Application dismissed on consent.
The applicants brought an application before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.
The application was dismissed on consent without a hearing on the merits.
Tire fences are not a normal farm practice and are not exempt from municipal prohibition by-laws.
The applicants sought a determination from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that a tire fence constructed on their property constituted a normal farm practice, exempting them from a municipal by-law prohibiting such fences.
The Board found that the applicants were not 'farmers' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, as their property was a hobby farm not operated in expectation of gain or reward.
Furthermore, the Board determined that even if the applicants qualified, tire fences are not a normal farm practice due to significant health, safety, and environmental concerns, including the promotion of mosquito breeding and fire hazards.
Application regarding swine facility odour dismissed as the operation complied with MDS II and constituted a normal farm practice.
The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.
The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance.
However, the Board determined that the respondents' operation complied with the Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines, based on the existing capacity of a prior beef feeder operation on the site.
The Board concluded that the respondents were carrying on a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.
Application regarding swine facility odour dismissed; operation complied with MDS II and constituted a normal farm practice.
The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance, shifting the onus to the respondents to prove their operation was a normal farm practice.
The central issue was whether the respondents' two hog barns complied with Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines.
The Board determined the existing capacity of the respondents' prior beef facility using the Hugh Fraser guidelines and found that both hog barns complied with MDS II.
The Board also noted that the respondents' operation was exemplary and utilized state-of-the-art technology.
The Board concluded the operation was a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.