Agricultural Land Commission Review

Who knew?

Who knew there had been a Review of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission?

Certainly no-one that Coldstream Acreage Owners have spoken with.
We've been battling the District of Coldstream on the proposed rezoning of acreages. 
Coldstream's mayor and council didn't mention there was a provincial review.
Not a peep out of the local newspaper, The Morning Star.
Did anyone see notifications of "stakeholder meetings" in provincial newspapers?

Even the Agricultural Land Commission glossed over the importance of the review with opportunities for public input because the final date for submission of public comments is July 8th on...are you sitting down?--of all things--fee structure.

Fee structure?
Huh?
Not likely to get a lot of internet hits.
...likely government's intent.

For the Ministry of Agriculture website to focus on public input concerning the fee structure was simply a smokescreen.  Murkily hidden beyond that page (without reading further) was what was actually at stake:  The Minister of Agriculture called for a review of the ALC.

So, fee structure, my foot!

"...a high level document that identifies issues and outlines recommendations, but does not go into the fine details on how the recommendations could be
implemented."

It's Richard Bullock's 117-page review of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission's mandate -- and the suggested changes, dated 2010, that will blow the socks off Coldstream Acreage Owners who are fighting the District of Coldstream's rezoning of acreages here.

First, who is Richard Bullock?  The link provides his background.  His 3-year term ends in 2013.

His task was to conduct a "thorough review of ALC operations, policy, regulation and legislation to ensure the ALC continues to effectively fulfill its mandate to support farm families and enhance the integrity and sustainability of agriculture in British Columbia."

So, grab a coffee and read the excerpts below:
Imagine yourself, as a Coldstream Acreage Owner, making these comments:

• stakeholders were almost unanimous in expressing their concern regarding the inadequacy of the ALC’s funding and lack of resources to carry out its existing work, never mind explore new opportunities.  
• over the last two fiscal years the ALC has been forced to focus on processing applications with minimum or no attention being given to its other statutory obligations. This has led to stakeholders’ dissatisfaction, particularly at the local government level, because the ALC is not available to discuss local and regional matters.
• very limited or no training and education provided to new commissioner upon appointment. New appointees are required to start performing their duties without any meaningful awareness of the job, their roles as a member of an administrative tribunal or on the decision-making process. This is unfair to commissioners and a potential legal liability for the ALC as an organization.
• establishe a single decision making body (7 members) while retaining regional representation from each of the ALC’s 6 administrative regions. A smaller structure will facilitate more in-depth dialogue amongst commissioners regarding planning, ALR boundary reviews and policy matters.
• the application process appears to be directly opposed to the objectives of the Agricultural Land Commission Act of preserving agricultural land and encouraging farming. Whether an application is for exclusion, subdivision or non-farm use, the application process fosters and perpetuates speculation to the detriment of the ALR. For example, the Act provides the opportunity for an individual to purchase prime agricultural land today and apply to remove it from the ALR the next day. Land speculation remains high after nearly 40 years and there is still a pervasive attitude among many that agricultural land is simply holding property until a “higher or better” use is identified. In addition, an inordinate amount of resources are consumed in dealing with these proposals.
• Refocusing the legislation away from applications and towards long range planning, ALR boundary reviews and the needs of bona fide farmers and ranchers will go a long way in addressing the continued speculation to convert agricultural land for other purposes.

Mr. Bullock then recommends that serious consideration be given to several strategic shifts to
set the ALC on course for the next 40 years. They are:

1. An ALR that has defensible boundaries;
2.  An ALR that places agriculture first;
3.  An ALC that evolves to a proactive planning organization and moves away from being
   reactive and focussed on applications;
4.  An ALC that places priority considerations on bona fide farmers and ranchers and issues
   that may impact, positively or negatively, bona fide farmers and ranchers;
5.  An ALC that builds strong alliances with farm and ranch groups and organizations to
   identify and cooperatively address emerging issues that may impact, positively or
   negatively, bona fide farmers and ranchers;
6.  An ALC that is able to respond to and enforce against improper use of ALR land; and
7.  An ALC that has up to date technology to undertake its legislated duties.

The Chair's list of recommendations follows on page 11 (of the 117 page review).  Of particular note is #8: 

"That the Homesite Severance Policy be maintained, a new policy not be adopted, and criteria developed, in association with groups such as the BC Cattlemen’s Association and other agricultural stakeholder groups, to consider subdivision proposals meant to facilitate the legitimate inter-generational family transfer of active farm and ranch operations."

Refill that coffee...there's more:

• Land uses adjacent to the ALR. Urban and rural non-farm development adjacent to the ALR is a growing concern requiring the attention of local governments. These uses place mounting pressure on farmers trying to use ALR land for farm purposes as urban and rural non-farm residents tend to consider the agricultural landscape as green space rather than a working landscape.

• Unlawful use of agricultural land. The unauthorized use of ALR land has been a problem since the inception of the ALR but is now manifesting itself to a greater degree, which if left unchecked, may result in the permanent debilitation of agricultural land.

• Current way of doing business being challenged. Critics of the ALC have voiced concern over changes made to the ALC’s structure that were intended to improve responsiveness to regional circumstances and about the impact of fewer staff and budget constraints. There are ongoing concerns with respect to the information underlying decisions as well as the ALC’s inability to effectively enforce its regulations and decisions. There are gaps, duplications and inefficiencies in the ALC’s and other agencies’ efforts to preserve agricultural land and to enhance land use planning for agriculture.

One of the ALC's Strengths listed is:

• Public and political scrutiny of ALC activities has reinforced the independence of the ALC
  as an administrative tribunal;
• Willingness of staff and commissioners to engage with local government, provincial ministries and other stakeholders.

Several ALC Weaknesses are:

• Legislative obstacles to proper investigation and enforcement
• Focussing on application processing to the detriment of its other responsibilities, such as working with agricultural groups and other stakeholders to strengthen agriculture;
• ALC has not continued with its review of the ALR boundaries to ensure that land that is capable and suitable for agriculture is in the ALR;
• Legislation does not differentiate between bona fide farmers and non-farmers and therefore the same opportunities to diversify land uses are available to non-farmers or those individuals with minimal farm activity; and
• Legislation is too rigid to address legitimate farm-related issues and opportunities and too flexible when dealing with proposals from non-farmers or those individuals with minimal farm activity.

The Strategic Vision includes:

• An ALR that has defensible boundaries. The boundaries of the ALR, and any decisions to change the boundaries, should be based upon a consistent method of evaluating scientific and technical information. The boundaries should be defensible in order to discourage speculation and the proliferation of non-farm uses and subdivisions that erode the agricultural land base and drive up agricultural land prices.

• An ALC that builds strong alliances with farm and ranch groups and other organizations to identify and cooperatively address emerging issues that may impact, positively or negatively, bona fide farmers and ranchers. Through regular communication and consultation the ALC will be better positioned to participate at an early stage in dialogue on issues of importance to farm and ranch communities.

• An ALC that is able to respond to and enforce against improper use of ALR land.
  Ensuring that ALR lands are being used properly will maintain a high quality land base for
  farming and reduce the potential for lands to be degraded to the extent that they can no
  longer be used for agricultural production.

• An ALC that has up to date technology. To utilize technology to integrate mapping (spatial) information with the ALC’s database for research, planning, ALR boundary assessments and business reporting.  

Regional Panels:

• Regional panels make decisions on all matters in their respective regions such as applications
  and local planning issues. They also liaise with communities of interest and governments in their
  regions to achieve the purposes of the commission. The chair establishes regional panels. Each
  panel is comprised of a vice-chair and at least two members. Panel absences and vacancies
  are filled by participation of the chair or cross-appointment from other panels. The size of a
  panel may be increased by the chair to address inter-regionally or provincially significant
  applications.

 Commissioners:

•  Reviewing all application related documentation, background material and reports in conjunction with ALR applications and land use planning reviews for the panel region;
•  Traveling with fellow panel members up to once per month for approximately 3 days to meet with applicants on-site to view properties under application, to discuss application details and gather land use information
• Meeting with local government, agricultural and other stakeholder groups at the request of
  the panel vice-chair or, in the absence of the vice-chair, the Chair.
• staff has been unfairly criticized for filling the void left by the lack of direction of the commission. This is not a condemnation of commissioners; rather it is further evidence of the need for regular meetings between commissioners and staff. As commissioners meet so infrequently on panels, and in the recent past not at all at the executive and full commission level, ALC staff is left on the front lines to deal with day to day matters and emerging issues.
• Decision-making at the regional panel level has increased the potential for commissioners to be placed in situations of an apprehension of bias of potential conflict of interest.
• The Chair lacks the statutory authority to intervene on a matter before a panel requiring broader debate than can be provided by a three member panel, or a matter that has province-wide implications, or if the panel is not giving sufficient consideration to established ALC policies or to the provincial perspective of the ALR program.
• To further enhance regional input it is suggested the ALC compile a list of “Farm Advisors” from each region based on suggestions from local governments, local farmers’ institutes and organizations, commodity groups, the BC Agriculture Council, etc. to ensure the ALC has all relevant information from each region when considering issues.

Recommendation:
With regard to compliance and enforcement related matters it is crucial that the ALC conduct itself to the highest standards of administrative law, natural justice and procedural fairness to provide it with the best opportunity of success and to avoid judicial review. I believe it is necessary for the ALC, as a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, to have a distinct separation between the commission (appointed board) and its secretariat.

Applications Background:
In 1975, once the boundaries of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) were established, a process was developed that allowed landowners to apply to have land added to or removed from the ALR (inclusion and exclusion), to subdivide or use the land for non-farm purposes. The application process has essentially remained unchanged since 1975. A landowner can apply to the ALC for permission to change the ALR status of their property, to subdivide it or to engage in a non-farm use activity.

Local Government
Applications by landowners for exclusion, inclusion, subdivision and non-farm use are submitted to the ALC via the local government. The fee for submission of an application is $600 except in the case of inclusion applications, which require no fee. Local governments are involved at the outset of the ALR application process to give them a chance to either support or oppose projects before they arrive at the ALC. If a proposal is contrary to either zoning bylaw or official community plan (OCP) designations, the local government may elect not to forward the application to the ALC.

Upon completion of the application by the applicant the local government receives the application and does the following:

• ensures the application is complete and all documents are included;

• completes a local government report;

• may refer the application to various committees;

• may hold a public information meeting;

• must refer the application to its Board or Council for recommendations and comments;

• if the land is zoned for agriculture or farm use, or if the proposal requires a bylaw amendment, the Board or Council decides whether to allow the application to proceed to the ALC. If authorization is not granted, the application ends and the local government will return a portion of the application fee to the applicant. If there are no land use bylaws in place for a specific region the local government must forward the application to the ALC and has no ability to prevent the application from being forwarded; and

• if authorization is granted, the application is forwarded to the ALC and the process continues (n.b. inclusion applications do not require a forwarding resolution). 

Local governments are often the first point of contact for individuals wishing to make application as they may be more familiar with the local government planning department than the ALC.  Local governments typically will provide landowners with application forms, information about ALC contacts and/or the ALC website address. Local government staff may also give an initial assessment of the chances of the application proceeding. As local government decisions on whether to forward applications to the ALC are generally based on meeting either zoning or official community plan criteria it is often possible for local government staff to give applicants an informed opinion about whether or not the application may or may not proceed to the ALC.

While all local governments are required to provide a minimum of information to the ALC, the amount of effort put into reviewing ALC applications varies greatly between jurisdictions and therefore the amount of information the ALC receives about a particular application will also vary greatly. For example, some local governments have passed a standing resolution that authorizes all impacted land owners to make applications to the ALC. These jurisdictions then usually forward applications to the ALC with minimal analysis and information other than very basic information about zoning and official community plan designations as required on the local government report.

At the other end of the spectrum, some local governments forward applications with comprehensive reports, detailed mapping and clarifications on proposals from applicants. In addition, some local governments forward their applications to third parties for review. In these cases the ALC will receive applications from the local government with knowledge about how proposals are viewed by others in the community who may have a interest in or knowledge of the impact of the proposal on agriculture such as Agricultural Advisory Committees, Ministry of Agriculture staff (in particular regional agrologists) and other relevant bodies such as planning commissions or committees.

Cons of Local Government Involvement in the Application Process:
 

• Quality of information from each local government varies;
•  Upfront local government involvement adds about 1-3 months, in some cases more, to the application processing time;
• Some local governments forward applications via standing resolutions which offer little or no insight into the relevant local government issues.
• Support by a local government sends a confusing message to applicants who often do not understand why the ALC might refuse a proposal when it was supported by the local government.
• Local governments often rely on the ALC to refuse applications rather than strongly supporting their own zoning and OCP bylaws.
• Applicants have difficulty understanding the difference between zoning at the local government level and ALR designation which is provincial (i.e., ALR – no minimum parcel sizes).

Exclusion Applications:

The ALC has a legislated requirement to meet with anyone who applies for exclusion of land
from the ALR, whereas for all other types of applications a meeting is not a requirement and decisions may be made using only the file material.

Inclusion Applications:

The inclusion process allows individuals or government to apply to have land included into the ALR. Unlike the other application types there is no fee for these applications. In the case of inclusion applications the Local Government must forward the application to the ALC. 

Applications for Transportation, Utility and Recreational Trail Uses in the ALR:

In recognition that linear developments such as roads, trails and transmission lines are slightly different than other non-farm use applications, a different process has been developed. These applications are submitted directly to the ALC rather than through the local government and have a correspondingly lower fee of $400.

Chair Comments:

It is entirely appropriate to have some review mechanism to assess land that may be incorrectly designated as ALR land because land that is not capable or suitable for agriculture should not be retained in the ALR. In reviewing prior iterations of the Agricultural Land Commission Act it is interesting to note that the sections pertaining to exclusion applications provided some qualification as to the purpose of exclusion applications - an owner “aggrieved” by the ALR designation could apply to have land excluded from the ALR. The current version of the Act allows any land owner to apply to have the property removed from the ALR.

In order to reduce the number of applications received by the ALC, the following options could be considered for implementation:

• A landowner may not submit an application for 5 years after purchase of the property;

• Private landowners may not make an application to exclude land from the ALR;

• During ALR boundary reviews, applications may not be submitted to the ALC;

• If an application is refused, another application may not be resubmitted for 10 years; and

• A risk-based referral process for farm enhancements from bona fide farmers/ranchers.

I am also struck by the fact that the Agricultural Land Commission Act does not differentiate between real farmers/ranchers and non-farm owners of ALR land. During my travels with the regional panels I have witnessed many applications from non-farmers hoping to exclude, subdivide or convert their land without any agricultural justification. The rationale for submitting these applications includes such issues as estate planning, financial pressures, divorce, etc.

After nearly 40 years of the ALR it is simply unacceptable that the ALC is still accommodating non-farmers with an ability to apply to use or convert agricultural land – especially where prime agricultural land is concerned. There still appears to be a pervasive attitude that agricultural land is just holding property until something better comes along. The current application provisions in the Act continue to foster this attitude.

Growth Strategies:

The Growth Strategies legislation was introduced in 1995 through an amendment to the Local Government Act which was called the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act. Subsequent amendments were made in 2003 and 2004. The legislation is intended to enable co-ordinated long term land use planning (20 year plus).

The purpose of a regional growth strategy is to promote human settlement that is socially, economically and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land and other resources (Local Government Act Section 849(1)). Once adopted all subsequent bylaws (including official community plans and land use bylaws) are required under Section 865(1) of the Local Government Act to be consistent with the strategy.

The following are the main issues that are to be dealt with:

• Avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate
  facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner
• Settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking,
  bicycling and the efficient use of public transit
• The efficient movement of goods and people while making effective use of transportation
  and utility corridors
• Protecting environmentally sensitive areas
• Maintaining the integrity of a secure and productive resource base, including the
  agricultural land reserve
• Economic development that supports the unique character of communities
• Reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution
• Adequate, affordable and appropriate housing
• Adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement
• Protecting the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water
• Settlement patterns that minimize the risks associated with natural hazards
• Preserving, creating and linking urban and rural open space including parks and
  recreation areas
• Planning for energy supply and promoting efficient use, conservation and alternative forms
  of energy;
• Good stewardship of land, sites and structures with cultural heritage value.

Growth Strategies Important Issues:

Growth strategies are overarching land use plans for a 20 year plus time frame to which land use policies in official community plans (OCPs) over a shorter 5 year time frame are required to comply. As such they are very important to the interests of the ALC in that they can:

• Protect the ALR by establishing urban containment boundaries that limit development toareas outside the reserve;

• Include policies that encourage agricultural development within the ALR and discourage non-agricultural development and subdivision;

• Encourage the more efficient use of urban land thereby reducing sprawl and pressure onALR for future development; and

• Provide the framework for further research that will provide benefits for agriculture.

Official Community Plan (OCP) Legislation

This falls under Part 26, Divisions 1 and 2 of the Act. Under Section 878(1) of the Local Government Act (LGA) an OCP may include policies “respecting the maintenance and enhancement of farming on land in a farming area or in an area designated for agricultural use in the community plan.”
Under Section 882(3)(c) of the LGA local governments must refer the plan to the ALC for comment after first reading. Under Section 882(4) with respect to an OCP prepared by a regional district, the bylaw can only be adopted with the approval of the Minister. (Note this provision does not apply to a municipality). Section 882(6)(a) enables the Minister to define areas where this referral is not necessary but it is not believed that the Minister has exercised his powers under this section. Prior to 1994 the Act only required that regional districts refer the plans to the ALC. As indicated previously, all new OCP provisions must be consistent with a growth strategy (Section 865(1)).


Important OCP Issues

From the outset and well before the important changes made to the ALC Act in 1994 extensive
consultation between the Commission and local governments took place with regard to land use planning, with most of whom it enjoyed good relationships. However, until the changes were made, in particular the requirement that local government ensure consistency with the ALC Act, there was less of an incentive for local governments to support agriculture and some local governments were not supportive. Moreover until the Local Government Act was amended in 1994 only regional districts were required to refer plans to the ALC after first reading and in some instances, which tended to comprise those municipalities with less sympathy and understanding of agricultural issues, the ALC was not provided with any opportunities to
comment.

ALC Involvement in OCP Process

It has been the intention of the ALC since the changes to its legislation in 1994 that the OCP form the basis for land use policy for land within the ALR. In particular the ALC sees the OCP as being the appropriate mechanism to enable assessments to be made and its support obtained for the non-farm use and possible exclusion of land within the ALR. It has envisioned a situation where future applications can only be made where they are consistent with OCP provisions.  This would greatly ease the application workload with an increased focus on the OCP process.


Weakness(es):

The Local Government Act requires referral of the plan after first reading. However, it does not specify a
response time.  Accordingly it is not uncommon for insufficient time to be given (usually less than 30 days). Resolutions of the ALC that might have valuable suggestions or, more importantly, might deem the plan to be
inconsistent with the ALC Act (and therefore of no force and effect) are sometimes only conveyed after the local government has proceeded to second and third reading of the bylaw by which time changes are difficult to make.

Land Use Bylaws Legislation

This falls under Part 26, Division 7 of the Local Government Act. Whereas the primary focus of OCPs is on policy, the focus of land use bylaws is on regulation. Pursuant to 903(1) local government can under a land use bylaw establish use zones within which specific uses can be prescribed, together with requirements relating to density, height, coverage and building setbacks and dimensions. Specific uses can be prohibited.

Notwithstanding these provisions, under 903(5) a local government must not exercise the powers under this section to prohibit or restrict the use of land for a farm business in a farming area unless the local government receives the approval of the minister responsible for the administration of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act.

Land Use Bylaws Important Issues

The ALC’s involvement with land use (sometimes referred to as zoning) bylaws is much less than it is with OCPs. There is no requirement in the legislation that land use bylaws be referred to the ALC after first reading and, prior to the 1994 changes to the ALC Act, the referral of these bylaws was inconsistent.

Land Use Bylaw Process Weaknesses:

It is sometimes difficult to change the land use regulations to bring them into line with improved OCP policies. In particular it is difficult to secure changes that are perceived to reduce the rights of property owners
notwithstanding changes that might have been secured to improve policies in the OCP.

ALR BOUNDARY REVIEWS:

The boundaries of the ALR, and any decisions to change the boundaries, should be based upon a consistent method of evaluating technically sound information. The boundaries should be defensible in order to discourage speculation and the proliferation of non-farm uses and subdivisions that erode the agricultural land base and drive up agricultural land prices. Communities should be encouraged to adopt compact and efficient development patterns that minimize pressure on the ALR boundary.

Background:

The “Land Freeze” was established 1972. On December 21, 1972 all land taxed for farming was
prevented from subdivision by Order-in-Council #4483/72. The OIC remained in place until April
1973 when the Land Commission Act was adopted establishing the Provincial Land Commission and empowered it to designate Agricultural Land Reserves (ALR) throughout British Columbia. Over approximately two years the ALRs were established with significant input from Regional Districts and the Ministry of Agriculture.

The technical basis for the ALR rested largely on the Government of Canada produced Canada
Land Inventory (CLI) maps which were available at a 1:50,000 scale. The CLI system rated land
for agricultural capability on a scale of Class 1 – Class 7 based on biophysical factors; soils and
climate. Class 1 land is the most suitable for agricultural development, and Class 7 land has no
capability for agriculture. The draft ALR maps were produced by the Ministry of Agriculture and then provided to the Regional Districts where recommendations and adjustments were made based on public information from community meetings. The official ALR boundaries were subsequently confirmed by government between 1974 and 1975.

Lands deemed suitable for inclusion into the ALR were CLI Class 1 – 4 lands and CLI Class 5 and 6 lands that were used in conjunction with Class 1 – 4 lands with the goal to identify cohesive agricultural landscapes. Class 1 – 4 lands were deemed suitable for cultivation while Class 5 and 6 lands were usually only suitable for perennial forage crops or seasonal grazing, but were often critical to ranching operations. In addition it should be noted that there were Class 5 lands which were suitable for a narrow range of crops, but which warranted inclusion into the ALR due to their unique characteristics, such as bogs for cranberry production.

The resulting ALR was 4.7 million hectares which comprised a multitude of landscapes and thousands of farms. Approximately 50% of the ALR is Crown Land, often undeveloped in natural forest or grassland while the other 50% is privately owned. The majority of the ALR lies in the Peace River, Cariboo, East Kootenay, Bulkley Nechako, Fraser-Fort George and Thompson Nicola Regional Districts.

Fine-tuning in its simplest definition is the assessment of the agricultural capability and suitability of land lying within and outside ALR boundaries to determine amendments to the ALR boundary and then undertaking to amend the ALR boundary in the context of the process outlined in the Agricultural Land Commission Act and regulation. The objective of a review is to establish a more credible and defensible ALR boundary.
By the late 1970s a number of ALR boundary reviews were initiated by the ALC. It had become apparent that in certain areas of the province the ALR boundary needed to be refined for accuracy. Under the auspices of the Fine-Tuning Program the ALC began to initiate reviews of selected ALR areas in response to its own experience with applications and landowner complaints. Throughout the 1980s the ALC had staff and resources dedicated to reviewing ALR boundaries with much of the decade concentrated on reviewing the ALR along the east coast of Vancouver Island due to the availability of updated agricultural capability mapping. The Fine-Tuning Program ended by 1990.

Other ALR boundary reviews

When time and resources have permitted the ALC has undertaken more modest local and regional ALR boundary reviews. For example in the late 1990s the ALC initiated smaller scale ALR boundary reviews in the Okanagan Valley, the Crescent Valley and in the Peace River Regional District based on planning reviews of these areas. More recently, the ALC started working with the Regional District of East Kootenay in 2008 to review the ALR boundaries in the Fernie area. However, the ALC had to withdraw from active participation in the review due to the budget constraints leaving the Regional District to conduct the review on its own.

The application process

Individual landowners have the ability to apply to the ALC to adjust the ALR boundaries on their own properties; (i.e. include land to or exclude land from the ALR through an application process). Over the past 38 years the ALC has received approximately 40,000 applications, of which almost 25% or 10,000 applications have proposed to exclude land from the ALR. In the absence of a structured ALR boundary review process the onus for initiating reviews rests with land owners.

The application process has proven to be an inefficient method of assessing whether or not land in the ALR is appropriately designated as it is ad hoc, it lacks broader regional and provincial considerations, is time consuming and costly for land owners.

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS:

The issue of an ALR boundary review was brought up by 26 groups, approximately 90% of whom believed that reviews are necessary. Stakeholders indicated that the credibility of the ALR would remain questionable in certain areas of the province if non-agricultural lands remained in the ALR.
It was also considered unfair that land owners be burdened with the responsibility to argue the appropriateness of the ALR designations on their properties through the application process especially if it is found that the land should not have been placed in the ALR in the first place. Stakeholders believe that a structured ALR boundary review program based on scientific and technical information is needed to re-assess the boundaries originally developed in 1974 and 1975.

The B.C. Cattlemen’s Association canvassed its members regarding the ALR in the summer of
2008. The Association produced a position statement and recommendations that were provided
to the Premier in May 2009.  It was recommended that support be given to efforts to review the agricultural suitability of lands in the ALR in selected areas of the province, such as the East Kootenay area, to ensure that the ALR boundary accurately reflects lands with agricultural suitability.

Recommendation:

The Auditor General recommends that the ALC ensure that the ALR boundaries are accurate and include land that is both capable and suitable for agricultural use.

Working with local governments to examine the ALR boundary in the context of regional and local land use planning exercises has been the primary approach taken by the ALC during the past two decades. This approach has been ad hoc and reactive and not what the ALC believes is comprehensive as was the case when it undertook and co-ordinated planned ALR boundary fine tuning exercises in the 1980s.

CHAIR COMMENTS:

There is a need to take a focused look at the ALR boundaries particularly in the light of significant changes in settlement patterns, the agriculture industry, population growth and demands and transportation infrastructure. These reviews are the responsibility of the ALC as it has exclusive jurisdiction over ALR land and the ALR boundary. Furthermore, these reviews must be based on sound scientific and technical information. It is imperative that such reviews be conducted in an open and transparent manner by engaging local governments, agricultural organizations, other stakeholder groups and the general public.
This being said, it is recognized that not all ALR areas in the province require extensive reassessment.
ALR boundary reviews should initially be focussed in the Kootenays and in the northern and central areas of BC.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MAPPING:

Accurate mapping is crucial to fulfilling the ALC’s statutory mandate to maintain the ALR, and staff rely on mapping for daily operations. This includes mapping of the current ALR boundary, changes to the ALR over time, and the spatial location of applications, compliance and enforcement issues, planning reviews and correspondence regarding specific properties.

the current mapping leaves much to be desired.  Staff still update and use a set of paper “appeal maps” on which the location and identification of new applications are recorded using pencil crayons. Historically these maps have been the only spatial representation of the location of ALR applications. Staff rely on these maps when researching the ALC history of a property under application or one that is the subject of a compliance/enforcement matter.

These appeal maps are in a sorry state – they are approaching 40 years old and the integrity of the paper is failing and fragile. Some geographic areas are so cluttered with information that it is very difficult to decipher, and much of the writing is so faded as to be unreadable. As these paper maps are an invaluable source of corporate information (historic knowledge), it is imperative to preserve the data they contain. Mapping staff are slowly entering this historical data into a GIS format when time permits, which is a time-consuming and labour-intensive process. At present, this exercise is about 80% complete.

As well as application information, the appeal maps contain a spatial record of correspondence. For example, if a staff member sends a map to a property owner confirming the precise location of the ALR boundary within that property, a letter identification is recorded on the appeal maps in order to flag the fact that a piece of correspondence exists on file for that property. This information does not exist in digital form except for very recent correspondence.

Responding to public inquiries

Typical public inquiries to the mapping department have to do with the location of the ALR boundary, accessing and understanding ALR maps, accessing agricultural capability information, and updating LTO records. These inquiries would be less time-consuming if better information was made available. Currently there is no online mapping tools which would allow a property owner to enter their property identifier (PID), and zoom in to a map of their property in relation to the ALR boundary. Capability information is not available in GIS format, except for a small number of areas, and scanned capability maps are not available to the public via the internet.

Also, land title records do not give a clear indication of whether a property is in the ALR or not. Titles state that a property “may be affected by the ALR”. The landowner has to contact mapping staff to get a definitive answer, and if the property is not in the ALR then a letter and map is mailed to the Land Titles Office requesting that the notation be removed.

This is an inefficient and time-consuming protocol. Both spatial and database information should be first and foremost accessible by ALC staff and to guarded access by the public.  Creating user-friendly access to maps and historical file information would alleviate much of the information pressures placed on the ALC by land owners and freedom of information requests.

HOMESITE SEVERANCE, INTER-GENERATIONAL TRANSFER OF FARM OPERATIONS
AND ESTATE PLANNING OR SETTLEMENTS

The discussions of home site severance, inter-generational transfer of farm operations and
estate planning or settlements have been used interchangeably even though they are very
different. Before proceeding it is important to differentiate the three categories.

Homesite Severance
This type of subdivision proposal relates to the ALC’s Homesite Severance Policy20. The
purpose of this policy is to provide a consistent approach to situations where property under
application has been the principal residence of the applicant as owner-occupant since
December 21, 1972 and the applicant wishes to dispose of the parcel but retain a home site on
the land. The policy as developed by the ALC is intended to give “special” consideration to
subdivision applications submitted by land owners having owned and occupied their land prior
to the introduction of the ALR program. It is important to note that the Homesite Severance
Policy does not differentiate between farmers and non-farmers.

Inter-generational Transfer of Farm Operations
This type of subdivision proposal relates to the transfer of a farm or ranch operation as a going
concern to the next generation of family members. The objective of such a proposal in most
cases is to facilitate the children taking over an active farm or ranch operation from the parents.

Estate Planning or Settlements
This type of subdivision proposal relates to the transfer of ALR land to family members and
applies to both farmers and non-farmers. The objective of such a proposal is in most cases to
equitably divide up property for distribution to family members absent the argument that the
children, or other heirs, would take over an active farm or ranch operation.

Between 1974 and 1978 the ALC provided retiring applicants with a leasehold for life over their home and yard area, arguing that a leasehold allowed the farmer to remain in his home, but did not permanently separate the farm home from the productive remnant (reverting it back to the farm parcel when the farmer no longer occupied the home for whatever reason. While many leasehold options were offered to farmers in the Commission’s early years, very few were registered because they did not provide a financial dividend to the farmer when circumstances dictated that the home be sold.

The ALC’s Homesite Severance Policy was established in 1978 as a response to concerns that the retiring farmer was unfairly penalized by provincial legislation restricting the subdivision of farmland. The argument was: unlike other workers in society, when farmers retired not only would they lose their livelihood, but they would also lose their home as well. In light of this the ALC initially adopted an internal policy of sympathy towards the retiring farmer, rationalizing that pre – 1972 landowner/farmers “caught” by restrictive zoning deserved to remain on their land upon retirement. In contrast, those who bought their land after the agricultural zoning was established, purchased the land with their “eyes open” aware of the ALR restrictions on subdivision.


The Policy was reviewed by the ALC in 1985 and again in 1990. Following both reviews the policy remained essentially unchanged. During the more extensive 1985 review the question of changing the length of ownership requirement was considered and rejected (a ten year ownership qualification). Also, between 1992 and 1994 a study of homesite severances was conducted by Staff Planner Martin Collins as a thesis requirement for the School of Community and Regional Planning (UBC). The study concluded that on the whole, the number of homesite severances paled in comparison to other types of subdivision permitted in the ALR and that the amount of land lost was very modest. It recommended retention of the policy in its present form (which included the pre – 1972 ownership requirement) because it dealt fairly with long term land owners yet minimized the impacts of subdivision by eventually eliminating the pool of qualified applicants.

Subsequently, the ALC discussed the Homesite Severance Policy on two more occasions. In 1995 the ALC discussed the impacts of eliminating the pre – 1972 ownership clause (arising from a BC Fruit Growers’ resolution to permit any 20 year land owner a homesite severance).

The ALC rejected this proposal arguing that the erosion of farm parcel sizes would continue unabated if the policy was amended. In 1996 the ALC considered whether a formal review of the Homesite Severance Policy was warranted, because of concerns that the policy was not being applied consistently. Specifically the issues of a suitable size for a remnant parcel, and subdivision in lieu of homesite severance were discussed. The ALC determined that a formal review (soliciting outside agency and local government comments) was not warranted, and committed itself to be more discriminating about using the policy. A significant rationale for retaining the policy in its existing form was because it was a “sunset” policy. In time, the pool of qualified applicants would be eliminated.

Although the number of qualified applicants is shrinking, there is no clear declining trend in the numbers of homesite severance applications being received, averaging 30 – 40 per year. If a young adult purchased a farm property in the early 1970s (assuming a birth date of 1950) then the youngest landowners that qualify for consideration under Homesite Severance Policy would be in their early 60s and approaching retirement. This suggests that the Homesite Severance Policy will be relevant for the next 15 – 20 years.

The negative impacts of the Homesite Severance Policy are twofold:

• A homesite severance (typically a small lot - 0.2 ha) is eventually sold by the retiring farmer to someone who has no interest in farming, but likes to live in a rural setting. Conflict between the non-farm resident and surrounding farm neighbours may occur, but is dependent on the intensity of agricultural activity and the resident’s acceptance of normal farm practices and odours and noises associated with an active agricultural area. Introducing additional non-farm residents into farm areas raises the potential for conflict, changes the nature of the area, and can result in the decline of agricultural investment and activity.
• Farm land is used to replace the home and yard severed from the farm portion of the property. If the agricultural remnant is relatively small, the loss of even a small amount of farm land represents a significant loss of agricultural potential.

Both of the above noted impacts incrementally erode the agricultural landscape as the number of residential lots increase in farm areas and overall size of farm parcels decline. As farm size declines the likelihood that residential uses will be developed increases.

The benefit of the Homesite Severance Policy is that it provides the basis for a sympathetic consideration of a subdivision proposal for long term owners of ALR land (ie: pre – 1972).

Inter-generational Transfer of Farm Operations

This includes the transfer of farm assets, including property, to a next generation family member to allow the current farmer to retire. The purposes of the transfer could be, but are not limited to:

• ensuring that the retiring farmer will have sufficient financial resources for retirement; and

• enabling the transfer of a farm business to the next generation without incurring excessive debt or co-mingling financial matters.

In many ways inter-generational transfer of farm operations might be perceived as the corollary of homesite severance. Whereas the purpose of a homesite severance is to secure a farmer’s retirement (with respect to finances and a residence) the inter-generation transfer of a farm operation is broader, addressing not only the retirement aspirations of the farmer but also the acquisition of the farm business by the next generation family member(s).

It should be noted that the inter-generational transfer of farm operations is not estate planning but rather the transfer of a farm business as a going concern to a family member(s) wanting to take over and continue with the business. Estate planning is the general disbursement of all assets (including land) to all heirs regardless of their intention to take over and operate an existing farm business.

In the past, this issue of inter-generational transfer of farm operations has been considered by the ALC through the application process.

In a study conducted by the ALC for the period between January 2002 and December 2006 it was found that approximately 25% (337) of the total number of applications (1320) were for a meant to accommodate a relative, homesite severance, intergeneration transfer of a farm operation or for a second dwelling. On average the approval rate for these types of applications was 70% (with some minor regional anomalies). Of the 1320 applications received in this period only 29 applications were for the specific purpose of facilitating the inter-generational transfer of a farm operation. Of these, 20 (69%) were approved. The unsuccessful applications were refused on the basis of perceived negative agricultural impact or were not found to be legitimate transfers of farm operations. As such, the ALC determined that based on the number
of applications received for the inter-generational transfer of a farm operation, and the high approval rate, that it is meeting the needs of legitimate farmers and ranchers seeking to transfer their business interests.

There are potentially negative implications to subdivision. As a general observation subdivision into smaller farm parcels reduces agricultural options, alienates agricultural land for new homes/yard and access, contributes to a gentrified, unproductive “estate” home landscape, and precipitates rural residential/farm conflicts. These negative impacts are particularly severe for smaller, single lot, farm businesses, prevalent in the Okanagan, Fraser Valley and on Vancouver Island. Demand for large rural residential lots is very high and the reduction in size of smaller farm parcels could result in many of them going out of production. For example, in the Kelowna area many former 4 ha orchard parcels have been converted to estate home sites.

Estate Planning and Settlement

This type of proposal represents nothing more than a non-agricultural argument for the subdivision of agricultural land. The ALC has historically not entertained such an argument nor has it considered divorces, medical issues, business dissolutions, etc. as arguments justifying the subdivision of ALR land.

Comments:
Approximately 30% of the stakeholder groups brought up the issue of homesite severance and succession planning. Of these groups, approximately half believed that the homesite severance policy should be more flexible to allow those who do not meet the strict requirements to have the ability to apply for consideration under the Policy. They also believed that the policy should be extended to include farmers who purchased their property after December 21, 1972. The other half believed that the policy should remain as is and sunset out  of existence or that it should be cancelled immediately. It was interesting to note that even within stakeholder groups, there was a divide of opinion in relation to the homesite severance issue.

CHAIR COMMENTS

There are several options for dealing with the issue of the Homesite Severance Policy:

Eliminate the Homesite Severance Policy

Pro: Eliminating the policy will stop the erosion of the farm land resource in areas where farm parcel size is relatively small and it will halt further introduction of non-farm residents into farm communities.

Con: The ALC would lose credibility in the eyes of the farm community if it eliminated Homesite Severance Policy. Not all farmers that qualify for consideration under the Policy are ready to retire but have likely relied on this subdivision option as part of their future retirement planning. These farmers would rightfully be aggrieved as they would not be afforded the same subdivision consideration as previous retiring farmers. Retaining the December 21, 1972 ownership qualification date will eventually achieve the sunset of the
policy without the need for intervention and the Homesite Severance Policy will be spent.

Retain the Homesite Severance Policy as written

Pro: Retaining the policy would continue to support the retirement aspirations of landowners “caught” by the establishment of the ALR. These landowners would receive a financial benefit at retirement and be permitted to stay in their farm home upon retirement.

Con: If not amended the policy would not address the retirement aspirations of long standing farmers who purchased ALR land soon after 1972.

Amend the Homesite Severance Policy to allow subdivision for farmers after owning
and farming ALR land for a specified number of years (e.g. 25 – 30 years)

Arguably the retirement needs of the farmer remain as compelling today as they were upon the establishment of the ALR – retirement income and a place to live. However, if the qualification date were re-set or eliminated, the slow but steady small lot erosion of the agricultural land base would continue in perpetuity.
Currently the number of homesite severance subdivisions average between 30 – 40 annually. In the Okanagan, Vancouver Island and Fraser Valley regions every effort is made to ensure the homesite severance subdivision is for lots as small as possible (0.2 - 0.4 ha). By way of contrast homesite
severance subdivision in north and central BC are parcels of 2 ha or larger. However, there is no practical way to ensure that the remainder parcel is used for agriculture, or that new homes, yards etc. do not excessively alienate arable land. In the long term the result of a homesite severance policy without a pre – 1972 qualification date would be the slow and continuous erosion of agricultural lands into farm units too small for commercial farming and better suited for the gentrification and suburbanization of the farm landscape.

Pro: The amendment would provide a financial benefit and facilitate aging in place for legitimate farmers. Moreover, such an amendment would now differentiate between farmers and non-farmers as is not the case with the existing Homesite Severance Policy. In other words, it would not apply to those land owners that owned but did not farm ALR land.

Con: It will be necessary to provide a more succinct definition of what level of agricultural activity would constitute bona fide farming. It is not believed that it is sufficient to determine eligibility based on the minimal level for farm assessment by BC Assessment. Also, the primary objective of the Homesite Severance Policy would be substantially altered in that subdivision options would be maintained in perpetuity.

(Note:  see page 86 of the 117-page document for paragraphs not excerpted here).

CHAIR RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Leave the Homesite Severance Policy as is;
2. That the ALC not adopt a new policy, similar to the Homesite Severance Policy, but rather that it would accommodate special consideration for subdivision if a person(s) has continually farmed ALR land for a specified number of years;
3. That the ALC meet with the BC Cattlemen’s Association and other agricultural stakeholders to discuss what criteria the ALC should consider when assessing subdivision proposals meant to facilitate the inter-generational family transfer of active ranch operations; and
4. That once said criteria is established as per 3 above, that the ALC explore opportunities to streamline its review outside the application process when assessing subdivision proposals meant to facilitate the legitimate inter-generational family transfer of active farm and ranch operations.


Governance:
Regional panels were thought to have a better understanding of local issues but land use decisions are perhaps being made too close to home;

Concern was also expressed about the lack of a broader opportunity for public input into the review process.


So...how'd you like that information on ALC fee structure?

"Bullocks!" says Kia, "it was about everything BUT fees, in order to stay below the public's radar."