To its supporters, the 727 East and West Ln. proposal is a needed home base for Niagara’s fruit industry. To nearby Niagara-on-the-Lake residents, it is a five-acre warning sign.
At a June 2 public meeting, councillors heard pushback against Niagara Orchard & Vineyard Corp.’s plan to turn the East and West Line property into its head office and main farm-service site. No decision was made on the application.
The facility would support the storage, processing and distribution of local fruit and include the retail sale of agricultural tools and equipment.
“The applicant said it’s just five acres,” resident Georgine Adam told council. “We’re just five-acreing ourselves out of every agricultural property with that attitude.”
Adam and others are worried that if council treats this property as too small to matter, it sets a pattern where more small pieces of agricultural land get used for bigger commercial facilities.
They warned the town could slowly lose the farmland it says it wants to protect.
Neighbours told council the issue is whether the rural site can handle a farm-service hub with trucks, drainage changes and commercial-style activity without chipping away at the agricultural land and rural-residential character residents say should be protected.
Town staff say the lands were previously used for agricultural production but have been left fallow in recent years.
The property is about 5.3 acres on the south side of East and West Line, between Four Mile Creek and Concession 4 roads.
It is in a prime agricultural area and, more specifically, a specialty crop area.
At the time staff’s report was prepared, 25 written comments had been received from residents: 21 opposed to the project and four in support.
Gracia Janes, a longtime farmland preservation advocate with the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, presented a letter supporting the application at the meeting.
The letter said the society agreed with Niagara farm organizations — including the Grape Growers of Ontario, the Niagara Federation of Agriculture and the Tender Fruit Marketing Board — that the proposed facility is a “critical component of the Niagara agricultural economic system.”
But concerns from nearby residents dominated the conversation.
Charlie Pillitteri, chief executive officer of Pillitteri Estates Winery, questioned why the applicant chose a site surrounded by neighbours already raising concerns.
“It’s a commercial building and shouldn’t be here,” Pillitteri said. “It’s poorly designed and it’s extremely irregular in shape.”
Adam said the proposal misses the point of protecting farmland.
“I don’t think this has been a well-respected proposal with regards to, again, enduring and respecting our agricultural properties,” she said.
Former NOTL councillor Jamie Slingerland said he has been a loyal customer of Niagara Orchard & Vineyard Corp. for 25 years, buying fertilizers and sprays for 135 acres of vineyards.
But he said support for the business does not mean support for this location.
“This application has too much on too small of a parcel of land,” Slingerland said.
“It’s a very poor configuration,” he added, “with too many major conflicts for agriculture and residential properties.”
Slingerland also challenged the drainage plan, saying the proposal would change how water moves across the property.
“Their own mapping shows you that they’re raising the levels and that they’re changing the direction of water to go south, then west and then back north again. It doesn’t make sense. Just send it north,” he said. “Away from us.”
Christina Cruz owns 724 East and West Ln., the property directly across the proposed development. She said she understands the importance of agriculture in NOTL but the proposed facility does not match the character of the “neighbourhood that currently exists.”
“This area was intended to be rural and residential in nature. Many of us purchased our homes with that understanding,” Cruz said.
“It just feels as though that vision is slowly being taken away from us.”
Lawyer Tom Richardson, speaking for the applicant and its principal, Arnie Lepp, said the proposal has received letters of support representing more than 100 farmers in the Niagara Peninsula.
He said the application has been revised since it was first submitted and the applicant has worked to respond to issues raised by others.
“This application has lived the subject of three submissions,” Richardson said. “Each offering additional solutions to issues raised.”
The drainage engineer, he added, has reviewed new concerns raised by Slingerland and that more answers would be coming.
“The email you received from Mr. Slingerland today now raises further issues based on the revised plan provided to him on May the 14th and responding to further answers provided to him on June 1,” said Richardson.
“Our drainage engineer advises there are answers to all the points in the email dated today,” he added. “Those answers will be provided to staff for their recommendation report.”
Councillors also pressed for more information. Coun. Gary Burroughs questioned whether another site in town could be used.
“I know it’s prime grape-growing area,” Burroughs said. “I’m just wondering if there was another place, that was less productive, that might be used in the town.”
Coun. Sandra O’Connor asked how much of the business comes from outside Niagara. Stephen Bedford, speaking for the applicant, said the main role of the facility is to move locally grown Niagara fruit outside Niagara, but said he would follow up on the tools and equipment side of the business.
Council received the information report. Town planning staff will now continue reviewing the application before bringing back a recommendation at a future meeting.
