agriculture - The County of Lambton

COUNTY OF LAMBTON OFFICIAL PLAN UPDATE

BACKGROUND REPORT NO. 4

AGRICULTURE

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 789 Broadway Street, Box 3000 Wyoming, ON N0N 1T0 Telephone: 519-845-0801 Toll-free: 1-866-324-6912 Fax: 519-845-3817 www.lambtononline.ca

BACKGROUND In compliance with the Planning Act (RSO 1990 as amended), the County of Lambton Planning and Development Services Department is undertaking a review of the 1998 County Official Plan. This review is required at 5-year intervals to ensure Official Plans remain relevant to area demographics, land use changes and emerging topics in planning. Under the review, the County will also ensure the Official Plan is in accordance with provincial legislation including the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and other documentation. Agriculture is the second leading industry in the County economy in terms of gross sales and the leading industry of most rural municipalities and communities. A 1999 study by Harry Cummings and Associates found that every job in agriculture supports an additional 1.28 jobs elsewhere in the community and each dollar in agricultural sales results in $1.57 in agricultural-related businesses sales. Agriculture and its spin-off effects are therefore very important drivers in the County and rural municipalities' economies as a base for employment and maintaining business and population. The majority of farms in Lambton have historically been family operated. Trends towards consolidation, larger operations and fewer farmers/operations threaten to have negative spin-off effects in the larger community. As the owners of the majority of the County's natural areas, farmers and farm productivity are among the most impacted by a societal shift towards increased environmental regulation. Agricultural lands and the agricultural industry, if properly maintained and protected, represent a dependable and indefinitely available resource and base with which to help sustain a rural economy. RELATION TO PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (2005) The Provincial Policy Statement recognizes the importance of agriculture to Ontario's economy. 1.7.1

Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: g) promoting the sustainability of the agri-food sector by protecting agricultural resources and minimizing land use conflicts.

The majority of Lambton County consists of "prime agricultural lands" as defined in the PPS - Canada Land Inventory class 1, 2, and 3 lands. Section 2.3 Agriculture, of the PPS seeks to create a stable environment for the operation and growth of the agricultural industry within "prime agricultural areas" by protecting agricultural resources and reducing the potential for conflict. More particularly, Section 2.3 of the PPS contains permitted use and lot creation policies that seek to reduce farm fragmentation and the establishment of uses that have the potential to create conflict with agricultural uses. The PPS also restricts the circumstances where lands may be designated for non-farm use or urban expansion. Page 2 of 18

There are some notable changes from the Agricultural policies of the 1997 PPS or areas that seem to have been given greater emphasis. Rural Residential Lot Creation Policies: The previous PPS permitted the creation of residential lots for a farm retirement lot, residential infilling and a residence surplus to a farming operation. The 2005 PPS discourages new residential lots, permits only surplus residence severances and requires a prohibition of a new dwelling on the retained farm parcel: 2.3.4.3

The creation of new residential lots in prime agricultural areas shall not be permitted, except in accordance with policy 2.3.4.1(c).

2.3.4.1

Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for: c)

a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation, provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective.

Residence surplus to a farming operation: means an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation). Specialty Crop Areas: The 2005 PPS places a new emphasis on the importance of specialty crop areas and prohibits their being designated for an urban expansion or even certain uses permitted in other portions of the "prime agricultural areas": 2.3.1

…Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection, followed by class 1, 2 and 3 soils, in this order of priority.

2.3.2

Planning authorities shall designate specialty crop areas in accordance with evaluation procedures established by the Province, as amended from time to time.

Specialty crop area: means areas designated using evaluation procedures established by the province, as amended from time to time, where specialty crops such as tender fruits (peaches, cherries, plums), grapes, other fruit crops, vegetable crops, greenhouse crops, and crops from agriculturally developed organic soil lands are predominantly grown, usually resulting from: a. soils that have suitability to produce specialty crops, or lands that are subject to special climatic conditions, or a combination of both; and/or Page 3 of 18

b. a combination of farmers skilled in the production of specialty crops, and of capital investment in related facilities and services to produce, store, or process specialty crops. 1.1.3.9

A planning authority may identify a settlement area or allow the expansion of a settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review and only where it has been demonstrated that… c) in prime agricultural areas: 1. the lands do not comprise specialty crop areas…

2.3.5.1

Planning authorities may only exclude land from prime agricultural areas for… c) limited non-residential uses [those uses without specific policies permitting or prohibiting elsewhere in the PPS], provided that: 1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area;

Rural Employment and Economic Diversification: Regarding "secondary uses" and "agricultural-related uses", the 2005 PPS adds the requirement that: 2.3.3.1

…Proposed new secondary uses and agriculture-related uses … shall be limited in scale, and criteria for these uses shall be included in municipal planning documents as recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective.

An unfortunate aberration of the PPS is that the definition of agriculture-related uses excludes businesses that serve the broader farm community. Such businesses would, intuitively, be expected to be larger in scale than one serving only one farm operation, yet they are only permitted if limited in scale and classified as a secondary use. Further, section 2.3.4.1 b) permits (permissive, not mandatory) the severance of agriculture-related uses that serve only one farm operation, but not similar uses that serve the larger farm community. It is understood that this approach results from the difficulty in distinguishing between businesses that serve the farm community primarily (e.g. a tractor dealership) and those that serve the farm community as well as the broader community (e.g. a lumber yard). Agriculture-related uses: means those farm-related commercial and farmrelated industrial uses that are small scale and directly related to the farm operation and are required in close proximity to the farm operation. Secondary uses: means uses secondary to the principal use of the property, including but not limited to, home occupations, home industries, and uses that produce value-added agricultural products from the farm operation on the property. Page 4 of 18

Farm-related commercial and industrial uses that do serve the broader community are not permitted in prime agricultural areas. Their establishment would be considered an exclusion of land from prime agricultural areas and would be subject to the criteria in section 2.3.5.1 c) of the PPS. 2.3.5.1

Planning authorities may only exclude land from prime agricultural areas for: c) limited non-residential uses, provided that: 1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area; 2. there is a demonstrated need within the Planning horizon provided for in policy 1.1.2 [up to 20 years] for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use; 3. there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and 4. there are not reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands.

Support for Normal Farm Operations/Practices: Additions to the 2005 PPS in section 2.3.3.2 seem to reflect legislation under the 2001 Nutrient Management Act prohibiting municipalities from imposing direct and indirect limitations on livestock operation size and stating that farm practices complying with the Nutrient Management Act and it regulations are deemed normal farm practices: 2.3.3.2

In prime agricultural areas, all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses and normal farm practices shall be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards.

Minimum Distance Separation Section 2.3.3.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement requires new land uses to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae, which provides to separate livestock facilities and non-farm uses. An updated MDS formulae and new Implementation Guidelines came into effect in 2007. The Guidelines contain several options for how to apply MDS. Municipalities must specify which option they have selected in their Official Plans and/or Zoning By-laws. One important option municipalities have is whether or not to apply MDS to the construction of houses on existing lots of record (MDS I). Another is whether to require a surplus dwelling severance to meet MDS from existing livestock facilities that are already on a separate lot. Consents for Infrastructure and "Legal or Technical Reasons": The 2005 PPS adds (or perhaps clarifies) that lot creation is permitted for infrastructure and that lot adjustments may be permitted for legal or technical reasons.

Page 5 of 18

2.3.4.1

Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for: d) infrastructure, where the facility or corridor cannot be accommodated through the use of easements or rights-ofway.

2.3.4.2

Lot adjustments in prime agricultural areas may be permitted for legal or technical reasons.

Natural Heritage, Water and Renewable Energy: Agricultural areas often coincide with and include natural heritage features and areas where "renewable energy projects" locate. Policies have been added to the 2005 PPS requiring the accommodation of renewable energy systems and alternative energy systems (1.7.1 h, & 1.8.3). With respect to natural heritage features (section 2.1), the 2005 PPS generally includes similar but more strongly worded content compared to the 1997 PPS. It also contains substantially expanded policies regarding the identification and protection of water features as drinking water supplies and/or for their hydrological function (section 2.2). CURRENT COUNTY OF LAMBTON OFFICIAL PLAN The permitted use and lot creation policies of the County Official Plan generally reflect the goals of the 2005 PPS for prime agricultural areas. As they should, the Plan's policies elaborate and provide detail to the goals of the PPS to provide an additional level of protection to agriculture that reflects local values and circumstances. OP 4.1 Agricultural Viability

Goals: To ensure the continued viability of the agricultural industry, including farms, secondary farm uses, farm related businesses, and the rural communities, and to ensure that uses that would conflict with agricultural activities are not established in farming areas. To prevent the loss of agricultural lands, the creation of competing and incompatible uses and to prevent farm fragmentation.

Rural Residential Lot Creation Policies: A significant aspect of the existing County Plan's rural residential lot creation policy is its permission of severances no longer permitted in the 2005 PPS and also its lack of a requirement to prohibit a house on the retained farm. Another notable aspect of the existing Plan is that it allows only one surplus dwelling severance per "original farm parcel". A lack of a definition for this term "original farm parcel" has created uncertainty in some municipalities, while one local Official Plan has specified a date considered "original". There is also a discrepancy between the local and County plans in that all but one of the local plans allowing surplus dwelling severances prohibit them where

Page 6 of 18

there has been any previous residential severance, whereas the County Plan prohibits them only if there has been a previous surplus dwelling severance.

OP 4.2 (1) Residential Lot Creation

Severances to permit the creation of residential lots in rural areas will only be permitted in the following situations: a)

An existing farm dwelling that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (farm consolidation means the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation). One of two or more existing farm residences built prior to 1978 may also be severed as a residence surplus to the needs of the farm operation. Only 1 surplus dwelling is to be allowed per original farm lot.

b)

For residential infilling purposes where the creation of a residential lot between two existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots and which are situated on the same side of a road and are not more than 100 metres apart.

A local municipality’s official plan must have regard for Provincial Policy in connection with agricultural severances, and may be more restrictive in the types of consents permitted for the creation of residential lots in rural areas. The Plan currently gives local Official Plans the freedom to be more restrictive than the County Plan either by prohibiting new rural residential lots altogether or by imposing additional prerequisites to being eligible to create such a lot. Many local municipalities have done one or the other. Some municipalities have switched their policy repeatedly or granted site exceptions, a practice that is not supported by local farmers seeking some level of certainty in making business decisions. Minimum Farm Lot Size: Section 4.2.3 e) of the County Plan sets a minimum farm lot size of 40 Ha (100 acres), consistent with unofficial provincial standards. The policy allows consideration for smaller lot sizes on a case-by-case basis for types of agriculture that may require smaller parcel sizes, such as specialty crop production.

Page 7 of 18

OP 4.2 (4) Min Farm Lot Size Exception

Notwithstanding Subsection 3 e) above, a local Official Plan may provide for a smaller minimum farm size than 40 hectares (100 acres) provided that a study is carried out by the local municipality to demonstrate that such smaller farm lot size is prevalent among the farm lots within the local municipality. The smaller lot size must represent a viable farm lot, given the characteristics and trends in farming in the municipality or in that part of the municipality. The local municipality must be able to show evidence of support from the agricultural community for the smaller minimum farm lot size.

Section 4.2.4 of the County Plan (above) sets out criteria that, if met, would allow a local municipality to have a minimum farm lot size of less than 40 Ha (100 acres). No local municipality has (successfully) made use of the policy or established that they meet the criteria for having a minimum lot size of less than 40 Ha. Consents for "Legal or Technical Reasons": The County Official Plan section 4.2 (3) allows consents "to create rights-of-way or easements", "to consolidate farm holdings", and "to allow minor boundary adjustments". The new PPS allows consents for "legal or technical reasons" such as "easements, correction of deeds, quit claims, and minor boundary adjustments that do not result in the creation of a new lot." The policy is permissive, not mandatory, and the PPS list uses the words "such as", so it is appropriate that the County and PPS lists of "legal or technical" severances are not identical and commonsense and practicality can be applied to situations as they arise. Consents for Infrastructure: A new PPS policy (section 2.3.4.1 d) allows lot creation for infrastructure in prime agricultural areas if it cannot be accommodated by easement. The provision is permissive, not mandatory. Section 4.2 (3) a) of the County Plan generically permits the creation of easements and right of ways. Chapter 7 Infrastructure contains a preference for easements and prohibition against lot creation for utility corridors (the most likely type of infrastructure in rural areas).

OP 7.7 (9) Infrastructure Easements

Any severance required for new utility corridors must not result in fragmentation of farm land. Easements should be obtained for new utility corridors rather than creating new separate and distinct lots.

Rural Employment and Economic Diversification: The County Official Plan contains some policies regarding agriculture-related uses, onfarm economic diversification, secondary uses and agri-tourism. It lacks any policies tying these concepts together with an over-all strategy of rural economic development, Page 8 of 18

rural employment, population maintenance and maintaining agriculture and its spin-off benefits as an economic base in rural communities. Although the PPS would allow it, the County Plan elects not to permit the severance of agriculture-related uses (businesses related to a specific farm operation).

OP 6.1 (8) Agri-tourism

The County will promote the development of agri-tourism in the rural areas that does not interfere with agricultural operations.

OP 4.1(7) Ag-related use def'n

Agriculture related uses means those farm- related commercial and industrial uses that are small scale and directly related to the farm operation and are required in proximity to the farm operation.

OP 4.1 (10)

On-farm economic diversification will be encouraged to provide farmers greater opportunity to obtain additional sources of income. Such uses will include home-occupations, home-industries and industrial and commercial uses that produce value-added agricultural products from the farm operation. Such uses are to be addressed in local official plans and zoning by-laws, and municipalities are encouraged to control their operation through policies which deal with the following:

Secondary uses criteria

a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

the types and scale of the uses that are permitted, especially for uses not directly related to agriculture; the need to ensure that the activity is secondary to the main farm operation; the desirability of ensuring that these lands should remain in the agricultural official plan designation; where the activity is to be permitted on the property; the criteria under which the activity will be allowed to expand; the need to ensure that the area occupied by the activity will not be severed from the existing lot; and, other matters of local interest.

Farm-related commercial and industrial uses that do serve the broader community are not permitted in prime agricultural areas by the PPS. Their establishment would be considered an exclusion of land from prime agricultural areas and would be subject to the criteria in section 2.3.5.1 c) of the PPS. The County Plan sets out additional criteria for such uses, but is perhaps out of step with the PPS when it does not specifically indicate that such uses, if serving more than one operation, would require a change in designation.

Page 9 of 18

Specialty Crop Areas: The County Plan identifies the Thedford Marsh in Lambton Shores as a provincially significant specialty crop area (section 4.1.2) and contains policies regarding locally significant specialty crop areas that identify the Blackwell Marsh as such. The Province has not at this time provided any criteria for defining specialty crop areas other than what is contained in the PPS definition itself. It is assumed no provincially significant specialty crop areas other than the Thedford Marsh exist in Lambton. The Lambton Shores Official Plan has determined a boundary for the Thedford Marsh and included an appropriate set of policies reflecting PPS restrictions.

OP 4.1 (4) Specialty Crop Area

Local municipalities are encouraged to designate locally significant specialty crop areas and to establish policies for their protection, maintenance and improvement. The Blackwell Marsh in Sarnia is a locally significant specialty crop area with organic soils that are capable of supporting vegetable crops. In various areas throughout the County, old glacial lake shorelines and sand deposits have the capability of supporting orchard crops.

Recent research by consultants working on behalf of the City of Sarnia suggests that the Blackwell Marsh is not a specialty crop area. The updated Lambton County Official Plan will need to accurately reflect the class of farmland for this area. Section 4.1.14 of the County Official Plan sets out criteria by which recreational and open space uses may be permitted within the agricultural area. Section 3.6 of Chapter 3 to the County Plan County Development and Growth, contains policies related to Centre and Settlement Expansions. Contrary to PPS, both policies lack any specific prohibition on encroachment into specialty crop areas. Minimum Distance Separation: The County Plan currently permits the use of a modified MDS. This reflects an agreement reached between OMAFRA and the former Township of Plympton in 1997 for modified MDS provisions. Many of the local municipalities have adopted the modification. The MDS formula however, went through a major review and revision in 2006. OP 4.1(16) MDS

… Local exceptions to the MDS formulae may be considered if a suitable alternative approach can be developed with the support of the Province and/or its delegate…

The County Official Plan and also some local municipal planning documents have not been updated to specify how MDS will be applied with respect to the options presented in the new Provincial MDS Implementation Guidelines. This has led to inconsistent

Page 10 of 18

approaches to MDS within the County with respect to some of the more fundamental issues of MDS application. Natural Heritage, Water and Renewable Energy: The majority of policies related to natural areas, water and energy are located outside of the Agricultural policies section of the County Plan. The Plan's Agricultural policies do however contain several policies regarding environmental stewardship. OP 4.1(17) Best Practices

The County endorses the Guide to Agricultural Land Use, prepared by the Province and/or its delegate, as an aid to local farmers in the management of their operations.

OP 4.1 (18) Stewardship

Farm practices that are sensitive to the natural heritage system will be encouraged. Stewardship approaches for the conservation of natural heritage features are encouraged. These include “no till” methods of cultivation, the re-establishment of natural heritage features, proper woodlot management, and management practices that ensure that surface and ground water quality is protected. Natural heritage features will remain as part of the farm holding.

OP 4.1(19) Woodlots

This Plan recognizes the importance of trees and woodlots to agriculture due to their wind protection and moisture holding capabilities. Existing woodlots will be protected in accordance with the Lambton County Woodlands Conservation By-Law, which regulates the cutting of certain trees and woodlots, and the natural heritage policies of this Plan. In accordance with the natural heritage policies of this Plan, new development in woodlots will not generally be allowed.

PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN Rural Employment and Economic Diversification: A decline in the number of farm operators/operations has the potential to erode the primary and secondary local economic and employment spin-off benefits the County and rural communities currently experience from the agricultural industry. As a way of counteracting the effects of such trends, the County and rural municipalities need to investigate strategies that facilitate types of farming activities and employment that allow a farm family to utilize existing lots and help to maintain rural (especially farm) populations. This could take the form of types of farming like greenhouses, horticulture, Page 11 of 18

livestock or other labour-intensive farming that requires fewer acres of land. This could also involve allowing employment opportunities in rural areas that allow a farmer to diversify his income while still overseeing the operation of a farm. This also means identifying and exploiting non-traditional, non-local and niche markets and agri-tourism. MMAH has commented that they and OMAFRA will be interested in how these policies are developed. Value-added businesses allow secondary processing of farm products on site and allow a farmer to seize some of the profit share of the 'middle-man' or produce value from what would otherwise be a waste product. Value-added and home industries are an important aspect of diversifying and supplementing farm incomes and helping more people stay in agriculture. Such businesses are also an important aspect of fostering local entrepreneurship and business incubation. In rural areas, larger lot sizes and greater separations from neighbours also present an opportunity for businesses and activities of a more intensive nature than would be appropriate in denser urban areas with sensitive uses in close proximity. The County of Lambton Agricultural Advisory Committee discussed the issue of rural economic diversification and made the following recommendation at its December 6, 2011 meeting: Planning regulations should have flexibility that allows value added enterprise that flow directly from the agricultural products of that operation and to some extent the local agricultural area. Permitting such businesses and promoting such concepts in local Official Plans and Zoning by-laws should be encouraged. The County Plan should provide sufficient direction to local municipalities to help develop appropriate policies that first, find a balance between diversifying rural employment opportunities and protecting rural character and the long-term viability of the site for farm use, and second, distinguish appropriate from inappropriate uses, and third, give consideration for how to help an "overgrown" home industry viably transition to an urban area. Greater flexibility should be provided to on-farm and value-added secondary businesses that help diversify a farmer's income as opposed to those conducted on a residential lot. Staff have been advised by OMAFRA staff that criteria are in development, but currently there are no specific provincial criteria for secondary uses outside of the PPS policy itself. MMAH has commented that commercial and industrial uses catering to the agricultural community should not be permitted "as-of-right" in prime agricultural areas, but must satisfy criteria under section 2.3.5.1 c) of the PPS. Section 4.1 (11) of the County Official Plan needs to be amended to include these criteria and to specify such uses should be subject to a local Official Plan amendment.

Page 12 of 18

Designation Boundaries: The use of "restricted agriculture areas" within local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws where livestock operations are restricted or prohibited in proximity to settlement areas is questionable in light of additions to the PPS requiring the protection and promotion of "all types, sizes and intensities" of agricultural uses (2.3.3.2). Policies should be added to the Official Plan outlining appropriate circumstances for using "restricted agricultural areas". MMAH comments that it is of the view that the Minimum Distance Separation formula generally addresses issues of separating livestock facilities from existing and potential settlement areas. As per section 4.1 (1), the agricultural area policies apply to the rural/ agricultural area shown on Map 1 to the County Plan. The link between the Plan's agricultural policies and areas identified as agricultural in local Official Plans should be clarified. This would mirror policies elsewhere in the Plan, which require local municipalities to define the urban/rural boundaries generally identified on Map 1. The County Plan identifies lands abutting Lake Huron in Plympton-Wyoming and portions of Lambton Shores as Lakeshore Policy Area. The Plympton-Wyoming portion is designated Urban Settlement Area and the Lambton Shores portion is designated Rural Settlement. Various sections of the County Plan, in particular section 3.5 Lakeshore Policy Area, require that local Official Plans identify the portions of these areas where the municipalities desire to direct urban growth. Consideration should be given to reducing the extent of the settlement boundaries to exclude lands expected to remain agricultural in the long term. Policies could be added to the Lakeshore Policy Area policies of section 3.5 governing non-farm development or minor expansions of communities not identified as primary nodes of growth in the local Plans. Inadvertent Lot Merger: As the issue occasionally arises, consideration should be given for adding a provision to section 4.2 regarding lots that have inadvertently merged on title, clarifying that their restoration is not a "legal or technical reason". Such applications should be subject to all applicable policy. The policy may provide some discretion to local committees of adjustment and land division committees to consider exceptions and set out criteria for when exceptions should or should not be considered. Infrastructure Corridors: The prohibition on lot creation for utility corridors (in favour of easements or use of existing corridors) in section 7.7 (9) should be softened to "discouraged" with policies regarding abandonment added. The CLAAC expressed concern with the location of new utility corridors and the liability placed on landowners from past and existing infrastructure. It made the following recommendations: a) Future corridors should be encouraged to use existing corridors. b) If there is an additional cost generated by avoiding current corridors some financial responsibility should fall to the corridor utility operators, and c) Abandonment of utility corridors should not cost the landowner either in cleanup costs or potential liability. Page 13 of 18

Natural Heritage, Water and Renewable Energy: Much of the legislation being developed by various levels of government with respect to environmental stewardship and renewable energy production comes with a potential impact to farmers and the productivity of their operations. This has the potential for negative spin-off effects to local employment and economies. The mapping, identification, and criteria in the Official Plan of natural features and their level of significance should be updated in light of current technologies and information. The CLAAC made the following recommendations with respect to the location of secondary natural heritage corridors on Map 2 and with respect to the deterioration of some woodlots: a) Secondary natural corridors should be evaluated using the best technology available, and b) A consultant's study should be initiated to evaluate the health of current woodlots and the potential for financial support of preservation, establishment or regeneration of woodlots. The County should add policies to the County Plan with respect to its own decisionmaking processes and service deliveries requiring that, where any environmental or energy policy issue is concerned, the potential impacts of decisions on the agricultural and broader community be considered prior to their adoption or implementation. Further, the County should encourage the same from other government bodies and agencies. Minimum Distance Separation Formula: The CLAAC discussed the Minimum Distance Separation formulae at length as well as local practices for its application. CLAAC made multiple recommendations at its January 20, 2012 meeting. Some of these recommendations will be presented to local municipalities as suggestions for local implementation. Others should be implemented at the upper tier. The CLAAC made the following recommendations with respect to options in the Provincial Implementation Guidelines regarding some of the more fundamental issues of local MDS application: That MDS I continue to be applied to existing lots to avoid future impacts on an agricultural operation's ability to expand and to avoid potential conflict. As a condition of allowing the severance of a residence, continue to apply MDS I to all livestock barns whether on the existing lot or any separate lot in order to avoid any future problems with conflicting land use. The County Plan should be amended to require that MDS provisions in local Official Plans and/or Zoning By-laws are consistent with these CLAAC recommendations. The County Plan will need to allow for and provide guidance for exceptions or variances from the MDS I with respect to existing non-farm development.

Page 14 of 18

The County Official Plan currently allows local exceptions to MDS if developed with the support of the Province. The CLAAC made recommendations in regard to two modifications that are common in many of our local Zoning By-laws:  Continue to apply the 300m MDS [MDS I] minimum setback because it is reasonable, acceptable and it helps avoid conflict.  Continue to allow 20% reduction to old barns to allow modest, orderly expansion. The County Plan should continue to allow local Zoning By-laws to be more restrictive with respect to locating non-farm uses (MDS I). Despite the CLAAC recommendations however, the Plan should be amended to remove permissions for reductions to the provincial MDS II calculation for livestock facility expansions. The permission in the current County Plan is predicated on Provincial support, and OMAFRA has advised it no longer supports this automatic reduction. The practice is not consistent with the PPS. Also, since this local modification was first adopted, the "expansion factor" in the MDS II formula has been amended such that the MDS for modest livestock facilities expansions is already greatly reduced even without the local reduction. Minimum Farm Lot Size: The Township of Dawn-Euphemia requested that the 40 hectare minimum farm lot size in the County Official Plan be deleted so local municipalities may determine the appropriate minimum. A number of local municipalities indicate their support. MMAH has provided comments requesting a 100 acre (40 hectare) minimum farm parcel size in the Official Plan. The CLAAC also recommended at its March 23, 2012 meeting that the County maintain its minimum 40 hectare standard. The CLAAC did not change its position after hearing a delegation from the Township of Dawn-Euphemia at its March 5, 2013 meeting. The County Official Plan should retain its 40 hectare minimum and be amended to remove section 4.2 (4), which sets out circumstances for the potential for a local municipality to have a smaller minimum. Rural Residential Lot Creation Policies: MMAH commented that the Official Plan's current residential lot creation policies do not comply with PPS. The CLAAC discussed rural severance policies exhaustively over multiple meetings. With respect to residential lot creation, and in order to bring compliance with the PPS, the Official Plan should be amended as per the CLAAC's March 3, 2011 recommendation: That the County Official Plan permit the severance of residences rendered surplus through farm consolidation as defined in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. The County Plan amendments should be consistent with the recommendations made by the CLAAC at its March 3, 2011 meeting, although not necessarily as detailed. It should be noted the first and third recommendations are clarifications of existing policies: That no more than one severance for a non-farm lot be permitted per original farm parcel, and where a parcel is not a 100 acre parcel from the original crown Page 15 of 18

deed, "original farm parcel" shall mean the parcel that existed prior to Jan 1, 1979. That to be eligible for the severance of a residential lot, the retained parcel must be at least 38 Ha (94 acres). In limited circumstances, a smaller retained parcel may be considered, provided it is viable for normal farm use in the long-term and there is little potential for its acquisition for non-farm use. The parcel must have a sufficient amount of contiguous, workable acres. Proximity to urban areas increases risk of acquisition for non-farm use. In no circumstances may a retained farm of less than 50 acres (20.2 ha) result. These policies are not intended to undermine minimum farm lot or maximum non-farm lot policies. That local Municipalities be permitted to be more restrictive by imposing additional conditions on eligibility to sever a surplus farm dwelling or prohibiting new residential lots altogether. Local municipalities should take into consideration the current and future potential of the various livestock industries within the municipality - their nature, prevalence and density. That local municipalities should be discouraged from granting site exceptions to a municipal-wide prohibition on new rural residential lots, or frequently reversing rural residential lot creation policies. Official Plan Policy Modifications:  To be consistent with PPS regarding residential lot creation in the Agricultural Area, amend section 4.2 (1) to - limit the creation of new rural residential lots to the severance of dwellings rendered surplus through farm consolidation; - require a mechanism to prohibit a house on the retained farm; - limit the number of residential severances to one per "original farm parcel", which shall mean the lot as it existed prior to January 1, 1979, if the lot is not an original 100 acre parcel; - add a policy regarding the retained farm parcel size; and - permit local municipalities to be more restrictive, but prohibit inconsistent application or switches of policy.  Delete section 4.2 (4), which provides criteria by which a local municipality may be able to allow a minimum farm lot size less than 40 Ha (100 acres);  Add a policy to section 4.2 regarding restoration of inadvertent merger of lots - that they are not considered "legal or technical" severance and providing direction to local decision-makers for when restoration of the original parcels should or should not be permitted;  Add a clause to 4.2 (3) referencing 7.7 (9) and revise section 7.7 (9) to "discourage" rather than "prohibit" lot creation for utility corridors, to encourage future utilities to use existing corridors, and to encourage infrastructure operators to be responsible for associated clean-up costs and liability.  Add provisions to sections 3.6 (2) and 4.1 (14) prohibiting settlement expansion and recreational and open space uses in provincially significant specialty crop areas;

Page 16 of 18

 Add policies promoting: - Forms of agriculture that require fewer acres to support a family; - Forms of agriculture that support multiple families; - Non-farm employment in rural areas that allow farmers to diversify income while continuing farm operations; - The identification and exploitation of non-traditional, non-local and niche markets; - Agri-tourism; As a strategy for slowing the decline in farm operator numbers and add policies to the Agriculture, Economic Growth, and Tourism chapters of the County Plan identifying these goals as a strategy for growing/preserving rural economy, employment and population via the economic spin-offs achieved;  Add policies to the Agriculture and Economic Growth chapters of the County Plan to identify home and on-farm business as a strategy for developing local entrepreneurship and business incubation;  Amend existing policies related to home business, on-farm business, value-added business, on-farm income diversification, and agricultural-related business to: - Strongly encourage such businesses; - Require local official plan and zoning provisions to balance economic diversification and protecting rural character while protecting long-term agricultural viability; - Provide direction to local municipalities for developing appropriate policies; - Require local official plan amendments for commercial and industrial uses that serve the broader agricultural community and amend criteria for same to comply with PPS;  Develop and add policies to the Agriculture and/or Tourism chapters of the County Plan reflecting a clearer strategy for the promotion of agri-tourism, or add policies requiring the development of a clearer strategy such as identifying strengths, opportunities, and necessary infrastructure, facilities and resources;  To provide clarity, amend section 4.1 (1) to mirror provisions elsewhere in the County Plan that tie the Plan's agricultural policies to agricultural areas as defined by local Plans' urban/rural boundaries;  On Map 1 to the County Plan, consider retracting the Urban Settlement and Rural Settlement designations of Plympton-Wyoming and Lambton Shores along the lakeshore to those areas identified in the more recent local Plans as nodes of growth, so that areas intended for agriculture in the long-term are clearly identified as such on Map 1. Concurrently, amend the Lakeshore Policy Area provisions of section 3.5 to ensure agricultural lands are preserved in the long-term and to govern possible non-farm development and minor expansions of urban areas outside of these main nodes of development;  In light of recent amendments to the Minimum Distance Separation formula, amend section 4.1 (16) to: - Apply MDS I to development proposed on existing lots of record, allowing for local municipalities to make exceptions or grant variances when dealing with alteration or replacement of existing houses; - Apply MDS I between a surplus dwelling severance and livestock facility whether on a separate lot or not; Page 17 of 18

- Allow local municipal zoning by-laws to be more restrictive with respect to MDS I; - Remove permissions for local modifications of MDS II;  In view of fairness and preserving agricultural productivity, add policies to the Agriculture chapter of the County Plan with respect to environmental protection and energy policies that require County and local municipal activities (and call on other levels of government and government agencies to do the same): - To focus on policies, regulations and activities with identifiable benefits and that consider the potential impacts on the agricultural and broader communities; - To consult extensively with industry and public and determine impacts to public and individual landowners as part of developing and prior to implementing policy or regulation; - To avoid policies and regulations without flexibility to deal with practical applications; - To avoid policies that add undue administrative costs and similar drains on agricultural and other business productivity;  Update statistics in introduction to Chapter 4 with more recent Census Data and ensure statistic still reflect comments about family farms or revise as necessary; SUMMARY In general, the County's agricultural policies reflect the intent of protecting and preserving agricultural resources and the long-term viability of agriculture. Several areas require amendment to reflect changes or new areas of emphasis in the 2005 PPS - e.g. rural residential lot creation policies. Other policy changes, especially in the areas of rural economic diversification, are desirable to strengthen agricultural viability and maintain the number of farm operators/operations as a strategy for maintaining the spin-off benefits the agricultural industry provides to local economy and employment. Farmers are owners of many of the County's important natural areas. The updated Plan should encourage the use of best management practices for protecting natural areas. However, care is needed to ensure that there is a reasonable balance between environmental protection and preserving agricultural productivity. For more information on this report, or the County of Lambton Official Plan Update, please contact the Planning and Development Services Department: 789 Broadway Street, Box 3000 Wyoming Ontario, N0N 1T0 Telephone: 519-845-0801 Toll Free: 1-866-324-6912 Fax: 519-845-3817 email: [email protected] or visit the Official Plan Update Website at: www.lambtononline.ca/home/residents/planninganddevelopment/Pages/OfficialPlan.aspx

Page 18 of 18