Robert Stephens

The applicant, a large poultry farming operation, challenged a municipal by-law requiring a site plan prior to the issuance of a building permit for intensive livestock operations.

The applicant argued that the site plan requirement unduly restricted 'normal farm practice' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

The Board held that the site plan requirement did not restrict normal farm practice, as it was a legitimate planning tool to balance agricultural needs with community interests, akin to other innovative technologies like nutrient management plans.

The Board noted that if a municipality abused the site plan process to delay or frustrate legitimate farm plans, it could be addressed in a separate application.

One member dissented, finding that the site plan requirement contravened normal farm practices and could cause undue delays.

The applicant poultry farm applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, alleging that a municipal by-law requiring intensive livestock operations to own at least 40% of the land used for their nutrient management plan restricted a normal farm practice.

The Board heard evidence from various experts and industry representatives regarding manure management practices.

The Board concluded that the use of contract land and nutrient management plans are normal farm practices.

The Board held that the 40% ownership requirement unduly restricted normal farm practice, and that long-term control of the land base, such as through multi-year leases or agreements, was the appropriate standard.