ONFPPB 2001

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.

The applicants, neighbours of a grape farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding a noise disturbance.

The respondent farmers used a stereo system playing loud rock music continuously from sunrise to sunset to scare birds away from their grape crops.

The Board found that the noise constituted a significant disturbance.

Applying the statutory definition, the Board determined that the use of continuous loud music was not a normal farm practice, as it was not consistent with established customs and was experimental rather than an innovative advanced practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease using the stereo system for bird control.

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 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.