[PDF] - Scott Snider Professional Corporation 15 Bold Street Hamilton PDF Document

SLIDE 1

TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS

Scott Snider

Professional Corporation

15 Bold Street Hamilton Ontario Canada L8P 1T3 Direct Line 905 526-6183 ext. 289 Receptionist 905 529 3476 (905 LAW-FIRM) Facsimile 905 529 3663 ssnider@tmalaw.ca

VIA EMAIL June 2, 2017 Regional Municipality of Halton Halton Regional Centre 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario L6M 3L1 Attn: Planning and Public Works Committee Chair, Colin Best and Members of Committee; Re: Report No. LPS15-17 – Proposed Amendment to Permit Surplus Farm Dwelling Severances (File No. RQ58A) Our File No. 13388 We are counsel to the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture (HRFA) in this matter. As you know, the HRFA represents the interests of farmers in the Region. We are writing further to the Staff Report on the HRFA’s request to amend the Regional Official Plan to permit surplus farm dwelling severances in the Agricultural Area of the Region. Our client is extremely disappointed by the Staff recommendation to refuse the amendment but remains hopeful that the Region will advance the interests of farming and the farming community by approving the amendment. BACKGROUND: It is important to recall the context for this amendment request. The HRFA had a number

f concerns with the last Official Plan review (ROPA 38), including the failure of the amendment

to include the option of severing surplus farm dwellings (SFD) to facilitate farm consolidations. The HRFA appealed aspects of ROPA 38 to the Ontario Municipal Board. In March 2015, Burlington Council unanimously moved a motion to request Regional Council to direct changes to ROPA 38 to accommodate SFD severances. A copy of the motion is attached to our July 22, 2016 correspondence that accompanied the current application (see Attachment 1). The HRFA

btained delegate status to address Regional Council on the issue on April 1, 2015. However, at

the meeting Council declined to hear the delegation as a result of the ongoing OMB appeal. Consequently, Burlington’s motion was never debated or addressed in open session.

SLIDE 2

Attn: PPWC Chair C. Best Page 2 and Members of Committee June 2, 2017

TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS

Rather than litigate the issue, and with the sincere hope that the matter could be dealt with in a far more collaborative fashion, the HRFA decided to withdraw its appeal of the SFD issue without prejudice to its right to file this amendment application. We advised Council of the HRFA’s intent to do so in our letter of May 6, 2015- also in Attachment 1. In this way, Burlington’s motion could be addressed in a full and open way, with the benefit of the HRFA’s input, rather than being essentially lost in a host of other issues that were being debated before the Board. In short, the HRFA’s interest in having the option of severing surplus farm dwellings has been clearly articulated for years. This is a carry-over from ROPA 38, not a new initiative, and would have been addressed as part of ROPA 38 but for the procedural barriers related to the

utstanding OMB appeals at the time.

NO DISPUTE: THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONFORMS WITH PROVINCIAL POLICY: With one technical correction, there is no dispute that the proposed amendment conforms with provincial policy, including the Greenbelt Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. As staff note, lot creation is indeed generally discouraged in agricultural areas. However, SFD severances are one of the few exceptions. Why? Because they support agriculture and facilitate more efficient farming without the significant impacts associated with residential severances. If SFD severances caused significant harm to agricultural areas, they would not be permitted by provincial policy. Yet they are permitted in the PPS and the Greenbelt Plan. In fact, the renewed Greenbelt Plan (2017) was just released- and once again, it continues to permit SFD severances. SFD severances are also permitted in the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Contrary to the Staff Report, SFD severances do not “…contribute to a gradual fragmentation of agricultural areas…”and “…create land use conflicts as new non-farm residences are introduced to agricultural areas.” (p. 5) If they did, they would not be permitted by provincial policy. By definition, no new non-farm residences are introduced. Rather, existing non-farm residences will no longer have to be maintained and leased by Halton farmers or demolished with the severe capital consequences of such a proposition. Staff correctly notes that the proposed amendment included with the application did not expressly require that, for lands within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan, the surplus dwelling be an existing use as of the date the Greenbelt Plan came into force. This is a requirement of both the 2005 and 2017 Greenbelt Plans. This was simply an oversight. We have modified the proposed OPA to require that any SFD severance within the Protected Countryside also conform with any additional requirements of the Greenbelt Plan. While not necessary (because the NEC must also issue a development permit) we have similarly required that any SFD severance within the Niagara Escarpment Plan also conform with any additional requirements of the NEP. In this way, the Regional Plan will always be automatically

SLIDE 3

Attn: PPWC Chair C. Best Page 3 and Members of Committee June 2, 2017

TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS

up to date with the latest requirements of both the Greenbelt Plan and NEP. The proposed amendment is included as Attachment 2. RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS: Regional staff report on a peer review that was undertaken of the Planning Justification Report and Agricultural Impact Assessment submitted with the ROPA application. We provided the peer review to our agricultural expert, Mr. Hagarty, and he has provided a response. It is attached (see Attachment 3). As noted by Mr. Hagarty: “All of the agricultural advantages represent a significant opportunity for the enhancement of agricultural viability in a competitive agricultural environment. These advantages far outweigh any potential disadvantages. It is a clearly established fact, recognized in Provincial planning policy, that there are very minimal agricultural impacts associated with surplus farm dwelling severances. Within Halton the agricultural industry, through the HRFA, has put forward the proposed OPA to allow surplus farm dwelling severances since it recognizes this favorable cost-benefit analysis.” CONCLUSION: Staff emphasize repeatedly that SFD severances have not been recognized in Halton Region official plans since 1995. If they were recognized in the Plan, there would be no need for this amendment. Staff allege that the HRFA has not justified the proposed amendment. We respectfully

disagree. We are attaching the May 2016 Agricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Mr.

Hagarty in the event that it was not made available to members of Council (see Attachment 4). The AIA provides ample justification as does the Planning Justification Report. The question is whether there is some compelling reason for the Region to have more restrictive severance policies than the PPS, the Greenbelt Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, particularly when Halton’s agricultural community is requesting access to this tool to facilitate farming in the Region. With respect, Staff has provided no such reason. One of the goals of the Regional Official Plan is: “To develop and maintain a permanently secure, economically viable agricultural industry as an important component of Halton’s economic base, and as a source of employment for Halton’s rural community.”

SLIDE 4

Attn: PPWC Chair C. Best Page 4 and Members of Committee June 2, 2017

TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS

The Region’s farmers have identified a policy tool that will assist in achieving this goal. We respectfully request that the Region equip its farmers accordingly. Yours truly, Scott Snider

SS:nd Att’d. 13388/44

SLIDE 5

ATTACHMENT 1

SLIDE 6

Turkstra Mazza

Hamilton London Toronto

Scott Snider

Professional Corporation

15 Bold Street Hamilton Ontario Canada L8P 1T3 Direct Line 905 526-6183 ext. 289 Receptionist 905 529 3476 (905 LAW-FIRM) Facsimile 905 529 3663

ssnidertmalaw.ca

July 22, 2016

HAND DELIVERED

Regional Municipality of Halton Attn: Legislative and Planning Services 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario L6M 3L1 Dear Sir or Madam: Re:

Severance of Surplus Farm Dwellings Halton Region Federation of Agriculture ("HRFA") Our File No. 13388 We are counsel to the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture ("HRFA"). We have been

retained to assist in addressing the HRFA's concerns with respect to the treatment of surplus farm dwelling severances in the Region of Halton. The attached Official Plan Amendment Application seeks to address these concerns.

The HRFA and ROPA 38 We were recently involved in the HRFA's appeal of Regional Official Plan Amendment

No. 38 ("ROPA 38"). HRFA made efforts to address the issue of surplus farm dwelling severances

through the ROPA 38 appeal process. As noted below, those efforts were thwarted due to the

utstanding appeal. For that reason, we were instructed to withdraw the HRFA's appeal in respect
f the Region's severance policies in order to facilitate direct communications between our client

and Members of Regional Council.

The contents of this communication are private and confidential, intended only for the recipient names above and are subject to lawyer and client privilege. It may not be copied, reproduced, or used in any manner without the express written permission of the sender. If you have received this communication and are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and notify the sender at 905 529-3476, collect if long distance. Thank you.

TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS

SLIDE 7

Par:

A t t n : R e g i

n

a l M u n i c i p a l i t y

f

H a l t

n
Page 2

J u l y 2 2 , 2 1 6

T h e C i t y

f

B u r l i n g t

n

' s M

t

i

n

In March 2015, the City of Burlington moved a motion to request Regional Council change the policies relating to the severance of surplus farm dwellings in ROPA 38. A copy of the Motion is attached. Our client obtained delegate status to address Regional Council on April 1, 2015 with respect to the Motion and surplus farm dwelling severances in general. However, Council declined to hear delegations on the matter as a result of the ongoing OMB appeal. An excerpt of Council's meeting minutes is attached. The HRFA was very disappointed at being denied an opportunity to make submissions before Council on this very important issue directly affecting the agricultural

community. We sent a letter to Regional Council outlining these concerns, a copy of which is

attached. O f f i c i a l P l a n A m e n d m e n t A p p l i c a t i

n

In order to facilitate the implementation of the City of Burlington's motion and to provide a full and open discussion of the merits of surplus farm dwelling severances, we were instructed to file an application to amend the Region of Halton's Official Plan to permit surplus farm dwelling severances in accordance with the conditions set out in Burlington's resolution. In accordance with Regional requirements, a pre-consultation meeting took place on or about October 29, 2015 and

ur completed application is attached in accordance with the direction given at the meeting.

The HRFA is firmly of the view that the ability to sever surplus farm dwellings is not only consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Greenbelt Plan, but is in the best interests

f agriculture in the Region.

We look forward to an open and thorough consideration of the issue.

a t s s

13388/41

The contents of this communication are private and confidential, intended only for the recipient names above and are subject to lawyer and client privilege. It may not be copied, reproduced, or used in any manner without the express written permission of the sender. If you have received this communication and are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and notify the sender at 905 529-3476, collect if long distance. Thank you.

T U R K S T R A M A Z Z A A S S O C I A T E S , L A W Y E R S

SLIDE 8

SIRE Public Access P a g e 1

f

1

S h a r e

T

s

h a r e t h i s i t e m c l i c k t h e b u t t

n

b e l

w

: S h a r e

S u p p

r

t i n g M a t e r i a l s

Motion:

S U R P L U S F A R M D W E L L I N G M O T I O N

W H E R E A S p

l

i c y 2 . 3 . 4 . 1 ( c )

f

t h e P r

v

i n c i a l P

l

i c y S t a t e m e n t , 2 1 4 p r

v

i d e s t h a t a s e v e r a n c e

f

a r e s i d e n c e s u r p l u s t

a

f a r m i n g

p

e r a t i

n

a s a r e s u l t

f

a f a r m c

n

s

l

i d a t i

n

m a y b e p e r m i t t e d , s u b j e c t t

c
n

d i t i

n

s ; A N D W H E R E A S p

l

i c y 4 . 6

f

t h e G r e e n b e l t P l a n , 2 5 p r

v

i d e s t h a t a s e v e r a n c e

f

a r e s i d e n c e s u r p l u s t

a

f a r m i n g

p

e r a t i

n

a s a r e s u l t

f

a f a r m c

n

s

l

i d a t i

n

m a y b e p e r m i t t e d , s u b j e c t t

c
n

d i t i

n

s ; AND WHEREAS other Ontario municipalities outside of Halton Region permit severances of residences s u r p l u s t

f

a r m i n g

p

e r a t i

n

s i n a p p r

p

r i a t e i n s t a n c e s ; A N D W H E R E A S s u b s e q u e n t t

t

h e a p p r

v

a l

f

R O P A 3 8 b y t h e R e g i

n
f

H a l t

n

, m e m b e r s

f

t h e Region's farming community have raised concerns about ROPA 38's restriction on the severance of s u r p l u s f a r m d w e l l i n g s ; A N D W H E R E A S t h e s e v e r a n c e

f

s u r p l u s f a r m d w e l l i n g s c a n h a v e b e n e f i c i a l i m p a c t s t

t

h e r u r a l a r e a s u c h a s e n c

u

r a g i n g t h e e x p a n s i

n
f

a g r i c u l t u r a l u s e

f

l a n d s a n d i n c r e a s e d p r

d

u c t i v i t y

f

p r i m e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s ; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Burlington requests the Council of the Region of Halton to c h a n g e t h e p r

p
s

e d s u r p l u s f a r m d w e l l i n g p

l

i c i e s c

n

t a i n e d i n R O P A 3 8 t

p

e r m i t t h e s e v e r a n c e

f

a r e s i d e n c e s u r p l u s t

a

f a r m i n g

p

e r a t i

n

, p r

v

i d e d t h a t : 1 ) n

n

e w r e s i d e n t i a l d w e l l i n g u n i t i s p e r m i t t e d

n

t h e n e w l

t

; 2 ) t h a t t h e n e w l

t

i s n

t

s u b j e c t t

a

n y f u r t h e r s e v e r a n c e ; a n d 3 ) t h e s e v e r a n c e i s i n c

n

f

r

m i t y w i t h a l l p r

v

i n c i a l p l a n s ; A N D F U R T H E R T H A T t h i s r e s

l

u t i

n

b e f

r

w a r d e d t

t

h e R e g i

n

a l C l e r k f

r

i n c l u s i

n
n

t h e P l a n n i n g a n d P u b l i c W

r

k s C

m

m i t t e e a g e n d a f

r

i t s m e e t i n g

f

M a r c h 2 5 , 2 1 5 a n d d i s t r i b u t i

n

t

a

l l members of Regional Council.

F i l e s

No files found.

h t t p : / / b u r l i n g t

n

. s i r e t e c h n

l
g

i e s . c

m

/ s i r e p u b / a g d

e

s . a s p x ? d

e

t y p e = a g e n c i a & i t e m i d = 1 9 . „ 2 / 3 / 2 1 5

SLIDE 9

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON REGULAR MEETING OF REGIONAL COUNCIL NO. 05-15

DATE OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 9:30 a.m. Council Chambers Halton Regional Centre 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario MEMBERS PRESENT: Regional Chair Gary Carr Mayors: Rick Bonnette, Rob Burton, Rick Goldring, Gord Krantz Councillors: Tom Adams, Colin Best, Mike Cluett, Rick Craven, Jack Dennison, Cathy Duddeck, Allan Elgar, Dave Gittings, Jeff Knoll, Blair Lancaster, Marianne Meed Ward, Sean O'Meara, Paul Sharman, Clark Somerville, John Taylor REGRETS: STAFF PRESENT: Jane Fogal Jane MacCaskill, Chief Administrative Officer Mark Scinocca, Commissioner of Finance and Regional Treasurer Mark Meneray, Commissioner of Legislative and Planning Services and Corporate Counsel

Dr. Hamidah Meghani, Commissioner and Medical Officer
f Health

Jim Harnum, Commissioner of Public Works Sheldon Wolfson, Commissioner of Social and Community Services Karyn Bennett, Regional Clerk and Director of Council Services Graham Milne, Acting Deputy Clerk and Supervisor of Council and Committee Services DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There being no disclosures of pecuniary interest, Council proceeded with the regular

rder of business.

SLIDE 10

REGULAR MEETING OF REGIONAL COUNCIL NO. 05-15 Wednesday, April 1,2015

2 -

C O N F I R M A T I O N O F P R O C E E D I N G S O F P R E V I O U S C O U N C I L M E E T I N G M

v

e d b y : R

b

B u r t

n

C

n

f i r m a t i

n
f

P r

c

e e d i n g s

S

e c

n

d e d b y : S e a n O ' M e a r a T H A T t h e M i n u t e s

f

t h e R e g u l a r M e e t i n g

f

R e g i

n

a l C

u

n c i l N

.

4

1

5 h e l d W e d n e s d a y , F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 1 5 b e c

n

f i r m e d . C A R R I E D C E R E M O N I A L P R E S E N T A T I O N S T h e r e w e r e n

c

e r e m

n

i a l p r e s e n t a t i

n

s . DELEGATIONS Motion to Resolve into Closed M

v

e d b y : R

b

B u r t

n

Session S e c

n

d e d b y : S e a n O ' M e a r a THAT Council resolve into closed session as the subject matters being c

n

s i d e r e d r e l a t e s t

l

i t i g a t i

n
r

p

t

e n t i a l l i t i g a t i

n

, i n c l u d i n g m a t t e r s

b e f

r

e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s , a f f e c t i n g t h e R e g i

n

. C A R R I E D C

u

n c i l r e s

l

v e d i n t

c

l

s

e d s e s s i

n

a t 9 : 3 4 a . m . t

d

i s c u s s m a t t e r s r e l a t e d t

l

i t i g a t i

n
r

p

t

e n t i a l l i t i g a t i

n

, i n c l u d i n g m a t t e r s b e f

r

e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s , a f f e c t i n g t h e R e g i

n

. N

v
t

e s w e r e t a k e n d u r i n g t h e c l

s

e d s e s s i

n

. M

t

i

n

t

M
v

e O u t

f

C l

s

e d S e s s i

n

M

v

e d b y : R

b

B u r t

n

S e c

n

d e d

b y : S e a n O ' M e a r a T H A T C

u

n c i l m

v

e

u

t

f

c l

s

e d s e s s i

n

. C A R R I E D O p e n s e s s i

n

r e s u m e d a t 9 : 4 6 a . m .

M i n u t e s

f

R e g i

n

a l C

u

n c i l M e e t i n g N

.

5

1

5 , W e d n e s d a y , A p r i l 1 , 2 1 5

SLIDE 11

REGULAR MEETING OF REGIONAL COUNCIL NO. 05-15 W e d n e s d a y , A p r i l 1 , 2 1 5 3

M

t

i

n

t

W

a i v e t h e R u l e s

f
M
v

e d b y : R i c k G

l

d r i n g Procedure S e c

n

d e d b y : R

b

B u r t

n

T H A T t h e R u l e s

f

P r

c

e d u r e b e w a i v e d t

d

e c l i n e t

h

e a r d e l e g a t i

n

s f r

m

Scott Snider, Turkstra Mazza Associates, and James Fisher, Fidale Farms L t d . , r e g a r d i n g t h e m a t t e r

f

S u r p l u s F a r m D w e l l i n g s . C h a i r C a r r r e q u e s t e d t h a t a r e c

r

d e d v

t

e b e t a k e n

n

t h i s i t e m a n d t h e r e s u l t s a r e a s f

l

l

w

s : Y e a s : C a r r , A d a m s , B e s t , B

n

n e t t e , B u r t

n

, C l u e t t , C r a v e n , D u d d e c k , E l g a r , G i t t i n g s , G

l

d r i n g , K n

l

l , K r a n t z , L a n c a s t e r , O ' M e a r a , S h a r m a n , S

m

e r v i l l e , T a y l

r

( 1 8 ) . N a y s : D e n n i s

n

, M e e d W a r d ( 2 ) . A s a r e s u l t

f

t h e r e c

r

d e d v

t

e , t h e M

t

i

n

t

W

a i v e t h e R u l e s T h e r e w e r e n

d

e l e g a t i

n

s . S T A F F P R E S E N T A T I O N S T h e r e w e r e n

s

t a f f p r e s e n t a t i

n

s . C O R R E S P O N D E N C E CARRIED Moved by: Sean O'Meara C

r

r e s p

n

d e n c e

Seconded by: Rob Burton

THAT all correspondence and information included in the Agenda for the Council Meeting held Wednesday, April 1, 2015 and distributed at the m e e t i n g b e r e c e i v e d f

r

i n f

r

m a t i

n

, i n c l u d i n g :

Memorandum from the Commissioner of Legislative and Planning

S e r v i c e s a n d C

r

p

r

a t e C

u

n s e l r e : C

r

d i n a t e d P r

v

i n c i a l P l a n

R e v i e w

M e m

r

a n d u m f r

m

t h e C

m

m i s s i

n

e r

f

P u b l i c W

r

k s r e : N

t

i c e

f

S t u d y C

m

p l e t i

n
T

r a f a l g a r R

a

d ( R e g i

n

a l R

a

d 3 ) T r a n s p

r

t a t i

n

Corridor Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study from

C

r

n w a l l R

a

d t

H

i g h w a y 4 7 E n v i r

n

m e n t a l S t u d y R e p

r

t , W a r d s 3 , 5 a n d 6 , T

w

n

f

O a k v i l l e , O u r F i l e s : P R

2

7 9 A a n d P R

2

4 1 7 A CARRIED

M i n u t e s

f

R e g i

n

a l C

u

n c i l M e e t i n g N

.

5

1

5 , W e d n e s d a y , A p r i l 1 , 2 1 5

SLIDE 12

Turkstra Mazza

Hamilton London Toronto

Scott Snider

Professional Corporation

15 Bold Street Hamilton Ontario Canada L8P 1T3 Direct Line 905 526-6183 ext. 289 Receptionist 905 529 3476 (905 LAW-FIRM) F a c s i m i l e 9 5 5 2 9 3 6 6 3

ssnidertmalaw.ca May 6,2015

VIA EMAIL R e g i

n

a l M u n i c i p a l i t y

f

H a l t

n

H a l t

n

R e g i

n

a l C e n t r e 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario L6M 3L1 A t t n : R e g i

n

a l C h a i r C a n a n d M e m b e r s

f

R e g i

n

a l C

u

n c i l ; Re: Severance of Surplus Farm Dwellings

Halton Region Federation of Agriculture Our File No. 13388

We are counsel to the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture ("HRFA") in respect of Regional Official Plan Amendment 38 ("ROPA 38"). We have also been retained to assist in a d d r e s s i n g t h e H R F A ' s c

n

c e r n s w i t h r e s p e c t t

t

h e a v a i l a b i l i t y

f

s u r p l u s f a r m d w e l l i n g

severances in the Region of Halton. HRFA Withdraws Surplus Farm Dwelling Issue from ROPA 38 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal/Hearing Very recently, we received instructions from our clients to withdraw all issues related to the severance of surplus farm dwellings from the Issues List (and the outstanding appeals) with respect to the hearing into ROPA 38. As a result, there are no longer any issues before the Board w i t h r e s p e c t t

s

u r p l u s f a r m d w e l l i n g s i n t h e c

n

t e x t

f

R O P A 3 8 . T h i s w a s q u i t e d e l i b e r a t e — t

r

e m

v

e a n y b a r r i e r s t

t

h e H R F A c

m

m u n i c a t i n g

p

e n l y a n d d i r e c t l y w i t h M e m b e r s

f

R e g i

n

a l Council about this very serious issue.

The contents of this email transmission are private and confidential, intended only for the recipient names above and are subject to lawyer and client privilege. It may not be copied, reproduced, or used in any manner without the express written permission of the sender. If you have received this email and are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and notify the sender at 905 529-3476, collect if long distance. Thank you.

TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS

SLIDE 13

Attn: Regional Chair Carr and Page 2 Members of Regional Council May 6,2015

Burlington Surplus Farm Dwelling Motion As you are aware, the City of Burlington unanimously moved a motion to request the Council of the Region of Halton to: "...change the proposed surplus farm dwelling policies contained in ROPA 38 to permit the severance of a residence surplus to a farming operation, provided that:

1. No new residential dwelling unit is permitted on the new lot;
2. That the new lot is not subject to any further severance; and
3. The severance is in conformity with all provincial plans."

We understand that this resolution was considered in closed session before the Planning and Public Works Committee. At Regional Council's meeting of April 1, 2015 representatives of the HRFA had registered to make delegations on the issue. However, after a further closed session, Regional Council resolved not to hear any delegations on the issue as the matter was under litigation in the context of appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board. Our client was deeply disappointed at being denied the opportunity to make submissions regarding a very important issue that directly affects the agricultural community. The issue of surplus farm dwelling severances has never been discussed directly with Regional Council. There is no doubt that there were numerous submissions made in respect of ROPA 38; however, we understand the issue of surplus farm dwelling severances was overwhelmed by numerous other issues of broader application — for instance, the implications of the Regions' natural heritage system

n agriculture. As a result, our client believes that Council would benefit from hearing the HRFA's

submissions on this issue. In order to facilitate this opportunity, as noted, the issues were

withdrawn from the ROPA 38 hearing. Official Plan Amendment Application to Permit Surplus Farm Dwelling Severances In order to facilitate the implementation of the City of Burlington's motion and to provide a full and open discussion of the merits of surplus faun dwelling severances, we have been instructed to file an application forthwith to amend the Region of Halton's Official Plan to permit

surplus farm dwelling severances in accordance with the conditions set out in Burlington's

resolution. In accordance with Regional requirements, this will require a pre-consultation meeting

and the submission of a planning justification report and application. These steps will be taken as soon as reasonably possible.

The contents of this email transmission are private and confidential, intended only for the recipient names above and are subject to lawyer and client privilege. It may not be copied, reproduced, or used in any manner without the express written permission of the sender. If you have received this email and are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and notify the sender at 905 529-3476, collect if long distance. Thank you.

TURKSTRA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS

SLIDE 14

ider

Attn: Regional Chair Carr and Page 3 Members of Regional Council M a y 6 , 2 1 5

We are simply writing at this time to advise Council that it should expect this amendment application in due course. Our client is firmly of the view that the ability to sever surplus farm dwellings is not only consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Greenbelt Plan, but i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s

f

a g r i c u l t u r e i n t h e R e g i

n

. O u r c l i e n t s l

k

f

r

w a r d t

a

n

p

e n a n d t h

r
u

g h c q f i s i d e r a t i

n
f

t h e a p s u e .

SS:nd 13388/37

The contents of this email transmission are private and confidential, intended only for the recipient names a b

v

e a n d a r e s u b j e c t t

l

a w y e r a n d c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e . I t m a y n

t

b e c

p

i e d , r e p r

d

u c e d ,

r

u s e d i n a n y m a n n e r without the express written permission of the sender. If you have received this email and are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and notify the sender at 905 529-3476, collect if long distance. Thank you.

TURKSTFtA MAZZA ASSOCIATES, LAWYERS

SLIDE 15

ATTACHMENT 2

SLIDE 16

Amendment No. to THE REGIONAL PLAN (2006)

Official Plan for the Halton Planning Area Regional Municipality of Halton An Amendment to Permit Surplus Farm Dwelling Severances in Halton's Rural Area Halton Region Federation of Agriculture July, 2016

SLIDE 17

THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT

PART A

The Preamble, does not constitute part of this Amendment.

PART B

The Amendment, consisting of 1 item of text, constitutes Amendment No. to The Regional Plan (2006), the Official Plan for the Halton Planning Area, Regional Municipality

f Halton. The title of Amendment No. is “An Amendment to Permit Surplus Farm

Dwelling Severances in Halton's Rural Area."

PART C

Implementation/Interpretation.

SLIDE 18

PART A: THE PREAMBLE

Purpose

The purpose of this Amendment is to incorporate additional lot creation policy wording that will distinguish and permit Surplus Farm Dwelling severances, with appropriate conditions, in Halton's rural area.

Location

The entire geographic area of Halton is affected by this Amendment, save and except within settlement areas. This Amendment is directed to Halton's agricultural lands outside settlement area boundaries (i.e., Halton's rural area).

Basis

Consistent with provincial policy directives in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, the Greenbelt Plan, 2005, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2012, where Surplus Farm Dwelling Severances are permitted with certain conditions; and, based on the call by Halton's agricultural community which it represents, the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture proposes a policy addition to Halton's Official Plan - to distinguish and permit Surplus Farm Dwelling severances, with appropriate conditions (to preclude the creation

f new residential lots), in order to facilitate the consolidation and protection of farmland

for agricultural purposes in Halton's rural area.

SLIDE 19

PART B: THE AMENDMENT

Introductory Statement

All of this part constitutes Amendment No. to The Regional Plan (2006), the Official Plan for the Halton Planning Area, Regional Municipality of Halton.

Details of the Amendment

This Amendment consists of 1 item (addition of text). The Regional Plan (2006) is amended as follows: Section 66 of the Plan is amended with the addition of the following text in new Subsection 66(3). Section 66, Subject to other policies of this Plan, applicable Local Official Plan policies and Zoning By-laws, and policies of the applicable Provincial Plans, new lots may be created: "66(3) for an existing farm dwelling that is a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation provided that: (a) In the case of a farm dwelling made surplus as a result of acquisition as part of a farm, applications for severance of the surplus dwelling shall comply with the following conditions: (i) the parcels of land comprising the consolidated farm operation shall be a minimum of 40.5 hectares (100 acres) in total; (ii) the proposed surplus dwelling lot shall be a minimum of 0.4 hectares (1 acre), or such larger area as may be required to ensure a sustainable private water and wastewater service on the lot; (iii) a private water and wastewater disposal system shall be existing or provided for the surplus farm dwelling; (iv) the shape and dimensions of the proposed surplus dwelling lot shall not unduly impair the agricultural operations on the retained farm parcel; (v) the proposed surplus farm dwelling lot shall not include barns or other farm buildings which are not suitable to be used as accessory structures to a residential use prescribed by the Zoning By-laws of the area municipality, and no such building and structures shall be used for industrial or commercial purposes; and, (vi) barns suitable for livestock use within the consolidated farm operation should remain within the retained farm parcel if needed and should

SLIDE 20

comply with MDS I setback requirements. Otherwise such facilities may be demolished to increase the overall available farmland. (vii) for lands within the Protected Countryside Area of the Greenbelt Plan, any additional requirements of the policies of the Greenbelt Plan; (viii) for lands within the Niagara Escarpment Plan, any additional requirements of the policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan. (b) The surplus farm dwelling shall be habitable on the date of the application for surplus farm dwelling severance and should meet the area municipality’s standards for occupancy without substantial demolition and/or new construction. (c) Prior to granting of final consent for the severance of the surplus farm dwelling lot, one of the following conditions shall be met for the retained farm parcel: (i) the land owner shall apply for and receive final approval to rezone the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the construction of any dwelling unit; (ii) the remnant farm parcel shall be merged with an adjacent parcel (lot line adjustment); or, (iii) where, within the Niagara Escarpment Plan and subject to development control, the remnant farm parcel has been restricted by an APO designation under the NEP."

SLIDE 21

PART C: IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

Implementation

The implementation of this Amendment to the Official Plan for the Halton Planning Area shall be in accordance with the policies of The Regional Plan (2006) as amended.

Interpretation

The provisions of The Regional Plan (2006) amended from time to time regarding interpretation of that plan shall apply with respect to this Amendment.

SLIDE 22

ATTACHMENT 3

SLIDE 23

P.O. Box 81, Bayfield ON, N0M 1G0 Phone: (519) 955-3995 Fax: (519) 482-3095 email jerry.hagarty@gmail.com

June 1, 2017

Mr. Scott Snider

Turkstra Mazza 15 Bold Street Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3 Dear Scott: Reference: Proposed Region of Halton OPA – Surplus Farm Dwellings Comments – Caldwell Consulting Peer Review of Agriculture Impact Assessment

Caldwell Consulting conducted a peer review of Conna’s Agricultural Impact Assessment of the proposed OPA and reported to the Region on December 20, 2016. Conna has reviewed the Peer Review and offers the following comments. The Caldwell peer review states that both the Planning Justification (PJR) and the Agriculture Impact Assessment (AIA) reports demonstrate a bias in favour of surplus farm dwellings. The peer review suggests that the reports submitted with the proposed OPA provide inadequate attention to concerns and potential negative impacts of surplus farm dwellings. This conclusion is unfounded. Both reports address a wide variety of specific concerns and offer a number of mitigation strategies for minimizing impact. Rather than ignoring or downplaying potential concerns, the AIA report specifically deals with, among others, the following potential impact scenarios:

MDS restrictions on the remnant farm parcel;
Potential loss of agricultural facilities, livestock barns and other farm buildings;
Potential loss of agricultural land;
Fragmentation of arable, cultivated croplands;
Potential for new nonfarm residential development on the remnant farm parcel;
Potential for an increase in the level of rural nonfarm residential development and

population; and

Possibility of non-agricultural based surplus farm dwelling severance activity.

SLIDE 24

Page 2 of 4

Contrary to the Caldwell findings, both the AIA and the PJR reports, in recognition of potential impacts, suggest a variety of reasonable controls and tests and restrictions including:

Disallowing the inclusion of agricultural facilities within the proposed severances;
Minimizing the size of qualified severances;
Restrictions on the development of new residential uses on remnant farm parcels;
Restrictions on severance activity that is not related to farm consolidation; and
Complete MDS Formula 1 compliance with respect to existing livestock facilities,

including those remaining on the remnant farm parcel.

Dr. Caldwell purports to strive for ‘balance and accuracy’ in his review and indicates that he is

attempting ‘to ensure that both sides of this important issue are considered’. However, the substance of his analysis suggests otherwise. While indicating that arguments against surplus farm dwelling activity have been ‘largely ignored’ by the two reports submitted with the OPA, his

wn analysis generally ignores the following findings:
Surplus farm dwelling severances involve little to no loss of agricultural land;
Surplus farm dwelling severances add no new interruption to the continuity and integrity
f the cultivated, arable agricultural land base;
Surplus farm dwelling severances, as surplus to the farm operation, are already nonfarm

residential in nature. These severances would not add to the nonfarm population;

As a consequence of surplus farm dwellings severances, there would be no new MDS

constraints on adjacent farm properties, only on the remnant portion of the subject lands; and

Landlord responsibilities managing turnover and maintaining rental properties represent

potentially significant distraction from the business of farming. The Caldwell peer review appears to be less concerned about the above realities and is more focused on the ‘gradual change in the countryside’ associated with the possible switch in

wnership of surplus farm dwellings. Presumably, from Dr. Caldwell’s viewpoint, going from

rental nonfarm residential use to owner-based nonfarm residential use, is an unacceptable change, despite the fact that the ‘before’ and ‘after’ situations are both nonfarm residential in nature. The peer-review expresses concern that this would reduce the ability to control potential

conflicts. In this respect, Dr. Caldwell would seem to prefer that such conflict resolution be the

responsibility of the farmer, rather than the Municipality or the Region, involving solutions such as eviction and rental turnover or even demolition. This would undeniably result in an increased demand on the time and resources of the farmer and create a distraction from the focus of managing the farm operation. If the farmer wishes to retain ownership and control of the farm dwelling, he would not apply for the severance. As for the level of potential conflict with a rental versus ownership interest, Dr. Caldwell suggests that the latter is more onerous. The peer review however provides no specific evidence indicating that people renting, rather than owning are any less inclined or have less of a right to complain about a neighbouring farm operation.

SLIDE 25

Page 3 of 4

Ultimately, Dr. Caldwell suggests that the best overall long-term solution or outcome might be demolition of the surplus farm dwelling, thereby removing the source of any conflict. He recognizes that this extreme option is ‘less feasible in the short term’. Presumably this is reflecting the fact that the solution would represent a capital loss to the farm, not to mention a wasteful loss of potentially good housing. Despite Dr. Caldwell’s conclusion that the supporting documentation to the amendment provides insufficient rationale to justify it, he does suggest that, if the policy were allowed, there are a number of ways to strengthen it to limit the number of potential severance applications. One suggestion would limit severances to parcels that are physically abutting or within a certain distance of each other. However, the widespread nature of farm consolidation in the industry today is such that not always are the resulting surplus farm dwellings proximate.

Dr. Caldwell is concerned about the potential loss of long-term flexibility in the agricultural

system resulting from surplus farm dwelling severances. Although some livestock facility locational restrictions will result within the remnant farm parcel, the trend away from livestock facility development in Halton reduces this concern. Concerns regarding loss of potential farm residential opportunities are also reduced by the fact that there is dramatic ongoing reduction in the number of farm operators in Halton requiring accommodation. Offsetting some of these concerns regarding loss of agricultural flexibility is the fact, recognized by Dr. Caldwell, that ‘where a farm parcel is already in nonfarm ownership, the severance of the dwelling may help an individual farmer acquire control of the remnant farm parcel’. This reduces the possibility that nonfarm owners might, as landlords, strictly control the agricultural use of the cropland, reducing its long-term agricultural flexibility. Other significant agricultural benefits potentially derived from surplus farm dwelling severances include:

The severance and sale of surplus assets creates working capital for the farm business

helping to offset the cost of farm consolidation, thereby facilitating the farm consolidation process; and

Removing surplus dwellings from the farm operation also removes all of the potential

distractions associated with the requirement for farm operators to be landlords responding to the demands of tenants; managing the ongoing acquisition and turnover of tenants; maintaining the dwelling for rental purposes; and dealing with vandalism or misuse during periods of vacancy. These benefits are not recognized in Dr. Caldwell’s analyses. All of the agricultural advantages represent a significant opportunity for the enhancement of agricultural viability in a competitive agricultural environment. These advantages far outweigh any potential disadvantages. It is a clearly established fact, recognized in Provincial planning policy, that there are very minimal agricultural impacts associated with surplus farm dwelling severances. Within Halton the agricultural industry, through the HRFA, has put forward the proposed OPA to allow surplus farm dwelling severances since it recognizes this favorable cost-benefit analysis.

SLIDE 26

Page 4 of 4

Provincial policies as well as Halton Planning policy strive to protect agriculture. Unlike the province, however, Dr. Caldwell and the Region do not see any significant difference in the agricultural impact profile of surplus farm dwelling severances versus new nonfarm residential

severances. This position is being taken despite the wishes of the Halton agricultural industry as

represented by the HRFA

Yours sincerely,

Jerry Hagarty P.Ag. Conna Consulting Inc.

SLIDE 27

ATTACHMENT 4

SLIDE 28

Agricultural Impact Assessment Proposed Region of Halton OPA Surplus Farm Dwellings

Prepared by: Conna Consulting Inc. Prepared for: Halton Region Federation of Agriculture May 16, 2016

SLIDE 29

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings

Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………………………….(i)

1. Introduction

.................................................................................................... 1

2. The Proposed Amendment

........................................................................... 1

3. Trends in Agriculture ....................................................................................

3

4. Policy Framework

.......................................................................................... 6

5. Agricultural Impact Considerations

............................................................. 8 5.1. Loss of Agricultural Resources ............................................................. 9 5.2. Conflict Potential ................................................................................... 10 5.3. Minimum Distance Separation ............................................................. 11 5.4. Agricultural Viability ............................................................................. 13 5.5. Agricultural Character .......................................................................... 15

6. Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................

15

7. Conclusions .................................................................................................

16 References.19 Appendix: Curriculum Vitae of Jerome M Hagarty P.Ag., Conna Consulting Inc...20

SLIDE 30

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings

Executive Summary

This analysis was conducted on behalf of the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture (HRFA) for the purpose of assessing the potential agricultural impacts associated with the severance of surplus farm dwellings. This Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) forms part of the Federation’s application for an official plan amendment to provide for such severances in Halton. The substance of the proposed amendment is contained in Section 2 this report. The 2011 Census of Agriculture documents the ongoing farm consolidation trend that is resulting in fewer but larger farms directed at achieving economies of scale. This trend occurs across Canada and Ontario, including Halton Region. It results in the occurrence of surplus farm dwellings that can be a distraction and financial drain on agricultural

perations.

Provincial policies and those of other planning jurisdictions in Ontario have severely restricted new residential severances in agricultural areas because of the many possible agricultural impacts that can result. These same policies, however, recognize that surplus farm dwelling severances have minimal agricultural impacts and provide for them with certain qualifications and restrictions. This policy direction is supported by the agricultural industry, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture. This AIA found that qualified surplus farm dwelling severances do not result in a significant loss of agricultural land; substantive interruption or interference in cultivation patterns; or retirement or restriction of existing livestock facilities. Neither do they restrict the flexibility of adjacent or surrounding farm operations. Barns are not included within the severance but there would be some Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) restriction

n the location of new livestock facilities that might, in the future, be

proposed for the retained farm parcel. In Halton however, there is a dramatic trend away from food production from livestock housed in feedlots and swine and poultry facilities. (i)

SLIDE 31

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings Unlike new residential severances, surplus farm dwelling severances do not result in any increase in the rural area residential population. This is a key distinction since the incidence of conflict and level of nuisance complaints associated with normal farming practice is largely proportional to the number of residents living in the rural area. With surplus farm dwelling severances, this number does not increase. With minimal agricultural resource and operational impacts and no increasing fragmentation related to an expanding rural area residential population, there is a little functional change in agricultural character. There are also no substantive effects that might reduce agricultural

viability. To the contrary, the removal of potential distractions associated

with the requirement of farm operators to be a landlord and the recovery of working capital for the farm business are positive benefits that potentially enhance agricultural viability. With the application of appropriate mitigation measures, including restrictions on residential use on the retained farm parcel, MDS I compliance for livestock facilities left on the farm property and minimum size and dimension specifications for the farm parcel and severed lot, these forms of severance can occur without substantial agricultural impact and, in accordance with Provincial Policy, are appropriate from an agricultural resource and operational viewpoint. (ii)

SLIDE 32

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 1

1. Introduction

Conna Consulting Inc. was retained by the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture (HRFA) to undertake an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA)

f a proposed Official Plan Amendment providing for the severance of

surplus farm dwellings resulting from farm consolidation of either abutting

r non-abutting farm properties within Halton.

This assessment was done in accordance with the AIA Guidelines that were prepared by Halton Region to aid in the implementation of Regional Official Plan Policy directed at protecting the agricultural industry within Halton. As prescribed by the guidelines, pre-consultation discussions were held in October of 2015 between the Region and the Federation and its planning consultant, Mr. Peter Walker. This assessment considers the potential for agricultural / nonagricultural land use conflicts and for surplus farm dwelling severance impacts on agricultural resources, character and viability.

2. The Proposed Amendment

The HRFA has concerns regarding the availability of surplus farm dwelling severances within the Region of Halton. To address these concerns the Federation has filed an application to amend the Region of Halton’s Official Plan to permit surplus farm dwelling severances in accordance with a number of conditions. The proposed OPA is focused on relieving restrictions on the severance of these dwellings within Halton. It reflects the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement (2014); the Greenbelt Plan (2005) and similar policies within other planning jurisdictions in Ontario. It strives to derive the potential beneficial impacts of these severances for the agricultural industry of Halton Region while minimizing impacts on agricultural resources and operations. The suggested wording for proposed policies governing the severance of surplus farm dwellings is as follows:

SLIDE 33

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 2

Section 66, Subject to other policies of this Plan, applicable Local Official

Plan policies and Zoning By-laws, and policies of the applicable Provincial Plans, new lots may be created: "66(3) for an existing farm dwelling that is a residence surplus to a farming

peration as a result of a farm consolidation provided that:

(a) In the case of a farm dwelling made surplus as a result of acquisition as part of a farm, applications for severance of the surplus dwelling shall comply with the following conditions: (i) the parcels of land comprising the consolidated farm

peration shall be a minimum of 40.5 hectares (100 acres) in

total; (ii) the proposed surplus dwelling lot shall be a minimum of 0.4 hectares (1 acre), or such larger area as may be required to ensure a sustainable private water and wastewater service on the lot; (iii) a private water and wastewater disposal system shall be existing or provided for the surplus farm dwelling; (iv) the shape and dimensions of the proposed surplus dwelling lot shall not unduly impair the agricultural operations

n the retained farm parcel;

(v) the proposed surplus farm dwelling lot shall not include barns or other farm buildings which are not suitable to be used as accessory structures to a residential use prescribed by the Zoning By-laws of the area municipality, and no such building and structures shall be used for industrial or commercial purposes; and, (vi) barns suitable for livestock use within the consolidated farm operation should remain within the retained farm parcel if needed and should comply with MDS I setback requirements. Otherwise such facilities may be demolished to increase the

verall available farmland.

SLIDE 34

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 3 (b) The surplus farm dwelling shall be habitable on the date of the application for surplus farm dwelling severance and should meet the area municipality’s standards for occupancy without substantial demolition and/ or new construction. (c) Prior to granting of final consent for the severance of the surplus farm dwelling lot, one of the following conditions shall be met for the retained farm parcel: (i) the land owner shall apply for and receive final approval to rezone the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the construction of any dwelling unit; (ii) the remnant farm parcel shall be merged with an adjacent parcel (lot line adjustment); or, (iii) where, within the Niagara Escarpment Plan and subject to development control, the remnant farm parcel has been restricted by an APO designation under the NEP."

3. Trends in Agriculture

Canada

Agricultural trends within Ontario and more broadly in Canada are dominated by the growth and expansion of farm operations into larger, more efficient production units that embrace new technologies and economies of scale. The 2011 Census of Agriculture in Canada reported 10.3% fewer farms nationally than were reported in the previous census in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2011). Over the longer term, Statistics Canada reports a 71% reduction in the number of census farms over the 90-year period since

1921. During that same time in Canada the total area of farmland increased

as marginal lands were brought into production. The result is that farm size has increased as fewer farms consolidate the production area into larger farms.

SLIDE 35

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 4

Ontario

Closer to home, in Ontario, Statistics Canada reports a similar decline in the number of farms over the five years between the 2006 and 2011 census. In that time period the decline was 9.2% while average farm size increased 4.7% to 99 ha (244 acres). For Ontario, this farm consolidation trend has resulted in farm operational units that are approximately 2 ½ times the size

f the classic 40 ha (100 acre) farm unit with a residence and barn facilities.

The total number of farm operators is also declining rapidly. In Ontario the decline was 12% over the decade between 2001 and 2011. Fewer but larger farm operations geared to capitalizing expanding operations are becoming more prominent players within the agricultural industry, replacing many smaller farm operations. Occasionally but seldom do farm ownership consolidation opportunities involve abutting land parcels. Often land acquisition involves separate entities that are added when a farm sale opportunity arises within or near the operational center of the farm. Either way, combining smaller farm units with a house and barn, into larger operations, has resulted in farm residences that are surplus to the needs of the farm. Fewer farm operators require fewer farm residences. Planning polices and Official Plans are now reflecting these trends and are developing surplus farm dwelling severance provisions that are supportive

f agriculture. These policies recognize that these residences are no longer

needed for housing a declining number of farm operators. While surplus and often deteriorating barns are often subject to removal, the farmhouses typically remain as suitable residential units with potential for ongoing use. These surplus residences can represent a considerable investment of capital that would be lost if they were demolished. The retention of residential units surplus to an agricultural operation can result in financial and operational constraints for the farm. Maintenance and carrying costs are not always fully offset by rental income. Tenants are generally reluctant to contribute to the maintenance or upgrading of the farmhouses resulting in inevitable deterioration and ongoing maintenance issues. Rental properties in rural areas typically have a high rate of turnover. They are often isolated and subject to vandalism when unoccupied. They may

SLIDE 36

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 5 also be subject to misuse including illegal activities. The time required by farm operators to be a landlord involved in maintaining and watching over these residences and in managing the often unstable turnover of tenants is a distraction from the core business of farming. Sale of the surplus residence, on the other hand, results in a capital infusion into the farm that can benefit its operations and removes the landlord obligations of the farmer.

Halton

In Halton, over the five-year period between the 2006 and 2011 census the number of farms also declined (17%), as have the number of farm operators (14%). Halton, however, like other regions within the GTA, has transitioned in response to its proximity to expanding urbanization to include small hobby farms, sod farms, greenhouse and horse farms that are supported by the nearby urban markets. The type of agricultural production occurring within Halton involves much less food production from livestock compared to counties such as Perth and Huron. In 2011 Halton had only 5055 cattle including dairy and beef. This is only 4.5% of Perth and 4.0% of Huron County’s cattle population. Halton’s cattle numbers are in a dramatic decline, down 54% from production levels reported in 2002. Perth and Huron’s decline within that same period were only 6% and 15% respectively. The 2011 statistics indicate that hog and pig farming is now absent in

Halton. There are 216 hog farms in Perth representing approximately 10%
f the farms in that county. There are only 11 remaining poultry farms in

Halton, down 45% from the 20 farms reported in 2006. Perth has 105 poultry farms in 2011, only 13% fewer than in 2006. In 2011 floriculture, nursery and sod production combine to form the largest farm receipt category reported in Halton (33%). This reflects the nearby urban market. Field vegetables represent 4%. The number of farms categorized by various industry groups in Halton in 2011, as a percentage of farms reporting overall, is dominated by ‘other animal production’ including horses (25%); followed by ‘oilseed and grain

SLIDE 37

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 6 farming’ including cash crops (23%); ‘other crop farming’ (17%); greenhouse, nursery and floriculture’ (14%); ‘fruit and tree nuts farming’ and ‘vegetable and melon farming’ (combined represent 9%); and livestock food production, including beef (5%), dairy (3%), poultry and eggs (2%) and goats and sheep (2%).

4. Policy Framework

The planning policy response to the above trends has recognized the distinction between the severance of existing surplus farm dwellings

ccasioned by farm consolidation, and other severances that involve new

nonfarm residential development. Adding new residences, unlike preserving surplus farm dwellings, contributes directly to fragmentation of the agricultural landscape. Within Ontario there is Provincial and Official Plan recognition that surplus farm dwellings are different and create a potential burden to agriculture that, subject to a number of tests and controls, can be relieved by severance and sale. The same policy framework clearly recognizes that, unlike surplus farm dwelling severances, other forms of severance within agricultural areas are detrimental because of the way that they consume valuable farmland, interrupt cultivation patterns and introduce new and incremental conflict potential between farm and nonfarm uses. By contrast, these impacts are not an outcome of surplus farm dwelling severance activity. The cumulative agricultural impact of new residential development uses has been universally recognized for decades within Provincial and Official Plan

policies. Severance of existing residences doesn’t add to this cumulative
impact. For this reason these policies only severely restrict new nonfarm

severances that remove farmland from production and create new conflicts. Provincially, the differential impact of these two forms of severance is distinguished by Policy 2.3.4 (Lot Creation and Lot Adjustments) of the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) wherein new lot creation is expressly prohibited in prime agricultural areas except for surplus farm dwellings resulting from farm consolidation.

SLIDE 38

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 7 Policy 2.3.4.1 (c) directs that lot creation may be permitted for: a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation, provided that:

1. the new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to

accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services; and

2. the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings

are prohibited on any 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. Within the Provincial Policy Statement, a ‘residence surplus to a farming

peration’ means:

an existing habitable 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). Likewise, the distinction between new nonfarm residential lot creation and the severance of existing surplus farm dwellings is made within the Province’s Greenbelt Plan (2005). Within Policy 4.6.3 (c) and (d) (Lot Creation) the policy states that lot creation within specialty crop and prime agricultural areas found in the Protected Countryside is permitted for: (c) The severance of a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation, which residence was an existing use as of the date this Plan came into force, provided that the planning authority ensures that a residential dwelling is not permitted in perpetuity on the retained lot of farmland created by this

severance. Approaches to ensuring no new residential dwellings on

the retained lot of farmland may be recommended by the Province,

r municipal approaches that achieve the same objective should be

considered; (d)The surplus dwelling policy in 4.6.3 (c) also applies to rural areas

SLIDE 39

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 8 as defined by municipal official plans. The severance should be limited to the minimum size needed to accommodate the dwelling, including existing and reserve areas for individual sewage and water services. Across the province other regional, county and municipal plans have adopted similar distinctions for surplus farm dwelling severances including, for example, the Rural Hamilton, Oxford County, Lambton County and Enniskillen Township and Region of Durham Official Plans. In all of the above cases, the provision of opportunity for the severance of surplus farm dwellings is conditioned by various tests and controls to ensure that the severance is related to farm consolidation and that their agricultural impacts are minimized. Considerations include MDS compliance and restrictions on the ability to create new residential development within the retained farm parcel. The agricultural industry broadly supports the inclusion of policies that provide for the severance of surplus farm dwellings, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (Consolidated Agricultural Land Use Policy Statement, September 2007) and the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture, which is presently initiating the Official Plan Amendment application to the Region of Halton to provide policies that permit lot creation for residences that are surplus to expanding farm operations. The Halton Region Official Plan does not provide any opportunity for the agricultural industry to sever residences that are surplus to farming

perations. The ROPA 38 policies draw no distinction or differentiation

between the severance of existing surplus farm dwellings and new residential severances in terms of loss of agricultural resources and the potential for increased agricultural land-use conflicts

5. Agricultural Impact Considerations

The stated purpose of the Halton Region’s Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines (AIA, 2014, Section 1.2) is to evaluate impacts on agricultural resources including adverse effects on existing and future agricultural

SLIDE 40

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 9 production or activities, infrastructure, operations and overall agricultural viability, including flexibility for use. For surplus farm dwelling severances this means assessing the potential for impacts both within the subject property and on the surrounding agricultural land uses. The AIA guidelines also require an assessment of compliance with Provincial, Regional and Local planning policy. This is provided in the Planning Justification Report that has been prepared for this proposed amendment by Peter Walker. The AIA also requires consideration of mitigation measures that might reduce impacts and overall net effects.

5.1. Loss of Agricultural Resources

The severance of an existing surplus farm dwelling involves the isolation and separation of the residence and its associated service, access and landscaped areas from the remaining arable and cultivated portion of the farm parcel. This is substantially different from severance activity creating new residential development that potentially carves a new portion of the cropland off of the farm. With surplus farm dwelling severances the area of existing cropland remains essentially unchanged and, as such, there is no negative agricultural consequence in the form of significant loss of prime agricultural land or in the form of substantive change to the existing cultivated portion of the farm parcel. After the severance, crop production, in terms of its area and configuration, remains basically the same, unless changed by the farmer. Surplus farm residences once severed, become available for those wishing to buy a residential property. If such lots are less available, there is increased pressure for those wanting to reside in rural Halton to buy the entire farm and then occupy or enlarge the existing residence inflating the value of the subject farm property beyond that which is agriculturally

justifiable. Subsequently, such nonfarm owners may, as landlords strictly

control the agricultural use of the remaining croplands. Such restrictive use of prime agricultural land diminishes the overall agricultural productivity of these land resources.

SLIDE 41

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 10 Surplus farm dwelling severances need not and should not contain usable farm buildings, including livestock facilities and associated permanent manure storage structures. To be permitted, these forms of severance must comply with minimum distance separation (MDS) requirements between any livestock facility on the farm property and the residence being

severed. This is dealt with in more detail later in Section 5.3. With the

livestock facilities remaining on the retained farm parcel and MDS compliance in effect, the facility resources of the original farm parcel remain intact and functional for use as needed. The farm dwellings proposed for severance are not a useable resource of consequence to the farm operation involved in the consolidation since they are deemed surplus. As for any possible loss of future agricultural housing beyond the current farm operation, this is not expected to be of concern given the dramatic decline in the number farm operators and the increased mechanization and reduced labour input associated with farm enlargement trends described.

5.2. Conflict Potential

One of the biggest concerns regarding new residential severances within the agricultural environment has been the resultant increase in the number

f rural residents. Unlike the severance of an existing surplus farm

dwelling, consents for new, nonexistent residences would potentially increase the level of conflict between agriculture and nonagricultural activities including nuisance complaints associated with livestock production, machinery and pesticide use. Issues can include noise and dust associated with field operations; odour and water quality concerns regarding livestock production, manure management and chemical fertilizer and pesticide use; safety issues associated with increased nonfarm traffic; and farmland trespass, vandalism, crop damage, pilferage and liability. As nonfarm population increases, so potentially does representation on local councils, which can result in declining agricultural policy influence. In contrast to surplus farm dwelling severances, new residential development

SLIDE 42

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 11 can reduce the flexibility of neighbouring farms to engage in livestock production due to MDS requirements. Where the number of rural residents increases, the incidence of all of these impacts may increase as well. This has been recognized for a long time and has resulted in very restrictive severance policies. Surplus farm dwelling severances, on the other hand, do not increase the population of the rural area and, as recognized in Provincial policy have much less restrictive requirements Surplus farm dwelling severances, as facilities not needed by the farm

peration, are often rented. Tenants potentially occupying these facilities

have no less of a right to nuisance complaining than owners. There is, therefore, no increased conflict profile. These fundamental distinctions between new residential lot development and the severance of existing surplus farm dwellings are recognized in Provincial policy and in other planning jurisdictions in Ontario where there are associated policy restrictions on new residential development within the retained farm parcel to ensure that increased conflicts don’t occur. The only way to reduce the rural area residential population and associated conflict potential would be to tear down the surplus residence. This would involve a capital loss to the farmer and a loss of suitable housing that is contrary to provincial policy.

5.3. Minimum Distance Separation

There is a common misconception that surplus farm dwelling severances restrict the flexibility of adjacent and surrounding farm properties from engaging in new or expanded livestock production. This is not the case. Any farm undertaking livestock facility establishment or expansion is required to do an MDS Formula II calculation (in accordance with MDS Implementation Guidelines-Publication 707 OMAFRA, 2006) to determine setback requirements. This formula requires a minimum separation from the nearest neighbour’s residence and property boundary. Neither of these changes with a surplus farm dwelling severance since the residence and

SLIDE 43

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 12 the original lot boundary already exist. Therefore, all potential setbacks remain as they were previously and no additional restrictions occur on adjacent farm operations. There is no distinction within MDS requiring differential separation distances depending on whether the nearest dwelling is a farm residence

n the original farm lot or a nonfarm residence on a residential lot. These

dwellings are equal for the purposes of MDS II calculations. Since the residence already exists, the MDS guidelines do not require an MDS Formula I calculation to sever an existing dwelling since the odour conflict already exists between the neighbouring livestock facility and the existing dwelling. In the situation where a proposed surplus farm dwelling would be in proximity to a remaining livestock facility within the farm parcel to be retained, MDS I is applied. In that case a proposal to sever off a residence that does not have adequate minimum distance separation from the existing livestock facility within the farm would not be allowed. Therefore, no livestock restrictions would result. In the case where there are no livestock facilities on the retained farm parcel or, in the eventuality that such production is prohibited, MDS 1 would not be applied. New livestock facility development within the retained farmland would need to recognize the surplus farm dwelling severance and would require locational considerations that satisfy the MDS setback requirements. No separation requirement is necessary between livestock facility development and a farm residence on the same property. A severance of the farm dwelling would restrict only a portion of the remaining property from livestock development. It would not however, necessarily eliminate livestock use of the retained farm parcel provided the required separation distance can be achieved. As set out in Section 3.0 above, there is, with the exception of horses, an

ngoing decline in livestock production in Halton due to its proximity to
urbanization. Restrictions on new major livestock facility development

within Halton may not, therefore, be a significant issue.

SLIDE 44

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 13

5.4. Agricultural Viability

The Provincial Policy Statement (Policy 2.4.3.1 (c)(1)) requires that lot creation for a surplus farm residence be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the dwelling and its services. When the proposed surplus farm dwelling severance is confined to the existing residential area of the lot including nonagricultural buildings, access, service and landscaped areas, there is no significant loss of agricultural land or buildings or substantive changes to the cropped area or cultivation pattern within the farm, unless changed by the farmer. Flexibility for agricultural land use of the retained farm parcel would remain unchanged except for a restriction on new livestock facilities in proximity to the severed lot, as required under MDS. Beyond the required separation distance livestock facility development could still occur within the retained farm parcel although the trend in Halton, with the exception of horses, is away from major investment in livestock facility development. Existing livestock facilities within the farm would be excluded from the severance and could continue to house livestock as needed and permitted. If the proposed severance cannot satisfy the required MDS1 separation distance from those facilities, the severance would not proceed. Beyond the subject property, adjacent farms would not experience additional livestock development constraints related to the severance since the location of the existing residence and the closest property boundary parameters defining expansion capability under MDS II are the same. Nothing changes for adjacent farm operations. Since there are no new residential buildings resulting from the severance, there is no increase in the rural area population that might increase conflicts for agricultural operations in the adjacent and surrounding areas. The potential level of nonagricultural traffic conflict, for example, remains unchanged. With the dramatic decline in the number of farm operators and personnel resulting from farm enlargement and mechanization, there is a lesser farm population available to occupy surplus farm dwellings. For the most part, these residences are destined to be used by nonfarm residents whether rented or owned.

SLIDE 45

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 14 While there are minimal negative influences on agriculture stemming from surplus farm dwelling severances, there is the potential for positive agricultural impacts that would contribute to agricultural viability. These include the removal of potential distractions associated with the requirement for the farm operator to be a landlord, responding to the demands of tenants; managing the ongoing acquisition and turnover of tenants; and maintaining the dwelling for rental purposes, including during periods when the premises might remain empty. If conflicts arise with the tenant occupying the surplus dwelling, the farmer must deal with the time consuming issues of complaint resolution. In the worst-case event of eviction, the farmer is then required to manage the acquisition of a new tenant and to deal with all of the attendant duties associated with turnover. All of this activity takes away from the time and resources available for managing the farm operation itself. While rents may not cover the maintenance costs or carrying costs of surplus dwellings, their sale does create working capital for the farm business and helps to offset the cost of farm consolidation. Ownership of these rural residences would also reduce the likelihood of building deterioration associated with transitory tenancy, vacancy associated vandalism and misuse or illegal use of isolated properties. Owners would maintain a more stable rural area population that would support local services. Sale of a surplus farm dwelling would provide a capital contribution to the exercise of farm consolidation. After the severance, opportunities for resale of the farm property to another consolidating farm operation would potentially be enhanced since the cost would better reflect the agricultural value of the property, exclusive of the worth of a surplus dwelling. This would make farm properties more affordable for farmers. All of these beneficial impacts support the viability of the agricultural industry in Halton.

SLIDE 46

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 15

5.5. Agricultural Character

Since the severance of surplus farm dwellings does not alter the agricultural land base or cropped landscape of agricultural areas or add to existing residential fragmentation, the agricultural character and farmland continuity characteristics of the area remains essentially unchanged. There is no potential increase in rural area population or new nuisance conflict potential within agricultural areas. The amount of residential use within the area remains unchanged. All that will change is the cadastral map of land ownership without any functional modification of the character

f the rural environment.
6. Mitigation Measures

In accordance with provincial policy, the severance of surplus farm dwellings should only be allowed where the residence is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation, which, in the Provincial Policy Statement is described as the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as

ne farm operation. This ensures that any proposed severance is strictly

for agricultural purposes. Having satisfied the purpose of the severance, the most important remaining measure is to eliminate the potential for any associated increase in rural area residential population by restricting new residential use of the retained farm parcel. To implement this measure, the proposed Official Plan Amendment should include the following policy, (as set out in Section 2, above): (c) Prior to granting of final consent for the severance of the surplus farm dwelling lot, one of the following conditions shall be met for the retained farm parcel: (i) the land owner shall apply for and receive final approval to rezone the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the construction of any dwelling unit; (ii) the remnant farm parcel shall be merged with an adjacent parcel (lot line adjustment); or,

SLIDE 47

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 16 (iii) where, within the Niagara Escarpment Plan and subject to development control, the remnant farm parcel has been restricted by an APO designation under the NEP." To minimize the retirement or restriction of agricultural facilities, livestock barns and other farm buildings suitable for use in the consolidated farm

peration should remain within the retained farm parcel. For livestock

facilities on the property, MDS I separation should be maintained between the facility and the new lot. As prescribed by Provincial policy the proposed residential lot should be no larger than that required to contain the residence and its access, services and existing landscaping. The shape and dimensions of the lot should not result in unreasonable impairment of the agricultural use of the retained parcel.

7. Conclusions

There are a number of conclusions derived from the above analyses. They are as follows:

1. The 2011 Agricultural Census reveals that within the agricultural

industry in Canada, Ontario and Halton Region there is a continuing trend toward farm consolidation and enlargement involving fewer farmers and larger but fewer farm operations. This is directed at achieving economies of scale that support global competitiveness. Farm property consolidation and the prospect of related surplus residences are part of that market

response. Management of these surplus farm dwellings can be a

distraction and financial drain on agricultural operations. The data also indicates that Halton’s proximity to urbanization has encouraged a shift away from livestock related food production toward cash cropping and pursuits tied to the presence of urban markets, including horses and riding schools, floriculture, nurseries, greenhouse and sod production;

SLIDE 48

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 17

2. From an agricultural perspective, there are minimal adverse

changes that will result from surplus farm dwelling severances that are subject to number of reasonable controls and tests. There is no significant loss of agricultural land or substantive interruption or interference with existing cultivation patterns. Existing livestock facilities are left in place and are protected from the severance by requirements for MDS 1 compliance. Unlike consents for new residential development, the severance of surplus farm dwellings does not result in any potential increase in rural area residential population that might contribute to increased conflict potential for agriculture. These severances do not place additional constraints on livestock facility development in adjacent and surrounding agricultural areas;

3. Since the severance of surplus farm dwellings does not

substantively alter the agricultural land base or cultivation patterns or add to existing residential fragmentation, the agricultural character and farmland continuity characteristics of the area remains essentially unchanged. Agricultural viability is not adversely affected. To the contrary, there are a number of potential agricultural benefits associated with surplus farm dwelling severances including removal of potential distractions associated with the requirement for farm operators to be landlords responding to the demands of tenants; managing the

ngoing acquisition and turnover of tenants; maintaining the

dwelling for rental purposes; and dealing with vandalism or misuse during periods of vacancy. The severance and sale of these surplus assets creates working capital for the farm business helping to offset the cost of farm consolidation as well as removes the residential component of farm property

evaluation. As such, these severances can provide an

enhancement of agricultural viability in a competitive agricultural environment;

4. Planning policies within Ontario, including the Provincial Policy

Statement, The Greenbelt Plan and several county, regional and municipal official plans have recognized the above agricultural trends and differential impact profiles and clearly distinguish surplus farm dwelling severances from other types of severance that involve new residential development and its associated fragmentation of the agricultural landscape. The agricultural

SLIDE 49

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 18 industry supports these provincial policy initiatives. This includes the OFA and HRFA;

5. The proposed OPA is designed to ensure that surplus farm

dwelling severances are related to farm consolidation and that MDS compliance and restrictions on the ability to create a new residential development within the retained farm parcel are in

place. Provincial policy requires that lot size be limited to that

needed for servicing. Other impact mitigation measures include the requirement to leave livestock and other agricultural buildings, that might be suitable for use and needed by the consolidated farm operation, within the retained farm parcel; and

6. Given the above, the inclusion of the surplus farm dwelling

severance policies proposed for the Halton Regional Official Plan by the Halton Region Federation of Agriculture is appropriate from an agricultural resource and operational viewpoint and should be supported.

May 16, 2016

_________________ ____________ Jerome M. Hagarty Date

SLIDE 50

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 19

References

Regional Municipality of Halton - Halton Region Official Plan – Interim

Office Consolidation (November, 2014); Regional Municipality of Halton - Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines; The County of Oxford Official Plan; County of Lambton Official Plan; Township of Enniskillen Official Plan, January 2005; Hamilton Rural Official Plan, Planning and Economic Development, City of Hamilton; Durham Regional Official Plan, Office Consolidation, June 26, 2015; Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae Guidelines – Publication 707, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs, 2006; Provincial Policy Statement, Province of Ontario, 2014; Green Belt Plan, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Feb. 28, 2005; and 2011 Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada; Ontario Federation of Agriculture – Consolidated Agricultural Land Use Policy Statement – September 5, 2007

SLIDE 51

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 20

Appendix:

Curriculum Vitae Jerome M Hagarty P.Ag., Conna Consulting Inc

SLIDE 52

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 21

JEROME M. HAGARTY M.Sc., P.Ag. Education

University of Guelph, Guelph, M.Sc., Resources Management, 1973

Professional Affiliations

Member, Agricultural Institute of Canada Member, Ontario Institute of Professional Agrologists Jerry Hagarty is a Professional Agrologist with 43 years of consulting and applied research experience in agriculture. His career emphasis has focused on agricultural resource planning and impact assessment. He was a founding member of the firm of ESG International Inc. and is currently a Senior Agrologist with Conna Consulting Inc. that specializes in agricultural resource assessment and agricultural impact analysis as input to planning. He has served in the fields of agriculture and the environment since 1973.

Mr. Hagarty has strong ties with the University of Guelph with former post-graduate

(Resource Management) and Research Associate positions at the University. He also has close ties to the farm community. He has a farm background, being born and raised on a Century beef farm in Perth County (Logan Township). He was co-owner of the home farm until 1997.

Agricultural Impact Assessment

As an Agrologist, Mr. Hagarty has specialized in agricultural resource impact assessment as input to the development and interpretation of policies directed at protecting and supporting agriculture. His work has included extensive involvement in soil and agricultural resource capability assessment and the application of minimum distance separation (MDS) between non-farm activities and livestock facilities. His technical background includes soil classification and interpretation of soil and climatic capability for agriculture assessment for both common field crops and specialty crops.

Mr. Hagarty has been involved in the completion of soil and agricultural land use surveys

and agricultural impact assessment throughout the Province of Ontario. Incorporating this work, he has also conducted LEAR (Land Evaluation and Area Review) studies for municipalities as agricultural input to Secondary Plan development. His work has led to the presentation of expert evidence before the Ontario Municipal Board on numerous

ccasions.

SLIDE 53

AIA– Proposed Region of Halton OPA –Surplus Farm Dwellings 22

Agricultural Research

Mr. Hagarty is very familiar with farm level production and related operational issues

surrounding the implementation of environmentally sustainable agricultural production. He has worked directly with individual farmers and farm organizations involved in a wide range of agricultural food production. This involvement has included the testing of many different farm scale technologies and management practices directed at improving environmental quality. His research experience includes two major projects for the Agriculture and Agri-Food Table on Climate Change. These projects dealt with Soil Management and Manure Management strategies for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions within the agricultural industry in Canada. His experience with agricultural water quality issues includes a $1 million Technology Evaluation and Development management subcomponent of the joint Federal-Provincial SWEEP (Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement) Program dealing with soil erosion and related delivery of phosphorus to Lake Erie. For this program Mr. Hagarty was responsible for the coordination and management of a 6-year research initiative. This work was conducted on behalf of Agriculture Canada. In the early stages of this project Mr. Hagarty organized a large workshop of Provincial expertise directed at assessing research needs.

Mr. Hagarty has also participated in a number of agricultural research projects as part of

the research component of Agriculture Canada's Green Plan program. These research projects included an evaluation of tools for reporting on the current state of agricultural

resources. As well, research was conducted as part of an investigation of on-farm

technologies for environmental enhancement involving practices such as compost application on farmland and improved manure management.

Farm Management Practices

Jerry Hagarty’s strong soils and agricultural background has allowed him to participate in many soil and water conservation planning studies including research into conservation tillage systems, manure and nutrient management systems, crop production systems as well as agricultural land rehabilitation for pipelines, pits and quarries and waste management projects. He has been involved in the development of crop monitoring programs for pipeline easements. He conducted an extensive review of intensive agriculture in the Town of Mono including the development of a planning and policy framework for livestock waste management based on public and stakeholder input and evaluation of existing guidelines and agricultural best management practices.