From: Frank Mitchell [<mailto:fhm@shaw.ca>mailto:fhm@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:24 PM
To: Bednard, Gordon ALC:EX
Cc: Councillor Lillian Szpak; Matthew Baldwin; Linda Geggie; Lana Popham
Subject: 10 Langford ALR Excisions–additional queries
Dear Mr. Bednard,
I would be grateful if you could share the following with members of the Vancouver Island Panel.
The specific concerns I raised before the deadline for public submissions remain. I am now writing with several queries about the proposed excision of 10 properties in Langford from the ALR which arise from information just received and not available by the submission deadline.
These queries arise from Langford’s new Agricultural Strategy, which was approved by Council on November 16, (with opportunities for public review and input limited to the three days between issue of the 133 page Council agenda and the meeting). While the opportunities for public review and discussion were almost non-existent, many elements in the Strategy may mark major advances in helping to define what local governments can do to encourage and support agriculture in urbanising areas outside as well as inside Langford.
These queries also arise from the information provided by the Langford Planner and the Councillor Chair of Langford’s Planning Committee to a meeting convened by CFAIR at Langford Legion last Monday, December 7, and attended and about 25-30 interested residents.
The planner said that the Langford Agricultural Strategy had been worked out in close consultation with the Land Commission within the context of discussions on the 10 ALR excision applications, and had ALC approval. We understood that he believed the Strategy would satisfy outstanding ALC queries on whether to grant the 10 ALR excisions. He also indicated that an ALC decision was expected before Christmas.
With that background,
1. Has ALC approved Langford’s Agricultural Strategy as it stands?
2. Does the Strategy satisfactorily fulfill the conditions for promotion of agriculture sufficient to allow approval of the proposed excisions?
3. If so, what criteria and monitoring arrangements will the ALC establish to ensure compliance with the ALC understanding and expectations?
4. Will ALC delay final decisions on these applications following enactment of changes in OCP, Land Use Bylaw and other bylaws necessary to apply the Strategy to the properties under consideration? (The sections of the Strategy most directly involved include those concerning buffering, agricultural DPA areas, the 40% dedication rule. There are also questions about whether the 40% is a maximum or a minimum.)
5. On a point of detail, is ALC able to grant only partial excisions of parcels proposed for excision as understood by the planner? Or must ALC accept/reject the whole excision proposed? (This has relevance for the 40% dedication to agriculture of rezoned agricultural lands, and also the exact areas which might be covered by buffering provisions IF the appropriate OCP/LUB amendments are in place.)
6. Does the ALC see merit in providing additional opportunity for public consultation among ALC, Langford officials, and concerned members of the public regarding the strategy and its applicability to these excisions? Might the changes in information since the deadline for submissions require more consultation?
It comes as no news to ALC that there is considerable local distrust about execution of undertakings associated with ALR excisions. To take but one example, actual use of areas of the Hull’s Field excisions which were to be preserved for environmental reasons have engendered some of these concerns.
At a more general level, will the ALC wrestle with the issue of whether there is any justification for excising lands which are to be retained for agricultural use? Surely, such lands (as well as lands not now in the ALR, but newly dedicated to agricultural use through other parts of the Strategy) should be retained in (added to) the ALR. The only disadvantage to such a “retention” policy, from the point of view of local municipalities, would be that changes in agricultural use would need ALC approval. But this is surely an advantage, as the ensuing discussions would lead to more thorough examination of potentials, and better long term uses. Moreover, they would establish useful precedents and experience which could be more easily replicated in other urbanising areas.
The other advantage of non-excision of agricultural lands is, of course, ensuring preservation of the agricultural potential of these lands, obviating the need for very expensive future reconversion to agriculture in this area with such a limited agricultural land base. (The need for such reconversion is not improbable.)
Langford’s Agricultural Strategy has placed many interesting ideas, even exciting ones, on the table regarding the shape of agriculture in the urbanising areas. Will the ALC play its full role in ensuring that these ideas take form in ways which realise their potential?
Will the ALC clarify its thinking for the public on these matters in the context of — and preferably before — taking its decisions on the 10 Langford ALR exclusions?
I – and many others – look forward to how ALC handles these decisions in the light of the above questions.
Yours sincerely,
Frank Mitchell
From: Frank Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:24 PM
To: Bednard, Gordon ALC:EX
Cc: Councillor Lillian Szpak; Matthew Baldwin; Linda Geggie; Lana Popham
Subject: 10 Langford ALR Excisions–additional queries
Dear Mr. Bednard,
I would be grateful if you could share the following with members of the Vancouver Island Panel.
The specific concerns I raised before the deadline for public submissions remain. I am now writing with several queries about the proposed excision of 10 properties in Langford from the ALR which arise from information just received and not available by the submission deadline.
These queries arise from Langford’s new Agricultural Strategy, which was approved by Council on November 16, (with opportunities for public review and input limited to the three days between issue of the 133 page Council agenda and the meeting). While the opportunities for public review and discussion were almost non-existent, many elements in the Strategy may mark major advances in helping to define what local governments can do to encourage and support agriculture in urbanising areas outside as well as inside Langford.
These queries also arise from the information provided by the Langford Planner and the Councillor Chair of Langford’s Planning Committee to a meeting convened by CFAIR at Langford Legion last Monday, December 7, and attended and about 25-30 interested residents.
The planner said that the Langford Agricultural Strategy had been worked out in close consultation with the Land Commission within the context of discussions on the 10 ALR excision applications, and had ALC approval. We understood that he believed the Strategy would satisfy outstanding ALC queries on whether to grant the 10 ALR excisions. He also indicated that an ALC decision was expected before Christmas.With that background,
1. Has ALC approved Langford’s Agricultural Strategy as it stands?
2. Does the Strategy satisfactorily fulfill the conditions for promotion of agriculture sufficient to allow approval of the proposed excisions?
3. If so, what criteria and monitoring arrangements will the ALC establish to ensure compliance with the ALC understanding and expectations?
4. Will ALC delay final decisions on these applications following enactment of changes in OCP, Land Use Bylaw and other bylaws necessary to apply the Strategy to the properties under consideration? (The sections of the Strategy most directly involved include those concerning buffering, agricultural DPA areas, the 40% dedication rule. There are also questions about whether the 40% is a maximum or a minimum.)
5. On a point of detail, is ALC able to grant only partial excisions of parcels proposed for excision as understood by the planner? Or must ALC accept/reject the whole excision proposed? (This has relevance for the 40% dedication to agriculture of rezoned agricultural lands, and also the exact areas which might be covered by buffering provisions IF the appropriate OCP/LUB amendments are in place.)
6. Does the ALC see merit in providing additional opportunity for public consultation among ALC, Langford officials, and concerned members of the public regarding the strategy and its applicability to these excisions? Might the changes in information since the deadline for submissions require more consultation.
It comes as no news to ALC that there is considerable local distrust about execution of undertakings associated with ALR excisions. To take but one example, actual use of areas of the Hull’s Field excisions which were to be preserved for environmental reasons have engendered some of these concerns.
At a more general level, will the ALC wrestle with the issue of whether there is any justification for excising lands which are to be retained for agricultural use? Surely, such lands (as well as lands not now in the ALR, but newly dedicated to agricultural use through other parts of the Strategy) should be retained in (added to) the ALR. The only disadvantage to such a “retention” policy, from the point of view of local municipalities, would be that changes in agricultural use would need ALC approval. But this is surely an advantage, as the ensuing discussions would lead to more thorough examination of potentials, and better long term uses. Moreover, they would establish useful precedents and experience which could be more easily replicated in other urbanising areas.
The other advantage of non-excision of agricultural lands is, of course, ensuring preservation of the agricultural potential of these lands, obviating the need for very expensive future reconversion to agriculture in this area with such a limited agricultural land base. (The need for such reconversion is not improbable.)
Langford’s Agricultural Strategy has placed many interesting ideas, even exciting ones, on the table regarding the shape of agriculture in the urbanising areas. Will the ALC play its full role in ensuring that these ideas take form in ways which realise their potential?
Will the ALC clarify its thinking for the public on these matters in the context of — and preferably before — taking its decisions on the 10 Langford ALR exclusions?
I – and many others – look forward to how ALC handles these decisions in the light of the above questions.
Yours sincerely,
Frank Mitchell
Tags: agriculture | ALR | farm | Letters