York Region Edge Planning Background Report - November 2018

November 2018

York Region

Edge Planning Background Report

Planning and Economic Development, Long Range Planning

i

Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Need for Stronger Agricultural Protection ............................................................................. 1

2 Provincial Policy Framework ................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 ................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Provincial Plans ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Guideline on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas, 2016 .................................. 4

2.4 Minimum Distance Separation Formula ....................................................................................... 5

3 Agriculture in York Region .................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Current State of Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 6

3.2 York Region Agricultural Policies .................................................................................................. 6

3.3 Local Municipal Agricultural Policies ............................................................................................ 6

4 Case Studies .......................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Queensland, Australia ................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 California ..................................................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Portland, Oregon ......................................................................................................................... 10

4.4 British Columbia .......................................................................................................................... 11

4.5 Peel Region.................................................................................................................................. 13

4.6 Summary of Case Studies ............................................................................................................ 13

5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 14

5.1 Edge Planning Tools .................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Implementation Mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 16

5.3 Other Considerations .................................................................................................................. 17

6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 17

References .................................................................................................................................................. 18

Appendix 1: Current Regional and Municipal Agricultural Policies ............................................................ 20

Appendix 2: Example of a Notice to Purchaser of Land in Rural Areas ...................................................... 21

Appendix 3: Examples of minimum effective separation distances ........................................................... 22

Appendix 4: Excerpt of British Columbia’s Buffer Design Specifications .................................................... 23

York Region Edge Planning Background Report

1

1 Introduction Agricultural land covers approximately a third of York Region and generated over $300 million in economic activity in 2016. The importance of local food systems is expected to continue to rise as the demand for locally sourced foods increases.

The importance of farmland is not limited to the production of food and its direct economic benefits. Farmland also provides stormwater storage and runoff control, protection against erosion, water filtration, carbon sequestration, pollination, and habitat for many animal and plant species. Urban residents also benefit from farmland through the views of open space, the ability to connect with nature and food production such as on-site farmers markets, and access to a rural lifestyle such as farm employment and horseback riding.

Given growth and other pressures for urban properties farmland has been declining in York Region. Between 2011 and 2016, 4,441 hectares of farmland were converted for non-agricultural uses. As the Region’s urban areas expand into rural areas, conflict can arise from the competing interests and misunderstandings between rural and urban residents. Planning for the area along the agricultural-urban boundary can reduce potential real and perceived conflict. Capitalizing on potential symbiotic benefits is the purpose of edge planning. Within rural areas, buffers are a normal farm practice around farmsteads and farm buildings to reduce impacts (Figure 1). Furthermore, planning for the agricultural -urban boundary can provide mutually beneficial outcomes for farmers and urban residents.

1.1 The Need for Stronger Agricultural Mitigation Policies In 2003 a Secondary Plan was submitted to the City of Vaughan for an area in West Vaughan generally located on either side of Pine Valley Drive and south of Teston Road (Figure 2), which was designated for urban use in the mid-1990s. The Secondary Plan proposed to redesignate lands primarily for low density residential uses. In 2014, the City of Vaughan and York Region approved the Secondary Plan through the Official Plan Amendment 744 (OPA 744), which included a policy to address compatibility with adjacent rural land uses.

Abutting the southwest edge of the Secondary Plan is an 80 hectare cattle farm (Figure 2). Cattle operations require a large setback from nearby urban uses which could potentially sterilize a large portion of the Secondary Plan area that were intended for urban use. The owners of the cattle farm appealed the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

Figure 1: Farmstead in the Township of King with a vegetated buffer.


2

In a letter to York Region, the owners of cattle farm expressed concern regarding nearby urban development, and identified the following issues:

• Safety of future residents; • Trespassing; • Harassment of livestock; • Bio-security; • Vandalism; • Invasive plants; • Liability; • Litter; and • Conflict around use of farm machinery; • Privacy.

The farmers’ main objective in appealing the Secondary Plan was to reduce urban related impacts to their farm. Since the farm predated the proposed development, the farmers state the onus should be on the developer to accommodate and mitigate impacts to existing nearby uses.

During the OMB hearing, the developer submitted various studies and reports to support the Secondary Plan. The City of Vaughan’s Official Plan did not require an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) to be completed. The Board found that no report, analysis or study, which were submitted by the developer, considered the impact to the cattle farm. Furthermore, the Minimum Distance Separation formula, which generally prescribed a minimum distance between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, did not apply in this case because the land to be developed for urban uses was within an approved settlement area designation. Ultimately, the Board dismissed the appeal since it found the plan was consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the York Region Official Plan, and that the OPA 744 provided adequate detail regarding buffers, with more detailed buffer requirements to be developed in the plans of subdivision.

Cattle Farm

Figure 2: Location of Block 40 / 47 Secondary Plan and Cattle Farm (Base map: York Region orthophotography)

Secondary Plan Area

Teston Rd.

Major Mackenzie Dr.


3

While the OMB case highlights the impacts of urban development on farmers, urban residents can also be affected by agricultural practices. Between 2007 and 2017, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) received an average of 160 complaints each year from residents regarding farm practices (Figure 3). Noise and odour complaints are the primary issues submitted to OMAFRA.

Agricultural and urban uses can adversely impact each other (Figure 4). As a result, there is a need to implement edge planning early in the planning process and strengthen the policy framework to mitigate impacts between agricultural and urban land uses. If stronger policies were in place at the time of the Secondary Plan, the numerous adverse impacts that urban development was expected to have on the cattle farm could have been understood and addressed earlier in the planning process and any future complaints by new urban residents could be reduced.

Figure 3: Average Annual Complaints Received by OMAFRA, 2007-2017 (OMAFRA, 2018)

Figure 4: Potential Impacts Between Urban and Rural Land Uses

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Light

Smoke

Dust

By-…

Flies

Odour

Noise

Average Annual Number of Complaints, 2007-2017


4

2 Provincial Policy Framework There are numerous Provincial documents that create a framework for edge planning.

2.1 Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction for land use planning on matters of provincial interest, including resource management, public health and safety, and the natural environment. The PPS promotes a diversified rural economy and provides direction to protect and mitigate impacts of non-farm development on agricultural operations. Part of this protection requires new land uses to mitigate adverse impacts of non-agricultural uses on agricultural land, restricts the creation of new rural lots, and requires new or expanding livestock facilities or urban development to comply with the minimum distance separation formulae (see Section 2.4). The PPS protects agricultural lands by restricting urban expansion onto prime agricultural and specialty crop areas. Where expansion onto agricultural areas is deemed unavoidable, it should first expand onto lower priority agricultural areas.

2.2 Provincial Plans There are four provincial plans that guide land use planning in York Region: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017(Growth Plan); the Greenbelt Plan, 2017; the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2017; and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, 2009. Each of these plans has an interest in promoting viable agriculture while balancing the needs of growth.

The Growth Plan promotes “growth and development in a way that supports economic prosperity, protects the environment and helps communities achieve a high quality of life.” It provides a long-term plan for where and how the Greater Golden Horseshoe will grow. The Growth Plan establishes a guiding principle to “support and enhance the long-term viability and productivity of agriculture by protecting prime agricultural areas and the agri-food network.” The Growth Plan also recognizes the significant contribution that agriculture makes in mitigating climate change and its impacts. The Greenbelt Plan identifies where urbanization should not occur in order to provide permanent protection for the agricultural land base and natural heritage system. The plan applies to approximately 69% of York Region and protects 58% of the Region from urban development. The vision of the Greenbelt Plan is to protect quality agricultural areas, provide flexibility for appropriate farm uses, and strengthen the agricultural system by considering the impacts of development on agricultural areas and planning for local food and near-urban agricultural uses. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) is an ecology-based plan to provide land use and resource management direction for the 190,000 hectares of land and water within the Oak Ridges Moraine. ORMCP’s objectives is to protect prime agricultural areas, provide for the continuation of agriculture and other rural land uses and normal farm practices as well as maintain the rural character of Rural Settlements. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan addresses the health of Lake Simcoe and its watershed, which covers approximately the northern half of York Region. The plan promotes action to mitigate threats to the ecosystem, such as phosphorus, runoff, soil erosion, invasive species, and climate change. It also includes policies to protect and restore key natural areas and fish habitat.

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1707.aspx


http://placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=430&Itemid=14



https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake-simcoe-protection-plan


5

2.3 Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas, 2016 The Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas provides clear guidance on agricultural, agricultural-related and on-farm diversified uses, removal of land for new or expanded settlement areas, limited non-agricultural uses, and mitigating impacts from new or expanded non-agricultural uses on prime agricultural lands. The guidelines require that when new or expanded settlement areas are proposed during a municipal comprehensive review that an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) be completed. An AIA:

a. Describes the agricultural area; b. Identifies all agricultural operations that may be impacted by the proposed urban expansion or

development; c. Identifies potential agricultural short- and long-term impacts which may affect production,

infrastructure, operations, normal farming practices, and future farming options; d. Recommends what impacts can be avoided, reduced and mitigated; and e. Identifies the net impact to agriculture.

In order to avoid or reduce adverse impacts from urban development to agricultural lands along the agricultural-urban boundary, the guidelines provide the following recommendations:

a. Design roads, traffic controls and signage to accommodate farm vehicles; b. Ensure the minimum distance separation formulae is established; c. Provide agricultural easements along the agricultural-urban boundary; d. Design new developments to reduce potential conflicts (eg. buffers, screens and/or fences on

the urban side); e. Place employment areas, stormwater management systems or green space at the agricultural-

urban boundary; f. Minimize impermeable surfaces and maximize vegetated areas in new settlement areas to avoid

excess stormwater runoff and water erosion; g. Require air conditioning units as a standard inclusion for new buildings adjacent to agricultural

areas to avoid undesirable indoor odours and reduce noise; h. Where appropriate, place warning/notification clauses on non-agricultural property titles in

prime agricultural areas regarding the potential for nuisance effects arising as a result of normal farm practices; and

i. Identify additional “complete application” standards in an official plan for Planning Act applications (e.g., agricultural impact assessment, stormwater management plan, transportation plan, etc. depending on the application).

2.4 Minimum Distance Separation Formulae Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is established by the Province to “separate uses so as to reduce incompatibility concerns about odour from livestock facilities” (PPS, 2014). The formulae is based on the type of livestock housed, the potential number of livestock housed, the percentage increase in the size of the operation, the type of manure system and storage, and the type of encroaching land use. While the MDS formulae is a key tool to reduce the impact of odour along the agricultural-urban boundary, it does not account for other potential issues such as noise, dust, trespass, harassment of livestock, conflict around use of farm machinery, bio-security, invasive plants, liability, litter, vandalism, privacy, or the safety of future residents.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/facts/permitteduseguide.pdf

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/mds.htm


6

3 Agriculture in York Region

3.1 Current State of Agriculture York Region has a thriving agricultural industry. Generating $856 per hectare in gross farm receipts, York Region is the second highest in the Golden Horseshoe,1 following Niagara Region. The Holland Marsh Specialty Crop Area, one of Canada’s most fertile areas, is located in Simcoe County and York Region. The two York Region Marsh municipalities of King Township and East Gwillimbury alone generate between $95 and $169 million in economic activity annually.

In 2016, there were 712 farms covering 57,870 hectares of farmland across the Region. The Township of King has the largest portion of farmland with 16,289 hectares, followed by the City of Markham with 10,029 hectares. Farms between 4 to 52 hectares represented 59% of farms in York Region in 2016, (12% of farms were smaller than 4 hectares, and 29% were larger than 52 hectares). Across the Region farms produce a diverse range of products, including corn, carrots, soybeans, potatoes, strawberries, apples, grapes, flowers, oilseed, hay, dairy, beef, mutton, pork, chickens and eggs.

Farming in York Region is not without challenges. There has been a noticeable decline in farmland in York Region in past decades due to conversion to non-agricultural uses. In 1996, 44% of York Region’s area was farmland, while in 2016 only 32% remains farmland, a decrease of 20,639 hectares due to urban expansion. The number of farms has also decreased by 116 farms since 2011, accounting for 4,441 hectares.

3.2 York Region Agricultural Policies The York Region Official Plan (YROP) recognizes the importance of agriculture and establishes three designations which are the focus for agricultural uses. Agricultural Area and Holland Marsh Specialty Crop Area designations are primarily for agricultural or agricultural-related uses. The YROP recognizes and protects agricultural areas for agricultural uses, agricultural-related uses, secondary agricultural uses and normal farm practices. Any new land use near an agricultural use, including new or expanded livestock facilities, must comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. The YROP also restricts severances and redesignation of agricultural lands. The YROP acknowledges future urban growth within the Agricultural Area, which are outside of the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan, and the existing urban area. However, until these areas are developed for urban uses, the YROP continues to protect and encourage agricultural uses in these areas.

The third agricultural area is Rural Area. The Rural Area permits a broader range of uses than the other two designations by permitting non-agricultural uses such as forestry, conservation, land extensive recreational uses, resource-based commercial and industrial uses and cemeteries. Adjustment to the boundary or redesignation of Rural Areas, as well as Agricultural Areas, can only be permitted through a municipal comprehensive review.

3.3 Local Municipal Agricultural Policies Eight of the nine local municipalities in York Region have farmland, and as such they designate and protect a portion of their land for agricultural uses. Newmarket is the only municipality that does not contain an agricultural designation. Since each local municipality is required to conform to the Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan and the York Region Official Plan, the following review only

1 Golden Horseshoe in this regard refers to the regional municipalities that make up the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance, which includes Durham, York, Toronto, Peel, Hamilton and Niagara.


7

highlights where additional measures are taken to protect farmland. Appendix 1 provides a summary table of local municipal agricultural policies.

Collectively, local municipalities support agricultural diversification and preserving agricultural areas. The Town of Georgina, Township of King, City of Markham, City of Vaughan, and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville’s Official Plans contain policies to protect agricultural areas from the impacts of urban expansion. Georgina restricts the encroachment of urban development on agricultural land. However, only development within Parkland Areas must explicitly be designed to minimize the impact on surrounding existing agricultural uses. King’s new draft Official Plan (November, 2017) seeks to protect prime agricultural areas from fragmentation, development, and land uses unrelated to agriculture. Markham protects, supports, and promotes agricultural uses and has an Official Plan policy to establish an agricultural advisory committee. Vaughan’s Countryside designation requires development to be designed “so its siting, scale and massing is compatible with the established patterns of surrounding…farms.” Whitchurch-Stouffville requires new commercial recreational uses within the Commercial Recreation Area or Rural Commercial/Industrial/ Institutional designations to minimize audio and visual nuisances, hazards and other potential negative impacts to adjacent agricultural uses.

The Town of East Gwillimbury seeks to mitigate conflict between agricultural and urban uses; they do so through an emphasis on urban areas. East Gwillimbury prohibits livestock-based operations in the Agricultural/Long-Term Growth Area. This is in part because the Agricultural/Long-Term Growth Area may be required to accommodate future urban growth.

The Town of Aurora and Richmond Hill’s agricultural policies are limited to permitting agricultural uses within some of their land uses designations, but they do not have designations solely for agricultural and agricultural-related uses like most other local municipalities. Land use designations in Richmond Hill that permit agricultural uses extend beyond the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan areas.

The YROP and local municipal Official Plans seek to protect and enhance the Regions agricultural lands. However, only a few local municipalities implement policies to control development along the agricultural-urban boundary to protect agricultural lands. This protection is only applied to development within a designation that permits agriculture; no local municipality addresses urban designations that abut an agricultural designation, except for conforming to the minimum distance separation (MDS) formulae through the development review process. When York Region’s future growth is taken into consideration, more is needed to protect our agricultural land, economy, character and lifestyle from expanding urban uses, as well as ensure that residents living along the agricultural-urban boundary continue have a high-quality of life.

In order to understand what more could be done to protect the Region’s agricultural land from urban uses, below is a review of best practices.


8

4 Case Studies A high level review of local, national, and international planning authorities was conducted. Five case studies were selected to provide a representation of differing approaches to agricultural-urban boundary planning. Municipalities reviewed include Queensland, Australia; State of California; Portland, Oregon; Province of British Columbia; and Peel Region.

4.1 Queensland, Australia In Queensland, Australia, quality agricultural land is considered a finite national and state resource that must be conserved and managed for long term use. Queensland’s State Policy 1/92: Development and the Conservation of Agricultural land (SPP1/92) aims to minimize incompatible or non-agricultural uses from establishing adjacent to quality agricultural areas and implement mitigation measures to the extent feasible to ameliorate potential conflicts.

Queenland’s Planning Guidelines: Separating Agricultural and Residential Land Uses, 1997 outlines technical advice and guidance to reduce conflict between agricultural and residential land uses. Five principles from the guidelines are to be considered when dealing with existing non-compatible situations and for proposed development within the fringe area. They are summarized below:

1. Agricultural code of practice is to be followed and new uses are not to threaten an existing agricultural operation;

2. In land use planning (development of an official plan or secondary plan), the location of residential development in proximity to agricultural land is to be avoided at the greatest extent possible and where not possible, mechanisms are to be used to minimize conflicts (e.g. buffer areas);

3. Buffer areas are determined on the basis of the impact the proposed use would have on the agricultural lands using the potential highest and best agricultural land use, regardless of current use of the lands;

4. Buffer areas are to be incorporated into official plan/secondary plans when residential lands are being designated adjacent to agricultural/rural lands and provided/funded by the development proponent. Prior rights of farmers are protected to practice agriculture on rural lands; and

5. Mechanisms such as mediation, source controls and public education are encouraged where existing conflicts between agricultural and residential land uses. In the Guidelines, one example of an educational tool is a “notice to purchasers of land in rural areas” which outlines the existing agricultural practices occurring in the area (Appendix 2).

In order to achieve separation of incompatible uses through planning decisions, the Guidelines recommend isolating good quality agricultural land from land uses that could conflict with nearby farming activities, retain natural features to act as buffer areas and ensure that newly developing areas are designed with appropriate buffers to control noise, dust, odour, smoke and ash, chemical spray drift, and sediment and stormwater runoff.

The Guidelines recommend conducting an assessment of the conflicting use to determine the most optimal design of the buffer area, at the time of subdivision approval. Four steps were recommended to examine the need for the appropriate buffer areas:

1. Determine the likely future sustainable agricultural land use with the potential to cause the most conflict for adjacent residential;

2. Identify the elements that may cause conflict and the extent of the conflict. The elements should be quantified based upon impact and, where possible, in terms of frequency and duration of the activities;

https://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/resources/policy/plng-guide-sep-ag.pdf


9

3. Evaluate the proponent’s mitigation plan on how each element will be addressed in order to achieve acceptable outcomes in terms of residential area design, size of lots, separation widths, tree planting, acoustic barriers, etc.; and

4. Develop a monitoring and maintenance plan for the buffer areas and include the responsibility of maintenance to ensure continued effectiveness.

Queensland’s Guidelines identify vegetative buffers as very successful in separating conflicting land uses and consequently mitigating conflict and impacts (Figure 5). The Guideline provides examples of minimum effective separation distance, with and without a buffer (Appendix 3).Buffers in private single tenure can be created through planning controls including conditions tied to development approval, establishing building envelopes, utilizing existing vegetation as part of the buffer or the rural land owner agrees to voluntarily dedicate land when they propose to intensify an agricultural land use. When there is joint tenure of private land, an alternative is to utilize common property areas of land as a buffer; however the land area selected must be consistent with the reduction of the land use conflict. In the situation of a buffer in public ownership, the buffer area could have a public use for parks, public open space or use it for road and drainage reserve purposes.

Queensland also recognizes that urban expansion may occur in phases; therefore temporary buffers may be required in the interim. Since these buffers are temporary they do not need to be designed as a permanent feature, unless that feature has a desired role in the future urban form (eg. a linear open space). Depending on the level of expected impact and the lifespan of the temporary buffer, a buffer may be deemed unnecessary. Where a temporary buffer is necessary, Queensland requires it to meet the same design criteria as permanent buffers.

Figure 5: Separation Distance With and Without Buffers (Queensland, 1997)


10

4.2 California Supporting urban growth while balancing the need to preserve and protect agricultural land is a key concern in California. As urban areas expand, farmers on the edge of urban areas have the choice to either invest in their farm, such as new equipment or buildings, long-term crops, or new production management technique, or to wait to sell out to developers. In some instances, lands zoned for agriculture permit non-farm uses in fringe areas which may create new centres of non-agricultural development, such as golf courses and recreational facilities, thereby threatening agriculture. Farms that choose to continue operating are often resentful to the intrusion of urban residents which require the need to have special management practices that may affect crop yield, increased cost and labour requirements, and dealing with domestic pets that harass pasturing livestock.

In California, when faced with the threat of urbanization, the focus of public concern is about the loss of open space rather than agricultural productivity. When ‘property rights’ conflict occurs between farmers and non-farmers, legislative bodies and courts act as referees to address the issues. However, since only a small percentage of the population is employed in the agricultural industry there is a lack of representation which results in less political clout with elected officials and policy makers.

The Farmland Protection Action Guide: 24 Strategies for California, 2002 recommended three policy actions to be implemented to provide additional protection for agricultural land in California:

1. View agriculture as an industry; 2. Establish firm urban growth boundaries; and 3. Implement education and outreach programs to the urban population.

By implementing these actions, planners and decision makers could advocate land use decisions as agriculture would be viewed as an important and contributing economy to help reduce urban/agricultural conflict. Urban growth boundaries (UGB) are a popular method being implemented by governments as one component of an overall urban containment strategy to combat suburban sprawl and protect agricultural and open space, similar to Ontario’s Growth Plan. Contenders have indicated that UGBs in the future result in increases in housing prices, overcrowding and lower quality of life for residents living in the UGB areas.

4.3 Portland, Oregon In 1973, Oregon adopted the Senate Bill 10: Land Use Planning Act which included policies to protect its natural resources. Oregon recognized that protecting agricultural land is an efficient means to conserve natural resources which is an important physical, social, aesthetic and economic asset to residents, regardless if they live in rural or urban areas. There is state legislation which recognizes the finite and limited supply of agricultural lands and requires the preservation of the maximum amount of agricultural land with an emphasis on large blocks. The state recognizes that urban expansion into rural areas is a matter of public concern because of the unnecessary increase to community services costs, agricultural-urban conflict, and the loss of open space and natural beauty. The state also establishes exclusive farm use zoning to substantially limit alternative uses of rural lands and provides incentives and privileges to encourage continued farm practices.

In 1979, Oregon established an urban growth boundary (UGB) for the Metro Portland region. The UGB is assessed every six years to determine if an expansion is necessary to accommodate 20 years of housing and job growth. Since 1979 the UGB has expanded by approximately 13,000 hectares. However, during the required assessment period in 2015 Portland decided not to expand for the first time due to the Metro’s ability to reuse and intensify land.

http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__Farmland_Action_Guide.pdf


11

The Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, 2010, similar to Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement, outlines the State’s goals for land use planning and provide recommended guidelines to achieve those goals. The document’s third goal states that agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products and non-farm uses must not have significant adverse impacts on accepted farm practices. The document provides guidelines to separate urban growth from agricultural lands by buffers and to minimize non-farm uses to allow for maximum agricultural operations.

Portland’s zoning by-law includes a buffer overlay and regulations for off-site impacts. Combined, the buffer overlay and off-site regulations prioritize residential uses first and then open spaces, followed by other uses. The buffer overlay is generally applied to non-residential zones which abut a residential zone. The buffer overlay restricts vehicle access and signs, prohibits exterior activity, increases setback and landscaping requirements and in some cases require additional information and proof that off-site impacts are mitigated. All land within the buffer overlay is also subject to the off-site impact regulations. Off-site impact regulations, including noise, vibration, odour, and glare, are implemented to protect open space from other uses.

4.4 British Columbia In British Columbia, the Province established an Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) zone where agriculture is the primary use and promoted as such and non-agricultural uses are controlled, similar to Oregon’s exclusive farm use zone. Regional and local governments are required to plan in accordance with the ALR and it takes precedence over, but does not replace other legislation and by-laws that may apply to the land. This is similar to Ontario’s Greenbelt Plan where an emphasis is placed on preserving and promoting agriculture and restricting the types of land uses within prime agricultural areas; however in British Columbia the ALR has been in existence since the mid-1970s.

British Columbia has produced documents that are effective tools to aid in promoting compatibility along the urban fringe and focus on urban/agricultural edge strategies and landscaped buffer specifications, including a Guide to Edge Planning, 2015 and a Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas, 2015. These documents rely upon a shared responsibility between urban and agricultural land users and decision makers to find opportunities to ensure the compatibility of land uses in the edge areas. The Guide to Edge Planning provides detailed recommendations for the design of buffers. A key component of edge planning is public education, which increases awareness and helps the landowners to optimize the use of their land. This approach leads to a long term benefit for urban and agricultural land uses and provides certainty and security.

It is recommended that an edge planning strategy developed for each municipality should include: a. Defining similarly sized edge planning areas on both sides of the ALR boundary for the

application of edge planning techniques; b. Developing communication tools such as edge planning public information brochures,

agricultural awareness signage along the ALR boundary, farm notification restrictive covenants on new land titles, and local government websites to enhance public awareness of edge planning objectives; and

c. Amending and adopting bylaws that encourage more intensive land use within a strengthened land management regime along the edge planning area.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/agricultural-land-and-environment/strengthening-farming/planning-for-agriculture/823100-3_edge_guide_2015.pdf

https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/assets/library/land-use-planning/guide_for_bylaw_development_in_farming_areas_2015.pdf

https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/assets/library/land-use-planning/guide_for_bylaw_development_in_farming_areas_2015.pdf


12

The Guide to Edge Planning provides several recommendations with respect to the edge of ALR areas, including:

a. Establishing a minimum edge planning study area of 300 metres on either side of the ALR boundary that is subject to special planning and design attention;

b. Differentiating the types and intensities of uses that warrants different levels of edge planning application (e.g. industrial, commercial, institutional, and recreational uses likely would not require the same level of edge planning or buffer when compared to more sensitive land uses, such as residential);

c. Establishing a 30 metre setback, on the ‘urban side’ of the ALR boundary, from agricultural lands, including a 15 metre vegetative buffer from residential uses and 15 metre setbacks and an 8m buffer from non-residential uses. Regardless of urban land use, the buffer should incorporates fences and be 6 metre high to limit sightlines;

d. Where the agricultural-urban boundary is defined by a road or a stream, the road or stream can be incorporated into the setback on the urban side. The road can reduce the width of the vegetative buffer to 7.5 metre and a stream can reduce the buffer to 8.0 metre;

e. Encouraging proper farm management practices which include the minimum distance separation setback requirements, manure handling, light management, animal limits, minimum thresholds based on crop type and other techniques;

f. Offering the developer higher density on the rest of the parcel in return for a larger vegetated buffer along the boundary;

g. Placing the park dedication along the boundary; h. Directing people away from the boundary, by designing roads to move traffic and

pedestrians away from the boundary, avoiding road stubs or cul-de-sacs pointing into the agricultural area and locating destinations, such as playgrounds, schools, churches, health care facilities, seniors’ centres, etc., far from the boundary;

i. Avoiding oversizing infrastructure in expectation of further development in the agricultural area;

j. Using longer, narrower residential lots along the boundary; k. Distributing information packages, disclosure statements within purchase and sale

agreements or covenants in a title can help to inform owners purchasing in the rural or urban fringe areas that they are in proximity of an agricultural area and what this entails with respect to noise, dust, odour and other impacts associating with normal farming practices;

l. Providing signage along the agricultural-urban boundary can inform residents and prospective purchasers of the proximity of farm operations within the immediate area and possible associated activities; and

m. Avoiding impacts from precipitation related to erosion, sediment and rainwater control during and after construction, implementation of source controls using low impact development techniques and designing buffer areas to aid in breaking up overland flow in urban development proposals.

In British Columbia, local official plan policies implement edge planning and mitigation techniques along the agricultural-urban boundary. One way this is done in Abbotsford and Kelowna is through Development Permit Areas (DPAs) which require edge planning in advance of development approvals. When the DPA is applied to an application of subdivision, it can be refused if the proposal would unreasonably interfere with nearby farming operations due to inadequate buffering or separation. However, if buffers and other mitigation techniques are incorporated into the subdivision design, approval may be granted and the DPA are utilized to ensure that the best possible design is achieved.


13

4.5 Peel Region Peel Region completed an Edge Planning Report – A Review of Implemented practices to Address Planning on the Rural-Urban Fringe in 2015. The report identifies four main aspects that affect agricultural-urban compatibility:

1. Environment – Climate and Topology 2. Farm Operation – Type and management 3. Urban Development – Type and Location 4. Perceptions

The report recommends that the Regional Official Plan should include a policy that requires planning and development applications that are within 300 metres of the agricultural-urban boundary be reviewed to ensure they use measures to reduce conflict. There is a requirement that with any conflict that development agreements within this area include a clause that recognize the on-going nature of the existing agricultural use that may result in noise, odour, dust, or other potential nuisances. The report emphasizes that any additional agricultural-urban boundary policy or guideline should not replace the Minimum Distance Separation formulae, but complement it. The report recommends secondary plans and subdivision design should be phased to facilitate orderly expansion of urban development which reduces adverse impacts to adjacent agricultural uses. Vegetative buffers and fencing are also recommended along urban growth boundary and settlement area boundaries to reduce visual impacts, odours, dust, and restrict livestock use along the boundary.

The report identifies education as a key approach to reduce conflict between rural and urban residents. Education could be delivered through on-farm education days, open houses, educational talks, information packages to new urban residents, and notification clauses or disclosure statements on land titles.

4.6 Summary of Case Studies The case studies reviewed illustrate that edge planning is a challenge faced by governments around the world. They also show that there is not a single approach to edge planning, but a range of policies, guidelines, and practices could be implemented to reduce the impact of nearby urban development to agricultural areas. York Region can learn from these cases in creating a set of practices that will be tailored to edge planning for local municipalities within the Region.

https://www.peelregion.ca/planning/paawg/pdf/Edge_Planning_Report.pdf

https://www.peelregion.ca/planning/paawg/pdf/Edge_Planning_Report.pdf


14

5 Key Findings Each case study recognized the importance and need to protect agricultural lands from urban development. They also identify buffers as a very successful method to reduce urban impacts on agricultural uses. The case studies in Section 4 illustrate that there are various planning tools and implementation mechanisms that should be considered to reduce adverse impacts of urban development on adjacent agricultural uses along the agricultural-urban boundary.

5.1 Edge Planning Tools Agricultural-urban boundary: The agricultural-urban boundary is generally defined as the edge of the agricultural property which directly abuts a non-agricultural land use, such as an urban land use parcel (eg. a residential parcel), a road, major infrastructure (eg. a railway or a hydro corridor), or a natural heritage system.

Type and location of development: The type of urban development and its proximity to agricultural lands contributes to potential compatibility issues. In most cases, developments with greater number of people that are located near the agricultural-urban boundary will have a greater impact than those located in rural areas. British Columbia and Queensland identified residential uses can have a significant impact on agricultural uses and therefore may require greater separation than other types of urban land uses.

Subdivision Design: Subdivisions should be planned to direct people and vehicles away from the agricultural-urban boundary. Key considerations include lot dimensions, density, road and service alignment, open space, and parkland dedications.

Urban Site Design: Building design, layout and orientation should be considered to reduce impacts to adjacent farmland. Setbacks from the agricultural-urban boundary, which are appropriate for the urban land use, could be established to provide a separation from farmland and should provide space for a vegetated buffer.

Setbacks: A setback is the distance from the agricultural-urban boundary to an urban structure and should be considered to create distance between conflicting uses. British Columbia requires a 30 metre setback from the agricultural-urban boundary for residential uses and 15 metres for non-residential uses. In the case of a boundary along a road, the width of the right-of-way is included in the setback distance and can reduce the required buffer width by half. That is, in British Columbia if there is a 20m right-of-way along the agricultural-urban boundary, the setback from the right-of-way would need to 10 metre to achieve a 30 metre setback from the agricultural-urban boundary.

Agricultural Site Design: Some agricultural related land uses could be prohibited, restricted, or have special requirements applied to them if within close proximity to the agricultural-urban boundary. Beyond the immediate agricultural-urban boundary area special management requirements for certain agricultural activities could be implemented. For example, compost bins or piles could be restricted along the agricultural-urban boundary. However, the scale of a farm and a minimum size threshold for restrictions to be applied should be considered. Buildings could also be designed to have appropriate setbacks to mitigate noise, odour, and light impacts.

Agricultural Practices: While recognizing the right to farm and normal farm practices, some agricultural practices could be restricted to reduce their impact on nearby urban land uses. For example, the spraying/spreading of manure could be prohibited during high winds. However, the scale of operation and a minimum size threshold for restrictions to be applied should be considered.


15

Storm and Ground Water Management: Urban development can decrease stormwater infiltration and increase runoff rates and volume. Urban development should avoid altering the hydrologic cycle and could be designed to provide possible water benefits to adjacent farms.

Buffer Location, Width, and Height: Buffers are an area within the setback that is purposely designed to reduce adverse impacts between agricultural and urban land uses. Buffers can be located on the rural side and/or urban side of the rural-urban boundary. Peel Region and British Columbia implement buffers of equal width on both sides of the agricultural-urban boundary, while California only implements a buffer on the agricultural side. British Columbia requires a 15 metre vegetative buffer along the agricultural-urban boundary from residential uses and 8 metres from non-residential uses. In either case, the buffer must be 6 metres high to limit views of agricultural uses.

Urban-Side Buffer Design: The design of buffers should mitigate urban impacts on farmland, such as trespassing, livestock harassment from dogs, as well as agricultural impacts on residents, such as noise and dust. To reduce these impacts, buffers should not only consider an appropriate distance between conflicting uses (see Setbacks), but also how the buffer is designed, including dense vegetation and fencing (Figure 6). Since complaints about farming practices are often based on perception as reality, the height of buffers should be considered to minimize sightlines.

Impacts from the buffer itself must be considered and mitigated. A space between the vegetation and the farmland should be considered to allow for optimal function of the farmland. This space should reduce shading for cropland, permit air circulation and allow the necessary space for maneuvering farm equipment.

Buffers should also be considered for non-farm related benefits, such as passive, low-intensity recreation and wildlife habitat. The timing of constructing the buffer should also be considered in relation to the rest of the development, as well as its ongoing maintenance.

Agricultural-Side Buffer Design: Buffers can also be located on agricultural land (Figure 7). While California requires the entirety of the edge buffer be located on the agricultural side, Peel Region and British Columbia implement buffers of equal size on both sides of the boundary. The vegetative portion of the agricultural side buffers may only be needed near farm buildings to mitigate any additional impacts directly related to the building.

Figure 7: Rural Side Buffer (British Columbia, 2015b)

Figure 6: Urban Side Buffer (British Columbia, 2015b)

Figure 8: Example of roadside signage (British Columbia, 2015b)


16

Enhancing Agricultural Awareness: Each case study reviewed incorporated awareness into their edge planning framework. Disclosure statements, signage and information packages should be considered to inform and educate existing and future residents along an agricultural-urban boundary, as well as visitors, about normal farm practices and the potential impacts and benefits it can create (Figure 8).

5.2 Implementation Mechanisms Urban Growth Boundary: An UGB can be established to reduce urban expansion and sprawl. While the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan are essentially an UGB, a Regional UGB could be considered, similar to the Metro Portland region.

Regional Official Plan: Official Plans can provide a basis for edge planning. Policies that support edge planning and encourage or require local official plans to incorporate specific edge planning policies should be considered in the Regional Official Plan.

Local Official Plan: Many of the edge planning tools can be incorporated into policies to ensure they are utilized. Goals and objectives can be established to protect agricultural lands and establish a minimum distance from the agricultural-urban boundary to review development and land use changes to ensure agricultural land is protected by mitigating impacts (to both the agricultural and urban land users).

Secondary Plans: Secondary Plans can provide specific policy direction to ensure the type and location of land uses reduces the impacts along the agricultural-urban boundary and orderly phase development.

Zoning By-laws: Zoning By-laws that incorporate an agricultural-urban buffer area, and associated regulations, should be considered. Zoning regulations could be implemented through either new zones or as a zoning overlay and can restrict vehicle access and signs, prohibit exterior activity, increase setback, and outline stipulate landscaping requirements.

Agricultural-Urban Boundary Policy Areas: Alternative to zoning regulations, a special policy area could be established to require a permit for development along the agricultural-urban boundary (eg. a Community Planning Permit System), is an additional layer of review or screening process (Figure 9). Both the Region of Peel and British Columbia have established a 300 metre edge planning study area to review development applications.

Design Guidelines: Guidelines can be established to support and clarify policies and ensure the tools are implemented in the way they were intended.

Agricultural Impact Assessments: AIA’s can be used to identify and mitigate potential impacts for non-agricultural proposals.

Public Education: There are numerous ways to implement an agricultural awareness strategy, including open houses, farm tours, mail out information pamphlets or packages, websites, etc. Posting signage along roadways and paths can also help educate residents and visits to the agricultural-urban edge.

Figure 9: Example of an agricultural/urban edge policy area (Queensland, 1997)


17

5.3 Other Considerations Buffer Permanency: Depending on the phasing of urban expansion, buffers may be either a permanent or temporary feature. In areas where urban expansion may occur in phases, temporary buffers may be appropriate. Temporary buffers may not need to be designed to the same degree as permanent buffers, unless it is desired to be incorporated into future urban expansion (eg. a linear open space). Permanent buffers are appropriate along boundaries where the possibility of change is unlikely, such as along the edge of the Greenbelt.

Buffer Tenure and Maintenance: Buffers can be on private tenure, common property, or publicly owned. Regardless of ownership, vegetative buffers will require ongoing maintenance to ensure their long-term effectiveness. Maintenance of private-tenure buffers can be controlled through development conditions, local laws, or environmental protection agreements. British Columbia recommends that publicly owned buffers are preferred because the maintenance of buffers can be more easily controlled.

6. Conclusion Protecting agricultural resources from urban growth has become an important issue around the world, including Ontario. Ontario’s provincial plans recognize that agriculture occurs as one part of a larger system rather than simply a land use. As such, Ontario has introduced the Agricultural Impact Assessment to address the impacts new urban developments may have on nearby agricultural uses.

Agriculture is valued in York region as a key industry, lifestyle, and aesthetic appeal. Regionally, agriculture is major industry, generating revenue and providing jobs. On an individual level it is a way of life to some, while to others it is a weekend escape from the city, a landscape to be admired, or a source of local food.

This key regional resource, however, is under pressure by urban growth. Urban growth near agricultural uses can create conflict between the different land uses. Agricultural uses can be impacted by trespassing, animal harassment, invasive species, litter, and increased traffic. Urban development can also experience impacts from the agricultural uses, including noise, odour, issues of safety, and traffic congestion due to slow moving farm equipment. As a result, there is a need to mitigate impacts on both the agricultural lands and urban areas. In doing so we will ensure our agricultural land remains a viable resource for generations to come.

Cities, regions, and provinces and states that are faced with agricultural-urban conflicts, provide examples of how to address and mitigate the impacts associated with the agricultural-urban boundary. The case studies illustrate that vegetative buffers and education are effective tools to mitigate impacts on both sides of the agricultural-urban boundary.

In order to effectively implement vegetative buffers and public awareness strategies, regional and local levels of government need to be involved. Partnerships, policies and design guidelines can be developed and implemented. Based on the options to address agricultural-urban boundary presented in this report, Official Plan policies and guidelines will be explored to direct and help facilitate local municipalities in their efforts to reduce the real and perceived conflicts between abutting agricultural and urban land uses.


18

References

Agricultural Land Commission (1993). Landscaped Buffer Specifications.

British Columbia (2003). Vegetative Buffers in BC: An Investigation of Existing Buffers and Their Effectiveness in Mitigating Conflict. Ministry of Agriculture

British Columbia (2015a). Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas. Ministry of Agriculture

British Columbia (2015b). Guide to Edge Planning: Promoting Compatibility Along Agricultural-Urban Edges. Ministry of Agriculture

City of Portland, Oregon (2002). Title 33, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 33.262 Off-Site Impacts.

City of Portland, Oregon (2015). Title 33, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 33.410 Buffer Zone.

City of Markham (2014). Official Plan.

City of Vaughan (2010). Official Plan.

Evans, G. & Toyne, G (2014). Letter submitted to York Region, received on September 10, 2014. Re: OPA No. 744 – Buffer between housing and farming.

Institute for Local Self Government (2002). Farmland Protection Action Guide: 24 Strategies for California.

MHBC (2015). Edge Planning Report, The Region of Peel & The Town of Caledon LEAR Study and MDS Review.

Ontario Federation of Agriculture & Environmental Defence (2015). Farmland at Risk: Why land-use planning needs improvements for a healthy agricultural future in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Ontario (2015). Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 2015-2041. Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Ontario (2016). Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Area. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Ontario (2017). Greenbelt Plan.

Ontario (2017). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Ontario (2017). Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae Document.

Ontario (2017). Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (2018). Annual Report of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, 2007-2017.

Ontario Municipal Board (2015). Prehearing of OMB Case No. PL141138.

Ontario Municipal Board (2015). Continuation of OMB Case No. PL141138.


19

Oregon (2010). Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines. Department of Land Conservation and Development.

Planscape Inc. (2012) Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021. Golden Horseshoe Agriculture & Agri-Food Strategy.

Town of Aurora (2010). Official Plan.

Town of East Gwillimbury (2010). Official Plan.

Town of Georgina (2016). Official Plan.

Township of King (1970). Official Plan.

Town of Newmarket (2006). Official Plan.

Town of Richmond Hill (2010). Official Plan.

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (2000). Official Plan.

Queensland (1997). Planning Guidelines: Separating Agricultural and Residential Land Uses. Department of Natural Resources & Department of Local Government and Planning.

York Region (2010). Regional Official Plan.


20

Appendix 1: Current Regional and Local Municipal Agricultural Policies

York

Reg

ion

Auro

ra

East

Gw

illim

bury

Geor

gina

King

*

Mar

kham

New

mar

ket*

*

Rich

mon

d Hi

ll

Vaug

han

Whi

tchu

rch-

Stou

ffvill

e

The Role of Agriculture Recognizes the important role agriculture has in the economy

Recognizes the important role agriculture has as a lifestyle

Recognizes the important role agriculture has in the ecological system

Recognizes the important role agriculture has in mitigating climate change

Recognizes the loss of agricultural land as a significant issue

Agricultural Land Use Designations Establishes designation(s) primarily for agricultural activities

Establishes designation(s) which permit agricultural activities

Establishes agricultural designation(s) outside of the Greenbelt and/or Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Area

Agricultural Policies High-level objective(s) to protect farmland Supports agricultural activities Supports local food systems Supports agri-tourism Protects agricultural land for agricultural activities Protects prime agricultural lands from development Explicitly restricts severances and/or conversion Edge Planning Policies Recognizes issues with near-urban agriculture Plans for future urban expansion onto agricultural lands Restricts the encroachment of urban uses into agricultural areas

Requires new development to comply with the minimum distance separation formulae

Requires buffers along the agricultural-urban boundary Advisory Committees Establishes an agricultural-related advisory committee * Includes a review of the 1970 Official Plan and the new Draft Official Plan, dated November 6, 2017, ** The Town of Newmarket has no agricultural designations.


21

Appendix 2: Example of a Notice to Purchaser of Land in Rural Areas

Queensland, Department of Natural Resources, Planning Guidelines: Separation Agricultural and Residential Land Use, 1997.


22

Appendix 3: Examples of minimum effective separation distances

Queensland, Department of Natural Resources, Planning Guidelines: Separation Agricultural and Residential Land Use, 1997.


23

Appendix 4: Excerpt of British Columbia’s Buffer Design Specifications

British Columbia, Ministry of Agriculture, Guide to Edge Planning: Promoting Compatibility Along Agricultural-Urban Edges, 2015b


24


25


26


27


28

Documents

York Region Edge Planning Background Report - November 2018