Applied Science, Faculty of
Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of
DSpace
UBCV
Collins, John Martin
Master of Arts in Planning - MA (Plan)
University of British Columbia
The Homesite Severance Policy of British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Commission permits the subdivision of the farmer’s home from the farm property. Its purpose is to balance the protection of the agricultural resource with fair treatment for retiring farmers. This study documents the land use implications of the policy as well as its development, charting its origins and changes over the decades. Critics of the policy have noted two major problems. Urban sized lots have been scattered throughout the agricultural community, increasing the possibility of urban - rural conflicts (over the noises and smells of farming). Scarce arable land has also been lost, through construction (of the home or barns), on the remnant property. To determine if the agricultural resource has been compromised by the policy the frequency, location and actual area taken by homesite severance will be reviewed. In addition the study will explore the rationale and results of the two reviews of the policy. Suggestions will be offered (as they emerge from the findings and discussion) to alleviate the negative effects of the policy.
2010218 bytes
application/pdf
Homesite Severance Policy: Its Evolutionand Impact on the Agricultural LandBase of British ColumbiabyJohn Martin CollinsB.A., Simon Fraser University, 1981A THESIS SUBMYED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSINTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING AT THEUN1VERSfl’Y OF BRITISH COLUMBIAWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardThe University of British ColumbiaJanuary 1994© John Martin Collins 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfIlment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)___________________________Department ofThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 17 /eDE-6 (2188)UAbstract: Homesite Severance Policy: Its Evolution and Impact onthe Agricultural Land Base of British Columbia.The Homesite Severance Policy of British Columbia’s AgriculturalLand Commission permits the subdivision of the farmer’s home fromthe farm property. Its purpose is to balance the protection of theagricultural resource with fair treatment for retiring farmers. Thisstudy documents the land use implications of the policy as well as itsdevelopment, charting its origins and changes over the decades.Critics of the policy have noted two major problems. Urban sizedlots have been scattered throughout the agricultural community,increasing the possibility of urban - rural conflicts (over the noisesand smells of farming). Scarce arable land has also been lost,through construction (of the home or barns), on the remnantproperty.To determine if the agricultural resource has been compromised bythe policy the frequency, location and actual area taken by homesiteseverance will be reviewed. In addition the study will explore therationale and results of the two reviews of the policy. Suggestionswill be offered (as they emerge from the findings and discussion) toalleviate the negative effects of the policy.Table of ContentsAbstractTable of Contentslist of Tables,Graphs and Maps viChapter 1: Introduction 1Chapter 2: The Political Background 5The 1975 Election 5The First Commission 6The Second Commission 9Homesite Severance Policy 13Chapter 3: The Negative impacts of Subdivision on the 18Agricultural CommunityA Twofold Problem 18Urban Rural Conflict 18Loss of Land 23Chapter 4: The First Seven Years: A Review 27Homesite Severance: A Provincial Analysis 27Homesite Severance 1978 to 1985 30Documentation Policies and their Relaxation 32ivProvincial Data for Consolidation and 35Restrictive CovenantsThe Okanagan 37Homesite Severance Size: Regional Variations 38Homesite Severance Refusals: 41Why and How Many?Chapter 5: The 1985 Homesite Severance Review: 46Rationale and ResultsThe Okanagan-Similkameen Homesite 46Severance StudyThe 1985 Review 52The 1985 Homesite Severance Policy 55Homesite Severance 1985 to 1991: 56An AnalysisChapter 6: The 1990 Homesite Severance Review 66The Commission in 1990 66Homesite Severance in 1991 72Chapter 7: Conclusion 74Loss of Land 74Negative Impact of Urban/Rural Conflict 74Recommendations 76Bibliography 79Appendix 1 Homesite Severance Policy 1985 84Appendix 2 Homesite Severance Policy 1990 87VList of Tables. Graphs and Maps viChapter 4, Page 29: Table 4.1 A Comparison of the Total ApplicationsReceived under Section 20(1) of the A.L.C. Act (byRegion) and Homesite Severance (H.S.) 1978- 1991Chapter 4, Page 31: Graph 4.1 Total Homesite SeverancesChapter 4, Page 38: Table 4.2 Average Parcel Size and HomesiteSeverance Size(in Hectares)1978 - 1985Chapter 4, Page 40: Graph 4.2 Amount of Land Taken by HomesiteSeveranceChapter 4, Page 41: Table 4.3 Homesite Severance Refusals 1978-1985Chapter 5, Page 58: Table 5:1 Homesite Severance Approvals 1978-1991Chapter 5, Page 61: Table 5:2 A Comparison of Homesite Severance andSubdivision in Lieu of Homesite Severance 1985-91Chapter 5, Page 62: Table 5.3 A Comparison of Homesite Severance Sizeand Remnant Parcel Sizes (in hectares) between1985 and 1991.Chapter 5, Page 63: Graph 5.1 A Comparison of the Land Lost by theCreation of Homesite Parcels Between 1978-1985and 1986-1991Page 83: Map # 1 A Regional Distribution of A.L.R’s inBritish Columbia1Chapter 1: IntroductionOn Dec. 21 1972 British Columbia’s newly elected New DemocraticParty Government passed an Order-in-Council halting all conversionof farmland to urban uses. Subsequently this province wide landfreeze became law when the Land Commission Act was passed inApril of 1973. This legislation restricted the subdivision and non-farm use of the province’s best agricultural lands in an effort to savethem from urbanization.The Land Commission Act established a form of provincial zoning infavor of agriculture that overrode local government zoning. Landthat was included in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) wasdeemed to be an important agricultural resource. The intention ofthe Act was that this resource was to be preserved. Consequentlyowners of land in the ALR were limited if they wished to subdivideor use their property for urban uses.The Act set up a commission (the Agricultural Land Commision ) toadminister its provisions. It was an operating principle of theComission that the subdivision of farmland into smaller units wouldreduce its ability to sustain agriculture. In addition, smaller unitswould encourage or permit urban residents to live in agriculturalareas. The Commission believed that the introduction of urbanresidents into rural areas would negatively affect the surroundingfarm community. These two fundamental beliefs have generally2guided the Commission’s decision making regarding subdivisionrequests within the Reserve.A major exception to the Commission’s principle against thesubdivision of farm properties has been the Homesite SeverancePolicy. Since 1978 qualified retiring farmers have had the optionunder this policy to request the subdivision of their farm home fromthe larger agricultural property.Shortly after the establishment of the Agricultural Land Reserves in1974 the Comniission began to receive subdivision requests fromretiring farmers. Although not all farmers planned to subdividetheir farmland it was not uncommon prior to the A.L.R. to separatethe farm homesite from the remainder of the farm at retirement.This subdivision allowed the farmer to remain in his home and alsoprovided a measure of financial retirement security. TheCommission had no formal policy when reviewing these requests, butjudged each on its own merits. Although it was concerned about theretiring farmer the Commission also had concerns about the longterm impact of subdivision, concerns that led to the use of aregistered leasehold. By 1978 the Agricultural Land Commission hadestablished a formal Homesite Severance Policy permitting thesubdivision of the farm homesite under certain specific conditionsupon the farmer’s retirement. Two major reviews of this policyoccurred in 1985 and 1990 which led to some modifications but leftthe basic concept unchanged.3Critics of the Homesite Severance Policy have noted two majorproblems.1) Small non-agricultural lots have been scattered throughout theagricultural community. It is believed that these lots willeventually be purchased by non farmers who will have conflictswith the surrounding farmers.2) Scarce arable land has been used to replace the farm home andprovide access for the new home on the remaining property.These negative effects have been downplayed by those who supportthe policy. They claim that both the minimal numbers of qualifiedapplicants, the small amount of affected agricultural land and specialprovisions within the policy make Homesite Severance of minor anddeclining concern, especially when compared with the loss ofagricultural land to non farm uses and non homesite subdivision.It is the purpose of this study to trace the development of the policy( and its subsequent application and modification) and its impact onthe land base. First the policy’s originators and social objectives willbe explored, as will the heated debate over its negative land useimplications. Concurrently the study will review how theAgricultural Land Commission tried to reduce these negative landuse effects when it crafted the policy, and attempt to discoverwhether the safeguards it established were successful. Therefore theevolution of the policy will be reviewed; from the Commission’s4initial response to the retiring farmer and its formalization of theHomesite Severance policy in 1978 to the policy reviews andmodifications of 1985 and 1990. The negative effect of the urbanresident within the farm conimunity will also be discussed followedby a regional analysis of the frequency, size and location of homesiteseverances and the overall area lost to farm homesites.The findings of this report should enable policy makers in otherjurisdictions to judge the severity of the land use impacts that asocial policy (focused on the retiring farmer) can have on thepreservation of agricultural land. From that judging process maycome a further refinement of farmland preservation principles thatmay increase the future acceptance of effective farmlandpreservation programs.5Chapter 2: The Political BackgroundThe 1975 ElectionAs noted in the introduction, the New Democratic Party quicklyfulfilled its campaign promise to halt the destructive erosion offarmland to urban encroachment by establishing the L a n dCommission Act in 1973. Though initially controversial the programrapidly gained public support, and was soon heralded by many as amodel of farmland preservation. In late 1975 a Social Creditgovernment under a new leader, Bill Bennett, was returned to power.While in opposition the Social Credit Party had opposed the LandCommission legislation and campaigned during the election to returnpower to designate farmland use back to Regional Districts. By 1975a vocal minority still opposed the legislation but the L a n dCommission Act no longer provoked public debate and althoughthere was widespread dissatisfaction with the NDP’s performance inother areas, on the whole the legislation was popular. A November22 1975 Province1 editorial stated that:Though there was always the potential for trouble, the LandCommission has been one of the NDP’s better ideas.”tCocking, Florence Irene, A Comparison of the NDP and Social CreditAgricultural Land Commission Policy, Unpublished MastersThesis, University of British Columbia, 1982.6This assertion was corroberated by Mark Gillis (1980). In his studyof landowners perceptions of the A.L.R. a wide range of rural landowners indicated that they were generaly supportive of the landreserve, regardless of political affiliation2.During the first year of the Social Credit Administration theCommission remained intact, however, by late 1976 wholesalechanges to the membership of the Commission had occurred. Also in1977 the Land Commission Act underwent its first major revision.Originally the legislation’s mandate included provisions to preservegreenbelt land, parkland and landbank land3 in addition toagricultural land preservation. These other statutory subjects weredeleted and the newly named Agricultural Land Commission Act(A.L.C. Act) was concerned only with agricultural land preservation.Other amendments also changed the process of appealing someCommission decisions.The First CommissionThe Commissioners first appointed by the N.D.P. Minister ofAgriculture, Dave Stupich, reflected the eclectic nature of the2Qillis, Mark H., An Analysis of Landowner’s Attitudes Towards theBritish Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve. UnpublishedMasters Thesis, U.B.C. 1980.Land Commission Act, 19737legislation. Bill Lane, the Chairman, had extensive experience inmunicipal land law from his long service as municipal solicitor inRichmond. Bert Brink was a U.B.C. professor of plant science, TedBarsby, a naturalist and wilderness sportsman from VancouverIsland, Art Garrish, the only farmer, was an orchardist and the pastpresident of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, while Mary Rawsonwas a planner and an economist. The common thread runningthrough this diverse group was that they all held to a strong landconservation ethic.During the “life” of the first Commission only two membershipchanges occurred. The first was the resignation of the Chairman, BillLane, in mid-1975, who left for a new job at the Greater VancouverRegional District. Replacing him was the General Manager of theLand Commission, Gary Runka, a part time farmer with extensivetechnical knowledge of the Canada Land Inventory (the joint federalprovincial soils classification, one of the fundamental tools uponwhich the A.L.R.s’ are based). The second change, made in late 1975,was the addition of Don Knoerr, a Bulkley Valley rancher, who addeda much needed expertise in the ranching sector to the Commission.From the outset the Commission felt some sympathy to the retiringfarmer. Before the legislation the farmer was responsible for hisown retirement, choosing to sell the farm as an ongoing operation orif beset by urban pressures, sell out to development interests.Another option was to subdivide the farm property among hischildren, (within the context of local government zoning regulations,8if any existed), remaining in the farm home until circumstancesforced a change in ownership. Whatever the choice, essentially thefarmer’s future lay in his own hands. Now by restricting thedevelopment and subdivision rights of farmland the Commission feltthat it should assist in some way in the retirement of the farmer.Some Commissioners argued that farmers in the A.L.R. would suffer adouble blow upon retirement, not only would they lose their job, butalso upon the sale of their farm they would also lose their home aswell4. As a result the Commission adopted an internal policy ofsympathy towards the retiring farmer, rationalizing that all thosethat had been ‘caught’ by this restrictive zoning deserved to remainon their land when they retired, provided that their presence did nothave a permanent detrimental impact on either the existing farmunit or the surrounding agricultural community. In contrast theCommission felt less responsibility to those who purchased their landafter the establishment of the legislation, believing that theselandowners purchased rural property with their “eyes open”, awareof the Reserve’s subdivision restrictions.However despite this degree of compassion for the retiring farmerthe Commission remained concerned that the subdivision of thehomesite was a permanent measure that could create problems inthe long term for the farm community. Because of this the originalprovision for a homesite severance was a leasehold agreement forlife and not creating a lot in fee simple. The Commission believedthat leasehold for life recognized the farmer’s sentimental‘ Interview, Allan Claridge, Sept. 19919attachment to his home but, unlike subdivision, did not create apermanent residential lot. In this type of agreement the leasedhomesite would revert back to the original property upon the deathof both the farmer and spouse . Although this option was offered tofifty seven (57) retiring farmers prior to 1978, only three (3)registered the leasehold5. The primary reason why leasehold was anunpopular option was because it did not provide a financial dividendto the retired farmer (or his family) when circumstances dictatedthat the home be sold. Apart from the unpopularity of such anarrangement among farmers, many lending institutions were alsohesitant of granting or holding mortgages to homes on leaseholdparcels.The Second CommissionAfter the 1975 provincial election the Commission remained intactuntil the autumn of 1976 when all but Chairman Gary Runka wererelieved of their duties. The new appointees were respectedindividuals within B.C.’s agricultural community; Allan Claridge wasan orchardist recently converted to the cause of agricultural landpreservation after actively protesting against the proposed L a n dCommission Act in 1973. Ted Cornwall was a rancher and formerdistrict agriculturalist from Williams Lake, Raymond Kerr wasanother rancher from the Kamloops area, while Mac Singli was avegetable grower from the Fraser Valley. From 1976 to 1978 thisgroup of Commissioners initiated the process of formalizing a5Agricultural Land Commission, Homesite Severance File10Homesite Severance Policy that differed radically from the originalCommission’s leasehold provision. In particular Allan Claridgeundertook to create a policy that would both prove attractive to theretiring farmer and not radically detract from the preservationistgoals of the legislation.Allan Claridge was passionately concerned about the retiring farmerand argued that unlike any other worker in society, the farmer hada deep, almost mystical, relationship with his workplace6. Also hefelt that it was an economic tragedy that many orchardists who hadworked a lifetime on the land were required to sell both their homeand livelihood upon retirement. He was so concerned about this thatwhen he began orcharding in the late 1950’s he purposefully boughta home on .24 ha (some distance from his orchard properties) inorder to avoid the inevitability of selling his home with his orchardlands7. Claridge believed that the government’s unilateral restrictionupon the subdivision of farmland unfairly penalized the retiringfarmer and he was committed to developing a policy that wouldenable the retired farmer to both remain in his home and providefor his future financial needs.Land ownership and cultivation patterns particular to orchardingvery much influenced Claridge’s thinking and arguments. Orchardsin the Okanagan are generally small, averaging 3.5 hectares8, and6 Interview, Allan Claridge, Sept 1991Interview, Allan Claridge, Sept 1991S Lusztig, Peter A., Report of the Commission of Inquiry-British ColumbiaTree Fruit Industry, May 1990, page 17.11often allow their owners only a partial or inadequate income. In thepast two decades a highly parcelized land base has been cited as oneof a number of factors (in addition to a less than ideal climate andlimited land base) that have caused B.C.’s production of tree fruits tolag behind comparable fruit exporting regions worldwide in bothquality and quantity9. In addition both the provincial and federalgovernments have, over the last few decades, established a varietyof support schemes to ensure that orchardists are guaranteed aminimum farm income. As a result of these initiatives many small,uneconomic orchards have been sustained by governmentintervention.Allan Claridge’s perception of agricultural viability also affected hisviews on the impact of homesite subdivision. Unlike otherCommissioners who held that the viability of a farm property wasprimarily a function of its size, Claridge believed that viability couldnot be defined in strictly commercial terms. In his mind viabilitywas a function of a property’s agricultural potential rather than itssize. He believed an orchard property was viable, regardless of size,if an owner received an income equal to his investment10. Forexample, if an orchardist invested 20% of his time and capital into aproperty and received from that investment 20% of his total incomethen a property was viable. As such he could support homesiteseverance even on very small properties because the loss of anIbid Page 2310 Interview, Allan Claridge Sept. 1991orchard residence and its replacement on the remnant would notsignificantly affect the viability (as he defined it) of the parcel.Other Commissioners opposed Allan Claridge’s views. Both MacSingh and Gary Runka felt that any increase in residential density,especially in the already heavily parcelized Okanagan, would notonly decrease the amount of scarce arable land and increase conflictbetween residents and orchardists but it would also support thebelief that the subdivision of farmland was inevitable. In fact MacSingh held a quite different view that the agricultural land resourcewas so valuable that all farmers should live in town as he did andcommute to their fields11.By 1978 the issue had been discussed thoroughly by the Commission,its staff and lawyers. A policy (as described below) was drafted andsubmitted to the Environmental and Land Use Committee (E.L.U.C.)of Cabinet for comment and approval. E.L.U.C. confirmed thathomesite severance must apply to jj. owners whose principalresidence was on that property prior to 1972 and not just to bonafide farmers. This had been a contentious issue as someCommissioners and staff felt that only a bona fide farmer shouldqualify for severance. The Commission had initially considered theregistration of a caveat against the title of the homesite preventingits resale for a five year period. However, after much discussionwith its legal counsel the Commission decided the wisest coursewould be to enter into a private agreement with the farmer to11 Interview, J. Plotnikoff, March 19901213restrict the resale of the homesite for five years. The final draft ofthe Homesite Severance policy was adopted by the Commission onJune 14 1978, and is analyzed below.Homesite Severance PolicyThe policy as adopted was:1) A once only severance may be permitted where the applicant wasthe owner and occupied the property as his principal place ofresidence as of December 21 1972.Only those landowners who had lived on the property prior to 1972qualified for a homesite. It was felt that those who had purchasedafter the establishment of the A.L.R. did so with the full knowledgethat the farm unit could not be subdivided. The 1972 date wasadded to satisfy critics who had been concerned that the policy wasopen ended and long term.It should be noted that the “may be permitted” phrase was includedto remind applicants that they merely qualified for consideration fora homesite and that it was not an established fact.2) Applicable only at the time of sale of the property as evidenced byan interim agreement or documented proof of sale. Applicableonly to the severance of an existing homesite or alternatively,when deemed appropriate by the Commission, for the creation ofa lot elsewhere on the property.14This clause was developed to prevent premature (pre-retirement),speculative subdivision. Some Commissioners feared that everyoneeligible for Homesite Severance would subdivide prior to retirementjust to take advantage of the policy.The clause’s latter portion allowed the Commission to offer analternate location for a new homesite for the retiring farmerelsewhere on the property if it was felt that subdivision of theexisting homesite would interfere with the continued farm operation.For example, if the house and barns existed in close proximity theCommission might subdivide a lot elsewhere on the property for theretiring farmer’s new home in order to retain the eurtilage as a unit.Though this provision appears logical it is arguably inconsistent withthe original purpose of the policy, which was to permit the farmer tostay in his home (and retain its equity) upon retirement. However,it is probable that many farmers welcomed an opportunity to builda newer, more suitable home, given the opportunity.The study does not attempt to analyze the number and location ofthese alternate homesites because the result of a homesite severanceof either type (original or alternate site) is a small non agriculturalproperty.A point of concern was that the subdivision of a lot elsewhere on theproperty made it unlikely that the house and the farm could bereunited at some future date. The inclusion of this portion of the15clause in the policy was opposed by Commissioner Bill Ritchie12 whofelt that it was not consistent with the overall objectives of thepolicy.3) In response to the concern of the agricultural communityregarding the impact of small lot subdivision in rural areas, thepurchaser of the farm property must be offered the right of firstrefusal at the time of sale if and when the homesite is soldoutside the immediate family.The ‘right of first refusal’ was offered as a solution to the elements inthe agricultural community who opposed the concept of HomesiteSeverance because of concerns related to the proliferation of smalllots in farm areas. Unfortunately, given the economics of farming itis unlikely that the purchaser of the remnant would re-acquire anon productive residential property. It would be extremely costlyand its addition would not enhance the remnant’s productivecapacity.4) The size of the homesite should be of minimum size compatiblewith the character of the property, in addition to a reasonablearea for access purposes.This clause in conjunction with #6 below was intended to ensure thatthe remnant parcel remain as large as possible so that it wouldcontinue to be used for agricultural purposes. It was not the intentof the Commission that the farmer retire to a hobby farm. Forexample in the Okanagan where many orchards are 2.0 ha or less insize even a modest homesite severance of .8 ha would significantly12 Minutes of Commission meeting September 197816reduce the productive capacity of the remainder assuming a newhomesite would be built on the remainder.5) The Commission will issue an order stipulating that a condition ofthe approval is that the homesite is not to be resold for fiveyears except in the case of estate settlements. Before finalapproval is given the Commission order is to be supplementedby a written undertaking or standard notarized contractualcommitment to the Commission to this effect from the owner.After some discussion, based on legal concerns regardingenforcability, it . was determined that a restrictive covenant could notbe registered against the title of the property restricting the resale ofthe property for five years after severance. Instead the Commissiondecided to enter into a private contract with the owner restrictingthe resale of the severance for five years hoping that this woulddiscourage speculative subdivision.6) Where the remainder of the property after the severance of thehomesite is, in the Commissions opinion, of an unacceptable sizefrom an agricultural perspective, either the balance must beconsolidated with an adjacent property or a covenant placed onthe remainder preventing the construction of any dwellings.Consolidation and restrictive covenants were means to mitigate thenegative impacts of homesite subdivision. In instances where theremnant parcel was too small to be considered a viable agriculturalunit, homesite severance might only be permitted subject toconsolidation of the remainder with a neighboring farm property.17Another option was the registration of a restrictive covenant againstthe remainder prohibiting the construction of a residence.7) Upon approval of the Agricultural Land Commission, RegionalDistricts and Municipalities are encouraged to handle suchapplications in the same manner as Section 713(A) applicationsunder the Municipal act insofar as compliance with local bylawsis concerned.Section 713(A) of the Municipal Act has since been repealed andreplaced with Section 996. Both sections allow the subdivision of aproperty for the owner or a close relative in contravention of localzoning bylaws, with strict restrictions concerning size, use andsubdivision.ConclusionIn many ways homesite severance was Allan Claridge’s policy,designed to provide for the retirement needs of the Okanaganorchardist. Throughout the years much debate has occurred as towhether the policy complements or contradicts the preservationistgoals of the legislation. Initially numerous and perhaps unnecessarysafeguards were established to mitigate the perceived negativeeffects of subdivision. These negative effects will now be reviewedin detail.18Chapter 3: The Negative Impacts of Subdivision on the AgriculturalLand BaseA Twofold ProblemThe initial result of a homesite severance is the creation of a small lotfor a retired farmer, a person who understands farm interests andthe daily patterns of farm living. Eventually the lot is sold toneighbors, relatives or even strangers and there is no assurance thatthey will have the same understanding regarding the common noisesand smells of a normal farm operation. A difference in expectationsbetween the resident and the farmer could lead to conflict and theloss of integrity of the farm community through the withdrawal ofthe neighboring farmer and others nearby to more remote farmareas. In addition homesite severance reduces the size of a propertyby between 0.2 - 4.0 ha. Critics of the policy point out that althoughthis loss may not initially reduce the agricultural potential of theproperty, the replacement of new farm buildings and residence (andtheir access) on productive land can negatively affect theproductivity and the viability of the farm.Urban Rural ConflictWhen a rural area is invaded by residents with an urbanorientation conflicts usually occur. Julie Glover, a Commissioner andformer planner with the Agricultural Land Commission, describes atypical urban rural conflict.19“A new hog operation may establish in an agricultural area, oralternatively an existing operation may need to expand because ofthe necessity to remain economically competitive. Even though theoperation is located in the A.L.R. there are likely to be a few ruralresidents on small parcels within the vicinity of the farm . Theresidents get news of the new or expanding operation and becomefearful that it will create an odor problem that will reduce theenjoyment of their property, and thus its value. The residents mayband together , circulate a petition, march on council and demandthat a building permit not be issued for this use. The council, facedby a barrage of complaints from its constituents, usually responds bypassing a bylaw which strictly regulates the siting of certainlivestock farms.”Julie Glover goes on to state that the largest and vociferousconstituency in most rural areas is the rural resident and not thefarmer. 13The following story, set in Nova Scotia corroborates Glover’s theory ofthe fundamental incompatibility of the urban and rural mindset.In the book Fields of Vision14 the story of Vance Daurie, a hogfarmer located near Lunenburg, Nova Scotia is recounted. For twoyears non farm neighbors endured his hog farm’s pungent odors, buteventually their distaste for the smell led to the initiation of legal1-3lntergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research, The UrbanFringe in the Western Provinces, September 1979, Page 3.14 Jenkins, Phil, Fields of Vision: A Journey to Canada’s Family FarmMcClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1991, Page 120-127.20action against the Daurie family. The Daurie’s neighbors wereurbanites who had moved to the country to enjoy a sanitized rurallifestyle during the years when Vance Daurie’s father had let hisland become a hobby farm. When the hog operation was begun byVance, relations between the Daurie family and their neighborsdeteriorated. In the ensuing lawsuit the litany of complaints spokeof ruined barbecues, tainted laundry and sealed windows AlthoughVance Daurie won the first court case on the strength of supportfrom his remaining farm neighbors, subsequent appeals drained hisfinancial resources. Ironically there was no winner in the situation,the hog operation was beggared by the court action and the litigiousneighbors eventually moved.In her book Ill Fares the Land Mary Rawson recounts examples ofhow every type of agricultural activity can suffer from conflict withurban people.“a) Pear Orchard, - Five acres of Class 2 land. Farm not fenced.Children from nearby subdivisions pick fruit, enter picker’scabins and vandalize them, knock down sprinklers and breakbranches.b) Feedlot, - Thirty three acres with access to highway. Graduallybeing surrounded by urban uses - drive-ins, residences.Increasing difficulties in the operation of the feedlot because ofvandalism and complaints of urban neighbors about smell andnoise. Vandalism includes: children stoning animals, tramplingthe hay, setting the shaving pile on fire.21c) Dairy farm, - 60 acres, Class 4. No other bona fide farmers left onroad. Trouble with neighbors - shot at for late cutting of fodder,complaints about manure on the road making neighbors’ tiresdirty. Hay cutting machinery breaks glass tossed in field, glassgets mixed in with cattle feed. Can’t take any more; intends toquit dairying and subdivide into 10 acre parcels.”15A recent B.C. example involving an exclusion application to theAgricultural Land Commission illustrates how urban rural conflictscan develop in a farm community.Owners of a ten hectare raspberry field in south Chilliwackrequested exclusion from the A.L.R. in 1990 because of conflict withnon farm neighbors. Initially the property owner argued that theproperty was not good farmland and that its exclusion from theA.L.R. could be supported because of poor soil quality. Following anon-site soils analysis by a Ministry of Agriculture soils specialistwhich challenged this assertion, the landowner was refusedexclusion, however, in his subsequent appeal to the Minister ofAgriculture unresolvable conflicts with his urban neighbors werecited as insurmountable obstacles to the efficient agriculturalutilization of the property. The owner states in a Nov. 22, 1991letter;“The surrounding land to the east and south of our property hasrecently been subdivided and is currently under development. Theneighboring house occupants have complained about our farm dogs,15 Rawson, Mary, Ill Fares the Land. Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, 1976,page 17-1922machinery noise, dust, irrigation water being sprayed on theirproperty and the foul smell of chicken manure piles. The immediateurban development, with only a boundary line separation has alsoresulted in complaints from us. We have had crop and wiringvandalism by juveniles... Our main concern is the danger of exposingthe public to health risk type chemicals “16These arguments , like those of the previous examples have beenreiterated in many submissions to the Commission. Non farmresidents who live in or on the fringe of the farm community can doirreparable harm to that community merely by resenting andcomplaining about those daily activities necessary for farming. Inaddition, by their own ignorant actions such as trespass and littering,they can endanger their own health and that of the farm operation.A non farm resident often has urban values and the sights, smellsand noise of the modern farm operation are usually resented andoften actively resisted. Pesticide use, manure spreading, earlymorning farm equipment operation all mitigate against a peacefulco-existence between the farmer and the urban resident seeking acountry lifestyle. All too often the highly prized rural ambiancetakes on a distinctly offensive bouquet.It can be argued that Homesite Severance Policy contributes to ruralresidential conflict. Typically a homesite severance is a residentialproperty, not larger than .8 ha. Eventually this property will bepurchased by a non farmer, concerned mostly about the quietenjoyment of his property and not with the rights and needs of his16 A.LC. File #02-M-CHWK-90-2519923farm neighbors. When the policy was drafted the Commissionattempted to mitigate possible future conflict by providing thepurchaser of the remnant property with the right of first refusal ofthe original homesite. However this option was rarely (if ever)exercised due to the fact that the remnant’s purchaser either did notneed a new home after the five year agreement had expired (havingalready built a replacement home) or was unwilling to invest in anon productive addition to the land base.This study did not explore whether existing homesites hadcontributed to urban rural conflict because there is no certainty thatodors, noise and other offensive occurances would be constant, northat every non farm landowner would respond consistently to theseannoyances. Crop type and intensity of activity may vary on thefarm side, while attitudes may change with successive home owners.The only thing that may be said with certainty is that the existenceof an urban sized property in the farm community increases thelikelihood of a conflict occurring at some time under certainconditions.Loss of LandA homesite severance eventually results in the loss of land fromagricultural production. Even though the original severance will onlysever non-productive areas containing yards, access and accessorybuildings, the eventual replacement of the farm infrastructure willresult in the loss of land from production.24If an agricultural property was already barely viable because of itslimited arable area, the loss of even 5% of its area to replacementbuildings and access could have disastrous effects upon theproperty’s ability to support a productive farm. Also there is noassurance that the purchaser of the remnant will be careful aboutthe location of a new home with regards to efficiency for agriculturalproduction, especially if the property is already small and notintended to be used for agriculture. In this way much more areathan necessary could be alienated permanently from futureagricultural production. Often the area used for the originalhomesite was best suited for this because of its non productive soilsor topographic considerations. Its division from the larger parcelcould leave no other area but prime productive land for the newhomesite location.One difficulty in assessing the ‘loss of land’ problem lies in theuncertainty of the remnant property owner’s actions. Provided thatroad access is available, each legal parcel in the Agricultural LandReserve is permitted a dwelling. But not every remnant purchaserhas an immediate desire to build a home on the land. In fact, somemay be nearby farmers willing to hold and work the land as aproductive unit, while others may have purchased for long termspeculative purposes. There can be any number of reasons for notbuilding a home on the remnant property. In summation, productiveland c an be used to replace the lost farm dwelling and othernecessary structures but may not for various ‘non agricultural’25reasons. In the mind of critics this short term uncertainty crumblesbefore the realization that eventually every accessible parcel willbecome the site of a home.ConclusionWhen the Agricultural Land Commission established HomesiteSeverance Policy it did two things that had the potential to damagefarms and the farm community. First the policy will eventually placea resident with an urban mindset beside a farm, creating thepotential for future conflict between the rural resident and thefarmer. While the initial occupant (being a farmer) would not likelycreate conflict with surrounding neighbors the preceding examplesindicate that the presence of a non farmer in a farm community canincrease the potential for rural residential conflicts. The result ofconflict is the loss of investment, the flight of ‘commercial’ farmers tomore remote areas, and continuing pressure to urbanize the rurallandscape. Second, homesite severance reduces the agriculturalpotential of the property by either removing the original farmhouseand eventually necessitating the replacement of this infrastructureor severing off a vacant lot for a new homesite, to the detriment ofthe productivity of the remaining parcel.In order to understand the overall impact of Homesite Severance interms of both potential conflict and the loss of productive land thefollowing chapters will analyze the frequency and location ofhomesite severances throughout the A.L.R. in British Columbia, andthe amount of land separated from the property as a result ofhomesite severance. In addition subsequent reviews and changes tothe policy will be analyzed. These occurred as it quickly becameapparent to the Commission that some of the policy’s built insafeguards were not having their intended effect of alleviating themost damaging result of Homesite Severance, the urban lot in thefarm community.2627Chapter 4: The First Seven Years. A ReviewHomesite Severance: A Provincial AnalysisThis chapter will examine the number, location and size of homesiteseverances awarded between 1978 and 1985. They will becompared by region and changes in the Commission’s documentationrequirements will be thoroughly reviewed. Chapter 5 will considersimilar data from 1985 to 1991. The reason for the division into twoparts is because in 1985 the Commission reviewed and changed theHomesite Severance policy. The review was undertaken for tworeasons; because of complaints from local governments (bothRegional Districts and Municipalities) that the policy was beinginconsistently applied, and because there was concern within theCommission that the provision of homesite severance was provingdetrimental to the agricultural land base and a hindrance to themaintenance of healthy farm communities. The review led tochanges both in the policy and its application, changes that willbecome evident upon a comparison of the data of the pre and postreview periods.For the purpose of simplicity the analysis divides the province intosix regions comprising all of the province’s 29 regional districts17; theregions are Vancouver Island, Northern B.C., the Central Interior,17 The Commission has informally divided the province into these units in thepast for the simplicity of handling data. This author used the same rationalefor the division, the similar number of applications received from each area.28the Kootenay’s, the Okanagan and the Fraser Valley (see Map #1page 83). This division serves a twofold purpose.1) Each region has distinct climatological and topographicalcharacteristics that determine the type and intensity ofagricultural activity.2) Although these regions do not represent an equal division offarm numbers, the size of the agricultural land base, farm gatereceipts, or overall provincial importance to agriculture, eachregion has provided an approximately equal number ofapplications made under section 20(1) of the A.L.C. Act over the1974 to 1989 period. Section 20(1) is the legislative clause ofthe A.L.C. Act under which the land owner makes application torequest the subdivsion (and homesite severance) of propertyaffected by the A.L.C. Act.The following table compares the number of all applications receivedfor each region under Section 20(1) of the A.L.C. Act from 1978through 199118 (A.L.C. Statistics 1990) and compares them to thenumber of homesite severance approvals.-8The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Agricultural Land ReserveStatistics, January 1, 1990.29Table 4.1 A Comparison of the Total Applications Receivedunder Section 20(fl of the A.L.C. Act (by Region)and Homesite Severance (H.S.) 1978 - 1991Section 20(1) H.S. H.S. as a %Region Applications Approval of 20(1) App.Northern B.C 2085 75 3.6%Central B.C. 2276 70 3.0%Kootenays 1955 51 2.6%Vancouver Island 1838 70 3.8%Okanagan 2257 287 12.7%Fraser Valley 2277 93 4.0%Totals 12,688 646 5.0%Plainly the Okanagan has a disproportional number of requests forHomesite Severance. Two reasons are offered to explain this area’sprevalence.The Okanagan Valley suffers from higher levels of ruralparcelization than other parts of the province. Small parcels have inpart a historical cause, connected to the original plans for settlement.Patterns of small parcels were caused by a perception thatorcharding was an intensive industry capable of supporting a familyon a small farm19. This belief has created and sustained small,19 Steacy, Newton, P., A Brief Dealing with the Problems of The Small FarmUnit in British Columbia. Presented to the Special Committee ofthe Senate on Land Use in Canada, May 1959.30inefficient farm units that are poorly equipped to meet thecompetitive challenge of international and nearby U. S. orchardregions20. The Okanagan region’s rapid population increase, itspreponderance of small rural properties, and recent low prices forfruit have increased the pressure for rural land subdivision. Due tothese pressures it is possible that an orchardist could significantlyincrease the worth of a small orchard by subdividing the home andreselling the remnant for residential purposes.Homesite Severance 1978 to 1985Between 1978 and 1985 the number of Homesite Severanceapprovals steadily increased, from a low of 14 in 1978, the firstyear of the policy, to a high of 74 in 1984. Three reasons areoffered for the increase.1) Local government staff became more familiar with the policy andbegan to suggest this option to applicants whose holdings lay inthe A.L.R..2) The policy became known within the farm population as neighborsand acquaintances were allowed homesite subdivision.20Lusztig, Peter A., Report of the Commission of Inquiry-British ColumbiaTree Fruit Industry. May 1990313) The Commission began to offer homesite severance to applicantswho did not request it (for reasons of ignorance) in lieu of theapplicant’s original request for subdivision.The followingseverancegraph illustrates the rapid increase in homesiteGraph 4.1(i-i=.4-Ca).CEzTotal Homesite SeerancesHomesite Severances Without Full DocumentationHomesite Severances Requiring Full Documentation1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991‘/ear of Approval32Documentation Policies and their RelaxationBetween 1978 and 1980 the Commission was careful to demand thefull documentation required by the policy. This documentationincluded;1) Proof that the owner had purchased the property prior to 1972.2) An interim agreement between the purchaser and the ownerwhich ensured that the homesite severance would betransferred upon its creation to the purchaser.3) The registation of a charge against the title of the homesiteproperty of a right of first refusal in favour of the purchaser ofthe remnant parcel.4) The conclusion of an agreement with the Commission whichrestricted the resale of the homesite for a period of five years.As a further safeguard the Commission would issue authorization tothe Land Title Office to accept the subdivision plan oniy when theownership transfer was finalized. Between 1978 and 1980 78(88%) of 88 homesite severences were required to complete theentire documentation procedure as outlined above. In contrast,between 1981 and 1985, full documentation was required in only18 (6.2%) out of 286 homesite severances. In each of theremaining 268 homesite approvals from 1981 to 1985 theregistration of the right of first refusal clause was not required andin some cases the agreement iiot to resell the property was alsolifted. In contrast the submission of proof of purchase prior to 197233and the sellers agreement were required without exception. Thesewere considered essential to the process because they indicatedwhether the applicant qualified for homesite severance and ensuredthat severance was not premature. The graph noted aboveillustrates this change. The hatched area on the top of each barindicates the number of yearly homesite severance approvals thatwere not required to register the full documentation demanded bythe policy.Although the Commission was responsible for the preparation of theagreement between the Commission and the applicant and theregistration of the right of first refusal charge against the title thecost of preparation of the charge was borne by the applicant. It ispossible that complaints about this expense, (which ranged from$200.00 to $500.00 dollars an application), and the time delaysrequired for its registration caused the Commission to be less strictabout documentation. What is more likely is the Commission beganto realize that the homesite and the remnant parcel would not bereunited and thus became more lenient on this documentation.By 1980 very few homesite severances were required to registerthe right of first refusal against the title. Although it was theCommission’s intention to encourage the reuniting of the homesiteand the remnant when the retired farmer left his home, (byproviding the purchaser with the right of first refusal on thehomesite) this quickly proved to be an impractical and unlikelyscenario given the economic realities of agriculture. Very few34farmers, having already purchased the productive remnant property,would wish to purchase a non productive and relatively expensiverural residence. The abandonment of this restriction simplified theHomesite Severance process. After 1982 virtually no HomesiteSeverances were awarded that required the right of first refusaldocumentation.Another reason why this relaxation occurred was because themembership of the Commission continued to change. In 1980 AllanClaridge’s term expired and other Commissioners were added, mostof whom did not have an intimate knowledge of the policy. Afurther factor affecting the enforcement of documentation was thelocation of an agricultural property. In areas where farms werelarge and far from urbanizing pressures full documentation wasrarely required. For example in the ranching country of B.C)s centralinterior, encompassing the Cariboo Regional District, Thompson NicolaRegional District and Columbia Shuswap Regional District , theCommission approved 46 Homesite Severances in the 1978-85period. Only 6 of these required full documentation and all wereawarded in the earliest three years of that period (1978-81).The Commission did not provide every pre-1972 landowner with ahomesite severance. Even though documentation was increasinglywaived during this period many applicants were refused homesiteseverance or were granted severance subject to condition #6 of thepolicy in order to mitigate the perceived negative effects that the35homesite subdivision would have on the surrounding agriculturalcommunity. Condition 6 required either:1) the registration of a restrictive covenant against the remnantproperty restricting the building of a residence.2) the legal consolidation (through either the binding of titles orlegal survey) of the remnant with an adjoining property.Both of these restrictions were used to ensure that the remnantproperty would be used for agricultural rather than residentialpurposes. Under the A.L.C. Act and regulations a legal parcel ispermitted oniy one residence unless two or more are deemednecessary for the farm operation. In the Commission’s mind theserestrictions mitigated the perceived negative effects that apermanent residential parcel would create in a farm community.Although these options were used throughout the province theywere most common in the Okanagan because the area wascharacterized by small agricultural properties and subject to intenseurbanizing pressures.Provincial Data for Consolidation and Restrictive CovenantsIn total 37 (9.9%) Homesite Severances throughout the province (outof 374 for the 1978-85 period) were required to consolidate theremnant parcel with an adjoining property (24 in the Okanagan36alone), only 11 (30%) of these approvals were ever concluded,usually because the applicant also owned the adjoining property andhad indicated to the Commission both the opportunity and thewillingness to consolidate. In the same period only 13 (3.5%)restrictive covenants were to be registered against the remnant (10in the Okanangan) restricting the building of a residence. Howeverin contrast to the 30% rate of consolidation more than 50% of theserestrictive covenants were registered. A restrictive covenantensured the remnant could not be used for residential purposes butstill permitted a severance. Although this restriction was used lessfrequently by the Commission it was more popular amonglandowners because nearby farmers could purchase a separate pieceof productive land that could be sold again. What is surprising isthat this option was not utilized more frequently to reduce theinevitable increase in residential density that accompanied homesitesubdivision. A covenant required neither a willing neighbor, nor thefinancial burden of a resurvey yet ensured that the land wouldremain in agricultural production because it could not be sold forresidential purposes.Aside from the Okanagan other regions of the province rarely hadconsolidation and restrictive covenants as conditions to mitigate thenegative impacts of homesite severance. For example in NorthernB.C. only three of the 47 homesite severance approvals between1978 and 1985 were required to consolidate or register a restrictivecovenant restricting dwellings on the remnant property. A possibleexplanation was that property sizes were generally much larger in37the north and the creation of a residential property had little effecton either the productive capacity of the remaining farm operation oron the surrounding farm community.The OkanaganThe Okanagan, when compared to other areas of the province, hadthe lowest average parcel size requesting homesite severance in theAgricultural Land Reserve. In British Columbia the average size of ahomesite applicant’s property was 24.8 ha. In the Okanagan farmproperties were much smaller, especially in the southern and centralfruit growing areas; 5.3 ha in Okanagan Similkameen, 9.0 ha inCentral Okanagan, and 19.5 ha in North Okanagan. It was theCommission’s belief that properties of less than 4.0 ha were likely tobe converted to rural residences following homesite subdivisionrather than remain in agricultural production. Because of this theCommission tended to apply the most severe restrictions onhomesite severance in the central and southern Okanagan. Between1978 and 1985, 24 (15%) of 161 severances in that area wererequired to consolidate the remnant with an adjoining parcel and 10(6.2%) were required to register a restrictive covenant against theremnant parcel restricting the construction of a dwelling.Although the Commission sometimes required consolidation as acondition of homesite severance such decisions were unpopular withthe landowner. The problem confronting the applicant was finding aneighbor willing to buy the remnant property and to bear the38expense of consolidation. Consolidation brought little advantage tothe purchaser, in fact it might even make the farm property moredifficult to sell. In contrast multiple properties brought resaleflexibility and a higher financial return at resale than a single largeproperty of equal sizeHomesite Severance Size - Regional VariationsThe following table indicates both the average lot sizes and the sizeof homesite parcels that characterized each major region.Table 4.2 Average Parcel Size and Homesite Severance Size(in Hectares)1978 - 1985 (for approved H.S.)Parcel Homesite H.S. as aSize (P.S.) Size (H.S.) % of P.S.Northern B.C. 66.0 5.0 7.5%Central B.C. 44.8 2.0 4.5%Kootenays 32.9 3.9 11.8%Vancouver Island 17.5 1.1 6.2%Okanagan 11.2 0.62 5.5%Fraser Valley 10.1 0.63 6.3%The homesite parcel size varied from region to region both in realhectares and as a percentage of the original parcel size because theCommission had no rule or formula that it applied to everyapplication. Each request was affected by local topography, the size39of the property, the type of agricultural activity, the applicant’sexpectations, the location of the home in relation to road access, andaccessory buildings and structures, including wells and septic tanks.In the north where cattle ranches and grain farms comprisingseveral hundred hectares were prevalent it was common to provideapplicants with homesite severances ranging in size from 2 to 6 haand larger. For example the Peace Laud R.D. had an average H.S.size of 3.5 ha (on 21 approvals), and Bulkley Nechako, 3.7 ha (on 11approvals). In contrast retiring orchardists in the Okanagan wereroutinely offered homesite parcels of .4 ha (one acre) or less.The total amount of land taken by the creation of the homesite parcelduring the 1978 -1985 period was 640 ha. The graph noted on thenext page compares the amount of land in each region that was takenfor homesite severance to the total A.L.R. in each region. While thebar figures in the graph indicates the actual amount of land taken byhomesite severance the line superimposed on the bars indicates theamount of land taken by homesite severance as a percentage of theA.L.R. in each region.The overall scale of the area taken for homesite severance is betterappreciated by comparison to the A.L.R. area for the Central FraserValley Regional District, one of the smallest Districts in the province,which contains 28,700 ha of land within the A.L.R.. and the largestsingle district, the Peace River R.D. which has 1.4 million hectares.The amounts shown in the above graph do not necessarily reflect thereal dimension of the issue since the amounts do not include theequivalent amount of arable land that may have been removed fromproduction as new homesites to replace the separated homesites. Itis possible that other farmers purchased these remnant propertiesfor agricultural purposes only and because of existing homes andbarns did not build on the land. What is important to realize thatthe 640 ha lost to homesite severance is a very small amount whencompared to the provincial total of 4.7 million hectares of land in thereserve.40Graph 4.2 Amount of Lond token bg Homesite Severonces1976- 19911611L•1-C.)Q)=.05.04.03CCa)CC-J4’-C.02Northern B.C. Central B.C. Kootenays Vancouver Is Okanagan Fraser Valley.01Regions41Homesite Severance Refusals - Why and How many?In this analysis only the number of homesite severance refusalsoccurring between 1978 and 1985 will be reviewed. There is nocomparable data available for the 1986 to 1991 period because arefusal documented in these years may not have been recorded.Between 1978 and 1985 only 33 severance requests were refusedoutright (9.1% of total requests). The regional breakdown isillustrated in the table on the following page.Table 4.3 Homesite Severance Refusals 1978-1985Regions H.S. H.S. % Av. P.S. Av. H.S. H.S. as a %Appli. Refused Requested of P.S.Northern 82 7 8.5% 66.7 8.8 13.1%Central 71 1 0.01% 40.0* 4.0 10.0%Kootenays 54 3 5.5% 64.0* 28.0 43.7%2.2* 0.2 9.0%3.2* 0.4 12.5%Vanc. Isi. 74 4 5.4% 4.3 1.4 32.5%Okanagan 299 12 4.0% 4.0 0.8 20.0%44.1* 6.6 15.0%Fraser Val. 99 6 6.0% 7.8 0.8 10.2%* This notation indicates that the number is not an average butrepresents a single or anomalous request out of character withthe other figures for the region.42A comparison of the average size of approved homesite severances(Table 4.2) and those requests that were refused (Table 4.3)indicates that although the unsuccessful applicants had requestedslightly larger homesites and had smaller properties overall, manysimilar requests had also been approved by the Commission. Forexample in 1985 the Commission refused a request in the Okanaganfor the subdivision of a .3 ha homesite severance from a 4.0 haproperty21, ostensibly because the remnant parcel was too small tobe considered a viable farm unit. On 14 occasions prior to this theCommission had approved the same size or larger homesiteseverance on a 4.0 ha or smaller property. Although an unsuitableremnant is a legitimate reason for refusal, what would be so difficultfor the farmer to understand is why this rationale was used soarbitrarily (in his mind). It should be remembered that theCommission’s rationale at the time may have been legitimate, theremnant’s area may have been small, largely infertile and difficult todevelop, precluding its use for agriculture. In other cases (wherehomesite severance was approved) the remnant area may have beena similar size but much more able to support agricultural activitybecause of favorable topography and soil quality. To theunsuccessful applicant, especially if he was aware of other nearbyfarmers who had received a homesite severance on a similar sizedproperty, a negative decision may have appeared unfair or evenerratic.21 A.L.C. File #21- 1892443On the whole the Commission has been rather inconsistent in itsrationale for refusing a homesite severance. One possible reason maybe the fact that different sets of Commissioners judged requests onslightly different criteria. Since the makeup of the Commissionchanged regularly the collective mood towards homesite severancemay have varied from year to year.In general a persistent applicant received a homesite severance. Theexistence of the policy indicated to the landowner that if HomesiteSeverance was not an entrenched right it was well on its way tobecoming one. Any refusal was often greeted with disbelief or evenoutrage and was usually quickly reconsidered at the applicant’srequest. Often the Commission would arbitrarily adjust theapplicant’s request if it felt that the homesite was too large. Failingthat, it might require that the remnant be consolidated with anadjoining property or require that a restrictive covenant beregistered against the remnant prohibiting the building of a dwelling.With these options at the Commission’s disposal it is surprising thatany Homesite Severances were refused. What may have occurredon these rare occasions is that the properties under application werecomposed of excellent soils and represented such a high qualityagricultural unit that the refusal was an attempt to discourage thecreation of a homesite of any size. An emphatic refusal rather than acompromise would serve to decrease the likelihood that the negativedecision would be appealed. If any of these thirty threeunsuccessful applicants had persisted they may have been44successful in reaching a satisfactory compromise with theCommission.ConclusionIn total the Commission awarded 374 homesite severances between1978 and December 1985, 236 (63%) of which were not required toregister the right of first refusal documentation required by thepolicy, documentation which was meant to mitigate the negativeeffects of the creation of a non agricultural lot in the rural setting.In the first two years of the policy, (until the retirement of AllanClaridge in 1980), the Commission adhered closely to the policy’sdocumentation requirements; the proof of purchase prior to 1972,the registration of the right of first refusal against the title of thehomesite lot, the five year agreement not to resell the property, andthe submission of an agreement for sale and the transfer of theproperty upon the creation of the homesite. The loss ofCommissioner Claridge and the addition of others to the Commissionwho had not been instrumental in the policy’s development coincidedwith the growing realization that the homesite and the remainderwould never be reunited and resulted in the abandonment of thisrequirement.In general the Commission awarded homesite severances that werein proportion to the overall size of the parent property, employingother restrictive mechanisms (restrictive covenants andconsolidation) when it felt that the subdivision of a homesite and its45replacement on the remnant would seriously affect the agriculturalcapability of the remnant property or the integrity of thesurrounding agricultural community.The total amount of land taken by homesite severance, 640 ha, wascomprised primarily of non arable access and buildings and was notsignificant when compared to the total amounts of land in theAgricultural Land Reserve.The application of the Homesite Severance Policy in the mannerdescribed in this chapter might have persisted for an unknownperiod of time had not the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameenreviewed the Homesite Severance Policy in 1985.46Chapter 5: The 1985 Homesite Severance Review. Rationale andResultsThe Okanagan Similkameen Homesite Severance StudyThe Commission’s 1985 review of Homesite Severance wasprompted by the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen’s studyof the subject, a study undertaken because it was perceived by thisdistrict’s elected officials that the number homesite severanceapplications in the district were increasing and that there wereproblems with the administration of the policy. Between 1974 and1985 about 15% of this district’s total subdivision applicationsconsidered by the Commission under section 20(1) of the A.L.C. Actwere for Homesite Severance, a figure that was significantly higherthan that experienced by other regional districts in the province.The review asked four questions.1) Had the Regional Board and the Commission treated theapplications within the same framework?2) Had the decisions been consistent?3) Were all aspects of the policy workable?4) What occurred to the homesite after permission had been granted;did the applicants follow through with subdivision and actuallykeep the farmhouse as a home?Though the review was primarily concerned with the HomesiteSeverance decisions made after the adoption of the formal policy in1978, it also included data between 1974 and 1978 because duringthis period the Commission had provided a number of applicants47with homesite subdivision without the policy in place. The reportconcluded that out of a total of 109 homesite severance requests, 55were refused and 45 permitted, an overall approval rate of 41% (9applications had no decision or were tabled). It should be noted thatthese numbers do not correlate with the Commission’s data as shownin chapter 4. This is because the district and the Commissiondiffered in its definition of what constituted a homesite severanceapproval; because an extra 4 years of data were included; andbecause the Regional District represented only a portion of theOkanagan’s total area. According to the District, prior to theimplementation of the policy in 1978, only 6 of 28 homesiteapplications were approved (an approval rate of 21%) whilebetween 1978 and 1985 the approval rate climbed to 48% (39approved out of 81 requests).The data relating to the 28 applications received before 1978indicates that the Commission only allowed 6 homesite severancerequests outright, and refused 11. Of the remaining 12; ninerequired consolidation of the remnant with an adjoining parcel or theregistration of a covenant restricting the construction of a dwelling,two were tabled and on one no decision was reached.The District’s review of the Commission’s decisions made after 1978indicates that 27 of 81 (34%) homesite severances occurred withthe full documentation required by the policy (as defined in Chapter4). A further 30 applications (37%) were approved subject to eitherthe conditions of consolidation or covenant while 8 (10%) required48both the policy’s full documentation as well as an additionalcondition of either consolidation or covenant. In total, 65 requestsfor Homesite Severance were approved either outright or subject tothe policy’s conditions or subsequent conditions in the 1978 to 1985period, an overall approval rate of 85%. Seven (7) requests wererefused outright while the remaining 9 were listed as either pending,tabled or had had no decision rendered.Critically viewed, the report, while a valuable source of raw data, isflawed. The most glaring example of the mishandling of data occursin Figure 4 of the report showing that 45 requests for homesiteseverance had been approved while 55 had been refused. In contrastthe report’s Appendix 3 indicates that during the 1978-85 period 81requests for homesite severance were approved either with orwithout restriction, while only 18 had been refused outright. Theremaining 10 were either pending, tabled or had had no decisionrendered. Even if the District had included only those approvalsrequiring documentation (and not those requiring consolidation orcovenant) it is not possible to arrive at a 45/55 approval/refusalratio. Given this apparent sloppy handling of the data it is possiblethat many of the report’s conclusions may be suspect.The report also confirmed that of the 45 approved homesiteSeverances, 24 were finalized and 21 residual properties were sold,usually to neighbors or family members. Contrary to what manyCommissioners had supposed might occur after homesite severance49had occurred, the study concluded that almost all the homesites (23)were retained by their original owners beyond the five year perioddemanded by the Commission.The report then proceeded to critique the Homesite Severancepolicy, rationalizing that since there had been no apparent abuse ofthe policy the documentation developed to guard against abuseshould be abandoned. It concluded that the following policy clauseswere unnecessary or so restrictive and costly that they should beeliminated. These clauses would allow the subdivision of thehomesite only if:1) the remainder of the property was in the process of being sold(clause 2)2) a charge was registered against the remnant providing thepurchaser with the right of first refusal when the homesite wasresold (clause 3).3) an agreement restricting the resale of the remnant for five yearswas concluded between the Commission and the applicant(clause 5).4) the remnant was of a suitable agricultural size (clause 6)Of particular concern was the Commission’s discretionary power torefuse a severance if it felt that the remainder would not be asuitable size from an agricultural perspective. The study’s writersfelt that the region’s farming areas were comprised of a mix ofsmaller hobby and larger commercial farms and that both were of50value to the farm community. Hence it declared that homesiteseverance should be permitted in all situations and not only forcommercial farm operations. The report recommended that the“remainder’s” size should be compatible with surroundingproperties, and not based on some arbitrarily determinedcommercial size based on viability.At approximately the same time as the Okanagan Similkameenreview, a report was submitted to the Commission by JoanneGrimaldi (a councillor from Penticton) which provided theCommission with an opposing view. The report identified 244agricultural parcels of ALR land within Penticton’s city limits ofwhich 98 (40%) were identified as having potential for futurehomesite severance. The primary concern addressed by the reportwas that a homesite severance could become a node of residentialdevelopment in a rural area and that eventually these residentialnodes would demand costly municipal services such as garbagepick-up, snow removal and lighting. In addition the report went onto generally condemn the negative effects of urban sprawl onorchard lands and warned of dire consequences to the fruit industryif steps were not taken to ensure the protection of this scarce landresource.It was in this atmosphere of two opposing sides that theCommission’s 1985 Homesite Severance review was conducted. Asin 1978, much of the input came from the central and southernOkanagan, an orchard region characterized by small uneconomic51parcels and undergoing extreme urbanization pressure. Arrayed onboth sides of the debate were affected agencies and organizations: onone side Penticton’s Grimaldi and other concerned representatives oflocal governments who perceived homesite severance as the thinedge of the urbanization wedge; on the other side the affectedfarmers and landowners whose views were echoed by the Osoyooslocal of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association which praised theHomesite policy for its compassion and urged its retention22At this time another recommendation pertaining to the review wasreceived from the Peace River/Laird Regional District. In a shortletter23 to the Commission three proposals for improving HomesiteSeverance procedure were outlined.1) Fast-Track homesite severance applications.2) Process these applications at the local level.3) Provide all retiring farmers with the homesite option, notonly those who had purchased their property prior to 1972,provided that they had lived on the land for 10 years.In order to ensure that documentation requirements did not delaythe sale of the remainder the District recommended that severanceapplications be ‘fast tracked’ through the application system. Oftenapplicants had complained that the delays associated with22 File letter from B.C. Fruit Growers Association, A.L.C. Homesite SeveranceFile23 File letter from Peace River Laird Regional District, A.L.C. HomesiteSeverance File52forwarding the application and waiting for approval (not to mentionany subsequent documentation delays) were unnecessary and madeit difficult to transfer the remnant parcel.It was also recommended that severance applications be processedat the local level based on strict guidelines rather that at the centraloffice. This arose out of a concern that the decision makers wereremote, arbitrary and unaware of the needs of the local farmers. Inthis theory, a severance should require very little discretionaryjudgement, except perhaps in the determination as to whatconstituted a suitable remnant.The Regional District’s recommendation that any retiring farmerwho had lived on his land for at least ten years, (rather than havingowned his land prior to 1972) be considered for a homesiteseverance reflected the widely held attitude of Peace River areafarmers that there was no agricultural land shortage in northeasternB.C.. They believed that the large farm units of that region couldeasily support many decades or even centuries of homesiteseverance without significant loss of productive capability.The 1985 ReviewOn the 18th of December 1985 the Commission met to discuss theHomesite Severance Policy and more particularly the OkanaganSimilkameen Report and its recommendations. Earlier that year Allan53Claridge had been reappointed to the Commission for a three yearterm and, as expected, was delighted with the findings of theOkanagan Similkameen Regional District’s report. In almost everyrespect the report vindicated Claridge’s assertion that homesiteseverance was necessary and that it would not be abused. Incontrast other Commissioners remained concerned, particularly those(Ian Paton, M.F.Clarke) who had been openly critical of HomesiteSeverance Policy and its negative long term effects on the integrityof the rural community.In their discussion the Commissioners agreed with the OkanaganSimilkameen report’s assessment that both the interim agreementand the right of first refusal requirement were awkward, costly andunnecessary restrictions. Yet they also felt that some documentationas to the intent of sale was essential to ensure that severance wasnot speculative and premature. The Commission differed with thereport’s recommendation that the five year resale agreement beeliminated, believing that the reason why there had been so littleabuse in the past was because of the restriction. This was perhapsa speculative assumption, since much of District’s data pertaining tothe retention of the homesite applied to those approved prior to1978 ( and the need to register a five year agreement). Though therestriction was retained, the remaining reforming effortsconcentrated on ways to streamline the procedure to avoid delaysand financial burdens. The greatest debate centred on whatconstituted a suitable remnant parcel. Should it be a strictlycommercial definition, difficult if not impossible to determine given54the multitude of variables, such as debt, or the use of family labour,or should the remnant be similar in size to parcels in the surroundingarea. No consensus was reached on the issue.The size of a suitable remnant remained the most controversial ofthe issues surrounding the Homesite Severance Policy. One reasonis because historical land subdivision and ownership patterns canbear little relation to the present day commercial viability of a farmoperation. Today many farmers still own their farm properties,but increasingly they seek to expand their operations by acquiringthe rights to use additional properties through lease or rentalagreements. This is particularly true in the lower Fraser Valleywhere agricultural land costs are extremely high. Although in mostparts of the province, property ownership still provides a fairlyaccurate yardstick by which to measure the appropriate land basenecessary for a specific agricultural activity, it is increasinglycommon for farmers to own less land than they require for acommercial farm operation and lease or rent additional lands tomake the operation viable.The result of the review was the updated 1985 guidelines forHomesite Severance, which remained in effect until September 1990.The complete form is included in appendix 1 but the significantchanges are reviewed below.55The 1985 Homesite Severance PolicyThe most significant addition to the Homesite Severance Policy in1985 was the inclusion of clause #2. It stated:Where an applicant for a homesite severance has had a previousapplication approved by the Commission resulting in the creation of alot on the property, the Commission may consider that approval asfulfilling the objectives of the Homesite Severance Policy , and maynegate any further consideration under the Policy.The clause was added to remind successful past applicants that onesubdivision was all they could expect from the Commission. Theelimination of the right to be considered for homesite severance if aprevious subdivision of the property had been approved was toreduce the number of potential applicants. Within the Commission’sdecision-making framework it also gave the Commission an ‘easyout’ when grappling with complex applications where “the heart saidyes but the head said no”. It would become common for theCommissioner’s to allow an applicant’s pre-retirement subdivisionrequest when it became apparent that they would eventually beeligible for consideration under the Homesite Severance Policy. Inshort the addition of this clause tempted the Commission to allowany subdivision request that had been made exclusive of theHomesite Severance policy if in the Commission’s mind the applicantwas eligible for homesite severance at some time. They would thengrant the non homesite severance subdivision on the condition thatthe applicant waive any further rights to Homesite Severance. Thisbecame known as subdivision in lieu of Homesite Severance.56Other changes included the elimination of the right of first refusalclause (as recommended by the Okanagan Similkameen RegionalDistrict’s report) which had already discredited it as an effectivemeans to reunite the severance and the remnant, and the relaxationof the need for providing an interim agreement for sale. Insteaddocumentation was required indicating that the applicant had alegitimate intention to sell the remainder within a specified period oftime. As a safeguard the Commission would not authorize theregistration of the subdivision plan at the land title office unless thetransfer of estate in fee simple was registered concurrently. Thesechanges formalized what had actually been occurring in the past fiveyears as many of the documentation requirements had already beenabandoned.Homesite Severance 1985 to 1991. An AnalysisWhat effect did the review and the subsequent changes to the policyhave upon the Commission’s decision making processes and uponhomesite severance size and frequency? One immediate result ofthe relaxation in the requirements was the number of severancesrequiring full documentation sharply increased. Full documentationnow having been reduced to; proof of purchase prior to 1972, anagreement to resell the remnant and a five year agreement with theCommission not to resell the property. In 1986, the first full year ofthe ‘improved’ policy, the Commission required full documentation57for 35 (73%) requests for homesite severance. In contrast 13severances did not require documentation, however, these were notsubmitted as formal homesite severance requests. Unlike theapprovals prior to 1985 not requiring documentation these approvalshad a slightly different orientation. Usually they were single lotsubdivision requests (or occasionally multi-lot requests) that had ahomesite “flavor”, for building lots for the applicant’s family. Thisissue is discussed later under the heading Subdivision in lieu inHomesite Severance.Between 1985 and 1991 the Commission considered a steady streamof Homesite Severance requests. From a high of 72 in 1984 thenumber of annual approvals declined slightly, averaging just over50 per year. Only two of the six regions maintained and evenincreased their number of homesite severance approvals during thisperiod. Table 5:1 shows the decline of Homesite Severance requestsin the hinterlands of the province and a slight increase in theOkanagan and the Fraser Valley.58Table 5:1 Homesite Severance Anprovals 1978-1991Region H.S. Approvals 78-85 H.S. Approvals 86-91Total #/year Total #/yearNorthern B.C. 47 6.7 29 5.0Central B.C. 46 6.6 24 4.8Kootenays 3 6 5.1 15 3.0Vancouver Island 42 6.0 27 5.4Okanagan 161 23.0 126 25.6Fraser Valley 42 6.0 51 10.2Totals 374 53.4 272 54.4There may be a variety of reasons for the slight change in thedistribution of Homesite Severance approvals. One might be that theabsolute numbers of qualified applicants were declining in certainareas of the province. This decline was expected, especially in areaswhere the agricultural land owning population was relatively small.Even during the policy’s formulation the Commission recognized thathomesite severance was a sunset policy and would eventually beeliminated as the numbers of pre 1972 owners of farmland declined.A possible reason for the relative increase in the homesite severancerequests from the two areas under the greatest urban pressure (theOkanagan and Fraser Valley) may be because it would beeconomically advantageous to create a residential property in arapidly escalating, speculatively driven land market. As populationpressures increase in the Lower Mainland and in the Okanagan every59legitimate opportunity to subdivide rural land will be explored,especially since the land supply is limited24. In hinterland areashigher land availability and lower land prices may erase theeconomic benefits of homesite severance subdivision.Subdivision in Lieu of Homesite SeveranceAfter the 1985 review the Commission began to provide qualifiedhomesite severance applicants with a non homesite subdivisionprovided that the applicant waive any future rights to homesiteseverance. Between 1985 and 1991 the Commission providedqualified homesite severance applicants with 66 non homesitesubdivision’s in lieu of homesite severance. In that same period 206Homesite Severances requiring documentation were approved. Themajority of the subdivisions in lieu of homesite severance involvedtwo types of requests:1) to supply a residential lot(s) for the applicant’s children.2) to solve the question of multiple ownership.A good example of the former occurred in the Regional District ofComox Strathcona in 1989 when the Commission approved the24 It is the Commission’s understanding that some real estate agents in theLower Mainland identify potential Homesite Severance properties and bringthis information to the attention of landowners who are not aware of theirsituation. Such activity could be a partial explanation of the increase inHomesite Severances in the Lower Mainland. Source: B.E. Smith, Planner,Agricultural Land Commission.60subdivision of a .4 ha homesite from a 60 ha property for thequalified applicant’s daughter25. Occasionally the Commission evenpermitted the subdivision of multiple lots for an applicant’s children.An example of the second type of situation occurred in the OkanaganSimilkameen Regional District26. The Commission refused thesubdivision of a 17.4 ha orchard into three equal sized parcels (tosatisfy the three joint owners) on the grounds that the resultingproperties were not large enough to be considered viable agriculturalunits. The Commission did allow the creation of two 8.7 ha lots in lieuof homesite seveiance on the grounds that two lots of 8.7 ha could beconsidered viable agricultural units. Although the previous case didnot reflect this, in the majority of instances the provision ofsubdivision in lieu of homesite severance involved the creation of asmall residential lot. On those rare occasions when this did notoccur the land was usually split into two lots of roughly equal size, asin the case above.The table below compares the numbers of homesite severancespermitted between 1985 and 1991 and the numbers of subdivisionsapproved in lieu of Homesite Severance.25 A.L.C. File #21-1-89-2322726 A.L.C. File # 21-V-88-2211161Table 5:2 A Comparison Homesite Severance andSubdivision in Lieu of Homesite Severance 1985-91Homesite Severance Subdivision in lieu of H.S.Northern B.C. 1 6 13Central B.C. 1 0 15Kootenays 1 0 5Vancouver Island 16 12Okanagan 108 18Fraser Valley 48 3Totals 206 66The table reflects the dominance of Homesite Severance in the tworegions experiencing the greatest amount of urban pressure, theOkanagan and the Fraser Valley. It also indicates that proportionallythe Okanagan and the Fraser Valley were the least likely areas toreceive subdivision in lieu of Homesite Severance. These findingscorroberate those of the previous chapter which indicated that theCommission was also less likely to demand the strict adherence tothe policy’s documentation requirements in the four hinterlandregions (during 1978-1985) than in the areas experiencing intenseurban pressure.Homesite Severance- An Analysis of SizeBetween 1985 to 1991 the Commission did not award homesites thatdiffered significantly in size from those of the earlier period. Table625:3 provides the comparison of the average size of property andseverance in each of the Regional Districts.Table 5.3 A Comparison of Homesite Severance Size andRemnant Parcel Sizes (in hectares) between1985 andl99l.Region Average H.S. Size Average Remnant Size1978-85 1985-91 1978-85 1985-91Northern B.C. 5.0 3.3 66.0 67.1Central B.C. 2.0 2.6 44.8 39.3Kootenays 3.9 3.5 32.9 34.3Vancouver Island 1.1 0.8 17.5 12.3Okanagan 0.62 0.56 11.2 8.0Fraser Valley 0.78 0.78 10.1 11.0The above table indicates the Commission consistently provided ahomesite severance that was between 5 and 10 percent of the size ofthe remnant as it had in the earlier period. In all other aspects thetwo periods were almost identical in terms of size of homesiteprovided and size of remnant. The northern and central interior ofthe province were consistently provided with homesites rangingfrom two (2.0) to four bectares (4.0), while the Fraser Valley,Vancouver Island and the Okanagan were provided with homesitesranging from slightly larger than one hectare to as small as 0.3 ha.63Amount of Land Subdivided by Homesite SeveranceThe following table indicates the amount of land subdivided byhomesite severance in the 1985 to 1991 period and compares thiswith the area lost in 1978 to 1985.Graph 5.1 A Comparison of Land Lost by Creation of HomesiteParcels between 1 978-1 985 and 1986-1 9912301611389246 :::___________23—[fNorthern B.C. Central B.C. Kootenas Van.Isl. Okanagan Fraser V.Region197a—1905_________‘g86 — iggi_________While the numbers of homesite severances for each period are notsimilar (374 between 1978 and 1985; 272 between 1986 and 1991)the comparison serves to illustrate the slight increase in amount of64land lost to homesite severance in the Okanagan and Fraser Valley.In total the Okanagan lost 103 ha between 1986 and 1991 (versus90 ha between 1978 and 1985) while the Fraser Valley lost 44.5 ha.(versus 41.5 ha between 1978 and 1985) In total 484 ha of landwas subdivided by homesite severance in the 1985 to 1991 period,an average of 1.7 ha per request. By way of comparison 640 ha ofland was subdivided by homesite severance with an average size of1.7 ha between 1978 and 1985.ConclusionThe analysis of homesite severance data for the 1985 to 1991 periodindicates that the Commission’s rate of homesite severance approvalwas slightly higher than the earlier period and that the Fraser Valleyand the Okanagan were the two regions that accounted for thisincrease. Also the analysis confirmed that, as a result of the 1985review, documentation requirements of the policy were required inthe majority of instances to ensure compliance with the spirit ofhomesite severance.The total amount of land lost to homesite severance (see Graph 5.1)decreased during this time because the total number of requests andapprovals was fewer than the previous period (the previous periodwas 7 years compared to 6 years for the current period). Theaverage size of a severance, absolutely and proportionally remainedsimilar both regionally and province wide.65As a result of the 1985 changes to the policy a new phenomenabegan to emerge, the provision of subdivision in lieu of homesiteseverance. Although the absolute number of these approvalsremained small (see Table 5.2) when compared to standard homesiteseverance approvals, they began to raise some concerns for theCommissioners and staff. Subdivision in lieu of homesite severancewas seen by both the Commission and the A.L.C. staff as a unsettlingprecedent, increasingly being used inappropriately. The followingchapter will analyze the 1990 debate that this use of the policyprecipitated and the resulting changes to the construction andapplication of the Homesite Severance Policy66Chapter 6: The 1990 Homesite Severance ReviewThe Commission in 1990The two preceding chapters show the permanent effects of homesiteseverance on the Province’s A.L.R.. To many, the creation ofpermanent residential lots and the minor loss of land seemedreasonable given other, far greater concerns regarding thepreservation of agricultural land including, non farm use and nonhomesite subdivision within the Reserve and the actual exclusion ofland from the A.L.R.. Although the varied Commissions andindividual Commissioners had found the policy workable thoughflawed, critics abounded, both on the Commission and within theA.L.C. staff. To these it remained an annoying loophole thoughwhich opportunistic farmers and landowners degraded theagricultural land base and farm community. Increasingly the policycame under criticism from certain Commissioners as the old guardbegan to change.Following the 1985 Homesite Severance review the Commissioncontinued to undergo personnel changes. Ian Paton, a Delta dairyfarmer, was the longest serving member by 1990, having served asa Commissioner since 1981 and Chairman since 1983. Allan Claridgewas again reappointed in 1988 and 1989 to consecutive one yearterms. In the spring of 1990 he was replaced by Rod King (also anorchardist) whose appointment precipitated the 1990 review of the67Homesite Severance Policy. Other recent appointees, Jim Collins, JohnMalenstyn, and Harold Allison had become increasingly critical ofboth the existence and application of the policy but it was theaddition of Rod King and the retirement of Allan Claridge (thepolicy’s originator) that brought the policy to the forefront of theCommission’s agenda.Between 1985 and 1990 the number of Homesite Severanceapplications remained small both absolutely and proportionallywhen compared to all other subdivision requests, averagingapproximately 50 per year (as compared with 400-500 subdivisionapplications per year). As noted both the Commission and staff grewdissatisfied with the policy on principle because it was being used tojustify non homesite subdivisions for many pre 1972 landowners.Unlike the 1985 review, the 1990 Homesite Severance review wasinstigated internally by the Commission and no advice was solicitedfrom any local government or outside agricultural organization. Theonly input requested by the Commission was from A.L.C. staff whowere invited to submit their comments on the policy in writing, andto present them at a meeting scheduled for September 7, 1990.At this meeting both the staff and Commissioners discussed theissue. Almost without exception those in attendance believed thatHomesite Severance subdivision increased urbanizing pressures inrural areas. Though many of the staff and Commissioners opposedthe retention of the policy, a number of key staff and Commissionersheld a different view.68Their concern was that Homesite Severance was perceived by thepresent Social Credit government and B.C. farmers as an entrenchedright, a non discretionary regulation 27• Their argument wasthreefold. Rescinding the policy would:1) reduce the credibility of the Commission with the provincialgovernment.2) lead to the imposition of a non discretionary regulation. Thisargument was supported by the belief that the policy was akey factor that had made the legislation palatable toa generally unsupportive provincial government.3) create a level of unfairness to those landowners who wereeligible but had not yet made an appeal for homesiteseverance because they were not yet prepared to retire.These arguments reflected a sensitivity to existing political realities.The policy’s supporters within the Commission recognized the A.L.C.’sexistence and continued influence rested on widespread publicsupport for the legislation and not upon the present (Social Credit)government’s level of ideological support for restrictions on the useof agricultural land. They believed that a loss of credibility would27 September 10 1990 meeting of the Agricultural Land Commission,Unpublished notes.69accompany the rescinding of Homesite Severance Policy and wouldprovide the provincial government with the justification to impose anon-discretionary homesite severance regulation. They alsoindicated a more profound impact, that it was possible that therescinding of the policy could even provide the rationale to eradicatethe Agricultural Land Reserve.Finally those in favour of retaining the policy argued that it was a‘sunset’ policy that at worst had only a minor impact on thealienation of agricultural land especially when compared to theCommission’s overall approval rate for subdivision. Theirrecommendations were to tighten up the wording in the policy inorder to emphasize its discretionary aspect, and above all to apply itconsistently. These recommendations reflected the three mostcommon problems with the policy.1) Inconsistency. Often the Commission would refuse a request forhomesite severance or approve it subject to consolidation only tosubsequently overturn its original decision after repeatedrequests from the applicant. In addition similar requests insimilar situations might not receive equal consideration. For noapparent reason other than the persistence of an applicant, onerequest might be approved, while the other refused.2) Viability. The most common criticism was that homesiteseverances were being awarded when it was obvious that the70remnant parcel was not large enough to be considered a suitableagricultural property.3) Subdivision in lieu of Homesite Severance. There was greatconcern that the policy was being improperly used as a shortcutto eliminate future homesite applications (subdivision in lieu ofhomesite severance). It was concluded that the Commissionshould return to the stricter application of the policy guidelinesthat had characterized the the earliest period of the policy’sexistence.At a subsequent meeting of the Agricultural Land Commission it wasconcluded that the following changes should be made to thepreamble of the policy.Persons making use of this policy should understand clearly that:a) no one has an automatic right to a “homesite severance”b) the Commission shall be the final arbiter as to whether aparticular “homesite severance” meets good land use criteria:c) a prime concern of the Commission will always be to ensure thatthe “remainder” will constitute a suitable agricultural parcel.The detailed wording and organizational changes to the HomesiteSeverance Policy and its explanatory covering letter dated October7111 1990 can be found in Appendix 2. The reworded document wasthen circulated among all the Province’s Regional and MunicipalGovernment offices. It represents a return in many ways to theoriginal stringent requirements of the first Commission. Thepreamble was particularly clear emphasizing that a homesiteseverance decision would be based on good land use criteria, which ifnot met, could override the eligibility for the policy requirement.Also it emphasized the discretion of the Commission over anyinferred rights of the retiring farmer.Most of the changes to the policy involved the reorganization of thetext to improve its clarity. The content was not changed significantlyfrom the 1985 Policy Guidelines except in applicable instances wherethe Commission’s discretion was emphasized. Specifically in Clause#5 it is emphasized that the Commission may deny the severance ifthe ‘remainder’ is of an unacceptable size or configuration from anagricultural perspective.In general the 1990 changes to the Homesite Severance policy werepositive. It was hoped that the reorganization of the text and theemphasis upon its discretionary nature would bring about a renewedconsistency in its application. It is interesting to note that withoutexception those involved in the 1990 review agreed that theintroduction of permanent residential lots into rural communitieshad a detrimental long term effect on agriculture (as noted inChapter 3) . What was disputed was the extent of the overallcontribution of Homesite Severance subdivisions to this problem.72Homesite Severance in 1991The number of homesite severance approvals in 1991 droppedsignificantly, to 26, from an average of 50 per year between 1986and 1990. This was not a result of the drop in homesite severancerequests. Like the previous five year period there were over 50requests in 1991. Instead the drop in approvals reflected theCommission’s renewed commitment to consistency and its exercise ofcritical judgement as to what constitutes a suitable agriculturalremnant.Since the adoption of the amended policy on September 17 1990 theCommission provided only two subdivision’s in lieu of HomesiteSeverance in the following year (1991). One approval divided a fourha property in the North Okanagan into two lots of roughly equalsize. The other, also in the North Okanagan, provided a homesitetype subdivision for the applicant’s daughter. On average,subdivision in lieu of Homesite Severance had been permitted at arate of 13 per year since 1985. This drop in 1991 indicates thateven with the retention of the clause permitting the Commission toconsider a previous subdivision as fulfilling the spirit of homesiteseverance it is less likely to provide non homesite subdivision evenif the applicant qualifies for homesite severance.The 1990 review encapsuled the continuing debate as to whetherhomesite severance was harmful to the A.LR.. Advocates felt thepolicy was politically necessary and had only a small negative impacton the Reserve. Critics continued to believe that the policy washarmful in the long term to the integrity of farm communities. TheCommission’s response in 1991 was, as promised in the renewedpolicy, to become more discriminating in its approval of homesiteseverance.7374Chapter 7: ConclusionLoss of LandSince the creation of Homesite Severance Policy in 1978 until 1991,the Commission has provided approval for 646 non agriculturalparcels within the rural community comprising approximately 1,124ha of homes, yards and driveways and productive land. As notedearlier in the study some, though not all of these homes, have beenreplaced on the remnant’s arable land. However the greatest concernto critics of the policy is not the amount or quality of agriculturalland that may have been lost to homesite severance. Although areasof prime capability have been lost through the provision of homesiteseverance the study indicates the 1,124 ha subdivided for thispurpose is proportionally very small when compared to the overallamount of land within the Reserve. In addition it is extremely smallwhen compared with land lost through exclusion (under Section12(1) of the Act) from the Reserve over the 1974 to 1989 period,some 104,920 ha28.Negative Impact of Urban/Rural ConflictInstead it is the creation of a permanent non farm property withinthe farm community that is perceived as the most serious long termconsequence of homesite severance. Chapter 3 indicated in detail28 The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Agricultural Land ReserveStatistics, January 1, 1990.75some of the possible scenarios that can arise from the juxtapositionof urban and rural mindset. As yet there is no indication thathomesite severance has contributed to a specific conflict with anexisting farm operation. However, the continued creation of theselots, particularly in the areas under the greatest urban pressureenhances the potential for conflict to arise.In order to understand the contribution of homesite severance to thepotential for creating problems of urban rural conflict within theA.L.R. the number of subdivisions that occur yearly within the A.L.R.must be compared with the number of homesite severances.Requests for subdivision within the A.L.R. average 500 per year(based on data from 1985 to 1989) of which an average of 270 areapproved29. A sample year, 1989 (chosen because it most closelyapproximates the five year average) shows that out of 272subdivision requests that were allowed, 630 lots were created, 53%smaller than 3 hectares30. It is unlikely that any property of thissize would be used for strictly agricultural purposes. By way ofcomparison, in 1989, fifty four (54) homesite severances werecreated, 8.5% of the 630 non homesite lots and only 16% of the lots ofless than 3.0 hectares. While the contribution of homesite severanceto the problem of residential properties within the reserve cannot beignored it is clearly not the primary source of these small properties.29 The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Agricultural Land ReserveStatistics, January 1, 1989.30 The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Agricultural Land ReserveStatistics, January 1, 1990.76The purpose of any policy is to achieve a specified objective. Theoriginal narrow objective of Homesite Severance Policy was to easethe financial and social dislocation of the retiring farmer (caught bythe restrictive A.L.R.) by allowing him both to remain in his homeupon retirement and to retain the financial equity built over theyears. Although the policy contributes to potential ruralresidential conflict and can lead to the loss of arable land it is aminor offender when compared to the overall rate of subdivisionapproval and exclusion (as noted above). There also remaincompelling political and social arguments for its retention. It mustalso be admitted that the latest amendments may provide theframework for a much stronger policy providing that the Commissionapplies it consistently. It has often been argued the HomesiteSeverance policy is of minor and declining concern and that it shouldbe retained. On the whole the study has corroborated this contentionand confirmed that the policy, with a few exceptions has beenapplied with sensitivity to protect both the integrity of the farmcommunity and the needs of the retiring farmer.RecommendationsThe following are suggestions which if employed might increase theCommission’s decision-making consistency and mitigate the negativeimpact of the Homesite Severance upon the rural landscape.1) Create a chart of the minimum land base sizes necessary for themost common current commercial agricultural operations. Also77an ancillary chart should be established to provide new andinexperienced staff and Commissioners with the sizes ofHomesite severance and remnants that have been allowed in thepast in each region. These standards would help the Commissionbe consistent and provide an understanding of what constitutesa suitable remnant parcel. It must be recognized that thesestandards cannot be considered hard and fast rules given thewide variety and regional variations (based on soil and climate)of the land base needs for agricultural operations.2) Employ the use of the restrictive covenant more frequently(restricting a dwelling), especially in those situations where theremnant size may be marginal. Restricting the construction of aresidence is an effective way to eliminate the likelihood that theremnant will be utilized as a residential parcel. It allows thefarmer his homesite severance but also ensures that the remnantwill be sold for farm purposes and at farm prices.3) The Commission could make homesite severance nondiscretionary, especially if it is convinced that the policy hasredeeming social value and is of minor and declining concern.Under this option the administration of the process could beachieved through local government in accordance with aregulation provided by the Commission. The shedding of thisresponsibility would alleviate both the Commission’s and the staffworkload and continue to streamline the approval process.78It is hoped that the principles gleaned from this study may be usefulto policy makers in other jurisdictions motivated by both a concernfor the preservation of the agricultural resource and fair treatmentfor landowners. Certainly there is evidence that the farm andlandowning community may find radical farmland preservationprograms more palatable if provision is made for their retirementwithin the program. Conversely policy makers can be assured thatmodest provision for the retiring farmer has only a minimal impacton the agricultural land base (provided the retirement policy has asunset clause). With these principles in mind it seems likely thatfair but effective farmland preservation programs may be proposedand accepted more readily.79BibliographyAgricultural Land Commission Act, B.C. Reg. 3 13/78, Agricultural LandReserve Procedure Regulation, Consolidated October 31,1988.Agricultural Land Commission Act, Chapter 9, Consolidated November14, 1986.Agricultural Land Commission Act, Agricultural Land CommissionSubdivision and Land Use Regulation, Consolidated June 30,1988.Basran G.S. and Hay D.A., The Political Economy of Agriculture inWestern Canada, Garamond Press, Toronto, Canada, 1988.Cocking, Florence Irene, A Comparison of the NDP and Social CreditAgricultural Land Commission Policy, Unpublished MastersThesis, University of British Columbia, 1982.Corbett, R. Ed., Protecting Our Common Future: Conflict ResolutionWithin the Farming Community, C.M.H.C., 1982.Daniels, T.L., Nielson, A.L., Is OregontFarmland Preservation ProgramWorking, Journal-American Planning Association, 52-11986, pp.22-3.French and Associates, Vancouver Urban Fringe Land Tenure Study,prepared for Agriculture Canada, Regional DevelopmentBranch, March 1983.Furuseth, 0. J., Pierce J. T., Agricultural Land in an Urban Society.Commercial Printing Inc., State College, Pennsylvania, 1982.A80Gihis, Mark H., An Analysis of Landowner’s Attitudes Towards theBritish Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve. UnpublishedMasters Thesis, U.B.C. 1980.Graesser Alice, Regulating Urban Encroachment on Agricultural Land:A Study of the Relationship Between Small Municipalitiesand the British Columbia Agricultural Land CommissionUnpublished Masters Thesis, U.B.C. 1981.Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research, IhUrban Fringe in the Western Provinces, September 1979Jenkins, Phil, Fields of Vision: A Journey to Canada’s Family FarmMcClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1991Lusztig, Peter A., Report of the Commission of Inquiry-British ColumbiaTree Fruit Industry, May 1990Leung, Hok Lin, Policy Planning and Evaluation. R. P. Frye and CompanyWinnipeg, 1985,Manning, M.W., Eddy S.S., The Agricultural Land Reserves of BritishColumbia: An Impact Analysis, Lands Directorate,Environment Canada, Ottawa, 1978.Manning, E.W., Agricultural Land Protection Mechanisms in Canada,Environment Council of Alberta, Edmonton,1983.Pierce, J.T., The B.C. Agricultural Land Commission: a Review andEvaluation, Plan Canada, Canadian Institute of Planning, 21:2.1981.Province of British Columbia (1982), “A Guide to the RelationshipBetween Agricultural Land Reserves and Local Government81Plans and Bylaws”, jointly published by the British ColumbiaMinistry of Municipal Affairs and the Provincial AgriculturalLand Commission, November 1982.Province of British Columbia (1989), “The Municipal Act”The Queen’s Printer for B.C., Victoria, 1989.Rawson, Mary, Ill Fares the Land. Land Use Management at the Urban!Rural/Resource Edges: The British Columbia LandCommission, Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, 1976.Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen, Homesite Severance PolicyReview, 1985.Roy, Denis A., An Analysis of Techniques to Preserve Agricultural Land.Unpublished Masters Thesis, U.B.C. 1980.Runka, G., Jurisdictional Rights: Who Has the Responsibility?,Agrologist, Autumn, 21,1975.Smith, Barry E., The British Columbia Land Commission Act,Unpublished Masters Thesis, U.B.C., 1974.Steacy, Newton, P., A Brief Dealing with the Problems of The Small FarmUnit in British Columbia. Presented to the Special Committeeof the Senate on Land Use in Canada, May 1959.The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Agricultural Land ReserveStatistics, January 1, 1990.The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Ten Years of AgriculturalLand Preservation in British Columbia. December 1983.The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Agricultural Land ReserveStatistics, January 1, 1989.82The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Annual Report. March 31,1988.The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Annual Report, March 31,1987.Urban Land Economics, The British Columbia Land Commission Act- AReview, Faculty of Commerce and Business AdministrationUniversity of British Columbia, 1974InterviewsJim Plotnikoff, Senior Planner, Agricultural Land CommissionBarry Smith, Policy Planner, Agricultural Land CommissionAllan Claridge, Commissioner, 1976 to 1980, 1986 to 1990Unpublished Notes, September 10 1990 Commission/Staff meetingLetters, reports and minutes quoted in the paper all reside in the HomesiteSeverance file at the Agricultural Land Commission Office in BurnabyB.C.83A Regional Distribution of Agricultural Land Reservesin British ColumbiaC i.Th.IN___:•__Northern B.C.I I KootenaysI Vancouver IslandI I OkanaganI Fraser Valley Contiguous A.L.R.s_Interior B.C.Source: Atlas of British Columbia and Files of the Agricultural Land Commision84Appendix 18518 December 1985Homesite Severance — Guidelines (Internal Policy)The Agricultural Land Commission would consider applicationsunder Section 20(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act forthe severance of an applicants homesite from lands within theAgricultural Land Reserve only in situations where the propertywas the principal residence of the applicant as owner occupanton 21 December 1972, and subject to the following guidelines:1. A once only severance may be permitted where theapplicant was the owner and occupied the property as hisprincipal place of residence on 21 December 1972. (Proofrequired.)2. Where the applicant for a homesite severance has had aprevious application approved by the Commission resultingin the creation of a lot on the property, the Commissionmay consider that approval as fuilfilling the objectivesof the homesite severance policy, and may negate anyfurther consideration under the homesite severance policy.3. Applicable only at the time of sale of the property asevidenced by some documentation showing a legitimateintention to sell the remainder of the property uponapproval of the application for homesite severance. Aninterim agreement for sale, a written statement of intentto purchase by a prospective buyer, a real estatelisting, or some other written evidence of a pending realestate transaction would be acceptable as documentation.In considering the application the Commission may makeits approval subject to sale of the remainder within aspecified period of time.4. The size of the homesite should be a minimum sizecompatible with the character of the property plus areasonable area, where required, for legal accesspurposes. Where the location of the existing homesite issuch that the creation of a parcel encompassing thehomesite would, in the Commission’s opinion, createpotential difficulty for the agricultural operation ormanagement of the remainder, the Commission may, as itdeems appropriate, approve the creation of a lotelsewhere on the subject property.continued.. ./286page 25. The Commission will issue an order stipulating that acondition of the approval is that the homesite is not tobe resold for five years except in the case of estatesettlements. Be,fore the final approval is given, theCommission order is to be supplemented by a writtenundertaking or standard notarized contractual cornmittmentto the Commission to this effect from the owner.6. Where the remainder of the property after the severanceof the homesite is, in the Commission’s opinion, of anunacceptable size from an agricultural perspective,either the balance must be consolidated with an adjacentproperty or a covenant placed on the remainder preventingthe construction of any dwellings.7. Upon approval of the Agricultural Land Commission,Regional Districts and Municipalities are encouraged tohandle such applications in the same manner as Section996 applications under the Municipal Act insofar ascompliance with local bylaws is concerned.87Appendix 211-59 88British Columbia Telephone: (604) 660-700Agricultural V Faxcom: (604) 660-7033Land Commission Room 133, 4940 Canada Way, Burnaby, B.C. V5G 4K611 October 1990TO: All Local Governments (including Islands Trust)RE: Revisions to Homesite Severance Guidelines (Internal Policy)The Commission has recently undertaken a review of its Homesite Severance Policy.The Commission gave serious consideration to the views of many local governmentsand farm organizations who have in the past offered the view that the HomesiteSeverance Policy should be abandoned or modified. After a review of the matter andafter discussion of the implications of various possibilities, the Commission concludedthat the Policy should remain in place but that it would be appropriate to restate theguidelines with emphasis on certain modifications.As a result, attached to this letter you will find the Agricultural Land Commission’srecent policy statement on Homesite Severances as adopted by Resolution #829/90.The following is intended to highlight for you the policy changes and the reasonsbehind those changes.You will note that the preamble has been expanded and clarified. Although manypublic officials and members of the general public are under the impression that therules for allowing homesite severances are to be found in the Agricultural LandCommission Act and Regulations, the fact is that the Homesite Severance Guidelinesare an internal policy of the Agricultural Land Commission, aimed at providing a levelof consistency to decisions affecting one particular type of subdivision applicationunder Section 20(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Because these policyguidelines have been in effect in one form or another for over twelve years, somepeople have gained the mistaken impression that there is a prescriptive right to ahomesite severance. This has never been the case. Since the outset, the policy has•always maintained the principle that the needs of the retiring farmer (or other rurallandowner) are to be weighed against the suitability of the parcel to supportagriculture. This principle is now stated in the preamble to the policy guidelines.The intent of guideline number 1 has not changed except to clarify that the propertymust have been the applicant’s continuous place of principal residence since 21December 1972.>289Homesite Severance Policy lI-59aPage 2 - 11 October 1990The intent of guideline number 3 has not changed from the previous policy, but theCommission wished to make it clear that the policy is not intended to deal with a futurespeculation but rather would apply only when a person has made and committed tothe decision to retire and sell the remainder of the farm (as opposed to an intention toretire several years down the road). Thus the application will only be considered whenthe owner can demonstrate a current intent to sell and the subdMsion plan itself willonly be authorized when a buyer is in place. The Commission is not willing to letmatters drag on indefinitely and may (where conditions warrant) place a time limit onthe completion of the severance.Guidelines numbers 4 and 5 have been modified to stress the fact that theCommission is not bound to approve every homesite severance application if it feelsthat the proposal would compromise the agricultural integrity of the area or if theremainder of the property after severance is not of a size or configuration that wouldconstitute a suitable agricultural parcel. As also noted in the discussion in thepreamble, there is a perception amongst the public that there is a prescriptive right toa homesite severance; these changes are intended to clarify that there may becircumstances where the Commission may totally refuse a homesite severanceproposal.The remainder of the guidelines are principally the same as the earlier policy except forminor changes in the wording to clarify the intent.Yours trulyAGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSIONpeJ/K.B. Miller, A/General ManagerKAP:js (attachment)cc: The Honourable John SavageMinister of Agriculture and FisheriesB.C. Federation of Agriculture9011-60HOMESITE SEVERANCE POLICY SEPTEMBER 1990Since June 1978, the Agricultural Land Commission has had an internal policyintended to guide the Commission in its decisions on “homesite severance”applications, that is applications under Section 20(1) of the Agricultural LandCommission Act for the severance of an applicant’s homesite from lands within theAgricultural Land Reserve where the property has been the principal residence of theapplicant as owner-occupant since 21 December 1972.Persons making use of this policy should understand clearly that:a. no one has an automatic right to a uhomeske severance”;b. the Commission shall be the final arbiter as to whether a particular “homesiteseverance” meets good land use criteria; (see #4 below)c. a prime concern of the Commission will always be to ensure that the“remainder” will constitute a suitable agricultural parcel. (see #5 below)Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following guidelines apply to“homesite severance” applications.1. A once only severance may be permitted where the applicant submitsdocumentary evidence that he or she has continuously owned and occupied theproperty as his or her principal place of residence since 21 December 1972.2. Where an applicant for a “homesite severance” has had a previous subdivisionapplication approved by the Commission resulting in the creation of a separateparcel, the Commission may consider the previous approval as having fulfilledthe objectives of the Homesite Severance Policy and may deny any furtherconsideration under the Homesite Severance Policy.3. An application for a “homesite severance” will be considered only where theapplicant submits documentary evidence showing a legitimate intention to sellthe remainder of the property upon approval of the “homesite severance”application. [An interim agreement for sale, a prospective buyer’s writtenstatement of intent to purchase, a real estate listing, or some other writtenevidence of a pending real estate trans-action would be acceptable asdocumentation.]In considering the application, the Commission may make its approval subject* to sale of the remainder within a specified period of time.A Certificate of Order authorizing the deposit of the subdivision plan will beissued to the Registrar of Land Titles only when a “transfer of estate in feesimple” or an “agreement for sale” is being registered concurrently.11-61 91page 24. There will be cases where the Commission considers that good land use criteriarule out any subdivision of the land because subdivision would compromise theagricultural integrity of the area, and the Commission must therefore exercise itsdiscretion to refuse the “homesite severance’.Where the Commission decides to allow a ‘homesite severance’, there are twooptions:a. the existing homesite may be created as a separate parcel where it is ofa minimum size compatible with the character of the property (plus areasonable area) where required) for legal access purposes); orb. where the location of the existing homesite is such that the creation of aparcel encompassing the homesite would, in the Commission’s opinion,create potential difficulty for the agricultural operation or management ofthe “remainder”, the Commission may, as it deems appropriate, approvethe creation of a parcel elsewhere on the subject property.5. The remainder of the subject property after severance of the homesite must beof a size and configuration that will, in the Commission’s opinion, constitute asuitable agricultural parcel. Where, in the Commission’s opinion, the“remainder” is of an unacceptable size or configuration from an agriculturalperspective, there are three options:a. the Commission may deny the “homesite severance”;b. the Commission may require that the “remainder” be consolidated with anadjacent parcel; orc. the Commission may require the registration of a covenant against thetitle of the “remainder” and such a covenant may prohibit the constructionof dwellings.6. A condition of every Thomesite severanc& approved by the Commission shallbe an order stipulating that the homesite is not to be resold for five years exceptin the case of estate settlements. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Orderauthorizing deposit of the subdivision plan, the owner shall file with theCommission a written undertaking or standard notarized contractualcommitment to this effect.7. Where a “homesite severance” application has been approved by theCommission, local governments and approving officers are encouraged tohandle the application in the same manner as an application under Section 996of the Municipal Act insofar as compliance with local bylaws is concerned.HOMESITE.TP
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Planning
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Homesite severance policy: its evolution and impact on the agricultural land base of British Columbia
Text