| Purpose of Training Manual | Acknowledgments & Disclaimer |

| Transitioning | Model MDS Comprehensive Zoning By-law |
| MDS - Using Minor Variances | Schematics for MDS Implementation |
| Blank MDS I & II Data Sheets | Barn Identification | Manure Storage Identification |
| Determining When a Barn is a Livestock Facility |
| Estimating Livestock Housing Capacity |
| Technical Support Materials for MDS Software |
| Additional Resources | Contact Us |

4.1 Introduction

Minimum Distance Separation formula (MDS) is meant to reduce odour conflicts by separating incompatible uses. The application of a minor variance to a calculated MDS setbacks can create and/or increase the potential for conflict between neighbouring land uses over odour issues, as it undermines the purpose of using MDS. Therefore the issue of granting minor variances to adjust MDS setbacks should be approached with caution, and should only be considered in specific situations which can meet the tests of a minor variance.

There are four tests for a minor variance, these being: 1. Does the variance keep with the intent of the official plan; 2. Does it keep with the intent of the zoning by-law; 3. Is the variance desirable and appropriate for the area; and 4. Is the variance minor. The intent of the official plan and zoning by-laws in agricultural areas should be consistent with the goal of promoting and protecting agriculture in prime agriculture areas, as described in policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS 2005). Therefore any minor variance application related to MDS should further give consideration to this same general intent.

Judging if a minor variance is desirable and appropriate for an area should include consideration for several specific aspects, like: is the variance really necessary or should another alternative (relocating the proposed lot/designation/building or structure) be considered; is the variance going to impact the type, size or intensity of agriculture in the area; is the variance going to impact the flexibility for existing or future agricultural operations and if this variance is permitted will it set precedent for others in the local community. Determining if a variance is minor depends to some extent on the context in which the variance is being proposed. In some circumstances, a very small reduction in an MDS setback may not be considered minor given the surrounding circumstances and potential odour conflicts. In other instances, a significant reduction in an MDS setback may be considered minor. Determining if a minor variance is appropriate in a given circumstance is the responsibility of the local municipality. However, the following provides some general comments regarding minor variances and MDS from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).

4.2 Using Minor Variances for MDS I

Guideline # 46 from the MDS formulae provides specific direction on minor variances and reducing required MDS I setbacks; it states:

"MDS I setbacks should not be reduced except in accordance with these guidelines. Where a municipality applies MDS I to development on existing lots, minor variances to MDS I distances can be considered based on site specific circumstances. Circumstances that meet the intent, if not the precise distances of MDS I, or mitigate environmental impacts, may warrant further consideration."

This guideline provides two main points to consider. First, OMAFRA does not generally support or encourage minor variances to MDS I distances, especially for new development proposed through a Planning Act application. The purpose of MDS I is to separate new non-agriculture uses from existing livestock facilities to reduce potential conflicts over odour issues. Second, in a situation where a municipality does apply MDS I to development on existing lots of record, OMAFRA is of the opinion that a minor variance that attempts to reduce potential odour conflicts (i.e. the intent of the MDS formulae) or that mitigates other environmental impacts (e.g. water quality, flood plain issues, adjacent natural heritage features), can be considered.

The following illustrates two examples of minor variances for development on an existing lot of record which can be considered by a municipality:

2. Where a new building/structure is proposed on an existing lot of record, a minor variance to a side yard setback on one side of a lot could be granted in order for the proposed building/structure to meet MDS requirements from a livestock facility located on an adjacent parcel of land, on the opposite side of the existing vacant lot of record. (See Figure 2).

Text Equivalent

4.3 Using Minor Variances for MDS II

Guideline # 46 from the MDS formulae provides specific direction on minor variances and reducing required MDS II setbacks; it states:

"Minor variances to MDS II distances can be considered based on site specific circumstances. Circumstances that meet the intent, if not the precise distances of MDS II, or mitigate environmental impacts, may warrant further consideration."

This Guideline provides two main points to consider regarding minor variances for reducing MDS II setbacks. First, OMAFRA recognizes that minor variances to MDS II setbacks can be considered and may be appropriate in some circumstances. Second, the types of minor variances that OMAFRA is of the opinion can be considered and may be appropriate are those that attempt to reduce potential odour conflicts (i.e. the intent of the MDS formulae) or those that mitigate other environmental impacts (e.g. water quality, flood plain issues, adjacent natural heritage features).

There are reasons why a livestock facility can not meet MDS II. There are also a number of existing livestock facilities that do not meet MDS II, and yet have existed adjacent to neighbouring land uses for many years, with no nuisance complaints related to odour. Farm operations were traditionally sited near roads and water courses. However, these types of locations, especially for existing operations which are expanding, impose other types of constraints that may be more important to address, rather than odour. In some circumstances, it may be more important to not meet MDS II, and address environmental concerns. Considering appropriate minor variances to MDS II provides an opportunity for these types of issues to be considered at the local level.

Note: Granting a minor variance to a livestock facility, may lead to future minor variance applications for the same operation in the future.

The following is a list of potential issues or questions that a municipality or a Committee of Adjustment may want to keep in mind, when considering a specific minor variance application. These questions should be considered in the context of the direction of Guideline # 46 regarding minor variances that meet the intent of MDS II or mitigate environmental impacts. Some of these issues or considerations on their own merits may not sufficiently meet the direction of Guideline # 46, and should be considered important only in the context of issues regarding options that meet the intent if not the precise setbacks of MDS, or address environmental concerns.

Safety

Neighbouring Land Uses

Environmental Concerns

Practicality

Examples for Practical Application

The following illustrates two examples of minor variances to MDS II to address the expansion or re-construction of a livestock facility:

1. Where an existing barn does not meet MDS II and is proposing to 'expand' facilities, so that existing odour and environmental impacts are reduced or mitigated. For example, an existing livestock facility proposes to replace an old deficient open top manure storage that is cracked and potentially leaking, with a new larger covered concrete storage which will meet Nutrient Management Act, 2002 regulations with respect to sizing and construction standards, and reduce the potential for odour conflicts with existing neighbouring land uses (See Figure 3).

Text Equivalent

2. A livestock facility is proposing to expand or replace existing structures. In order to meet the MDS setback requirements from a nearest neighbour's dwelling, or other type of land use, the livestock facility is proposing a minor variance setback to either the MDS requirement from a lot line or a road allowance, to reduce the potential for conflict with neighbour land uses. In this instance, this proposal meets the intent of MDS regarding reducing odour conflicts without meeting the precise distances of MDS II (See Figure 4).

Text Equivalent