January 4, 2015
Mayor Weber
Ms. Patti Richardson Municipality of Lambton Shores
The Lambton Federation of Agriculture (LFA) is pleased to have the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Lambton Shores Official Plan. The LFA is committed to supporting farm businesses that form the backbone of a robust food system and drives the local economy forward. We are committed to ensuring residents have access to safe, nutritious, high quality food through the responsible use of our resources and the support of our government: we have some alarming concerns with the draft plan that we feel will negatively impact our industry.
However, because Agriculture is one of the largest industries driving the local economy, we stress the importance of including an agricultural perspective within the Lambton Shores Official Plan.
Within this letter are recommendations for the draft Official Plan to include policies that improve the effectiveness of protecting both our natural and our agricultural resources.
Page 17; Definitions (Section 2.5):
The following definitions are found in the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), but are excluded from the Lambton Shores Draft Official Plan:
- Agriculture Uses
- Agri-tourism
- Legal or Technical Reasons
- Rural Areas (including “prime agriculture areas”)
- Rural Lands
- Specialty Crop
One key definition, “wetlands”, is also incomplete. The second paragraph from the PPS definition is omitted;
“Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this definition.”
By omitting these definitions, the Official Plan fails to realize the importance of farmland preservation and protection. By not referencing them in the Official Plan, farm businesses are faced with potential burdens due to a lack of protection from their municipality. This is a loss for both the industry and the local economy.
Pages 73-85; Agricultural Policies
The phrase “secondary uses” is used in the Official Plan on Page 73. This phrase was dropped in the 2014 PPS and replaced with “on-farm diversified uses”. “On-farm diversified uses” is in the definitions section of the draft Official Plan but is not updated within the policies.
The term “farm- related businesses” is also used but the Official Plan fails to define it. Is it referring to “agriculture-related uses”?
On Page 75;
In the first bullet (agriculture-related uses), “farm operation”, should be plural, not singular.
Consistency is important to help understand what is being presented within the Official Plan. This avoids confusion within the policies, and conflicts within the PPS.
Page 74; Permitted Uses
The first bullet resembles the “agriculture uses” definition from the PPS, but it omits growing “biomass”. Also missing from the “agriculture uses” definition in the Official Plan is the phrase:
“but not limited to livestock facilities, manure storages, value-retaining facilities, and accommodation for full-time farm labour when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment.”
Agriculture in Lambton Shores is very diverse; the Official Plan needs to include specifics to account for all agricultural operations within the municipality. Lambton Shores also shows potential for new and advanced methods of agriculture. As our industry adapts, we need policies that accommodate this potential to govern properly. Therefore, this will need to be anticipated and referenced in the Official Plan.
Again, “secondary uses” is used on this page rather than “on-farm diversified uses” which is defined in the draft Official Plan and a substitute for “secondary uses” in the 2014 PPS.
Page 77; Policies
The last point concerning severances, seems to omit the requirements in the PPS, policy 2.3.4.1(c)2, stating that after severance of a residence surplus to a farming operation the parcel of agriculture land must be zoned to ensure that no new residence is ever permitted on the remnant parcel of agriculture land. This, of course, helps to ensure the preservation of our prime agricultural land in the municipality.
Page 79; Buffer Widths
This table is very troubling to our industry and, if implemented, will result in a great loss of productive agriculture land. The buffer widths are excessive, and there fails to be any definitive science that supports the enforcement of these buffer widths. The Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Reference Manual speaks about limits of “adjacent areas” to key natural heritage features; these guidelines include similar setbacks from development sites. We cannot confuse development sites with productive agricultural land. It must be noted as well, that this manual is a guideline and should only be implemented if there is sound evidence that the buffer is needed. When adapting policy from the manual, it is essential to ensure that our key natural heritage features and limitations protect ecological functions without severely depleting productive agricultural land.
The table also seems to overlook PPS Policy 2.1.9; “Nothing in policy 2.1 [Natural Heritage] is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue.” This would include the drastic limitations set out in this table that would ultimately put many acres of land out of production.
Also, buffer widths for the habitat of endangered or threatened species (key natural heritage features) are governed under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and by accompanying regulations. These regulations, reflecting the type of species present in a “one size fits all format” do not work.
The requirements for municipal drains are also unrealistic. There is an area along one side of every municipal drain that is set aside as “workspace” to enable access for maintenance and repair work. Trees and other woody vegetation in this area are discouraged since they impede this access. As it stands in the draft PPS, maintenance and repair work will have to include the removal of trees and vegetation. This will significantly add to the cost of drainage work.
Drainage work is needed to ensure proper function of our drains. By adding costs to work done on drainage, we are creating a burden for tax payers and residents that are connected to the drains, in particular.
Finally, the “exception” to the policies in an Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) is in place is unacceptable. EFPs are confidential and cannot be a requirement to be approved for an exception for any limitation within an Official Plan.
Page 80; 4.5 Compensation Programs
- Missing section 4.11.5.
Other Comments
There seems to be inconsistencies within the draft Official as well with other policies, including the 2014 PPS. The Official Plan also attempts to regulate many natural heritage features that are governed under other Acts and policies.
Agriculture remains a large and significant industry within the municipality. Rather than impeding our industry and threatening the loss of productive land, the Official Plan should recognize the importance of agriculture in our community and economy and should work toward adapting policies to protect and promote it.
I trust that our opinions will be given due consideration.
Sincerely,
~Dave Ferguson~
President, Lambton Federation of Agriculture
~Ron MacDougall~
Director, Lambton Federation of Agriculture
- If you would like to speak further about the Draft Official Plan Please call or E-mail the Lambton Federation of Agriculture office.