A comment from the educated…

A comment from the educated farming community :

First let me congratulate OFA on the successful work on getting On Farm Diversified Uses (OFDUs) extended to the rural area from the previous NEC interpretation of just Prime Agricultural Areas. (assuming it passes)

I am not sure I understand the NEC initiated add on with respect to maple syrup production.

Basically the NEC is including an amendment to allow new maple syrup production in the Escarpment Natural designation (but not the necessary small buildings and/or structures).

I have no issue with the intent (without the small buildings/structures restriction) but it does raise some questions on how plans are interpreted and more specifically how “existing use” is interpreted.

Here are some other questions this amendment raises.

Given that general agriculture is exempt from a development permit (DP) and maple syrup production is part of general agriculture why would it matter if the use is specifically allowed? Does this have implications for other agricultural uses such as cutting fence posts?

Given that Escarpment Natural designation limits use to “existing use” how would adding maple syrup production to a maple forest in Escarpment Natural designation be prohibited (currently) as the report implies? What is the mechanism? The NEC can hardly demand a DP for something exempt by regulations unless I am missing something. Could the NEC issue a cease and desist order and if so where is the legislative authority?

The new regulation proposes to exclude the small buildings/structures necessary for maple syrup production to function. How does this work if those small buildings/structures are exempt from a DP? In some municipalities these may be exempt from a building permit as well, but assuming a building permit is applied for how does that work?