Part 2.2: Island Panel Region

Members: Lorne Seitz (Vice-Chair), David Craven, Donald Rugg

• Message from the Vice-Chair
• Map of Interior Panel Region
• Panel Statistics (April 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007)
• Applications of Interest
• Issues of Interest

Message from the Vice-Chair

During the past year, pressure on the Agriculture Land Reserve on Vancouver Island subsided to a degree. The number of applications considered by the Island Panel was down 23% (from 88 to 68) compared to the previous year. While growth continues at a brisk pace on the south east side of the Island, that did not translate into increased pressure on the ALR.

A number of exclusions of land from the ALR were approved in the last year but, in most cases, the land was of relatively poor quality for agriculture. In two instances, the ALR boundary was adjusted to include adjacent lands that were of equal or better quality than the lands excluded. These situations indicate that the mapping of the ALR is not perfect.

Many of the applications considered by the Island Panel in the past year were for subdivision of land. These applications were not for dense housing subdivision but usually would involve dividing a property, frequently not currently farmed, into two or more smaller units, which would remain in the ALR. There are a number of issues that arise with subdivision requests and each application has its own unique set of circumstances. In some instances, topographical characteristics, such as streams, gullies, ridges or roads create significant challenges to farming the property as a single unit. In other cases, subdivision might create two, more viable, farm units, might assist in the intergenerational transfer of the farm operation or might allow for children to become a full participant in a large farming operation. The Commissioners must consider all the factors associated with an application. We have found site visits and discussion with applicants extremely beneficial in reaching a decision.

The Island Panel has noted an increase in the number of subdivision applications where the intent is to plan for estate settlement or to provide a lot for a child with no obvious agriculture objective. The Commission has not considered these to be sufficient reasons for subdivision. In these cases, the Commissioners revert to consideration of whether there are valid agriculture reasons for dividing the property or whether topographical or other similar characteristics would support subdivision.

The Panel also noted that, generally, local governments are becoming more supportive of agriculture. The Panel reviewed several Official Community Plans over the past year and invariably the OCPs recognized agriculture as an important component of the local community and economy. We had a number of fruitful discussions with local governments throughout the year. These observations suggest that local governments are looking carefully at maximizing the use of lands outside of the ALR before approaching the Panel requesting assistance in addressing some of their growth challenges.

During the past year, there has been an increased media focus on the ALR and the Commission. This increased attention has had a positive benefit in that it has heightened public awareness of the importance of agriculture and the value of the ALR.

However, in several instances, the information presented has not told the complete story. Two examples are illustrative. The first is reference to the amount of land excluded from the ALR on Vancouver Island since 2002, particularly in the Capital Region District (CRD). These references argue that a significant amount of land has been excluded from the ALR. What is usually not mentioned is that during this same period land has been added to the ALR. In all, while just under 1,300 hectares were removed from the ALR the Panel also included approximately 540 hectares into the ALR.

With regard to the area excluded from the ALR it is important to note several significant applications. The federal government required the exclusion of 429 hectares to create the Gulf Islands National Park. The federal government would not take ownership of the land unless all encumbrances on title (including the ALR designation) were removed. Refusal to remove the land from the ALR could have caused the agreement to create the National Park to collapse. An additional 100 hectares were excluded to facilitate the expansions of Royal Roads University, Camosun College and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal while another 70 hectares involved the exclusion of the land occupied by the terminal and runway of the Campbell River Airport. These applications account for 47 % of all land excluded from the ALR between April 1, 2002 and March 31, 2007.

The second example is a map of the CRD produced by the Sierra Club. It shows the lands excluded from the ALR since it was established in 1974. The lands excluded for the Gulf Islands National Park and Royal Roads are shown with no explanation or analysis. In addition, the maps identify 426 hectares of the ALR occupied by golf courses. What is not stated is that almost all of that land was occupied by the golf courses before the ALR was established. Included in this group are the Victoria and Uplands Golf Courses in Oak Bay and the Royal Colwood Golf Course in Colwood. These courses preceded the establishment of the ALR by up to 100 years. In 1974, most golf courses were placed in the ALR, presumably based on the premise that, if required, they could be converted to agriculture production. Unfortunately, unless they are familiar with these details, most readers would assume that the lands were made available for golf course development after the ALR was established.

While 2006 was a relatively quiet year on Vancouver Island, the Commission cannot assume that trend will continue. Growth on the south east coast of the Island will continue and pressure on the ALR will increase. Close cooperation between the ALC and local governments will help to channel the growth pressure to non-ALR land within developed areas. To achieve that, local governments will have to increase densities to minimize sprawl.

Nevertheless, there will still be pressure on the ALR, particularly to accommodate the infrastructure needs of growing communities. This might involve new or expanded roads, new regional transit, water and sewer facilities, recreation areas, schools and hospitals. In some instances, it will be difficult for communities to meet these growth challenges without an impact on the ALR. The Commission will, of necessity, be required to work closely with local governments to find solutions that minimize the impact on the ALR and attempt to identify compensating benefits for agriculture in the communities.

Map of Island Panel Region

Area of Panel Region: 7,786,879 hectares

Area in ALR: 102,850 hectares

Panel Statistics

Applications of Interest

The following selected example(s) illustrate how the Agricultural Land Commission panels responded to proposals to change the ALR boundary or to requests for subdivision or non-farm use of ALR lands. Applications are considered on the merits of each case at hand in the context of the Commission's mandate and take into account an assessment of factors related to agricultural capability and suitability and impact upon the ALR.

The application was to construct a 10,000 ft2 storage shed for agricultural equipment, and food products grown/produced both on and off site. Food products will be distributed to local food banks. The property situated in North Cowichan and known as Hope Farm, was a dairy farm and is now operated by the Mustard Seed Street Church as a non-profit society that also provides training to persons with addictions or other social problems.

The Mustard Seed Church has hired a team of two Professional Agrologists and a planner to develop a farm plan that will form the basis for a 25-year development program for the farm. The plan for the 12 ha farm includes a number of intensive vegetable and fruit production areas along with forage production and a wet area being designated for tree production.

The application was for exclusion of the 12 ha ALR portion of a 103 ha property to accommodate additional school infrastructure including the construction of dormitories.

The Panel met with the applicant in November 2006. The Panel concluded that despite moderate limitations of agricultural capabilities in some areas and the existing school facilities, the land still had agricultural potential. The Panel held the view that while there is significant non-farm development on the property this has not rendered the land unsuitable for agricultural use.

The panel saw no reason for the proposed expansion of the school to be placed within the ALR. In fulfilling its mandate to preserve agricultural land, the Panel considered it appropriate to refuse the application preferring that future school expansion be sited on the non-ALR portions of the property.

The application requested exclusion of a 36 ha property to facilitate its subdivision into approximately 30 one hectare lots. The property is located on the perimeter of the ALR northeast of Shawnigan Lake.

The proposal prompted area residents to express concerns about impacts on water quality and potential conflicts with farming activities in the area. A soil capability assessment prepared on behalf of the applicant indicated that the agricultural potential of the property is significantly limited. The panel also noted that the proposed future development was contrary to present zoning and that the regional district recommended that the application be refused.

A site inspection took place in May 2005 and the panel deferred its decision pending receipt of further information from the applicant and a public information meeting to provide interested parties an opportunity to express their views on the proposal. The Panel convened a public information meeting in January 2007.

The Panel concluded that for the most part the land had marginal agricultural capability. In agreeing to exclude the majority of the land, the Commission recognized that there was an active farming operation beyond the north east corner of the property on higher capability soils and that this was a concern raised at the public meeting. Therefore, the Panel excluded the property save and except the north east portion so as not to negatively impact the adjacent farm.

Issues of Interest

The following selected example illustrates how the integration and coordination of interests regarding land use planning and resource management require ongoing dialogue and collaboration between local governments and the Agricultural Land Commission.

In 2006/07 the Panel had the opportunity to review and provide feedback on a number of community planning and land use bylaw matters. These matters were of interest to the Commission because they were all generally very supportive of farming and the ALR. Most of the planning-related business was focused in and around the Capital Regional District and presented few if any issues that the Commission considered as contrary to the intent and purpose of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.