Green Langford

posted by admin on Dec 14

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/goldstreamgazette/news/78375837.html

By Edward Hill – Goldstream News Gazette

Published: December 03, 2009 1:00 PM

Langford is looking to buff up breathing room between urban development and remaining farmland as part of an agricultural strategy released in November.

A key provision of the strategy is establishing an agricultural development permit area, which would prescribe setbacks and buffer areas between farmland and residential development.

“We want to make the most of what we have,” said Coun. Lillian Szpak, chair of planning and zoning. “It’s about edge planning to ensure the optimal use of urban and agricultural boundaries. It’s so they can live side by side.”

Agricultural DP areas would span 100 metres from existing provincial agricultural land reserve and would require a professional plan for landscaping, stormwater management and building setback, among other requirements.

Langford has about 118 hectares of ALR land in 83 parcels. Eight parcels totalling 7.2 hectares are seeking exclusion from the ALR through the provincial agricultural land commission.

“Once adopted, every development next to agricultural land will be a (development permit) area,” said Matthew Baldwin, Langford’s city planner. “We want to protect land in the ALR by determining how land adjacent to land in the ALR develops.”

The strategy outlines a broad series of initiatives, such as establishing a “public trust” of secured agricultural land, either donated or purchased by the City, and then leased to farmers. Langford has had a developer amenity fee for ALR land acquisition since 2006, but is yet to buy farmland.

Langford also plans to amend its landscaping policy to require edible plant species, allow all commercial and industrial zones to host farmers markets and require developments with at least 100 units per hectare to provide community gardens.

Langford still needs to draft and pass a number of bylaws to bring these initiatives into force. Baldwin doesn’t expect a bylaw for the agricultural DP area to come before council until early next year.

Ultimately, the City’s goal is to promote awareness about food security, farm markets and small-scale farming, Szpak said. The strategy report admits Langford has “very little farmland,” but Szpak said through the public trust, the City wants to preserve what viable soil remains.

“We’re at a time in the world and in the community were food self-reliance is an issue with a lot of interest,” she said. “We are an urban area with rural lands that we’re looking to live in concert with.”

Residents’ anxiety in the Happy Valley area has risen as some properties look to escape the ALR, while others transition from large-lot to higher-density developments. Szpak agreed people should be concerned about preserving farmland, but noted that landowners have a right to try and subdivide and that not all land is farmable.

“Agricultural land is precious. That is the whole reason behind this initiative,” she said. “But we need a balanced approach. If the land is viable we want to keep it for farming.”

A group of Langford green-thumbs, coined Green Langford working group, are helping put on a CR-Fair roundtable next week to talk about Langford’s agricultural strategy.

Bea McKenzie, an avid garlic gardener, said local food producers have plenty of questions about the strategy, which they hope to put to Langford politicians and staff.

McKenzie said she wants to make sure the land acquisition fund doesn’t alienate small farmers.

The CR-Fair roundtable is Monday, Dec. 7, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Langford legion, 761 Station Ave.

posted by admin on Dec 14

To City Planning:

I am writing in regards to Bylaw 1262

a) Planning, Zoning & Affordable Housing Committee – November 9′”, 2009 14

1. Rezoning Application – 3324, 3328, 3348 & 3352 Hazelwood Road and 1024 Englewood Ave (Application to Rezone from AGI [Agriculture 1] and R2A [One and Two Family Residential] to a new Comprehensive Development zone to allow for the development of approximately 65 residential lots (File No. Z -09-16)

——————————————–

I was unaware of this zoning proposal until recently when I decided  to walk down Hazelwood Rd. instead of my usual route on the Galloping  Goose and saw the sign.  Truthfully, it is very difficult to keep up  with the speed of the rezoning proposals that come forward.

The traditional layout of this neighbourhood is well suited for being  situated on a flood plain. (http://bilstoncreek.org/floods.htm)  If/when the floods come, (and they always will), very few homes are  affected, and the agricultural land is not affected, and at best, it  helps prepare it for the dry summer ahead.

The more I learn about food security, the more I know how extremely  fortunate Langford is to have agricultural land and neighbourhoods  like Hazelwood, and how important it is to save them from becoming  some generic suburb that could be anywhere in North America.

This unique, old neighbourhood can be preserved and with support from  the city, as per the Langford Agricultural Strategy, make parts of  the yards into productive food gardens. This would bring more  families closer to becoming self-sustaining, and add further produce  to the Farmers Market.

It could also be showcased to the world, to highlight a city with  great vision and foresight, that realized the true value in having  and retaining such places as the Hazelwood neighbourhood and it’s  agricultural lands in the ALR.  When the situation soon arises, and  communities need to rely more on their own resources to produce food,  Langford could be among the “haves”, not a “have not” like all the  other cities.

I am not anti-development because development and growth can be  parsed various ways. The main core surrounding downtown is the most  practical and logical place to develop for housing and density by  adding high rises and multi-family units to that corridor rather than  outlying areas. – The main roadway and public transportation corridor is in this area – It is already developed and not agricultural land. – It is easy to walk to amenities – pedestrian friendly

In contrast, South Langford lacks road infrastructure, amenities,  good public transportation, no bus shelters and claws away more  scarce agricultural land. The long run costs to the city in terms of  services and infrastructure needed, will outweigh the short run  financial benefits, not to mention the new social costs  that arise  with increased density.

A one acre organic micro-farm has the potential to generate a $40,000  income while maintaining the land’s fertility.  (http://www.new-terra-natural-food.com/micro-farming-for-profit.html )

Landowners producing food and value-added products and services can  begin right now and generate money for the local economy year after  year with stable, real sustainable, local employment for those  involved.  The low density also mean no further infrastructure,  services or increase of flood damage claims. How is that not a  win-win situation?

Various groups of citizens are organizing in response to Langford  Agricultural Strategy to work with the city, other regions, and  organizations, on many of the issues outlined in the Strategy.  Alternate plans that include developing a strong agricultural sector  in the local economy could be more beneficial to the city and  citizens over the long run, and a chance should be given to compile  and present the data. (In development: http://greenlangford.ca/)

It would make a great deal of sense to place a moratorium on any further housing development in these low density /  agricultural/Greenbelt lands until there is chance for this report to  be discussed by interested local residents. It would be a great show  of faith and commitment on the city’s part that it is taking the  Langford Agricultural Strategy seriously.

Regards, Deb Harper

http://homegrow.ca/

posted by admin on Dec 14

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

posted by admin on Dec 6

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/eases+farm+rules/2280630/story.html

B.C. eases farm-tax rules

Provincial government moves to encourage small-scale operations

BY SCOTT SIMPSON, WITH FILES FROM JOANNE HATHERLY, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE

NOVEMBER 28, 2009

Bill Bennett says higher taxes discouraged keeping land for agriculture.
Photograph by: Darren Stone, Times Colonist, Canwest News Service
The provincial government is eliminating controversial property-tax regulations on farmland to encourage development of more small-scale farms, Community and Rural Development Minister Bill Bennett announced yesterday.

So-called split assessments, which tax farmland at a lower agricultural rate but apply higher residential tax rates to undeveloped areas and home footprints on the same property, were deemed as deterring expansion of farming.

The revised rules compel local governments to tax entire properties at the lower agricultural rate if at least half the land is devoted to farming, or if at least 25 per cent of the land generates a specified minimum amount of income from farming for the landowner.

A primary reason for the change is to support more development of small-scale agriculture on the Saanich peninsula, Bennett said.

Jack Mar, Central Saanich mayor and longtime farmer, has mixed feelings about the new rules, however.

“The pro is it will take away the bureaucracy that small farmers have had to deal with,” said Marr, who grows fruit and vegetables on 55 hectares.

But Mar is concerned the low farm-income threshold of $3,500 could enable a homeowner on a half-acre residential property who sets up a flower stand at the end of the driveway to qualify as a farm. That could lead to reduced revenues for municipalities.

Marr said residential land is taxed at a rate 10 times greater than farm land. One property that Marr purchased had an annual tax bill of $200 when zoned for agricultural use, but $2,500 when zoned for residential.

Metro Vancouver’s regional government is concerned that elimination of the split assessment will open the door to unchecked monster-home construction on viable agricultural land.

It is also concerned that the change will force municipal governments to hike property-tax “mill” rates on all agricultural land in order to recoup tax revenue that will be lost, to the detriment of active farmers.

“We are concerned that removal of the split classification without some other means of limiting the size of the houses, could actually encourage construction of larger houses in agricultural areas,” said Richmond Coun. Harold Steves, chairman of Metro Vancouver’s agriculture committee. “This would particularly apply in Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, through the Fraser Valley and in Richmond as well. It has hit us in Richmond already.”

Neither the province’s July 2009 Farm Assessment Review Panel report nor Metro Vancouver’s review of that report specify the number of farms that will benefit from the changes, or the amount of property-tax revenue that municipal governments will lose as a result of the changes.

The B.C. Agriculture Council has argued that not all of a given farm property may be suited to agriculture — citing uneven land, riparian areas around streams and buffer zones between properties.

Bennett said farmers hit with higher residential tax rates for parts of their properties were increasingly looking to develop it for residential use.

“We want to make it easier for people to do small-scale agriculture, not harder,” Bennett said.

He added that the government’s review panel heard ” dozens and dozens” of stories from farmers who said it was difficult to stay in business and “one of the problems was the value of the property taxes they were charged.”