Proposed Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendments
Agricultural Policies (Plan Wide)
Date: July 17, 2025
File: NEPA PC 225 22
Accessibility
The Niagara Escarpment Commission is committed to ensuring that the Commissionโs information and services are accessible to all Ontarians. If you require this document in an alternate format, please call 905-877-5191 or email nec@ontario.ca.
Services en franรงais / French language services
Ce document peut รชtre traduit sur demande. Pour obtenir des renseignements en franรงais, veuillez communiquer avec la Commission de lโescarpement du Niagara (CEN) par courriel ร nec@ontario.ca.
Executive Summary
Following the provincial Coordinated Plan Review from 2015-2017, the province released the updated 2017 Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP). The plan included new and updated policies related to agriculture to better align with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), as well as other provincial land use plans. Updates included the addition of agriculture-related uses (ARUs) and on-farm diversified uses (OFDUs) together with new and revised Part 2 Development Criteria to guide these uses. The updates also resulted in the removal of โSmall Scale Commercial Uses Accessory to Agricultureโ as a permitted use under the NEP, and the removal of several specific policies that guided both Small Scale Commercial Uses and wineries.
Since that time the agricultural community has expressed concerns that the updates did not go far enough to ensure farm sustainability and did not reflect the full range of policy considerations suggested by the agricultural community prior to the Plan Review.
In November 2022 the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) approved the initiation of NEP Amendment 225 22, referred to as the Agricultural Policies Amendment. The proposed amendments were to address:
the disparity between permitted uses within the Escarpment Protection Area (EPA) land use designation where ARUs and OFDUs are permitted only within Prime Agricultural Areas (PAAs), vs the Escarpment Rural Area (ERA) where ARUs and OFDUs are permitted on farms both within and outside of PAAs;
consideration to allowing new agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs in Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ES ANSIs) subject to demonstrating no negative impacts, combined with a new proposed definition of earth science values;
consideration to allowing the expansion of existing agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs within a Key Natural Heritage Feature (KNHF), other than a wetland, provided there is no alternative and the expansion or alteration in the feature is minimized and where possible, temporary; and
consideration of adding a new permitted use within the Escarpment Natural Area (ENA) land use designation to allow for of maple sugar harvesting (collection of maple sap).
Consultation on the proposed amendments resulted in several objections, triggering a hearing at the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Discussions with the City of Burlington in advance of the hearing led to minor changes to the proposed policies that alleviated their concerns. Following a two-week hearing in March of 2025 focusing on the remaining objections, the Hearing Officers recommended implementation of the proposed amendments. NEC Staff are now suggesting that the Commission endorse and recommend that the Minister of Natural Resources approve the amendments.
Recommended Motion
Staff recommend that the Niagara Escarpment Commission recommends to the Minister of Natural Resources that the Niagara Escarpment Plan be modified as follows:
That NEP Part 1.3.3.15 be added as follows:
1.3.3.15. As part of maple sugar harvesting, the tapping of trees, the collection of sap, the placement of minor ancillary equipment or structures (e.g., collection tanks, vacuum systems), and the establishment of minor trails (i.e., without the addition of aggregate material or pavement) to facilitate the collection of sap. For greater certainty, this does not include maple syrup production or sale, or the construction of buildings or structures related to the processing of sap for maple syrup production or sale.
That NEP Part 1.4.3.2 be amended by removing the words โin prime agricultural areasโ to read as follows:
1.4.3.2. Agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses.
That NEP Part 2.7.2 f) be added as follows:
2.7.2 f). Expansions to existing buildings and structures for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses, if it is demonstrated that: a) there is no alternative and the expansion or alteration in the feature is minimized; and b) the impact of the expansion or alteration on the feature and its functions is minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
That NEP Part 2.7.2 g) be added as follows:
2.7.2 g). Agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses in an Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, which is not also identified as any other Key Natural Heritage Feature, provided it has been demonstrated that the earth science values can be maintained and protected. Planning, design, and construction practices shall be identified that will keep disturbance to landform character to a minimum and ensure the protection of the geological or geomorphological attributes.
That the following new definition be added to Appendix 2 of the NEP.
Earth Science Value: values that relate to the geological, soil, and landform features of the environment.
Proposal
The Niagara Escarpment Commission initiated PC 225 22 on November 17, 2022. The proposal is for several plan-wide amendments related to agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs as outlined in the recommended motion.
2.0 Background
The updated NEP, released in 2017, included new and updated agricultural policies related to agriculture, including the addition of ARUs and OFDUs as permitted uses. These additional permitted uses were included for the ERA and the Escarpment Recreation Area (REC) land use designations. These additional permitted uses were also included in the EPA land use designation but only within PAAs.
Farmers and agricultural organizations have asserted that limiting these additional uses to only prime agricultural areas in the EPA does not allow for sustainable farm operations and that the changes to the NEP agricultural policies did not reflect the full range of policy considerations suggested by the agricultural community during and following the Plan Review. The industry has since been petitioning the Commission to consider a further expansion of permitted uses as they relate to agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs. The Commission has supported such consideration and directed staff to bring information and proposals forward for consideration.
At their meeting on November 17, 2021, the Commission directed staff:
- To proceed with initiating a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment to address the following:
Part 1.4.3.2 Escarpment Protection Area on-farm diversified uses and agriculture-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas; and.
Agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs within Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest.
- To undertake further analysis of additional agricultural policy topic areas, for potential consideration in the scoping of a proposed Plan amendment:
Part 2.8 winery policies
Agricultural uses in key natural heritage features
Supporting the Agricultural System in the NEP Area
On November 16, 2022, staff brought forward a proposal for a scoped amendment that would address some of the concerns expressed by the agricultural community, which the Commission endorsed. Staff and the Commission recognised that the scoped proposal did not reflect or address the full extent of the agricultural policy amendments that key agricultural stakeholders had sought, however, noted that additional topic areas will continue to be discussed and given appropriate consideration, including with ministry partners and a broader range of agriculture stakeholders. Staff also identified that some of the changes being requested by the agricultural community are regulatory in nature and cannot be dealt with through an amendment to the NEP (e.g., events) or may be more appropriately dealt with through the next formal Plan Review.
Specifically, the proposal endorsed by the Commission was to amend the NEP as follows:
Part 1 Land Use Policies is amended by adding the following Permitted Use under Part 1.3.3 Permitted Uses of the Escarpment Natural Area designation:
1.3.3.15. Maple sugar harvesting (for greater certainty, this includes the tapping of trees, and collection of sap, and does not include the development of buildings or facilities related to maple syrup production).
Part 1 Land Use Policies Permitted Use Part 1.4.3 Escarpment Protection Area, Permitted Use 3 is amended as follows:
1.4.3.2. Agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses., in prime agricultural areas
Part 2.7 Development Affecting Natural Heritage is amended by adding a new subsection 2.7.2 which shall read:
2.7.2 f) Expansions to Existing uses that are Agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses outside of wetlands, provided there is no alternative and the expansion or alteration in the feature is minimized and where possible, temporary.
Part 2.7 Development Affecting Natural Heritage is amended by adding a new sub-section as follows:
Notwithstanding Part 2.7.2, Agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses may be permitted in Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, which is not also identified as any other Key Natural Heritage Feature, provided it has been demonstrated that the earth science values can be maintained and protected. Planning, design, and construction practices shall be identified that will keep disturbance to landform character to a minimum and ensure the protection of the geological or geomorphological attributes.
The following definition is added to Appendix 2 Definitions:
Earth Science Values: values that relate to the geological, soil, and landform features of the environment.
The Commission directed staff to initiate the proposed amendments including undertaking consultation.
3.0 Consultation
3.1 Consultation Approach
Consultation on the proposoed amendment was conducted by direct email to Inidgenous communities, municipalities, agencies, agricultural organizations and provincial ministries; ads placed in major newspapers throughout the NEP area; and a notice published on the Environmental Registry (ERO). The ERO notice was published on February 6, 2023, with a 64 day comment period closing on April 11, 2023. Direct emails and newspaper ads also provided for a minimum 60 day comment period.
On August 30, 2023, the proposal was presented to the Public Interest Advisiory Committee (PIAC), a committee established by the Minister pursuant to section 4(1) of the NEPDA to make recommendations to the NEC and the Minister on amendments proposed to the NEP. PIACโs recommendations must be considered by the NEC, hearing officers and the Minister when a decision is being made.
3.2 Results of Indigenous, Agency and Public Consultation
A total of 40 comments were received directly by the NEC, with an additional 12 comments received through the ERO (although 6 of those were duplicates of comments received directly). Comments were received from ministries, municipalities, agricultural groups, not for profit organizations and individuals as well as one conservation authority and one Indigenous community. A breakdown of the number of comments and general indication of support/opposition is as follows (a more detailed summary of comments is provided in Appendix 1):
3 Ministries provided comments including the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness (OMAFA). The ministries provided general support and some recommendations for refinements.
10 Municipal/Regional governments. General support with some concerns related to 2.7.2 f) allowing for expansion of existing uses vs existing buildings and structures as permitted by the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan. In addition, some recommendations for enhancements or additional policy consideration.
Historic Saugeen Metis. No concerns (no other comments from Indigenous communities were received).
1 Conservation Authority – Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Indicated that the proposed amendments may benefit from being specific to sections 2.2.2 and 2.7.5 to ensure that development will be directed away from natural hazards in accordance with provincial and TRCA policies.
4 Farming organizations (Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ontario Craft Wineries, Hamilton-Wentworth Federation of Agriculture, Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance). Generally supportive except for Ontario Craft Wineries who noted that the proposed amendment does not include several changes requested by their organization.
Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment (CONE). Expressed questions and concerns but not opposition.
Preserve the Escarpment. Opposed.
31 comments from individuals; 21 opposed, 8 in support, 2 undetermined.
Objections from individuals appeared to be concerned with the expansion of OFDUโs and ARUโs within non-prime agricultural lands in the EPA. In addition, it appeared that these individual objectors are connected under the Preserve the Escarpment group, which was established to oppose a specific Development Permit Application (DPA) approved by the Commission to allow for OFDUโs on a lavender farm within the Escarpment Protection Area but outside of a PAA. That approval was appealed on the basis that it did not meet policy and was overturned following the hearing.
3.3 Feedback from the Public Interest Advisory Committee
At the August 30, 2023, PIAC meeting, members were briefed on the proposal and provided with a summary of Indigenous, agency and public comments. Three of the five members of PIAC attended, meeting quorum.
PIAC Members Present
Susan Robertson, (Chair) Ontario Nature
Sean Morrison, Ontario Real Estate Association
Kevin Nichol, Ontario Snow Resorts Association
Regrets
Drew Spoelstra, Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Melanie Horton, Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
Following discussion on the matter, PIAC passed the following motion (all in favour):
That PIAC supports the agricultural amendments generally with specific comments on each of the 5 specific amendments as follows:
Re: Part 1.3.3.15 Maple sugar harvesting. PIAC supports the proposal but suggests that it be broadened to allow for minor structures and equipment for the collection (not production) of sap to be permitted.
Re: Part 1.4.3.3 โ Enabling ARU and OFDU outside prime agricultural land within Escarpment Protection Area. PIAC supports expansion of OFDU/ARU outside of prime agricultural areas so long as it meets other policies of the NEP including environmental and visual considerations (subject to Part 2).
Re: Part 2.7.2 f) โ Expansion of agricultural, agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses in KNHF. PIAC recommends that the proposal be aligned with the greenbelt plan and not include expanded “uses”.
Re: Part 2.7 โ Earth Science ANSI. PIAC supports this proposal but feel that the NEC should provide technical guidance on the planning, design and construction practices.
Re: New Definition โ Earth Science Values. PIAC has no concerns with the new definition being added to the plan.
3.4 Changes to the Proposed Amendments
3.4.1 Changes to Proposed Policy 2.7.2 f)
OMAFA and numerous municipalities commented on the proposed addition of Part 2.7.2 f) which was proposed to enable the expansion of existing uses as opposed to allowing for the expansion of existing buildings and structures which is permitted within the Greenbelt Plan. The City of Burlington formally opposed the proposal as originally suggested.
Prior to initiation of the hearing at the OLT, NEC Staff and Counsel discussed the proposed amendments with the City of Burlington and agreed to revise the proposed policy to reflect the Greenbelt Plan and allow only the expansion of existing buildings and structures. Some additional wording changes were also agreed to between Burlington and the NEC. The revised policy agreed to between Burlington and the NEC which was presented at the hearing was:
2.7.2 f) Expansions to existing buildings and structures for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses may be considered within key natural heritage features and their associated vegetation protection zones if it is demonstrated that: a) there is no alternative and the expansion or alteration in the feature is minimized and, in the vegetation protection zone, is directed away from the feature to the maximum extent possible; and b) The impact of the expansion or alteration on the feature and its functions is minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
During the hearing the Hearing Officers questioned whether the policy needed to include language related to โmay be consideredโ as it would be un-necessary considering it was a new exception within Part 2.7.2. The NEC and Burlington agreed, and further submitted that the language could be further simplified by removing reference to โwithin key natural heritage featuresโ (as it is also redundant) and all content related to the โassociated vegetation protection zonesโ which is addressed separately in Parts 2.7.6 and 2.7.7 of the Plan.
Based on these considerations, the final proposed policy reads:
2.7.2 f) Expansions to existing buildings and structures for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses, if it is demonstrated that: a) there is no alternative and the expansion or alteration in the feature is minimized; and b) the impact of the expansion or alteration on the feature and its functions is minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
3.4.2 Changes to Proposed Policy 1.3.3.15
The NEC received several comments through consultation related to the proposal for maple sugar harvesting, citing that the current proposed language did not adequately enable the placement of equipment and/or minor structures required to facilitate the collection of maple sap, and may in fact be interpreted to prohibit such equipment and structures. The initial proposed wording was:
1.3.3.15. Maple sugar harvesting (for greater certainty, this includes the tapping of trees, and collection of sap, and does not include the development of buildings or facilities related to maple syrup production).
The City of Burlington formally objected to the language, seeking clarity that the permitted use of maple sugar harvesting would allow for such structures or equipment required to collect and move the sap outside of the ENA. Based on discussions in advance of the hearing, the City of Burlington and the NEC agreed to revise the proposed policy to read:
1.3.3.15 Maple sugar harvesting, which for greater certainty, may include the tapping of trees, collection of sap, the placement or erection of minor ancillary equipment or structures (e.g., tanks, vacuum systems), and the establishment of minor trails (i.e., without the addition of aggregate material or pavement) to support the collection of sap, but does not include the development of buildings or facilities related to maple sugar processing.
During the hearing, additional questions and comments from the Hearing Officers resulted in further minor changes to the proposed policy, to ensure clarity with respect to the permitted use focussing on the collection of sap only and not the processing of maple syrup. The final wording agreed to at the hearing is:
1.3.3.15. As part of maple sugar harvesting, the tapping of trees, the collection of sap, the placement of minor ancillary equipment or structures (e.g. collection tanks, vacuum systems), and the establishment of minor trails (i.e., without the addition of aggregate material or pavement) to facilitate the collection of sap. For greater certainty, this does not include maple syrup production or sale, or the construction of buildings or structures related to the processing of sap for maple syrup production or sale.
3.4.3 Changes to Policy Numbering for Proposed 2.7.13
At the start of the hearing the proposed new policy to enable new agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs within an ES ANSI had not been assigned a policy number within the NEP; it had simply been proposed as a new exception under Part 2.7.2. For simplicity during the hearing, it was referred to as Part 2.7.13 which would be the first available new policy under Part 2.7.
The proposed policy, however, constitutes a new exception to Part 2.7.2 similar to the new proposed Part 2.7.2 f), and consistent with the existing a) to e) under Part 2.7.2. Staff recommend that the new proposed policy is best placed as a new exception under Part 2.7.2 as item g) similar to the new exception Part 2.7.2 f). The language in the policy has been modified slightly only to remove reference to โNotwithstanding Part 2.7.2โ and โmay be permittedโ since the policy is now located in the existing exception section to 2.7.2 making these additional words redundant.
Staff recommend that the revised policy should read (showing changes from the final version in the Hearing Officers report):
2.7.13. 2.7.2 g) Notwithstanding Part 2.7.2, Agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses may be permitted in an Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, which is not also identified as any other Key Natural Heritage Feature, provided it has been demonstrated that the earth science values can be maintained and protected. Planning, design, and construction practices shall be identified that will keep disturbance to landform character to a minimum and ensure the protection of the geological or geomorphological attributes.
4.0 Hearing Summary
The hearing at the Ontario Land Tribunal was held in March 2025. The report of the Hearing Officers can be found on the Ontario Land Tribunal website by clicking on the โView Decisions(s)โ for number 0011242, or by searching for case OLT-23-001157.
Following consultation and discussion with the City of Burlington ahead of the hearing, the final issues list focussed on two of the proposed amendments:
The new permitted use Part 1.3.3.15 related to maple sap collection in the ENA; and
Revisions to Part 1.4.3.2 to enable ARUs and OFDUs outside of a PAA within the EPA
4.1 Proposed Expansion to Proposed Part 1.3.3.15
Regal Point Elk Farm (Regal Point) sought and obtained Party Status at the hearing and sought to expand the proposed permitted use related to sap collection to include all aspects of maple syrup processing and sale within the ENA. Regal Point proposed that the new permitted use read:
1.3.3.15 Maple syrup harvesting operations, for greater certainty, this includes the tapping of trees, the collection of sap, and the equipment and structures required for the production and sale of maple syrup. Such operations are limited in size and generally secondary to the principal agrarian operation.
Staff submit that Regal Point sought the expansion of the permitted use to enable an application for a maple syrup operation that was built without a permit from the NEC. In proposing the expanded permitted use for maple syrup production, Regal Point suggested that the permitted use should be subject to an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) which would demonstrate no negative impacts from the development.
NEC Staff and the City of Burlington objected to this proposed expansion of the permitted use based on the likelihood of significant impacts that this scale of development would have on the ENA and the KNHFs that the ENA supports. In addition, Regal Pointโs suggestion of requiring the development be subject to an EIS posed issues with process.
R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 828 (Regulation 828) is a regulation under NEPDA that outlines activities that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Development Permit from the NEC. Regulation 828 broadly exempts what it refers to as โgeneral agricultural developmentโ. The collection of maple sap and the processing of the sap into maple syrup is included within the definition within the regulation through the inclusion of the activity โmaple sugar harvestingโ. This would normally include both sap collection and the processing of the sap into maple syrup.
Where an activity is listed in Part 1 of the NEP as a permitted use, and included in Regulation 828, the activity would be exempt from the requirement of obtaining a Development Permit. The NEC proposal to create the new permitted use to allow maple sap collection but to specifically exclude maple syrup processing in the ENA was intended to enable sap collection without the need to obtain a Development Permit in the ENA as it is currently permitted in all other designations. However, scoping the permitted use to only include sap collection in the ENA, would mean that maple syrup processing in the ENA would not be exempt.
Regal Pointโs proposal to require an EIS for any new maple sap/syrup activities in the ENA would have required that Regulation 828 be amended to no longer exempt any activities associated with maple sap collection or maple syrup processing so that the activity would be subject to a Development Permit. Requiring a Development Permit is the only way in which the NEC could require an EIS. In changing the regulation, however, to remove the exemption for maple sap collection and maple syrup processing, it would mean that these activities would no longer be exempt in the land use designations where it is currently permitted (Regulation 828 generally does not scope exemptions by land use designation).
The second issue with Regal Pointโs proposed approach is that if Regulation 828 was amended to no longer exempt these activities, and require a Development Permit, then Part 2 of the NEP, the Development Criteria, would then apply to all applications for these activities. Part 2.7.2 of the NEP prohibits development within KNHFs with only a few exceptions, and agricultural uses is not one of those exceptions. Thus, if maple sap collection/maple syrup processing required a Development Permit, the NEC would not be able to issue a permit if the wood lot was also a KNHF, such as significant woodland, a Life Science ANSI, significant wildlife habitat, etc. Lands designated ENA are almost always also a KNHF, and thus new agricultural uses including maple sap collection would rarely be approvable under Part 2.7.2.
In addition to Part 2.7.2, Part 2.2.5 of the NEP requires that where a property includes more than one land use designation, that development be undertaken in the portion of the property with the lower designation. This means that where a property has a woodlot designated ENA, but other portions of the property are designated as EPA or ERA, then development would have to โoccurโ in the lower designation and the activity could not happen in the ENA. This would exclude sap collection in the ENA where the property also includes EPA or ERA.
To resolve these policy issues, Regal Point Elk Farm suggested further amendments to their proposed language to stipulate:
1.3.3.15 Maple sugar harvesting and maple syrup production, for greater certainty, including the tapping of trees, the collection of sap, and the equipment/structures required for the production/sale of maple syrup. Such operations should be limited in size. Production/sale facilities (i.e. โsugar shacksโ) shall be subject to a Development Permit and any disturbance of the lands shall be minimized. Section 2.2.5 shall not apply to this permitted use.
On its own this language would not achieve their desired intent as the NEP cannot require a Development Permit where Regulation 828 clearly exempts the activity; the regulation would need to be amended. In addition, their revised proposal still did not address the prohibition in Part 2.7.2.
Counsel for the NEC noted that the Hearing Officers did not have the jurisdiction to order or recommend a regulatory amendment, and thus the approach by Regal Point could not be achieved. The conclusion of the Hearing Officers was to recommend that the proposed policy be approved as agreed to by the NEC and the City of Burlington.
4.2 Objection to Revisions to Part 1.4.3.2
Jill Kantelberg obtained Party Status at the hearing and formally objected to the revision of Part 1.4.3.2 to enable ARUs and OFDUs outside of PAAs within the EPA. She submitted that an expansion of OFDUs outside of a PAA was not appropriate within the EPA and that any consideration for the proposed policy was premature without a fulsome review of the Part 2 Development Criteria from the perspective of the ability for the Development Criteria to adequately review and regulated OFDUs.
Of note is that Jill Kantelberg was also an objector and Party to the hearing at the OLT related to a specific proposal for OFDUs on a lavender farm owned by Jim Muzyka (also a Party to this hearing) which is located in the EPA outside of a PAA. The NEC had approved a Development Permit application by Mr. Muzyka for OFDUs despite the policy restriction, citing the conclusions of an agrologist (soils expert) that the property contained prime lands consisting of soil classes 1-3 (which are one of the characteristics of a PAA). The OLT overturned the decision based solely on the policy restriction not allowing OFDUs outside of a PAA within the EPA and noted that prime soils on their own do not constitute a PAA. The Hearing Officer stated that the proper approach for Mr. Muzyka was to seek changes to the Prime Agricultural Area mapping during the formal review by the Municipality, or to await the outcome of this proposed amendment.
Expert testimony by Mr. Wynia on behalf of Jill Kantelberg focussed on the assertion that any consideration for expanding OFDU permissions outside of PAAs should be considered during the Coordinated Plan Review process including a review of the Part 2 Development Criteria because, in Mr. Wyniaโs opinion, the Development Criteria are not adequate to properly assess and regulate OFDUs. Mr. Wynia also asserted that the prohibition on OFDUs was intentional and shows a progression of permitted uses where OFDUs are permitted throughout the ERA, only permitted within PAAs in the EPA and not permitted at all in the ENA. He asserted that allowing OFDUs broadly within the EPA would result in impacts to the Escarpment environment.
The NEC and the City of Burlington asserted that the Part 2 Development Criteria are sufficient to ensure that the Purpose and Objectives of the NEP are upheld. The Hearing Officers agreed.
4.3 OLT Recommendation to Amend Part 2.8.7 f)
During the hearing, Mr. Wynia pointed to policy 2.8.7 f) that states:
2.8.7 On-farm diversified uses are subject to the following criteria:
f) the impact of multiple uses in prime agricultural areas is limited and does not undermine the agricultural nature of the area
He asserted that allowing OFDUs outside of PAAs would exempt the OFDU activities from this policy due to the inclusion of the โin prime agricultural areasโ portion of the policy. NEC Staff testified that his assertion was correct – that f) would not apply outside of a PAA, however, that part c) would apply. Part 1.8.7 c) states:
c) the use shall be compatible with and shall not hinder surrounding agriculture operations and other land uses.
NEC Staff testified that the intent of c) was to ensue that an OFDU in non-PAAs would not interfere with adjacent agricultural operations, and that there is a distinction between the provincial policy intent to protect PAAs versus the provincial intent to protect agricultural operations outside of PAAs. In addition, Staff testified that the โmultiple usesโ portion of f) is not intended to mean OFDUs but to mean other non-agricultural uses.
Despite Staff testimony, as part of the final report the Hearing Officers noted:
The development criterion requiring compatibility in policy 2.8.7(c) helps mitigate
impacts by protecting the character of the Escarpment Protection Area [and] agricultural operations and by preventing large industrial uses from being allowed in the Escarpment Protection Area, which was one of Mr. Wyniaโs concerns. This is further addressed through policy 2.8.7(e), which limits impacts affecting the purpose and objectives of the Act and Plan by ensuring that the agricultural/rural character of the area is maintained. Also, policy 2.8.7 f) ensures that the agricultural nature of the Escarpment Protection Area is not undermined through multiple uses. The Hearing Officers note that it includes reference to PAAs and, therefore, may need to be reviewed as part of the proposed amendment, if approved. Expanding the policy or ensuring consistency with the proposed amendment would be necessary. This could be accomplished by removing “prime agricultural areasโ from policy 2.8.7 f).
Staff do not agree that 2.8.7 f) needs to be revised to ensure protection of agricultural operations, and that in fact, submit that 2.8.7 f) applies only to PAAs because the intent of the policy is to reflect broader provincial direction and intent around the protection of PAAs. Staff submit that 2.8.7 c) will ensure compatibility with adjacent agricultural uses.
The final recommendations of the Hearing Officer with respect to the proposed amendments for Part 1.4.3.2 to enable ARUs and OFDUs outside of a PAA in the EPA were:
The proposed amendment to policy 1.4.3.2 is recommended for approval by the
Minister and the development criteria in policy 2.8 7 should be reviewed to ensure it is consistent with the proposed amendment to policy 1.4.3.2.
Policy 1.4.3.2 should use the following language:
2. Agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses.
Because the Hearing Officers have only recommended that Part 2.8.7 be โreviewed to ensure it is consistentโฆ.โ, Staff maintains its submission from the hearing that the policy has been reviewed and that Part 2.8.7 c) satisfies concerns with land use compatibility outside of PAAs and is consistent with the amendment to Part 1.4.3.2.
5.0 Planning Analysis
5.1 Overview
Part 1.2.1 of the NEP outlines requirements for an amendment to the NEP. The primary test relates to ensuring the proposed amendments continue to meet (and not offend) the Purpose and Objectives of the NEPDA and NEP.
The proposal must also comply with/not offend the Greenbelt Plan and the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS). The NEP, however, takes precedence over both to the extent of any conflict, and only those policies where the NEP is silent apply. For these reasons, the NEC review of the Greenbelt Plan and PPS will focus on those policies.
5.2 Niagara Escarpment Plan
5.2.1 Amendment Requirements Part 1.2.1
Part 1.2.1 of the NEP outlines four provisions that apply to applications to amend the NEP. The following is a summary of how the proposed amendments meet these provisions.
- Changes to planning policies and land use designations continue to meet the Purpose and Objectives of the NEPDA and the NEP.
Staff note that not all NEP Objectives are relevant to the proposed amendments, and thus the focus of this analysis relates only to the relevant ones. Staff submit, however, that all the proposed amendments meet Objective 5, which is to ensure that all new development is compatible with the Purpose of the Plan. In addition, Staff suggest that all the proposed amendments support Objective 4, which speaks to maintaining the open landscape character of the Escarpment by such means as compatible farming. The proposed amendments would all support farming and thus help maintain the open landscape character.
The Purpose of the NEP is โto provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environmentโ. The Objectives of the NEP are:
To protect unique ecologic and historic areas;
To maintain and enhance the quality and character of natural streams and water supplies;
To provide adequate opportunities for outdoor recreation;
To maintain and enhance the open landscape character of the Niagara Escarpment in so far as possible, by such means as compatible farming or forestry and by preserving the natural scenery;
To ensure that all new development is compatible with the purpose of the Plan;
To provide for adequate public access to the Niagara Escarpment; and
To support municipalities within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area in their exercise of the planning functions conferred upon them by the Planning Act.
Of the four proposed amendments, two create new/expanded permitted uses, and two provide additional consideration for development in a KNHF. The following analysis demonstrates how they will uphold the Purpose and Objectives of the Plan:
Proposed new policy 1.3.3.15 to permit maple sugar harvesting within the Escarpment Natural Area. This permitted use recognizes that for many properties within the NEP, maple forests are often located within the ENA land use designation, which is often also a KNFH (e.g., significant woodland, a Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, significant wildlife habitat, etc.). Currently the NEP does not allow for new agricultural development within the ENA in recognition of the significant values that the designation protects. The proposal would enable the collection of maple sap from the ENA and would enable the placement of minor structures to facilitate that collection including buckets, lines, vacuum systems, collection tanks etc., and would not enable the construction or placement of buildings or structures to process the sap into maple syrup. Considering the very minor nature of the development and the restricted period when the work would occur, Staff conclude that impacts from this proposal would be minimal and compatible with the natural environment.
Proposed new policy 1.4.3.3 recognizes the disparity between permitted uses within the EPA land use designation where ARUs and OFDUs are permitted only within a PAA, whereas for the ERA land use designation ARUs and OFDUs are permitted on farms both in and outside of PAAs. The proposed amendment is simply to remove the restriction prohibiting ARUs and OFDUs outside of PAAs. This amendment simply enables the consideration of an ARU or OFDU outside of a PAA, but since the development of a new ARU or OFDU requires a Development Permit, all applications would be dependant on a full review and compliance with Plan policies including those of Part 2 (Development Criteria) of the NEP, including those for natural heritage, water resources and scenic resources. Through this review, Staff submit that applications for a new ARU or OFDU would only be approved where the application complies with the Development Criteria and would not offend the Purpose and Objectives of the NEP. Allowing for expanded OFDUs may also promote Objective 3 in providing opportunities for outdoor recreation.
The proposed addition of Part 2.7.2 f) would enable the expansion to existing buildings and structures for agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs within a KNHF if it is demonstrated that there is no alternative, that the expansion or alteration in the feature is minimized; and that the impact of the expansion or alteration on the feature and its functions is minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent possible. Staff submit that due to exemptions under Regulation 828, that in most cases buildings or structures for agricultural uses (including expansions to them) would not require a Development Permit and would already be permitted. Where the proposal would not meet the exemption criteria (property less than 20 ha, cannot meet setbacks), or is for buildings or structures for ARUs and/or OFDUs, then the NEC would be able to provide a fulsome review of the application and require mitigation to ensure that impacts to the KNHF are minimal and mitigated to the fullest extent possible. Where a Development Permit is required, Staff are confident that the Purpose and Objectives of the NEP can be met.
The proposed addition of Part 2.7.2 g) would allow for agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs within an ES ANSI so long as the area is not also identified as any other KNHF, and that it can be demonstrated that the earth science values can be maintained and protected. ES ANSIs are the best examples of features created by geological, glacial and other process that have resulted in landforms that we see on the landscape such as eskers, moraines, outwash plains, etc. They tend to cover large geographical areas and can range in depth from a few metres to a kilometre or more in depth. These features tend to be quite resilient to activities related to normal farming practices and such development could be permitted without impacting the feature. In most cases, agricultural uses (e.g., growing of crops) would be exempt from the requirement to obtain a Development Permit, however, as noted, plowing, planting crops and harvesting would generally have no impact on the feature. ARUs and OFDUs always require a Development Permit which would enable the NEC to undertake a fulsome review of the application, require studies where necessary, and ensure that the proposal is approved only where it can be demonstrated that the Earth Science ANSI will not be negatively impacted. In this way it can be demonstrated that the Purpose and Objectives of the NEP can be met.
- The amendments are justified which shall include the rationale for the amendment, as well as reasons, arguments or evidence in support of the change to the plan.
The proposed amendments are intended to provide expanded opportunities for agriculture while ensuring protection of the Escarpment environment. The objective of Part 2.8 of the NEP is to encourage agricultural uses in agricultural areas, especially in prime agricultural areas, to permit uses that are compatible with farming and to encourage accessory uses that directly support continued agricultural uses.
The NEC has heard from farmers, agricultural organizations and OMAFA that the NEP does not go far enough in supporting agriculture. Through review and analysis of the proposed amendments, Staff find that the enhanced agricultural permission can be provided to promote and support agriculture while ensuring protection of the Escarpment environment and upholding the Purpose and Objectives of the NEP and NEPDA. Staff find that the proposed amendments are justified, and that adequate rationale has been provided in support of their approval.
- The proposed amendments and the expected impacts resulting from the proposed amendment do not adversely affect and be consistent with the purpose and objectives of the NEPDA and be consistent with other relevant Provincial policies.
A full analysis of how the individual proposal would continue to satisfy the Purpose and Objectives of the NEP and NEPDA are provided in the first provision of Part 1.2.1 above. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the report (below) provide an assessment of other relevant Provincial policies. This provision is satisfied.
- The proposed amendments satisfy the Development Criteria set out in Part 2 of the NEP.
The proposed amendments create new or expanded permissions for development associated with agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs. Some of the expanded permissions provide for development that may already be exempt from the requirement to obtain a Development Permit under Regulation 828, which does not provide for consideration of the Part 2 Development Criteria. In these instances, however, it is not anticipated that the expanded permissions would create significant impacts to the Escarpment environment. The remaining amendments provide additional permitted uses and exceptions to Part 2.7.2 subject to a fulsome review of each specific application against the provisions of the new policies and all other Development Criteria within Part 2 of the NEP. Staff submit that the proposed amendments can meet the Part 2 Development Criteria, but that it is each specific application that is enabled through the amendments that would actually be reviewed against the Development Criteria.
Beyond the need for each specific application to meet specific Part 2 Development Criteria, the proposed amendments directly support the Objective of two of the Development Criteria. The Objective of Part 2.2 is to permit reasonable enjoyment by the owners of all lots that can sustain development. Through approving the proposed amendments, farmers will be able to realize enhanced permissions which will allow for expanded operations and new income opportunities, while ensuring no negative impacts to the Escarpment environment.
As noted earlier, the objective of Part 2.8 is to encourage agricultural uses in agricultural areas, especially in prime agricultural areas, to permit uses that are compatible with farming and to encourage accessory uses that directly support continued agricultural uses. The approval of the proposed amendments will encourage and support agriculture per this objective.
5.3 Provincial Planning Statement
On October 20, 2024, the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) was replaced by the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (PPS). The PPS provides overall policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development in Ontario, and applies province-wide, except where the PPS or another provincial plan provides otherwise.
Provincial plans, including the Niagara Escarpment Plan, are to be read in conjunction with the PPS and take precedence over the policies of the PPS to the extent of any conflict. Where the policies of the NEP address the same, similar, related, or overlapping matters as the policies of the PPS, applying the more specific policies of the NEP satisfies the more general requirements of the PPS. In contrast, where matters addressed in the PPS do not overlap with policies in provincial plans, the policies in the PPS must be independently satisfied.
Based on this policy framework, only those relevant PPS policies that do not overlap with NEP policies and which are relevant to the proposed amendments are addressed here. All overlapping polices have been addressed and satisfied through the NEP policy analysis above.
Policy 2.5.1 Rural Areas in Municipalities
This policy stipulates that Healthy, integrated, and viable rural areas should be supported by (listing relevant policies):
e) promoting diversification of the economic base and employment opportunities through goods and services, including value-added products and the sustainable management or use of resources.
The proposed amendments will support this policy through the creation of employment opportunities and diversification of the agricultural sector and the provision of additional support for new and expanded agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs.
f) providing opportunities for sustainable and diversified tourism, including leveraging historical, cultural, and natural assets.
The proposed amendment related to the expansion of OFDUs outside of PAAs in the EPA will provide for additional tourism opportunities within the Plan area.
h) providing opportunities for economic activities in prime agricultural areas, in accordance with policy 4.3.
The proposed amendments related to enabling certain agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs within a KNHF will provide additional opportunities for economic activities in PAAs and do not conflict with the policies of Policy 4.3 which focus on protecting PAAs.
Policy 2.6 Rural Lands Areas in Municipalities
Policy 2.6.1 stipulates that on rural lands, located in municipalities, permitted uses are:
d) agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, on farm diversified use and normal farm practices. The proposed amendments support Policy 2.6.1d in providing opportunities for ARUs and OFDUs on non-prime lands within rural portions of a municipality.
Policy 2.5.3 stipulates that:
development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure, which is planned or available, and avoid the need for uneconomical expansion of infrastructure.
The proposal to enable ARUs and OFDUs outside of PAAs in the EPA is conditioned on the requirement that applications for these uses be reviewed by and comply with Part 2 Development Criteria. Parts 2.8.6b and 2.8.7d require that ARUs and OFDUs approved under the NEP be appropriate to the available (existing) rural services.
The proposal complies with the PPS.
5.4 Greenbelt Plan (2017)
The Greenbelt Plan Area includes the NEP Area. The NEP takes precedence over the policies of the Greenbelt Plan except for Section 1.2.1 (Vision); and Section 3.3 (Open Space and Trails Policies). The following discussion outlines how the proposed Agricultural Policies Amendment relate to these policies.
Policy 1.2.1 Vision
Section 1.2.1 of the Greenbelt Plan outlines the plans Vision, which states that:
the Greenbelt is a broad band of permanently protected land which:
- Protects against the loss and fragmentation of the agricultural land base and supports agriculture as the predominant land use;
- Gives permanent protection to the natural heritage and water resource systems that sustain ecological and human health and that form the environmental framework around which major urbanization in southcentral Ontario will be organized;
- Provides for a diverse range of economic and social activities associated with rural communities, agriculture, tourism, recreation and resource uses; and
- Builds resilience to and mitigates climate change.
The proposed Agricultural Policies Amendment meets the Vision of the Greenbelt Plan in that:
There are no proposed amendments that would enable additional fragmentation of the agricultural land base;
The majority of the amendments do not create as-of-right permissions that would have a likelihood of impacting natural heritage or water resources because the majority of the proposed amendments would require a subsequent Development Permit application which would require consideration of the NEP Part 2 Development Criteria including those related to water resources (Part 2.6) and natural heritage (Part 2.7);
The proposal provides for expanded economic activities including expanded agricultural uses, ARUs and OFDUs which will create additional resource uses and new social and agritourism activities; and
The proposals will not diminish efforts to build resilience to and mitigate climate change.
Policy 3.3 Open Space and Trails
The Parkland, Open Space and Trails policies of the Greenbelt Plan are intended to ensure that there are opportunities for recreation, tourism and appreciation of cultural and natural heritage. Policy 3.3.2 encourages the development of a system of publicly accessible parkland, open space and trails. These policies largely mirror those of the NEPOSS system, which is addressed in Part 3 of the NEP.
The proposed amendments do not involve parkland, open space or trail policies and no conflict exists with the proposed amendments.
The proposal complies with the Greenbelt Plan.
6.0 Summary and Recommendations
The proposed Agricultural Policies Amendment has undergone Indigenous, agency and public consultation; review by the Public Interest Advisory Committee; and a hearing at the OLT. The final proposed amendments have been recommended by the Hearing Officers. Staff recommend that the Commission endorse and recommend to the Minister of Natural Resources that the proposed amendments be approved.
Specifically, Staff recommend that the Niagara Escarpment Commission recommends to the Minister of Natural Resources that the Niagara Escarpment Plan be modified as follows:
That NEP Part 1.3.3.15 be added as follows:
1.3.3.15. As part of maple sugar harvesting, the tapping of trees, the collection of sap, the placement of minor ancillary equipment or structures (e.g., collection tanks, vacuum systems), and the establishment of minor trails (i.e., without the addition of aggregate material or pavement) to facilitate the collection of sap. For greater certainty, this does not include maple syrup production or sale, or the construction of buildings or structures related to the processing of sap for maple syrup production or sale.
That NEP Part 1.4.3.2 be amended by removing the words โin prime agricultural areasโ to read as follows:
1.4.3.2. Agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses.
That NEP Part 2.7.2 f) be added as follows:
2.7.2 f). Expansions to existing buildings and structures for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses, if it is demonstrated that: a) there is no alternative and the expansion or alteration in the feature is minimized; and b) the impact of the expansion or alteration on the feature and its functions is minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
That NEP Part 2.7.2 g) be added as follows:
2.7.2 g). Agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses in an Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, which is not also identified as any other Key Natural Heritage Feature, provided it has been demonstrated that the earth science values can be maintained and protected. Planning, design, and construction practices shall be identified that will keep disturbance to landform character to a minimum and ensure the protection of the geological or geomorphological attributes.
That the following new definition be added to Appendix 2 of the NEP.
Earth Science Value: values that relate to the geological, soil, and landform features of the environment.
Prepared by:
Sandy Dobbyn
Senior Strategic Advisor
Approved by:
Shawn Carey
Director
Attachments:
Appendix 1 โ Summary of Agency, Indigenous and Public comments received.
Appendix 1: Summary of Agency, Indigenous and Public Comments Received
- Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)
No comment or concerns.
- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)
OMAFRA staff applaud the NECโs consideration of proposed amendments to the NEP to address targeted areas that support agriculture where it meets the purpose and objectives of the plan.
OMAFRA recommends that the NEC consider permitting small scale maple processing facilities as an accessory use if it meets certain conditions (e.g., only in existing buildings or structures).
Wrt 1.4.3, OMAFRA staff support this amendment as it provides economic opportunities on rural lands as well as prime agricultural areas that will help with sector viability.
Wrt 2.7.2f, OMAFRA staff supports the proposed amendment but would prefer that the NEP policy fully harmonize with Greenbelt Plan Policy.
Wrt earth science ANSIโs, OMAFRA supports the proposed amendment and urges the NEC to ensure that studies only be required if the Earth Science feature is threatened by the agricultural, agriculture-related or on-farm diversified use.
OMAFRA also included a number of suggestions for consideration within future amendments to further support the agricultural sector.
- Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM)
MCM has no specific comments related to compliance with the Ontario Heritage Act or the cultural heritage policies of the PPS or the NEP.
MCM does note, that the proposed amendments would increase the area on which certain agriculture-related buildings and structures may be built that would be exempt from the development permit system pursuit to R.R.O. 1990. Regulation 828.
This will in turn, expose more lands with archaeological potential to ground-disturbing activities without a regulatory trigger for archaeological assessment.
10 Municipal/Regional governments provided comment. General support with some concerns related to 2.7.2f allowing for extension of existing uses vs existing structures as permitted by the GBP and GP. In addition, some recommendations for enhancements or additional policy consideration
- Township of Mulmur.
The Township supports the amendment to allow OFDU on both prime and non-prime agricultural lands.
The Township recommends that the NEP extends the Agricultural Systems Mapping to more clearly designate prime and non-prime agricultural lands within the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.
- Town of Grimsby.
Suggest clarification that an accessory building (e.g., shed) would be permitted for the storage of tapping and collection equipment on-site.
Support changes to 1.4.3 to extend ARU and OFDU in non prime agricultural areas, but if the amendment does not proceed, request that NEC prepare mapping to clearly delineate prime and non-prime agricultural lands.
2.7.2f) Staff request clarification on whether all wetlands would continue to be included as KNHF and request clarification on the โtemporaryโ portion of the proposed language.
Re: ES ANSI, staff support but request clarification on the โplanning, design and construction practicesโ referenced in the proposed language and whether or not the NEC will be developing guidance materials in that regard.
- Town of Caledon
Supports the expansion of ARU and OFDU in the EPA and request that the ORMCP also follow suit.
Staff generally support changes that would harmonize the NEP agricultural policies with those in the PPS, Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan (particularly wrt 2.7.2f).
Request that small-scale ancillary structures be permitted within the ENA to house equipment related to maple sap collection.
Town of the Blue Mountains
Support the expansion of ARU and ODFU outside of prime agricultural areas
Find the proposal to expand agricultural uses in KNHF provided there are no negative impacts as consistent with their OP
Have no other concerns.
City of Burlington
Identify no concerns with the proposed amendment for sap collection but identify that it likely is not sufficient to support a commercially viable operation as additional infrastructure including ATV trails, vacuum pump structures etc. would not be permitted and suggest that the amendment be modified to allow these.
Fully support expansion of ARU and OFDU in non-prime agricultural areas.
Concern that enabling expansion of agricultural uses and not just structures as in GBP, GP and seek clarification as to why this is proposed and why these expanded uses are not dealt with through NEP section 2.3 (existing uses). Generally concerned that this will enable new agricultural uses in KNHF. Suggest best vehicle for this amendment is through consolidated review.
Additionally suggest consideration to removal of winery-specific policies in favour of treating them as ARU and OFDU.
Halton Region
Staff are pleased to see the proposal to extend ARU/OFDU outside of prime agricultural areas.
Staff are not supportive of extending existing agricultural uses within KNHF and suggest the amendment to modified to be consistent with the Greenbelt Plan.
Staff do support enabling agriculture within ES ANSIโs
Staff support the updates to support maple sap collection in the ENA.
- Town of Milton
Town staff are satisfied that the proposed changes are generally consistent with the policies of the GB plan and that the proposed policies will support agricultural operations and the rural economy while protecting the natural heritage area.
Staff do, however, recommend that NEC consider using the language from the Greenbelt Plan to avoid potential mis-interpretation.
Staff also confirm that the amendments will not create a conflict with the Town of Milton Official Plan.
- Niagara-on-the-Lake
The Town of Niagara-on-the-lake appreciates the Provinces’ commitment to refining and strengthening the framework for agriculture, and the opportunities for OFDU and ARU within the NEP area. Staff have no concerns with extending these uses into non-prime agricultural lands.
Staff support changes to confirm that maple sugar harvesting may occur in the ENA.
The Townโs adopted OP policies would not permit the expansion of existing uses within most of the KNHF of the NEP. The town recommends additional wording be provided to require an EIS or other study to ensure that the impact(s) of an expanding existing use within a KNHF is minimized.
With respect to agricultural development within ES ANSIs, the town would like additional information to clarify and implement the requirement to keep disturbance to the ES feature to a minimum.
- Region of Peel
The Region supports expanded permission for ARU and OFDU in Escarpment Protection Area.
Region staff suggest that the maple sap collection allowance be expanded to allow for small scale ancillary structures to house equipment that may be required for components to the collection system.
With respect to 2.7.2f, the Region supports the ability to consider expansion of existing agricultural uses but suggests that the NEC consider using the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan policy language.
The Region notes that updates to other areas of the plan may be required to be consistent with proposed changes (e.g., 2.7.8a).
- Township of Clearview
Municipal staff have no concern with the proposal to allow ARU and OFDU in Escarpment Protection Area outside of prime agricultural areas, however, they suggest that it may be beneficial to provide additional policies related to the implementation of certain ARU and OFDU through the use of site-specific legal agreements between the NEC and individual property owners.
Municipal staff indicate that the proposed 2.7.2f) is generally consistent with Natural Heritage policies outlined within Provincial planning documents (e.g., PPS, Growth Plan) but suggest that additional verbiage be included which indicates that impacts related to the expansion or alteration on the feature and its function should be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent possible. This would help align more closely with the Growth Plan.
With respect to agricultural uses within ES ANSIโs, staff recommend that the reference to โplanning, design and construction practicesโ should be defined and/or elaborated on within the amendment and/or overall NEP.
- Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
TRCA suggests that the proposed amendments may benefit from being specific to sections 2.2.2 and 2.7.5 to ensure that development will be directed away from natural hazards in accordance with provincial and TRCA policies.
- Ontario Federation of Agriculture
The OFA thanks the NEC for the proposed amendment. OFA fully supports this amendment.
OFA and its local federations previously requested that the NEC give consideration to amending the policies in section 1.4 in order to permits OFDU and ARUโs within the Escarpment Protection Area โrural areasโ [non-prime agricultural areas] so that these types of uses are not unduly restricted to prime agricultural areas.
The OFA noted the portion of the staff report indicating that these proposals do not address the full extent of the agricultural policy amendments that the key agricultural stakeholders are seeking and that โStaff provides that these additional topic areas will continue to be discussed and given appropriate consideration, including with ministry partners and a broader range of agricultural stakeholders. Staff considers the current amendment proposals as phase 1 and advancing the current amendment proposal would not preclude subsequent amendments from being consideredโ. The OFA agrees with this approach and looks forward to continuing discussions to ensure a viable Agricultural System in the NEP Area.
- Hamilton-Wentworth Federation of Agriculture (HWFA)
The HWFA is pleased to support amendments to the policies in section 1.4 Escarpment Protection Area of the NEP. Consideration to amending these policies will permit OFDU and ARU sues within the Escarpment Protection Area and Rural Areas [non-prime agricultural areas] so that these types of uses are not unduly restricted to prime agricultural areas.
HWFA appreciates the opportunity to provide this input on the NEPA policies in support of our membership.
- Grape Growers of Ontario
The Grape Growers of Ontario (GGO) commend NEC and its staff for understanding the importance of agriculture to the community and appreciates the monitoring and evaluation of outcomes and challenges;
ย The GGO believe that the amendments to the Plan should go further in allowing not only the expansion but the establishment of value-added agri-business, where possible, so long as the Escarpment’s natural and scenic resources are maintained;ย
The GGO suggest that the Commission recognize the current “normal” farm practices as stated in the Farm and Food Production Protection Act, which would coincide with the current โgood forestry practicesโ definitions;
The GGO asks the Commission to consider a review of on-farm vacation accommodations as part of the current amendment or future amendments which should carefully consider the balance between maintaining the open landscape character, scenic resources and viable agriculture; and
ย
The GGO are prepared to work with NEC on future policy discussions that will maintain NEP principles while recognizing the economic impact of agriculture on municipalities throughout the Plan area.
- Ontario Craft Wineries
The OCW indicated that it is โuniformly disappointed in the very narrow and limited focus currently being recommended for possible NEP amendment despite what we understood from past Commission deliberations and related directions to staff, to be an expectation of more robust and multifaceted policy considerations for review and a potential NEP amendmentโ.
The OCW encourages the Commission to direct staff to return to the past list of policy topics for potential inclusion in a NEP amendment process.
The OCW provided a list of items it would like addressed including: transfer of oversight of temporary event approvals to municipalities, to revisit the issue of on-farm vacation accommodations, and to recognise โnormalโ or โgoodโ farming practices as in the current case for โgood forestry practicesโ and a cross-reference in the NEP to the provision of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.
The OCW also attached a list of policy considerations previously sent to the NEC.
- Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance
The Alliance supports the move to allow farmers in the NEP to have equal access to OFDU on both prime and non-prime agricultural lands.
There are times where placing an OFDU on prime lands, actually takes prime lands out of production. Given a choice, many farmers seeking an OFDU would prefer to keep their prime lands protected and intact for farming and locate the OFDU elsewhere on the farm.
WRT Part 2.7, the Alliance strongly supports the intent and spirt of the amendment and their preference would be that the NEP policy would be harmonized with Greenbelt Plan policy.
The Alliance believes that the Agricultural System mapping, encouraged by Provincial policy should be added to the NEP plan to align with municipalities and prevent confusion during the implementation of the Official Plans.
- Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment (CONE)
It is hoped that one has to be a bonafide farmer in order for any of these changes to be applicable. It is agreed that on farm diversified uses are needed and we need to allow for this so that small family farms can be profitable and transferable to the next generation of farmers.
I worry about these changes being the gateway for developers to develop farmlands. No development should be allowed on ANSIs nor within the habitat of endangered species no matter if they fall within the either of natural or protected designations of the NEP.
Any development should require a professional environmental assessment of the development proposal to ensure no harm period. Mitigation is an admission of harm. We should not accept even minor damage to what is left of our natural habitats and wetlands. We need to strengthen rehabilitation and restoration of Natural features and not allow any further deterioration.
- Preserve the Escarpment (PTE)
In general, PTE supports nearly the all of the amendment, however we strongly oppose a change that would effectively expand OFDU to any land because it would open developments that prioritize secondary use instead of agriculture first, such as attractions and events.
Our position aligns with the OFA who stated in the NEC staff report โThe OFA and its member groups have made submissions in support of a proposed amendment to the NEP Escarpment Protection Area Part 1.4.3.2 respecting OFDUs and ARUs being permitted in prime agricultural areas only.โ [N.B. this is not an accurate interpretation of the OFA position]
PTE is an over 300-member resident group that formed out of concern for the development of a new lavender attraction, called Fennario which puts forward a business model predicated on selling tickets and attracting tourists, which will not be controllable. This is a prime example of secondary use being prioritized rather than primary farming or agriculture.
While expanding on-farm diversified use to any land may sound like a positive development, there are several potential negative impacts that should be considered including Loss of Farmland, Environmental Impacts, Traffic and Congestion, Economic Impacts and Counteract Regulatory Purpose.
31 comments from individuals; 23 opposed 8 in support
- Examples of comments in favour
Why would the quality of the land make any difference if we know that the farmer is capable of making it a going concern?
Small farms are critical to the economy and livelihoods of Canadians in our rural communities and agritourism is an honest and integral component to small farm business strategies in Ontario.
On behalf of our client, we wish to voice our full support on the proposal to amend the land use policies of the Escarpment Protection Area (Part 1.4.3) to allow for agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses to be permitted on lands outside prime agricultural areas.
Owning a farm in Halton I welcome such a bill. With climate change and other factors OFDUs help a farm to bring in other streams of income. It’s one thing to preserve farm land but it means absolutely nothing if a farm does not have economic viability.
First let me congratulate OFA on the successful work on getting On Farm Diversified Uses (OFDUs) extended to the rural area from the previous NEC interpretation of just Prime Agricultural Areas. (assuming it passes)
- Examples of comments in opposition
I wish to present my opposition to this amendment as well as the sleight of hand gutting of the Greenbelt to accommodate the wants of numerous land developers to build homes on our protected lands. If these policy amendments are approved, the NEC is introducing grave risk to our Escarpment Biosphere by allowing OFDUโs to be established, for the first time, in โEscarpment Protection Areasโ
Allowing greater development, traffic etc. in these โsensitive, natural and scenicโ areas that you strive to protect seems to be at odds with your mandate.
Given the attributes of these lands (non-prime agricultural and areas of more scenic beauty) this amendment will attract non farmers seeking to game the system by offering attendance-based tourist attractions under the very loose definition of OFDUโs.
In this regard we request a public โ in person” hearing on the proposed โ Amendment PC 225 22 – Agricultural Policies Amendment PC 225- 22 .
This policy is open for abuse from agritourism type attractions whose goal would be to maximize attendance and ticket sales. This would not be compatible for such an environmentally vulnerable area as the Niagara Escarpment.
We bought 100 acres and just finished building the house of our dreams, just to find out that one of the largest lavender attractions is planning to open on the farm field beside us. As you can imagine, this is a huge invasion of our much desired privacy.
I also find it relevant that the NEC wants to apply extensive control whenever I try to make even small upgrades to my property, and yet is prepared to โ hand they keys โ to any developer or project with no strings attached.
I am concerned that this โribbon of wildernessโ (to quote the Bruce Trail organization) will be forever lost if more tourism and related development is allowed.
I am writing this email in opposition of the proposed Lavender Attraction on Concession 8 in Glen Huron.