When is a farm not a farm?
Council struggled with decision to permit cabins on farmland
Over the past 50 years as a journalist, I have learned the tools of the trade. One of the rules, never to be broken, is don’t start a story with a question.
The idea is that if a reader sees a question and thinks: Don’t know and/or don’t care. You’ve lost them.
So, I didn’t start that way.
But really the core of this story is an existential question: What makes a farm a farm?
And there is a related question that I suspect we will hear more often in the future: How much change will long-time residents accept in the area around their homes?
If a place earns most of its income from brewing and selling beer and hosting beer-selling events, is it a farm? Or if its main business is hosting rich Torontonians who wouldn’t know a heifer from a hen, but want to enjoy a luxury, farmish experience for a weekend, is it a farm?
To the Canada Revenue Agency, the answer is simple. Size doesn’t matter. You can have five acres, 20 acres or 1,000 acres, but you are not a farm unless you earn at least $7,000 in gross income from farming each year.
In recent years the province has established rules that encourage the growth of wide-ranging farm activities that can generate extra income, known as on-farm diversified uses, while protecting prime agricultural land.
Brant County, which surrounds the city of Brantford, has been a leader in the introduction of on-farm diversified uses. Its guide says “farming operations are lands that are assessed as farmland, have a valid Farm Business Registration number and are used for the purpose of agricultural activities.”
The county’s guide explains the purpose clearly: “An on-farm diversified use is a use or uses that are accessory to the principal farming operation or agricultural use of the property and are limited in area. …
“These types of uses maintain a viable agricultural and agri-food economy while protecting and mitigating negative impacts on the agricultural lands such as removal of lands from agricultural production,” it says.
In Trent Hills currently we have three on-farm diversified uses: Focal Brewing Co. on County Road 35, Fogorig Brewing on County Road 8, and the recently approved Modern Escape cabins that will be on County Road 35, just east of Focal.
In my stories in July and August about council’s consideration of the Modern Escape application by Amy Jeninga I mentioned the on-farm diversified uses element, but didn’t explore it. That’s the goal of this story because it’s an issue that I suspect will continue to crop up as our population grows and pressure builds on farmers to develop additional sources of income.
Jim Peters, Director of Planning and Development for Trent Hills, says his department regularly gets queries from entrepreneurs wondering whether an event space or something similar would qualify as a diversified use. The answer is no, they need an agricultural focus.
Peters says the town’s new official plan, currently under development, will include the municipality’s rules for permitting on-farm diversified uses. The province has a 65-page guide that helps municipalities determine what is permitted and what isn’t.
We’re not alone in facing these issues. For example, Durham Region has been talking to farmers and residents in the prime agricultural areas of Brock, Scugog, and Uxbridge townships to decide the best way “to support a thriving agricultural system and rural economic opportunity, while balancing farmland protection.”
An Ontario Federation of Agriculture document notes that under provincial guidelines “almost any proposal may qualify as an OFDU, provided that the use is:
Located on a farm
Secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property
Limited in area (e.g., 2% of farmland to a maximum of one hectare)
Includes (but is not limited to) home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism and value-added uses
Is compatible with, and does not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations”
The farmers’ federation sees these ventures as a good thing. It believes “that on-farm diversification opportunities are critical to farm economic viability and succession planning while supporting rural economic development.”
It encourages municipalities to streamline their approval process and scale-back fees.
A 2022 report by the University of Guelph talked to several hundred farmers and planners across the province and offers advice to farmers and municipalities about how to proceed.
The question for Trent Hills is how can we protect farming, farmland, and our rural lifestyle, while allowing ventures such as breweries and agri-tourism locations? The idea is that these activities will allow farmers to supplement their income while protecting the land, but it’s a balancing act.
Two main provincial documents permit farm diversification: the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement that guides all planning and the Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas
The province encourages municipalities to allow such businesses, offering a wide range of examples of what should be permitted – farm stands, B&Bs, agri-tourism, and breweries among them. The main restriction is that farming must remain the primary activity.
The controversial Jeninga project highlights one of the problems with the planning process in general. It can be lengthy and neighbours or interested residents only have a right to get involved in the very beginning, when details are often scarce. Any rezoning requires one public meeting, but that meeting and the objections raised can result in substantial changes that do not have to be considered at another meeting and may not become public for years.
The public meeting about the Jeninga application was held via Zoom on April 5, 2022, a process that frustrated many neighbours who had technical issues with their iPads or phones.
The application had a special oddity. The property includes a field along County Road 35 that is cash cropped, but that field is actually zoned industrial and could permit many business uses. Municipal staff said the zoning was a legacy from Percy Township and their best guess is that it was zoned industrial back in the 1970s when a section of the land was used for a furniture factory.
Part of the proposal was to rezone the property to agricultural which would offer more restrictions on its uses, while permitting the on-farm diversified use designation.
Jeninga said that she had looked at other properties in the southern section of the county, but couldn’t find what she wanted for her high-end facility which will have modern cabins that she hopes will attract city-dwellers looking to get away and experience a natural environment.
At this location, there will be cabins set among maple trees in a hilly forested area and others in a meadow overlooking Stevenson Lake.
When the idea was proposed, neighbours raised a number of concerns about such things as traffic, water supply, wastewater treatment, parking, the risk of visitors trespassing on adjacent land, untended campfires, and the need for on-site supervision of the overnight guests.
The underlying theme of many objections was a concern about changing the nature of their community and their landscape. Certainly, this is an issue along County Road 35 which has many homes and businesses and recently had a severance application just over the hill to the east of Jeninga’s site to allow a couple more homes. That application was opposed by many neighbours who were worried about the potential impact on their wells. Council hasn’t decided on that proposal yet.
Some of the families who opposed the cabin plan have been on their farms for several generations, while others moved to the area around Stevenson Lake specifically because it was remote and untouched. And they don’t want it changed.
Over the next two years, Jeninga worked with the planning department and paid for several consultants’ reports on traffic, water and sewage issues, scaled back her plans to reduce the number of cabins, and dropped a proposed event centre.
The now approved plan calls for: a 600 square-foot tuck shop; an 800 square-foot Lakeview Cabin; four 275 square-foot Forest View Cabins; five 275 square-foot Star Gaze Cabins; a 2,000 square-foot single-detached dwelling; and an 800 square-foot horse shelter.
To give neighbours an update on the plan, Jeninga held a neighbourhood open house last March 20, ironically, at the Focal brewery down the road. Some neighbours were satisfied with the changes. Others remain opposed.
At its meeting on July 9, council considered the proposal to rezone the 93-acre property and it was shelved on a 3-3 tie vote.
One of the stumbling blocks in July was the fact that the project had been considered by the previous council two years ago. Three of the six council members -- Rob Pope, Daniel Giddings, and Dennis Savery -- were not on council when those plans were presented at the Zoom meeting in 2022 so didn’t know the background. They received a 260-page council agenda package on Friday, July 5 and had just the weekend to read all the reports on a variety of issues and be ready to make decisions at the Tuesday council meeting.
Pope said he simply hadn’t had time to consider the Jeninga proposal properly so couldn’t support it then.
Councillor Rick English, who represents the area, wasn’t at the July 9 meeting, so at the next meeting on August 13 he moved that the issue be reconsidered, which is permitted under procedural rules.
After some discussion, the councillors voted 5-2 in favour, with Dennis Savery and Gene Brahaney opposed.
At the August meeting, English highlighted the fact that the decision before council was on rezoning and that details of how the project would be laid out and operate would depend on a site-specific plan that would be worked out by the planning department.
Conditions could be included that will require a property manager to be on site during rentals and set quiet times. Planning director Peters said the site plan would primarily deal with the rezoning but could include operational restrictions.
Savery, who voted against the plan, suggested the project should be zoned and taxed as a commercial business.
Some of the neighbours opposed to the project had argued that from the beginning.
“It’s a commercial tourist development resort and should have been treated as a commercial project,” says Jennifer Marshall, who lives just east of the property.
Pope suggested on August 13 that this project was a stretch for on-farm diversified use, “but my understanding from talking to planning is that virtually anything is allowed under on-farm diversified use as long as it follows their protocols.”
That echoes the view of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Pope said he supported rezoning to get rid of the industrial zoning on the front portion of the property and hoped the community can move forward together. He voted to approve the rezoning.
Still unhappy about the plan, some neighbours considered appealing the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal, but in the end feared they would just be throwing their money away on legal fees with little chance of overturning the zoning change.
One of the concerns raised by Savery was safety issues that could result from city folk wandering around a farm where machinery could be in use. Interestingly, last spring Perth-Wellington MPP Matthew Rae, a Progressive Conservative, tabled a private members’ bill to protect agri-tourism operators from some of the liability issues that could arise in such cases. The legislation would provide operators with extra protection, but only if they have visitors sign waivers or post signage with adequate warnings.
One point raised by opponents was that less than 20 per cent of the land currently is used for farming, the rest is the forested hill and a wetland at the rear. They argued that meant the Escape cabins would exceed the 2 per cent limit of the actual farmable land, but the municipality disagreed.
Provincial guidelines say, “The area calculation should account for all aspects related to an on-farm diversified use such as buildings, outdoor storage, landscaped areas, berms, well and septic systems, parking and new access roads.”
A report done for Jeninga by consultants D.M. Wills Associates Ltd. says the revised plan “only occupies 0.25 hectares or 0.7 % of the lot area” well below the 2 per cent or one hectare limit.
During the August meeting, Peters said Jeninga’s cabin plan would actually increase the agricultural use of the property.
There is no question that dealing with this proposal over the past two years has led many people in the area to consider what is important to them in their surroundings, why they live where they do, and how much change they will accept before moving out. These issues are bound to arise more and more as our population grows and the business of farming continues to change.
You can read all the stories from Trent Hills News on the website anytime.
Council should have absolutely zero say how someone decides to use their property, especially sobif no one is being harmed.
Prime example of local government over reach.