Archive

Mono farmer loses his bid to cover ravines with landfill

March 3, 2016   ·   0 Comments

A Mono farmer has lost his challenge of a Mono bylaw that regulates landfill operations in the town and could have restricted his plan to bring massive amounts of landfill into his sheep farm.

The farmer, Douglas Cox, had asked the Norman Farm Practices Protection Board to rule that the bylaw had the effect of banning a normal farm practice. His application was opposed by the town, a neighbour and the Mono Mulmur Citizens’ Coaltion.

In dismissing the application, the board’s vice-chair, George C. Walker, said the proposed landfill operation was “not a normal farm practice for the purpose of the non-application of the Fill Bylaw,” adding that Mr. Cox also did not have standing to bring the application, “as he has failed to prove that the purpose is ancillary to an agricultural operation or that he has demonstrable plans.” In the circumstances, the board had not needed to decide whether the bylaw would have restricted the fill operation.

In the 13-page ruling released last Friday, the board said Mr. Cox bought the farm, a 17.7-hectare property on Lot 21 of the Fifth Line EHS, in 1990 and until about six years ago had a small cow/calf operation. He began raising sheep there in 2009.

Since approximately 2009, he has raised sheep.

Describing the farm as having “flatter table land and three steep ravines at the rear,” the board said the farmer currently has about 200 ewes and seven rams and for about four months of each year the numbers jump to between 500 and 550 animals due to the production of lambs.

“Mr. Cox wants to increase the number of adult animals on his farm to 300.”

Having been approached by a fill broker who wanted to place 15,000 to 20,000 loads of fill on the farm to level an area for a sheep pasture, the farmer had gone to Mono in March 2014 seeking an exemption from the fill bylaw and was advised that the Town needed more information before a decision could be made.

The original fill broker then lost interest in the project but Mr. Cox then met Robert Iachetta, president of Soilcan Inc. through a mutual friend and entered into a written contract with Soilcan to provide an unspecified number of loads of fill over a two-year period. “Mr. Cox is to receive $20.00 per load from Soilcan,” Mr. Walker wrote. “Evidence received during the hearing suggested that the project would take about 5,600 loads. The number of years it might take cannot be estimated and will depend on the availability of fill.”

Mr. Cox advised the court that the project envisioned by Soilcan would fill in the ravines, providing a gentler slope and enable him to increase the size of his flock.

However, the Board concluded that the ravines can sustain sheep without any modification; that using industry standards, the proposed infilling of the ravines would enable the farm to support only an additional 12 to 17 ewes; that a better alternative would be to use “cut and fill,” bulldozing the tops of hills into the ravines to soften the slope.

“Generally, the lands in question will not be improved from an agricultural perspective and will not be capable of sustaining a long term agricultural land use.”

As well, the project would cause a loss of productivity and it would be two years after the project was completed before the areas could be grazed. The board also found that since the soil on the farm, identified as “ice-contact stratified deposits – sand and gravel, minor silt, clay and till,” would allow ground water to move freely, the landfill would put neighbouring water quality at risk. As well, it would affect drainage and promote erosion.

Accordingly, the Board found the fill operation would put water quality on neighbouring lands at risk of contamination, create drainage issues for upland properties and subject lower lands to run-off erosion.

Although dismissing the Cox application, the Board rejected a submission by Mono that it should also find that any large-scale importation of fill is a commercial operation rather than part of an agricultural operation.

“This Board deals with site-specific issues and therefore it would be dangerous for the Board to make such a broad statement based on other fill operations without similar circumstances. The purpose of this Board is to determine what is and what is not a ‘normal farm practice’. … Consequently, cases involving the large-scale importation of fill and site alteration bylaws must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.”

Mayor Ryan confirmed that she was pleased with the outcome, noting, “It was important to defend our Municipal Fill By-law to protect the residents of Mono from the significant fill proposals that the rural municipalities surrounding the GTA are facing.”

The Board’s decision is available on the Town of Mono’s website.

By Tom Claridge

Readers Comments (0)