area identified as a Significant Habitat. Council’s decision was appealed by the Appellants to the Ontario Municipal Board.


    Held:

    Consent for the Severances is denied and the appeals are allowed.


    Reasons:

    The Official Plan states: “Proposals for new development shall include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent land uses include noise, odour, dust, traffic…”. The Board did not find that the existing and future industry are compatible with the proposed lots and the consents do not adhere to land use compatibility. Natural Heritage and Significant Habitat: The language and requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment is clear and mandatory. No such assessment was completed in this case. Growth Management: With respect to Rural Lands, limited residential development is to occur. The Official Plan includes criteria for a specific number of lots to be created on an annual basis, and these applications do not conform strictly to those numbers.


    Document(s):



  2. Bayou Cable Park v. Township of Amaranth and Amaranth Alliance for Rural Preservation Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Recreational Development, Severances, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The matter before the Board is an appeal by Bayou Cable Park Inc. and the owner Brennan Grange from the refusal by the Township of Amaranth of his request for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent to sever for the purposes of establishing a wakeboard facility on his property on 20 sideroad. The appeal also includes the failure to make a decision on the site plan application. The proposal is to sever and rezone the western portion of the property that contains a lake from Rural to Recreational to permit the commercial wakeboarding operation and to retain the eastern portion of the property where the Appellant has his home, a single detached residential dwelling and accessory building. Issues raised included the interpretation of minimum distance separation (MDS) policies, noise levels, and general compatibility in the rural area.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the day to day activities and special events is not a passive recreational activity, as there are 300 people expected to attend and where there will be a PA system. An active recreational use is not compatible with the surrounding rural and agricultural uses, and as such, is not consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and does not conform to the Growth Plan or the Official Plan. The Board also finds that the proposed use exceeds the scale and intensity intended by the Official Plan for a passive recreational use. Further, the proposed consent does not conform to the Township Official Plan due to the incompatibility of use on the retained and severed lands with respect to noise; it is not good planning to approve a consent and use that will lead to future incompatibility; and finally, the consent is premature and not in the public interest.


    Document(s):



  3. Simcoe (County) v. Innisfil (Town)

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Commercial Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicants own and operate Lake Simcoe Marina and currently operate a year round commercial boat storage business on the subject lands that is related to their Lake Simcoe Marina business. By-law 106-12 seeks to regularize commercial boat storage on the subject lands. The By-law applies to a portion of the lands within the Agriculture designation. The By-law does not permit commercial boat storage on any lands designated Natural Environment. The Town adopted the By-law to permit commercial boat storage on the lands currently designated and zoned Agricultural. The County appealed the matter to the Board. The principal issue before the Board is whether the commercial boat storage is a secondary agricultural use, as set out in the Town’s Official Plan.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed and by-law is repealed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the Official Plan clearly requires the use to be both secondary and agricultural. Regardless of whether one considers the commercial boat storage to be secondary to the livestock operation, no amount of skilful interpretation results in the conclusion that commercial boat storage is an agricultural use. The commercial boat storage is unrelated to an agricultural use on the subject lands. The evidence before the Board is clear that the commercial boat storage is related to the marina business owned by the Applicants and operated several kilometres away from the subject lands. The Board concludes that Town of Innisfil By-law No. 106-12 which permits commercial boat storage on the subject lands does not conform to the Town Official Plan and, as such, does not conform to the County Official Plan, does not conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.


    Document(s):



  4. Rowan v. Town of Erin

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Appellant/Applicant owns property approximately 40.9 hectares and is zoned agricultural and environmental protection. She seeks to sever a 1.1 hectare parcel with the intention of creating a new residential lot. The County’s Land Division Committee refused her severance application and the matter is now before the Board on appeal. The Town’s planning staff reviewed the severance application and did not support the proposed severance.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds the evidence of the Town’s planner to be uncontroverted and unchallenged. The Appellant/Applicant’s evidence was the only planning evidence given at the hearing and the Board accepts her evidence. While the Board may be sympathetic to the reasons given by the Applicant in seeking the severance, financial security is not planning evidence. The Board is required to decide on the planning merits of an appeal before it. Further, the agricultural severance policies of the county and the Town’s Official Plan also address new residential lot creation in prime agricultural areas and the conditions upon which they will be allowed. The Applicant’s proposal does not meet these criteria nor does it appropriately address the criteria found in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  5. Solaris Energy Partners Inc. v. Township of East Hawkesbury

    Location:

    Eastern Ontario


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Renewable Energy, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal to an Interim Control By-law under Section 38 of the Planning Act, in which the applicant proposed a solar farm in the Township of East Hawkesbury. The solar farm consists of a substantial array of solar panels to generate electricity and relies on access to Ontario’s power grid. However, because it is on Prime Agricultural land, neighbours have raised concerns about that land-use and apprehensions about side effects. The applicant appealed the ICB pertaining to its proposed rezoning and site plan.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    While rezoning and site plan approval remain to be addressed, for this hearing the Board draws its decision specifically on the ICB appeal. The Board finds that whatever constructive purposes Interim Control and the ICB may have had in the past, Interim Control By-Law No. 288-58 of the Township of Easy Hawkesbury has no further practical purpose.


    Document(s):



  6. SkyPower Corp. v. Norfolk County

    Location:

    Southwestern Ontario


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Official Plan Amendments, Renewable Energy, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    SkyPower Corp. proposes to construct 150,000 solar panels on an 86 acre farm located at 336 Port Ryerse Road, Simcoe, Ontario in the County of Norfolk to produce 10 MWe of solar power. SkyPower has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale to purchase this farm from David Ryerse. SkyPower has received all other regulatory approvals required from federal and provincial governments and has entered into contracts to sell the solar power from this location. SkyPower requires Official Plan Amendments and a Zoning Amendment to construct the nearly 11 foot high angular solar panels here in this agricultural area. The proposal calls for three quarters of the land to remain in agriculture and be used for nursery and other horticultural purposes. Kelly Harris and Weselan Farms Limited, the owners of abutting properties, appealed these approvals. The main motion was to dismiss the Appeals of Harris and Weselan Farms.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds, upon reading the Provincial Policy Statement that the relevant locational criteria relating to alternative and renewable energy systems are found within the Policy Statement. The Board does not find that the reasons for appeal could affect the outcome of an ultimate hearing of this matter, nor do they take an issue worthy of adjudication. In summary, the Board finds that the reasons for the Appeals set out by Mr. Harris fail to meet the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act and hereby dismisses the appeals.


    Document(s):



  7. The Walkerton Inquiry

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Agricultural


    Court:

    No categories


    Application/issue:

    On June 12, 2000, the Government of Ontario, by Order in Council No. 1170/2000, established a Commission to conduct an inquiry into the following matters: (a) the circumstances which cause hundreds of people in the Walkerton area to become ill, and several of them to die, in May and June of 2000, at or around the same time as Escherichia coli bacteria were found to be present in the Town’s water supply; (b) the cause of these events, including the effect, if any, of government policies, procedures and practices; and (c) any other relevant matters that the Commission considers necessary to ensure the safety of Ontario’s drinking water. The Commission received eight application for standing from groups concerned with issues related to farming and agriculture. The Commission concluded that these groups represent a clearly ascertainable interest and perspective in relation to farming and agricultural issues, and that that interest was important to the Commission’s mandate in Part I. The groups agreed to be represented by OFEC, which was granted standing by the Commission for Part I in relation to farming and agricultural issues.
    The Commission has heard that the establishment of a safe a secure municipal water supply is dependent upon a series of elements: a good source, proper treatment, a secure distribution system, diligent monitoring and an effective response to adverse conditions. It is respectfully submitted that the tragic events of the Spring of 2000 in Walkerton resulted from failures or breakdowns in many, if not all, of these elements. While the evidence is overwhelming that the source of E. coli contamination was cattle manure on the fields adjacent to Walkerton’s Well no. 5, the resulting deaths and illness can be attributed to a tragic coincidence of errors, complacency and, perhaps, negligence, extending back some 20 years, in all aspects of the water supply regime in Walkerton. It is the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition’s basic argument that, while impractical, if not impossible, to identify and eliminate all potential contaminant sources, or impose super-human monitoring, testing and response requirements, its is practical, possible and prudent to require those charged with the delivery of domestic water to adopt a multi-barrier approach to the sourcing and delivery of municipal water. Indeed, it is respectfully submitted that there was agreement amongst all experts that as to the benefit and necessity of such an approach.


    Held:


    Reasons:

    For full report, go to: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part1/ AND http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part2/


    Document(s):