COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING P. O. Box 397, Court House, Woodstock Ontario N4S 7Y3 Phone: 519-539-9800 • Fax: 519-537-5513 Web Site: www.county.oxford.on.ca

Our File: ZON 3-05-6

APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE TO: The Mayor and Members

of Norwich Township Council MEETING DATE: April 10, 2007 REPORT NO.: 2007-114

OWNERS: Bruce and Sheila Barnim 385229 Highway 59 R.R. #1 Burgessville, ON N0J 1C0

AGENT: David Roe, MCIP RPP Civic Planning Solutions Inc. 599 Larch St Delhi, ON N4B 3A7

SOLICITOR: Richard A. Coad White Coad LLP Barristers & Solicitors 5 Wellington Street N. P.O. Box 1059 Woodstock ON N4S 8A4

LOCATION: North side of Highway 59, between Oxford Road 13 and Middletown Line Part Lot 17, Concession 1 (North Norwich), Township of Norwich; - municipally known as 385229 Highway 59 OXFORD COUNTY OFFICIAL PLAN: Schedule ''N-1" Township of Norwich

Land Use Plan

Agricultural Reserve

NORWICH ZONING BY-LAW NO. 07-2003-Z: Existing Zoning: General Agricultural Zone (A2) Proposed Zoning: Special General Agricultural (A2-special). APPLICATION REVIEW: (a) Proposal An application for Zone Change has been submitted to the Township of Norwich to establish zoning to permit development of a “tire service business devoted exclusively to farm equipment including tractors” on a portion of a farm property located west of Burgessville on

NORWICH

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouturePLATE 1: ZON 3-05-6 (Part Lot 17, Conc 1 / North Norwich - B. & S. Barnim) Location and Existing Zoning

scoutureSubject Property

scouture

scoutureLands to be Re-zoned; Approx. Area = 1.68 ha (4.15 ac)

scouture

scoutureHighway 59

scoutureBeaconsfield Road

scoutureMiddletown Line

scoutureBURGESSVILLE

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

File No. ZON 3-05-6 Report No. 2007-114 Page 2 Highway 59. The subject property consists of a 41.4 hectare (102.3 acre) farm. The area subject to re-zoning comprises 1.68 ha (4.15 ac), located north of the accessory dwelling. For the Council’s information, application for Building Permit No. N2000-00134 was issued by the Township to permit expansion of an existing storage barn, to 1419 sq.m. (15,276 sq.ft) in floor area. The building permit application specifically identified the intended use to be for “apple storage”. At that time, this farm was occupied by a large apple orchard. The apple orchard was removed by the owners in late 2004. On January 7, 2005, after receiving a complaint concerning a “tire storage” use on the subject property, the Township Chief Building Official issued an ‘Order to Remedy an Unsafe Building’ and an ‘Order to Prohibit Use or Occupancy of an Unsafe Building’; thereby requiring the owners to cease occupancy of a farm storage building being improperly used for an industrial purpose. As of the date of this report, these Orders have not been rescinded and remain in effect against the property. An incomplete application for Zone Change was submitted in March, 2005. The applicants requested “Agri-Business (AB)” zoning to permit an agricultural-related tire service business covering 1.05 hectares (2.59 acres), including the large farm storage building land located north of the accessory dwelling. The application did not address any of the Official Plan review criteria and the required conceptual site plan was not provided. Subsequently, in June 2005, a planning justification report was submitted, but a conceptual site plan was not provided to assist the review agencies in their analysis of the development proposal. The June submission revised the application to specifically request “Special General Agricultural“ zoning provisions be applied to the property to allow development of a “tire service business devoted exclusively to farm equipment including tractors.” The revised proposal included interior and exterior (open) storage of new tires and related parts (casings, wheels and inner tubes) and related service work. Agency circulation proceeded, on the understanding that a conceptual site plan would be submitted prior to the required public meeting, in order to assist the agencies analyse the proposal. In December 2005, the applicants submitted a conceptual site plan that showed significant changes to the development proposal, including an increase in the subject area to 3.1 hectares (7.67 acres) and the addition of 2 more storage buildings having a combined floor area of 1200 sq.m. (12,917 sq.ft), thereby increasing the total floor area of buildings to 2619 sq.m. (28,192 sq.ft.). No justification or explanation of the reasons for the increase in land area and building floor area were provided, even after repeated requests from staff to provide this information. In January 2007, following a meeting between the applicant (B. Barnim), his agents (R. Coad and D. Roe) and municipal staff, a revised conceptual site plan and revised planning justification report were received. The revised application and revised site sketch (Plate 3) were circulated for agency comments. This report provides an analysis of this revised application. Plate 1 - Location and Existing Zoning, indicates the subject property is located west of the Village of Burgessville, on the north side of Highway 59. Plate 2 - 2006 Aerial Orthophotography, shows an aerial view of the southern part of this farm property where the farm buildings are located. The approximate dimensions of the area subject to the request for re-zoning is outlined. Most of the farm buildings located on the adjacent farm property were removed in 2005. Recent site visitation by staff revealed all

NORWICH

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scouture

scoutureArea Subject to Re-zoning

scouture

scouture

scouture104 m

scouture175 m

scouture89 m

scouturePLATE 2: ZON 3-05-6 (Part Lot 17, Conc 1 / North Norwich - Barnim) 2006 Aerial Orthophotography (with parcels overlay)

scouturePLATE 3: Applicants' Revised Site Sketch

File No. ZON 3-05-6 Report No. 2007-114 Page 3 of the farm buildings on the adjacent farm lot have been demolished. As well, the tire storage business on the subject site remains in operation. Plate 3 – Applicants’ Revised Site Sketch, shows the location of the farm buildings, the open storage areas and other development details such as parking and some landscaping features. (b) 2005 Provincial Policy Statement The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The policy framework came into effect on March 1, 2005. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions “shall be consistent with” all policy statements issued under the Act. In the 2005 PPS, Section 2.3 addresses agricultural land use. Policy 2.3.1 indicates prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. Permitted uses within these area are: agricultural uses, secondary uses and agricultural-related uses. Under this policy framework, secondary uses are defined as “uses secondary to the principal use of the property, including but not limited to home occupations, home industries and uses that produce value-added agricultural products from the farm operation on the property.“ Agricultural-related uses are defined as “farm-related commercial and farm-related industrial uses that are small scale and directly related to the farm operation and are required in close proximity to the farm operation.” The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing provided comments in regard to the original (2005) proposal and the recently revised proposal. In both instances, the Ministry noted the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement applied to the development proposal and, based on information provided by the applicants, the Ministry concluded the tire business use is the principle use on this site, rather than one that is secondary to a principle agricultural use as required by the 2005 PPS. Therefore, the Ministry concluded the proposed use does not appear to be consistent with the 2005 PPS, regardless of the type of tires being accepted and/or the nature of the clientele for this business. The applicants’ proposal to develop a tire storage and service facility for farm equipment, including tractors, on a farm located in a prime agricultural area of the Township does not meet the definition of either a secondary use or an agriculture-related use, as required Section 2.3 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Therefore, this development proposal is not consistent with the 2005 PSS. (c) Official Plan The subject lands are designated ‘Agricultural Reserve’ according to the Land Use Plan for the Township of Norwich, as contained in the County Official Plan. The policies of the Agricultural Reserve designation recognize that the agricultural community requires agricultural industrial and commercial uses that are supportive of farming. New non-agricultural industrial or commercial uses are not permitted in this

File No. ZON 3-05-6 Report No. 2007-114 Page 4 designation. Area Councils may permit the establishment of new agricultural commercial and industrial activities subject to compliance with the following criteria:

• The predominant activity will be supportive of the farm community and unable to

function successfully or properly without a location in close proximity to farm operations.

• Notwithstanding the above, agricultural commercial or industrial uses which demonstrate significant incompatibility with uses in settlement designations may be permitted to location within the Agricultural Reserve designation.

• Only proposals stating a specific use will be considered by the Area Council. The lands area proposed for the agricultural commercial or industrial use will be consistent with the requirements of the proposed use.

• The proposal must demonstrate that nearby underdeveloped or vacant, properly zoned sites are unsuitable for the proposed use before other properties are rezoned.

• For new uses, the Area Council will be satisfied that the following locational criteria have been considered:

• the use is proposed on existing undersized agricultural parcels of a size and shape which constrains agricultural activity; and

• the use is proposed in an area made unsuitable for agriculture by former or surrounding land uses.

• Existing agricultural commercial or industrial uses which require additional lands for expansion purposes may be permitted to expand without satisfying all of the location requirements.

• The location of the new use shall not create a traffic hazard due to proximity to bridges, railway crossings, curves or grades or any other potential traffic hazard. Further, such uses shall be located on a road capable of accommodating the nature of the traffic anticipated to be generated.

• New agricultural commercial or agricultural industrial uses will be located in conformity with Minimum Distance Separation Formula I.

• The proposed uses will be of a size and scale suitable for private services. • The agricultural commercial and agricultural industrial proposal will be in

compliance with the Environmental Resource and Resource Extraction policies. • The proposal shall be subject to Site Plan approval to address concerns related to

setbacks, building location, buffering and screening, etc. In regard to the above review criteria, it is noted that the applicants currently operate a tire sales and service establishment (with limited on-site storage) located at 593771 Highway 59 in the rural cluster of Holbrook, approximately 2.6 km (1.6 miles) west of the subject property. The Holbrook facility is zoned Highway Commercial (HC), which permits this type of service commercial use. Expansion of the Holbrook facility would be allowed under the rural cluster policies, provided the applicants could increase the area of that 0.88 hectare (2.17 ac) lot and adequately address the servicing issues. Even though the applicants have indicated the tire storage use on their farm has been in operation since late 2000, this use was not permitted on this farm and the use must be evaluated as if it did not exist. With regard to the requirement that only a specific use be considered, instead of a general list of potential uses, the applicants have indicated only “tires devoted exclusively to farm

File No. ZON 3-05-6 Report No. 2007-114 Page 5 equipment (including tractors)” would be stored and serviced on the subject site. From a planning perspective, placing restrictions on the type (or size, or number) of tires through site-specific zoning provisions or through a Site Plan Agreement that is registered on title would be inappropriate. As well, it could be very difficult for the Township to enforce such restrictions once the tire business use is established. Prior to the submission of the application, the owners reluctantly indicated they store various types of tires (for passenger cars, light trucks, transport trucks and farm equipment/vehicles) indicating that the established use is not exclusively agriculture-related. The Official Plan policies are very clear in that no new commercial or industrial uses (non-agricultural) are permitted in the Agricultural Reserve designation. The applicants provided a planning justification report (dated January 26, 2007) for this development proposal. The following comments address the consulting planner’s conclusions in regard to the review criteria for an agricultural-industrial use. It should be noted that the consultant concluded the “proposed use due to the necessity to store a full range of sizes and types of tires is a use which is not compatible with residential uses normally found in settlement areas.” It must be noted that lands designated for Industrial or Service Commercial uses, within a Serviced Village, would be the appropriate location for the proposed tire sales and service use. As well, sites of a similar site (1.6 ha / 4.2 ac) in the village of Burgessville may be appropriate for this type of use. The consultant’s concluding statement regarding the “range of size and types of tires” suggests that tires for more than just agricultural vehicles may be stored in this facility. As well, other than a very brief statement in the consultant’s report, the applicants have not demonstrated that they have considered other appropriately zoned sites for this proposed use. The Official Plan locational criteria allow Council to consider new agricultural-industrial uses on existing under-sized agricultural parcels of a size and shape that constrain agricultural activity and on an area that has been made unsuitable for agriculture by former or surrounding land uses. The consultant erroneously concluded that no additional farmland will be removed from active cultivation. Plate 2 shows approximately one-third of the area subject to re-zoning (north of existing storage barn) was in agricultural production in 2006. So this portion of the subject area does not meet the locational criteria. Therefore, applicants have not demonstrated how this proposal meets these locational criteria. With regard to the services required for the proposed use, the consultant has indicated the existing private services accommodate the accessory residential use on the farm property and no issues exist related to water supply and sewage generation. However, agency comments indicate that changes to the private services may be required. Therefore, they have not addressed the requirements for private services for the proposed business use. It is noted, however, that they are also proposing a non-water type of fire suppression system for this storage facility, subject to meeting the regulations of the Ontario Building Code. As noted below, Township staff have indicated a permanent water source (pond) would be required for fire protection purposes. With regard to the site plan review requirement, the Township’s comprehensive Site Plan Control By-law No. 14-2006 would apply should favourable consideration be given to this development proposal.

File No. ZON 3-05-6 Report No. 2007-114 Page 6 Generally, the development proposal does not adequately address the above-noted criteria and cannot be supported. (d) Zoning By-Law The subject property is zoned “General Agricultural (A2) ” in the Township of Norwich Zoning By-law. This zone permits a wide range of primary agricultural uses. The zone provisions require a minimum lot area of 20 hectares (49.4 acres) and a minimum lot frontage of 100 m (328 ft). Throughout the Township, the Agri-Business Zone (AB) has been applied in situations where proposals do not comprise a farming use, but are directly related to agriculture and the new uses are on a portion of the farm. Therefore, the A2 zone is not the appropriate zone to apply to the proposed development. One such recent example involves the 23.0 ha (57.0 ac) farm located at Part Lot 12, Concession 2 (North Norwich), east of Burgessville on Highway 59, where approximately 1.05 ha (2.60 ac) of the farm property was re-zoned to permit a “farm implement dealership, including the manufacture and repair of farm gates” (file: ZON 3-06-19; J. VandeGoor). The AB zone requires a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre), a lot frontage of 45 m (49.2 ft) and a lot depth of 60 m (196.9 ft). The VandeGoor proposal met the minimum AB zone provisions for lot area, lot frontage and lot depth. While the applicants’ revised proposal meets the minimum lot area and lot depth provisions, the conceptual Site Plan shown in Plate 3 does not meet the lot frontage requirement. Additionally, within the AB zone, lot coverage is regulated by establishing minimum 15 m (49.2 ft) setbacks between the occupied portions of the property (buildings and open storage areas) and the lot (or zone) line. The applicants’ proposal (see Plate 3) shows the rear and westerly open storage areas have no setback provision to the rear and west proposed zone lines. (e) Agency Review This application has been reviewed by a number of public agencies. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing provided the comments as noted in Section (b) of the report. They concluded the applicants’ development proposal does not appear to be consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. The County of Oxford Department of Public Works indicated no concerns with the proposed development and further indicated no concerns with the proposed transport truck delivery vehicles accessing the farm property from Highway 59. The County Department of Public Health and Emergency Services indicated no septic files were found for this farm property. They noted that any business office that includes washroom facilities will require a sewage system permit prior to construction. They also noted that the open storage of tires would create ideal conditions for mosquito breeding areas, which could potentially spread West Nile Virus within the Township. Finally, they noted the proposed development is within a moderate vulnerability aquifer and groundwater recharge area.

File No. ZON 3-05-6 Report No. 2007-114 Page 7 The Township Chief Building Official provided the building permit and complaint history for the subject site. He noted an 882.5 sq.m. (9,500 sq.ft.) farm building addition was constructed in August 2000, for the purposes of produce (apple) storage. The required structural drawings were prepared by a Professional Engineer (L.A. Girard Engineering) and these drawings specifically indicated the structure was for agricultural storage. Since that development involved expanding an existing storage barn, the owner’s Engineer conducted all site inspections. Occupancy of the enlarged structure was based on the Engineer’s report. With regard to the January 2005 Ontario Building Code Orders issued to prohibit occupancy of the farm storage building, he expressed concern that the owner’s actions of removing the OBC Orders placed on the main entrance of the building and, of subsequently re-occupying the building without the approval of the Chief Building Official have created a very serious liability for the Township. In regard to the proposal to use this enlarged storage building for an industrial use (tire storage), the Township Chief Building Official noted the Ontario Building Code regulations are significantly different than the regulations for a farm storage building. He noted the building conversion will require a full review by a qualified Engineer and a “change of use” building permit will be required. As an industrial use outside a serviced village, he also noted the private services for this farm property may require significant upgrades prior to occupancy of the storage building, including creation of a permanent water source (pond) for fire protection purposes. He reviewed the conceptual site plan submitted with the revised (January 2007) proposal and noted concerns with regard to adequate access and on-site parking for emergency vehicles. Additionally, he expressed concerns with controlling the proposed outdoor storage of tires and how a fire in these open storage areas could be contained. If the proposal is approved by Council, he requested a Site Plan Agreement be imposed to ensure adequate controls are placed on this development. The Township Fire Department indicated the proposal could not be supported unless all provisions of the Ontario Building Code and Ontario Fire Code are met for both indoor and outdoor storage, including adequate emergency access, fire suppression systems and water supplies. If the proposal is approved, he recommended that a Site Plan Agreement be imposed on this development. The Oxford County Federation of Agriculture indicated no objection to the development proposal as long as it did not impact the surrounding agricultural land owners and conformed to the Official Plan. They noted that in order for the applicants to continue this on-farm diversification use and to be in compliance with the Ministry of Environment, more land area is required for the business operation. The remaining responding agencies, consisting of the Township Drainage Superintendent, the Township Economic Development Officer and the Long Point Region Conservation Authority have indicated that they have no objections to or concerns with the development proposal.

File No. ZON 3-05-6 Report No. 2007-114 Page 8 (f) Planning Summary: This application seeks approval of special agricultural zoning to allow development of an tire service business serving agriculture on an existing farm located on Highway 59, between Burgessville and Holbrook. A 1.68 hectare (4.15 acre) portion of the 41.4 ha (102.3 ac) farm, located to the rear of the accessory dwelling, is proposed for the industrial storage use. A review of the proposal in regard to the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement has determined the development proposal does not appear consistent with the relevant agricultural policies. Comments from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicate that regardless of the type of tire proposed and the nature of the clientele for this business, this development would not conform with the policies for prime agricultural areas. A review of the proposal in regard to the County of Oxford Official Plan policies for Agricultural Reserve areas has determined the application does not adequately address the review criteria for agricultural-industrial or agricultural-commercial development in the Agricultural Reserve areas of the Township. Moreover, the establishment of new non-agricultural industrial or commercial uses is not permitted in this designation. It should be noted that a tire sales and service establishment may be established in a settlement area. One such operation, owned by the applicants is located in the rural cluster of Holbrook, approximately 2.6 km (1.6 miles) west of the subject property. One option available to the applicants would be to enlarge this operation for the proposed use. Based on the above analysis and the comments of circulated agencies, the application for zone change cannot be supported from a Planning perspective. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council of the Township of Norwich deny the zone change application of Bruce and Sheila Barnim, whereby a 1.68 hectare (4.15 acre) portion of the farm parcel consisting of Part Lot 17, Concession 1 (North Norwich), located on the north side of Highway 59, between Holbrook and Burgessville, in the Township of Norwich, is requested to be re-zoned from “General Agricultural Zone (A2)” to “Special General Agricultural Zone (A2-special)” to permit development of a “tire service business devoted exclusively to farm equipment including tractors and related service work.” Authored By: Approved By: “Stephen Couture” “Margaret Misek-Evans” Stephen Couture, B.E.S. Margaret Misek-Evans, MCIP RPP Planner Corporate Manager SC/ Report prepared: April 4, 2007 File: 3-05-6_Barnim