Farm Labour Residences Policy Review

Alternatives for Consideration

1. Status quo – Maximum of one FLR per lot.
2. As-of-right permission for more than one FLR per farm site in the form of a temporary detached structure up to a 420m² maximum aggregate gross floor area (GFA).
3. Permit up to a maximum of three (3) FLRs per lot – where more than one FLR is required, the second and third temporary dwelling take the form of a mobile home. This alternative for consideration maintains the current maximum 116.2m² GFA for a FLR under Zoning By-law 05-200.

Do you agree with the preliminary recommendation?

Preliminary Recommendation: More than one FLR permitted per lot - Maximum Aggregate Gross Floor Area of 420m²

As-of-right permission for more than one FLR per farm site but must take the form the of temporary detached structure up to a 420m² maximum aggregate building floor area.

Reference Discussion Paper pages 15-18(External link)

Alternatives for Consideration

1. Status quo
2. Increased Maximum GFA to 200m² for an individual temporary detached structure
3. Eliminate Maximum GFA Requirement for FLR

Do you agree with the preliminary recommendation?

Preliminary Recommendation: Maximum Gross Floor Area of 200m² 

Increased Maximum GFA to 200m² for individual temporary detached structures

Reference Discussion Paper pages 19-20(External link)

Alternatives for Consideration

1. Temporary Construction Only (Status Quo)
2. Permanent FLR permitted for Greenhouse Facilities Only
3. As-of-right Permanent FLR

Do you agree with the preliminary recommendation?

Preliminary Recommendation: FLRs to remain as Temporary Structures 

Staff recommend FLRs as temporary structures to ensure long term use of lands for agriculture. A temporary structure also ensures a FLR can be removed once no longer required to support a farm operation.

Reference Discussion Paper pages 21-23(External link)

Alternatives for Consideration

1. Shared Private Servicing (Status Quo)
2. Separate Private Servicing

Do you agree with the preliminary recommendation?

The shared servicing policy is prohibitive in achieving flexible alternatives for agricultural producers to develop FLRs. From a planning policy and zoning regulation perspective, a shared private service would not be required as-of-right, but this does not preclude an owner from implementing a shared system on their property.

Reference Discussion Paper pages 23-26(External link)

Should FLRs and detached Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs) be permitted as-of-right on the same agricultural parcel?

City staff are currently undertaking a separate servicing study to explore SDU permissions within the rural area. The outcome of this study may have implications on the how FLRs are permitted on agricultural land from a private servicing perspective (i.e. septic system and water well).  

Reference Discussion Paper page 27(External link)

Please identify any other FLR issues that we haven’t addressed in the Discussion Paper and provide suggested changes.