I send my comments to you…

I send my comments to you not in regard to the extent nor the breadth of the proposed urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion but, instead, as to the shortcomings within that do not protect agricultural lands, particularly livestock operations. I would like to keep this short but, unfortunately, the issues are vast.

I would like to address the overriding issues that this UGB expansion does not consider and, as a matter of fact, ignores. More specifically, this London Council has consistently ignored and, continues to ignore, the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS 2024), its own Official Plan (the London Plan), Provincial legislation, and OMAFRA's (now OMAFA's) Publication 853 and the guidelines within.

This Council hides behind Bill 185, passed in June 2024, in that Third Party appeals have been disallowed. This, coupled with a lack of Provincial oversight, has allowed Council to run amok in urban/rural planning. Council has thus been consistent in circumventing the Provincial legislation without any chance of appeal. Certainly, this could not have been the intent of the Legislature when passing Bill 185.

With respect to this UGB expansion proposal, the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae have not been adhered to and are calculated based on present use when MDS should be calculated based on full capacity use (i.e. the maximum capacity allowable under OMAFA's AgriSuite program).

Allowing this UGB expansion without the full protection of agricultual lands and livestock operations goes against the Province's stated objectives. I am not asking for the removal of any lands from the UGB expansion proposal. Instead, I'm asking that livestock farmers be protected within the UGB according to the Province's own legislation, guidelines, and the PPS 2024. Specifically, that Council (and the Official Plan Amendment) must adhere to the proper MDS calculations in approving future development.

If such action is not taken, London is on a path to a future collision course when urban planning meets rural agriculture. That line of separation is already razor thin, and with this UGB expansion, it becomes even thinner.

The Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 (FFPPA) states:

6 (1) No municipal by-law applies to restrict a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation.

Ignoring the proper calculations of the MDS, as those contained in the UGB expansion proposal, effectively contradicts and circumvents the very essence of this Act. The real nuisance under the FFPPA will NOT be towards the residential properties but instead to the livestock operators that must respond to the nuisance claims under the Act.

According to the PPS 2024, a Settlement Area is defined as:

Urban areas and rural settlement areas within municipalities (such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets) that are:

a) built-up areas where development is concentrated and which have a MIX OF LAND USES; AND

b) lands which have been designated in an official plan for development over the long-term planning horizon.”

London is trying to define any cluster of housing WITHOUT a mix of land uses as a Settlement Area. These "Rural Settlements" under the London Plan are NOT "settlement areas" (as defined in PPS 2024) as they are not comprised of a MIX OF LAND USES but instead are single land use areas of SFD homes with R1-xx zoning. In erroneously defining these clusters of housing as Settlement Areas, Council is able to ignore and thus circumvent the very integral part of MDS Guidlenes (Publication 853) by applying Guideline #36 of Publication 853, which states that MDS is not to be applied within Settlement Areas. This purposeful misreading of the definition of Settlement Area (PPS 2024) is the guise under which Council applies Guideline #36. As a matter of fact, on March 3, 2026, in one fell swoop, Council will be adopting this erroneous definition of "rural settlements" with SINGLE USE housing as "Settlement Areas", again under the guise of "housekeeping" amendments to the Official Plan. As a "housekeeping" amendment, these amendments are not required to be reviewed by MMAH. I submit to you that from the eyes of a livestock farmer (or any reasonable person), the amendments on March 3rd are NOT minor in nature nor fall under the category of housekeeping. I would ask that you specifically review those amendments along with a review of the issues above, as they go hand-in-hand. These amendments are a direct attack on existing livestock operations, as well as future expansions of same within the UGB area. They are also an affront, by a rogue Council, to all the legislation and protections afforded to the important community of farming.

In conclusion, I would hope that, in your review of the UGB expansion proposal, you will review the foregoing issues. Specifically:
- the MDS calculations;
- protection of livestock operation (only to the extent that legislation, PPS, and guidelines allow); and
- the erroneous labelling of areas as "Settlement Areas" in the attempt to circumvent/ignore Provincial MDS calculations and guidelines.

I trust the foregoing is satisfactory and hope that I have shed at least a little light on the shortcomings of this Official Plan Amendment.