Robert G Stephens

The Applicant, a rural non-farm resident, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odours emanating from the Respondent's greenhouse composting operation.

The Respondent had recently begun composting greenhouse vine wastes and organic vegetable wastes to produce supplementary heat.

The Board found that the Applicant was directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, recognizing the Respondent's good faith efforts to mitigate the odour and the importance of allowing farmers time to implement new technologies, the Board deferred ruling on whether the composting constituted a normal farm practice.

Instead, the Board issued an interim decision requiring the Respondent to remove stored bales, limit compost turning, obtain a consultant's report, and submit a comprehensive odour reduction plan or terminate the composting operation.

The applicant, representing several rural non-farm residents, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's greenhouse composting operation.

The respondent had recently begun composting greenhouse vine wastes and organic vegetable wastes to produce supplementary heat.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicant was directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, recognizing the respondent's good faith efforts to mitigate the odour and the importance of allowing farmers time to fine-tune new technologies, the Board issued an interim decision.

The respondent was ordered to remove stored bales, reduce compost turning frequency, and submit a comprehensive odour reduction plan supported by a consultant's report before the Board would make a final determination on whether the operation constituted a normal farm practice.

The applicants, neighbouring residents, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of disturbances (noise, dust, vibration, and safety concerns) resulting from the respondents' greenhouse and nursery operation, specifically the heavy truck traffic on a shared right-of-way and the warehousing of off-site products.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by some disturbances.

However, applying the test for a normal farm practice, the Board concluded that the respondents' use of the right-of-way and their warehousing activities were consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards for similar agricultural operations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Christmas tree farmer, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that his practice of burning dead trees and trimmings to control pine thrips was a normal farm practice, exempting him from a municipal open burning by-law.

The local fire chief had extinguished the applicant's fire on Christmas Eve after smoke enveloped neighbouring residences and obscured road visibility.

The Board found that while burning for insect control can be a normal farm practice, doing so at this specific location within town limits and under circumstances that severely impacted neighbours was not a normal farm practice.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding a noise disturbance caused by the respondents' use of a propane-fired cannon ("bird banger") to protect their horticultural crops from deer.

The cannon was operated intermittently between 8:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the noise disturbance, which deprived them of sleep and the normal use of their home.

The Board determined that operating the cannon between sundown and sunup is not a normal farm practice, as it violates Ministry of the Environment guidelines and is not a standard practice among similar agricultural operations.

The respondents were ordered to cease operating the cannon at night, though daytime operation within Ministry sound limits was deemed a normal farm practice.

The applicant sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that establishing a retail wine outlet on his property was a normal farm practice, exempting it from a municipal zoning by-law.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction because retail sales are not included in the statutory definition of an 'agricultural operation'.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, neighbouring farmers, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's two newly constructed segregated early weaning swine barns and manure pit.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicants were aggrieved by the odour, which constituted a disturbance.

The Board determined that the respondent's operation was not a normal farm practice because the barns were not located in accordance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS II) guidelines of the Agricultural Code of Practice, which was the accepted standard in the region.

The Board ordered the respondent to install 60-foot exhaust stacks to disperse the odour and bring the operation into compliance with normal farm practices.

The applicants, neighbouring farmers, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's two segregated early weaning swine barns and manure pit.

The Board found that the applicants were aggrieved by the odours, which constituted a disturbance.

In determining whether the operation was a normal farm practice, the Board considered municipal by-laws and provincial minimum distance separation (MDS) guidelines.

The Board concluded that the respondent's barns were not located in accordance with MDS guidelines and that the township had erred in not requiring Certificates of Compliance.

The Board held that the respondent's operation was not a normal farm practice due to its location and ordered the respondent to install exhaust stacks to disperse the odour.