Normal
Farm Practices Protection Board Summary of all Hearings (1990-2007)
Table of Contents - Introduction
- 2007-02
Britnell v. DeBoer
- 2006-06 Brown v. Howes
- 2006-05
Reilly & Bastedo v. Leckey
- 2006-01 Donkers
v. County of Middlesex
- 2004-04 Brunton v. Town
of Gravenhurst
- 2004-03 Lowe v. Hausler
- 2004-02
Richardson v. Fox
- 2004-01Larmond v. Bauer
- 2003-09
Rutt v. Dejavu Raw Energy Farm Inc.
- 2003-06 Carson
v. Werner
- 2003-04 Sobczak v. Town of Carleton
Place
- 2003-02 Van Order v. Nolan
- 2003-01 Yake
v. Town of Fort Erie
- 2002-03 Hill v. Municipality
of Bluewater
- 2002-01 Lyons v. Pan American
Nursery Products Inc.
- 2001-08 Parker v. Demmers
- 2001-07
Wanless et al v. Horsburgh et al
- 2001-06 Malloy
v. Byford
- 2001-04 Kocsis v. Town of Lincoln
- 2001-03
Stein v. Tiessen
- 2001-02 Davis v. Township
of Stone Mills
- 2001-01 Martin v. JMJ Farms
- 2000-13
Embury v. Township of Stone Mills
- 2000-13
Embury v. Township of Stone Mills
- 2000-11 Jansen
v. Township of Adelaide
- 2000-03 Horbal v. Deschatelets
- 2000-02
Faux v. Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen
- 1999-02
Gunby v. Hermans
- 1998-03 Pickering v.
Mancini
- 1998-02 Knip v. Township of Biddulph
- 1998-01 Vivian
v. Riar
- 1997-04 Dietz et al v. Bigras, Platsco, Tatomir
- 1997-03 Carson
v. Werner
- 1997-02 Kelly v. Alderman
- 1997-01 Kinrade
v. Harrison
- 1995-02 Lucas v. Terpstra
- 1995-01
Bazinet v. LaPointe
- 1994-02 Holt v. Abonyi
- 1994-01 O'Neil
v. Slattery
- 1993-01 Youcke v. Hermann
- 1992-02 Hebblethwaite
v. Vandehogen
- 1992-01 Bader v. Dionis
- 1991-02 Lavoie
v. Deschatelets
- 1991-01 Harber v. Pora
- 1990-02 Thuss
v. Shirley
- 1990-01 Huff v. Prinzen
IntroductionFollowing
are summaries of all decisions issued by the Normal Farm Practices Protection
Board, and its predecessor, the Normal Farm Practices Board. The full text of
any decision may be obtained by contacting the Agricultural Information Contact
Centre. 2007-02 Britnell v. DeBoerIssue:
Noise A resident complained about noise from fans associated with two grain
bins. The Respondent owns two grain bins each equipped with a 10 Hp axial fan,
which are located approximately 440 feet from the Applicant's home. In 2005, the
Applicant contacted the Ministry regarding the noise emanating from the fans.
As part the alternative dispute resolution mechanism mandated by the NFPPB, the
OMAFRA engineer provided a series of recommendations to mitigate the problem.
In 2005, the Respondent agreed to employ a low cost option of piling bales of
hay next to the fans to muffle the sound. In 2006, the Applicant complained that
the bales were still not providing relief from the noise. The local OMAFRA engineer
attempted to mitigate the problem again and this time sought help from an OMAFRA
engineer whose specializes in farmstead noises. In 2006, the engineering specialist
performed a series of noise tests at the Applicant's home and determined the noise
levels inside the home were lower than ambient rural noise levels. Decision:
The Board determined that the evidence presented did not establish a disturbance
of noise and dismissed the application. Appeal: No Hearing Duration
(days): 2 Start Date: May 6, 2007 End date: October 12,
2007 2006-06 Brown v. HowesIssue:
Noise A resident complained about the noise
emanating from a bird banger used to scare off birds from a vineyard. The
Applicant argued that the noise caused by the "bird banger" was a disturbance
and that the NFFPB, in a previous decision, already determined that the use of
a "bird banger" is a normal farm practice if it meets the Noise Pollution Control
2.3.2. (NPC) standard which is set out in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)
for stationary sources in rurally classed areas. The Applicant then used noise
data from the same previous NFPPB Hearing to present a final argument that the
"bird banger", in its current location, would not meet the NPC standard and therefore
the use of this particular "bird banger" cannot be considered a normal farm practice.
The Respondent argued that his practices were consistent with other grape growing
regions, such as Niagara. Decision: The Board noted that the Board in a previous NFPPB Hearing did accept
the NPC standard as a normal farm practice with respect to the daytime use of
a "bird banger". However, it did note, based on several authorities, that the
Board is not bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that this
Hearing Panel had the ability to render a decision that was inconsistent with
an earlier NFPPB decision. The Board also concluded that acceptance of the NPC
standard as a normal farm practice was obiter dicta and was not part of
the ratio decendi of the previous Board's decision. This meant that the
Panel in the previous NFPPB decision were asked to rule on the night-time use
of a "bird banger" and did not have to include a ruling with respect to daytime
use. As result, the Board for this decision did not have to consider the previous
Board statements with respect to day-time use of a "bird banger". The
Board determined that the evidence presented did establish a disturbance of noise
but failed to entitle the Applicant to relief from the disturbance. Appeal: No Hearing Duration (days):
2 Start Date: September 5, 2006 End date: March 26, 2007 2006-05
Reilly & Bastedo v. LeckeyIssue: Noise, Vibration, Light & Odour The
Respondent uses a County Road that separates his property from the Applicants
to move feed within his farmstead. The Applicants sought a ruling from the Normal
Farm Practices Protection Board (NFFPB) that the
use of the Respondent's tractor on the County Road in the early hours is not a
normal farm practice, because of noise, vibration and light affecting the Applicants.
The Respondent's livestock reside in a feedlot across from the residence of the
Applicants. The Applicants sought a ruling that the Respondent's practice with
respect to the feedlot is not a normal farm practice because of odour. The Applicants
also requested an Interim Order, effective the day of the hearing (Dec. 7, 2006),
to stop the use of the Respondent's tractor before 7:30 a.m. Decision: The Board denied the Applicants' Motion on
the basis that there had not been shown the urgency which would make Interim Relief
appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented did not establish
a disturbance of odour which would be characterized as an abnormal farm practice.
The Board determined that the evidence presented did establish a disturbance of
noise, vibration and light which would be characterized as an abnormal farm practice
and therefore the Applicants were entitled to relief from the disturbance. The
Board ordered that the Respondent be constrained in his farm operation from transporting
feed with a tractor along the County Road between the hours of Ten pm and Seven
am (local time) each day of the week. An exception was made for the use of a tractor
for the purposes of necessary snow removal. Appeal: No Hearing Duration (days):
1 Start Date: August 18, 2006 End date: January 16, 2007 2006-01
Donkers v. County of MiddlesexIssue: By-law: Permanent encroachments
The application before the Board was a result of the respondent placing an injunction
on the farmer to cease running his drag hose equipment through a culvert. The
land where the culvert exists is owned by the County of Middlesex. Although the
by-law was revised after discussions in 2005, the farmer argued that even the
revised by-law did not provide him with a workable solution. Decision:
The counsel for the respondent put forth a Motion challenging the NFPPB jurisdiction
in the matter. The respondent's position is that the NFPPB does not have jurisdiction
over lands that are not owned by an agricultural operation. The Board ruled in
favor of the Motion. Appeal: No Hearing Duration (days):
1 Start Date: March 16, 2006 End date: November 30, 2006 2004-04
Brunton v. Town of GravenhurstIssue: By-law: fires for land clearing
A farmer was charged by the Town of Gravenhurst for fire violations during land
clearing operations. The farmer came to the NFPPB for a ruling that his burning
practices constitute normal farm practice and are therefore exempt from the Town's
fire by-laws. Decision: The Board ruled that the farmer's burning practice
will be a normal farm practice and therefore if he abides by the Outdoor Fires
Regulation (Ontario Regulation 207/96) and the municipal by-law established to
implement that regulation. The farmer was given an alternate course of action;
each year he would have to submit, and obtain the Fire Chief's approval of, an
Agricultural Burn Planning Checklist; obtain telephone permission from the Fire
Chief the morning of each proposed burn, and follow any instructions given by
the Fire chief for that day's burn; and comply with any safety order or directions
given by the Fire Chief or his designate. Appealed: Yes; appeal pending.
Hearing Duration (days): 2 Start Date: July 19, 2004 End
Date: February 7, 2005 2004-03 Lowe v.
HauslerIssue: Odour A group of residents complained about odours
from the burning of manure at a neighbouring horse farm. Decision:
The Board ruled that the burning of manure is not a normal farm practice.
Appealed: No Hearing Duration (days): 1 Start Date:
July 20, 2004 End Date: October 21, 2004 2004-02
Richardson v. FoxIssue: Odour, noise A resident complained
about excessive noise and odour from a new chicken barn on a neighbouring farm.
Decision: The Board found that there was no unreasonable interference of
the use and enjoyment of the applicant's land by the farming operation. The Board
ruled the farmer's operation to be normal farm practice, and dismissed the application.
Appealed: No Hearing Duration (days): 2 Start Date:
June 11, 2004 End Date: February 7, 2005 2004-01
Larmond v. BauerIssue: Odour A group of residents complained
about excessive odour from a hog barn on a neighbouring farm. Decision:
The Board ruled that for this particular hog operation, manure spread on tilled
lands must be incorporated into the soil within 48 hours after spreading.
Appealed: No Hearing Duration (days): 2 Start Date:
June 1, 2004 End Date: January 4, 2005 2003-09
Rutt v. Dejavu Raw Energy Farm Inc.Issue: Odour A resident
complained about odours from a new composting process at a greenhouse operation.
Decision: The Board issued an interim decision giving the farm a timeline
for development and refinement of the composting process. If the residents are
still experiencing unacceptable levels of odour after February 28, 2005, the applicant
may request a resumption of the hearing. Otherwise, the Board will issue a final
decision June 30, 2005. Appealed: No Hearing Duration (days):
2 Start Date: March 11, 2004 End Date: August 25, 2004 2003-06 Carson
v. WernerIssue: Dust A resident complained that dust from chicken
litter blows onto his property from a neighbouring chicken operation and is affecting
his familys health. Status: A hearing was held, but before its
completion the parties reached an agreement and the case was withdrawn. Hearing
Duration (days): 2 Start Date: October 10, 2003 End Date:
April 7, 2004 2003-04 Sobczak
v. Town of Carleton Place Issue: By-law: Christmas tree fires
A farmer applied for a Board ruling to allow him to burn infected trees on his
Christmas tree farm in order to control pests. He said that the municipal fire
control by-laws were preventing him from burning the trees, an activity that he
considered to be a normal farm practice. Decision: In favour of municipality.
The Board ruled that burning of trees within the town was not a normal farm practice.
Appealed: No Hearing Duration (days): 1 Start Date: September
12, 2003 End Date: March 8, 2004 2003-02 Van
Order v. NolanIssue: Noise A dairy farmer complained about
noise from a neighbouring farm. The dairy farmer said that his family was unable
to sleep at nights because of a bird banger being used all night at the neighbours
farm. The neighbouring farmer said he needed the banger to protect his tomatoes
from deer at night. Hearing Duration (days): 2 Decision: In
favour of applicant Appealed: No Start Date: September
2, 2003 End Date: January 7, 2004 2003-01 Yake
v. Town of Fort ErieIssue: By-law: Tire Fence A farmer
applied for a Board ruling to allow him to keep his tire fences, which he considers
to be normal farm practice. The municipal by-laws prohibited the use of tire fences.
Hearing Duration (days): 3 Decision: In favour of municipality.
Appealed: No Start Date: March 20, 2003. End Date:
November 17, 2003 2002-03 Hill
v. Municipality of BluewaterIssue: By-law: Minimum Distance
Separation (MDS) A farmer said that the municipality built new facilities
near his hog operation in 1984 and re-zoned the area, doubling the minimum distance
separation (MDS) required for barn expansion. In 2001 the farmer applied for a
permit to expand his operation; he said his application was refused on grounds
of the doubled MDS. The farmer challenged the municipal decision before the Board.
Status: The Board ruled that the farmer had to meet MDS, but that the doubled
distance required by the municipality was not justified in this case. The
decision was appealed by the municipality. Decision: In favour of farmer
Appealed: Yes Start Date: June 6, 2002 End Date:
April 22, 2003 Appeal Decision: The Divisional Court ruled on January
14, 2005 that the Board has no jurisdiction to hear cases involving zoning by-laws.
The Court therefore overturned the Board decision. The farmer is appealing the
Divisional Court ruling to the Appeal Court. 2002-01 Lyons
v. Pan American Nursery Products Inc.Issue: Noise, Light, Vibration
A neighbour complained about noise, light and vibration from truck traffic serving
a greenhouse nursery operation. Decision: In favour of farmer. Appealed:
No Hearing Duration (days): 2 Start Date: April 10,
2002 End Date: April 2, 2004 2001-08
Parker v. DemmersIssue: Noise A group of residents complained
about excessive noise from a wind turbine generator operated by a farmer. The
turbine was located 200 feet from the boundary of the residential area. Status:
During the hearing, with the Boards permission, the parties negotiated a
partial settlement, which was incorporated into the Boards decision. The
Board ruled that the wind turbine be dismantled, and set a minimum distance separation
for installation of the wind turbine from residents homes. The residences
shared in the cost of the dismantling. Decision: In favour of applicants Appealed:
No 2001-07 Wanless et
al v. Horsburgh et alIssue: Odour A group of neighbours complained
about odour from two swine barns, which they said did not meet minimum distance
standards. Status: The Board ruled that the barns met minimum distance
separation requirements and that the farming operation is normal farm practice.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed: No 2001-06 Malloy
v. ByfordIssue: Odour, Flies A neighbour complained that the
farmer had located his cattle feeders too close to the neighbours house,
and consequently he was adversely affected by excessive odour and flies. Status:
The Board ruled in favour of the farmer and dismissed the application.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed: No 2001-04
Kocsis v. Town of LincolnIssue: By-law: Permit to Open Wine
Retail Outlet A farmer applied to the NFPPB for a ruling that a municipal
by-law was restricting his normal farm practice by preventing him from opening
a wine retail outlet on his farm. Status: The township brought a Motion
challenging the Board's jurisdiction to hear this case. At the hearing, the Board
ruled that it did not have jurisdiction because retailing is not covered by the
Act. Decision: By-law upheld Appealed: No 2001-03
Stein v. TiessenIssue: Odour The applicants complained
of excessive odour from the spreading of wastes on the farmer's land. Status:
The Board ordered the farmer to develop and implement an approved nutrient
management plan by August 15, 2002, otherwise all spreading of wastes must be
ceased. Decision: In favour of applicant. Appealed: No 2001-02
Davis v. Township of Stone MillsIssue: By-law: Prohibiting
Pheasant Farming Operations A farmer applied to the NFPPB for a ruling
that a municipal noise by-law was restricting his normal farm practice of operating
a pheasant farm. Status: The farmer did not appear at a pre-hearing
conference. He said he received the notice but he had to work and the hearing
was not a high priority for him, since he had closed the pheasant operation.
Decision: Application dismissed Appealed: No 2001-01
Martin v. JMJ FarmsIssue: Noise The applicants complained
about excessive noise from rock music used by the farmer to scare birds away from
his vineyards. Status: The Board ruled that use of a stereo system
or other source of continuous noise to protect vineyards from birds was not a
normal farm practice. Decision: In favour of applicants Appealed:
No 2000-13 Embury v.
Township of Stone MillsIssue: By-law: Requiring 40% Land Ownership
1. A farmer applied to the NFPPB for a ruling that a township by-law should
not apply to him because it was restricting his normal farm practice. His nutrient
management plan for expansion of his poultry facilities was rejected because he
did not meet the township's requirements of a minimum of 40% land ownership for
the spreading of manure. Status: The Board ruled that 40% land ownership
is not normal farm practice, but 40% long term control over land required for
manure management is normal farm practice. Long term control was defined as five
year leases or agreements; but there was also a requirement for reserve capacity,
through either holding additional land in reserve, or maintaining application
rates below capacity. Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No 2000-13 Embury v. Township of
Stone MillsIssue: By-law: Site Plan Required 2. The
township required that a site plan be prepared before a permit could be issued
for the barn. This applied to the new barn planned for expansion of the farmers
poultry facilities. Status: At a subsequent hearing, the Board ruled
in a split decision that the site plan requirement did not restrict normal farm
practice. Decision: In favour of township Appealed: No 2000-11 Jansen
v. Township of AdelaideIssue: By-law: Requiring 60% Land Ownership
A farmer applied to the NFPPB for a ruling that a township by-law should not
apply to him because it was restricting his normal farm practice. He had applied
to his township for a building permit for a new 2500 hog facility. The building
permit was refused because he did not own at least 60% of the tillable acreage
required for manure disposal. Status: In the settlement the township
agreed to grant the permit on the basis of manure agreements obtained by the farmer.
The Board's condition was that the manure agreements provide adequate land for
manure management for at least five years. Decision: Settlement approved
by Board Appealed: No 2000-03
Horbal v. DeschateletsIssue: Noise The applicant complained
about noise from continuous use of a bird banger, 24 hours a day, to keep birds
and other predators (e.g. racoons) away from sweet corn. Status: The
Board ruled that the use of a propane-fired canon to control racoons at night
was a normal farm practice between August 10 and Labour Day. Decision:
In favour of farmer Appealed: No 2000-02
Faux v. Township of Havelock-Belmont-MethuenIssue: By-law:
Limiting Construction of Livestock Barn A swine farmer challenged the
township's Interim Control By-law, which stopped him from getting a Building Permit
for a swine barn. Status: Under Section 9 of the Farming and Food Production
Protection Act, the OMAFRA Minister issued a Directive which supported the Township's
right to put in place an Interim Control By-law, and stipulated that the Board
would not be able to rule that the farm activity was a normal farm practice. The
Board dismissed the case. Decision: Dismissed Appealed:
No 1999-02 Gunby v. HermansIssue:
Odour The applicants complained about odours arising from a mushroom cooperatives
composting operation. Status: The Board ruled that the odours created
were consistent with normal farm practice; but encouraged the mushroom cooperative
to invest in modern technology to reduce the odours. Decision: In favour
of farmer Appealed: No 1998-03
Pickering v. ManciniIssue: Noise The applicants complained
that the neighbours cowbells in a cow-calf operation were creating excessive
noise. Status: The Board ruled that the use of cowbells is a normal
farm practice. However the Board ordered that the number of bells used should
not exceed one bell per 15 cows. The Board also ordered that the livestock be
kept inside a closed paddock at night where they had access to feed and water
to help reduce nighttime noise. Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No 1998-02 Knip v. Township of BiddulphIssue:
By-law: Requiring 66% Land Ownership A swine farmer challenged the
Townships nutrient management by-law; specifically the 500 livestock unit
cap; the 1 acre of tillable land required per each 1.5 livestock unit; and the
66% land ownership requirement (land must be in the same name as the livestock
production unit property). Status: The Board ruled that a 500 livestock
unit cap was not a normal farm practice. The Board ruled that a nutrient management
plan was the more appropriate requirement for manure management not a "rule
of thumb" ratio. The Board did not rule on the 66% land ownership requirement
since the Board ruled that the farmer had enough land to meet the 66% requirement
when he was able to use the properties that were in his name, his wifes
name and those in an incorporated name. Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No 1998-01 Vivian v. RiarIssue:
Odour The applicants complained about odours from the poultry farmers
practice of burning dead birds on an almost daily basis. Status: The
Board ruled that the practice used was not a normal farm practice. The Board ordered
the poultry farmer to store the dead birds in a freezer until such time that there
were sufficient birds to efficiently use the incinerator. The farmer was ordered
not to use the incinerator for more than three times per month and not when the
winds were blowing from west to east. Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No 1997-04 Dietz et al v.
Bigras, Platsco, TatomirIssue: Dust The applicants complained
about the dirt and dust blowing from the neighbouring muck soil farms onto their
properties. Status: The evidence suggested that the muck soil farmers
were using normal farm practices and the blowing dirt and dust described by the
applicants was a result of these normal farm practices. The farmers were prepared
to use innovative farm practices to minimize the blowing dirt and dust. Decision:
In favour of farmers Appealed: No 1997-03 Carson
v. WernerIssue: Noise, Dust The applicants complained about
noise and dust created by the tunnel ventilation systems of the neighbouring poultry
barns. Complaints about dust from the manure handling practices was also brought
to the Board. Status: The Board ordered the poultry farmer to build
a barn and plant trees to assist in reducing the noise and dust levels. The Board
also ordered the poultry farmer to modify the manure conveying equipment to lessen
the dust level. Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No 1997-02 Kelly v. AldermanIssue:
Odour Neigbouring farmer and rural resident complain about odour from a swine
barn and manure spreading practices of the swine farmer. A complaint about water
pollution arising from winter spreading of manure was also brought to the Board.
Status: The Board dismissed the pollution complaint as being beyond the
jurisdiction of the Board. The Board ruled that the swine farmer could not use
no-till practices as his defense for not incorporating liquid manure when it is
spread near neighbouring residences. The swine farmer was ordered to not spread
manure closer than 20 metres from neighbouring buildings. When manure was spread
in the 20 to 300 metres area from a neighbouring building the manure was "to
be tilled into the ground as soon as practicable after spreading". The complaint
about odours from the barn and manure storage area was dismissed. Decision:
In favour of applicant Appealed: No 1997-01 Kinrade
v. HarrisonIssue: Odour, Noise Neighbours of a dairy farm complain
about farm practices, which create odours and noise. Status: The practices
associated with the odour complaint were ruled to be normal farm practices. Some
other practices pertaining to manure spreaders and the runoff from the farmers
heifer barn were ordered by the Board to be modified. Decision: In
favour of farmer Appealed: No 1995-02 Lucas
v. TerpstraIssue: Odour The applicants complained about excessive
odour from a hog operation on a neighbouring farm. They also complained that the
hog structures did not meet minimum separation distance requirements. Status:
The farmer was ordered to install two 60-foot exhaust stacks, one near each barn,
to dissipate the odour from the barns. The decision was appealed to Divisional
Court; the Court dismissed the appeal. Decision: In favour of applicant
Appealed: Yes, to Divisional Court; Court upheld Board decision. 1995-01
Bazinet v. LaPointeIssue: Dust The applicant lived immediately
adjacent to the grain loading, drying, and storage operation of a farmer. The
complaint dealt with dust. Status: Certain aspects of the operation
were determined not to be normal farm practices. The Board ordered that a barrier
wall be placed between two bins and that a flex spout be used when unloading.
These actions were intended to reduce the amount of "red dog" reaching
the applicants property. Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No 1994-02 Holt v. AbonyiIssue:
Odour, Flies The applicants live near a chicken broiler operation. Barn washing,
manure handling techniques and subsequent storage and removal created odour and
fly problems with the neighbours. Status: A consent order was reached
at the end of the hearing that the agricultural operator would remove the manure
prior to cleaning the barn and that the manure would be removed from the farm
forthwith. The Board would also arrange for the consultation on fly control.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed: No 1994-01 O'Neil
v. SlatteryIssue: Odour, Smoke The applicants live near
a miniature horse farm. Manure from the horse barn is removed daily and burned,
generating odours and smoke. Status: The disposal of manure by burning
is not a normal farm practice. The Board ordered that the agricultural operator
cease the burning of manure and either handle manure in accordance with the Agricultural
Code of Practice or remove the manure from the site. Decision: In favour
of applicant Appealed: No 1993-01 Youcke
v. HermannIssue: Dust, Noise Applicant lived immediately adjacent
to the grain handling, drying and storage operation of a farmer. The complaint
dealt with excessive noise and dust. Status: Based on the equipment
used and the close proximity of the residence, the Board determined that the grain
operation is not a normal farm practice. The Board ordered remedial work be undertaken
on the grain operation. Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No 1992-02 Hebblethwaite
v. VandehogenIssue: Odour The farmer operated a swine operation.
Liquid hog manure was spread on fields near the applicants residence creating
strong odours. On the occasion in question, incorporation did not take place in
accordance with the Agricultural Code of Practice. Status: The Board
considered the method of manure spreading by the agricultural operator to be a
normal farm practice. Though the Agricultural Code of Practice recommended specific
practices for manure management, the Board recognized that these were guidelines
to which agricultural operators should aim. Rain following manure spreading by
the agricultural operator prevented him from incorporating the manure into the
soil following spreading. Due to increased manure storage facilities on the operators
farm and a rotation of manure spreading to other fields by the agricultural operator,
the Board was satisfied that regular recurrence of manure spreading near the applicants
residence would be prevented. Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No 1992-01 Bader v. DionisIssue:
Noise The farmer owned a grape farm near the applicants house. To prevent
birds from feeding on the grapes, the farmer used a bird banger; a device that
emitted loud bangs at irregular periods. Nearby neighbours complained about the
noise level. Status: The Board considered that the operation of a bird
banger in this case was a normal farm practice. The agricultural operator placed
the device in such a manner to ensure maximum mitigation of the noise for nearby
residences. Bird bangers and other acoustical devices were the predominant method
widely used in this type of agricultural operation. Netting, as an alternative,
was used only for very specific agricultural operations. Decision:
In favour of farmer Appealed: No 1991-02 Lavoie
v. DeschateletsIssue: Noise The applicant lived in a residence
located across the river from a pick-your-own strawberry farm. The farmer irrigated
his farm by using a diesel driven pump, which was located near the riverbank.
The applicant complained about the noise level of the pump, suggesting that barriers
could be erected to reduce the intensity of the noise. Status: The
applicants home is located approximately 150 metres from the pump. The agricultural
operator has undertaken measures in the past to mitigate the noise levels. The
Board considered the use of a diesel pump located near a water source for the
irrigation of a strawberry crop and the current noise levels to be keeping with
normal farm practices. Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No 1991-01 Harber v. PoraIssue:
Odour The operation of a large mushroom business requires a compost substrate
on which the mushrooms grow. The applicants complaint was against the odour
from the subsequent handling of used compost. Discussions between the applicant
and the company resulted in a satisfactory agreement between the two parties prior
to the scheduled hearing. Status: As an agreement between the two parties
had been reached before the scheduled hearing, the Board ordered that the complaint
be dismissed. Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed: No 1990-02 Thuss
v. ShirleyIssue: Dust A neighbouring agricultural operation
contained a large acreage of bare, sandy soils. These conditions arose as a partial
result of the preparation for a ginseng crop, which requires unique soil management
techniques. Winds were blowing the light sandy soil onto adjacent properties.
At issue was whether the soil management techniques used by the agricultural operator
were a normal farm practice, given the type of agriculture being practiced.
Status: The practices used by the agricultural operation resulted in severe
soil degradation and erosion. The blowing sand and dust was deemed not to be the
result of a normal farm practice. The Board ordered: a) the establishment of an
effective cover crop in areas not immediately destined for ginseng; b) the establishment
of effective windbreaks; and c) regular maintenance of the windbreaks and cover
crops. Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed: No 1990-01 Huff
v. PrinzenIssue: Noise The diesel tractor being used to operate
an irrigation pump was located on the right-of-way near the shore of a lake. The
applicants had residences on the lakefront, on either side of the right-of-way.
The applicants considered the noise level generated by the tractor excessive.
At issue was whether the noise from the tractor-operated pump was the result of
a normal farm practice. Status: Although the use of a diesel tractor-operated
water pump was considered to be normal farm practice, the operation of the tractor
in such close proximity to houses was not. The Board ordered that the agricultural
operator erect a noise barrier meeting specifications included in the Board order.
The agricultural operator was requested to inform neighbours prior to irrigating
and, with the applicants, to take weekly readings of the noise levels. These readings
were to be submitted to the Board after completion of a seasons irrigation.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed: No
For more information:
Toll Free: 1-877-424-1300
Local: (519) 826-4047
E-mail: ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca
|