Agricultural Land Commission

201 – 4940 Canada Way

Burnaby, British Columbia V5G 4K6
Tel: 604 660-7000
Fax: 604 660-7033
www.alc.gov.bc.ca

May 4, 2018 ALC File: 56444

Marcon Developments Ltd.

DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY

Attention: Bud Eaton

Re: Application 56444 to exclude land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
Please find attached the Reasons for Decision of the Executive Committee for the above noted
application (Resolution #143/2018). As agent, it is your responsibility to notify the applicant
accordingly.

Review of Decisions by the Chair

Under section 33.1 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act (ALCA), the Chair of the
Agricultural Land Commission (the Commission) has 60 days to review this decision and
determine if it should be reconsidered by the Executive Committee in accordance with the
ALCA. You will be notified in writing if the Chair directs the reconsideration of this decision. The
Commission therefore advises that you consider this 60 day review period prior to acting upon
this decision.

Request for Reconsideration of a Decision

Under section 33(1) of the ALCA, a person affected by a decision (e.g. the applicant) may
submit a request for reconsideration. The request must be received within one (1) year from the
date of this decision’s release. For more information, refer to ALC Policy P-08: Request for
Reconsideration available on the Commission website.

Please direct further correspondence with respect to this application to Sara Huber at
(Sara.Huber@gov.bc.ca).

Yours truly,

Sara Huber, Land Use Planner

Enclosures: Reasons for Decision (Resolution #143/2018)

Schedule A: Decision Map

cc: Township of Langley (File: 08-24-0057/AL100329) Attention: Joel Nagtegaal

Page 1 of 1
 AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION FILE 56444
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Exclusion application submitted under s. 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act

Applicant: Tara Ridge Estates Inc, Inc No 410187

Agent: Bud Eaton, Marcon Developments Ltd.

Property: Parcel Identifier: 007-546-131

Legal Description: South West Quarter, Section
24, Township 8, Except: Part Subdivided By Plan
1612, New Westminster District
Civic: 21198 Smith Crescent, Langley
Area: 21.2 ha

Executive Committee: Frank Leonard, Chair

William Zylmans, South Coast Panel Chair
Linda Michaluk, Island Panel Chair
Richard Mumford, Interior Panel Chair
Dave Merz, North Panel Chair
Gerald Zimmerman, Okanagan Panel Chair

Page 1 of 9
 ALC File 56444 Reasons for Decision

OVERVIEW

[1] The Property is located within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as defined in s. 1 of the
Agricultural Land Commission Act (the ALCA). The Property is located within Zone 1 as
defined in s. 4.2 of the ALCA.

[2] The Applicant is applying to the Agricultural Land Commission (the “Commission”) to
exclude 8 ha from the ALR in order to implement the long-term land use planning objectives
to use this land for urban expansion and as a transportation corridor in accordance with the
Willoughby Plan and the Township’s Official Community Plan (OCP) (the “Proposal”).

[3] The issue the Executive Committee considered is whether the Proposal is consistent
with the Commission’s comments in Resolutions #967/1990 and #232/1998 regarding
the proposed transportation corridor and associated exclusion.

[4] The Proposal was considered in the context of the purposes of the Commission set out
in s. 6 of the ALCA. These purposes are:
(a) to preserve agricultural land;
(b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other
communities of interest; and
(c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to
enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible
with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies.

EVIDENTIARY RECORD

[5] The Proposal along with related documentation from the Applicant, Agent, local government,
Commission, and third parties is collectively referred to as the “Application”. All
documentation in the Application was disclosed to the Agent in advance of this decision.

[6] On February 7, 2018, the Executive Committee conducted a meeting with the Applicant and
Agent at the ALC Office (the “Applicant Meeting”). An applicant meeting report was prepared

Page 2 of 9
 ALC File 56444 Reasons for Decision

and was certified as accurately reflecting the observations and discussions of the Applicant
Meeting by the Agent on March 15, 2018 (the “Applicant Meeting Report”).

[7] Representatives of the Executive Committee (Chair of the Commission, Frank Leonard,
and Vice Chair for the South Coast Panel Region, William Zylmans) conducted a walk-
around and meeting site visit on March 6, 2018 in accordance with the ALC Policy
Regarding Site Visits in Applications, (the “Site Visit”). A site visit report was prepared in
accordance with the Policy Regarding Site Visits in Applications. The site visit report
was certified as accurately reflecting the observations and discussions of the Site Visit
by the Agent on March 15, 2018 (the “Site Visit Report”).

BACKGROUND

[8] The Commission has considered various plans referred by the Township of Langley (the
“Township”) and Metro Vancouver regarding the use of the Property for urban expansion
and a transportation corridor.

[9] In 1990, the Township referred the Willowbrook Land Use Plan to the Commission for
review and comment. By Resolution #967/1990, the Commission provided the following
comments with respect to the Property:
• Endorsement of the proposed southerly extension of 212 Street traversing the ALR;
• Endorsement of the residential designation of the Property as ‘Single Family’;
• That it would be appropriate to consider exclusion of the 212 Street extension, along
with the portion of the Property northwest of the proposed roadway (approximately
6.5 ha); and,
• That the new ALR boundary in this specific area would follow the southeast side of
the proposed roadway.

[10] In 1998, the Township referred the draft Willoughby Community Plan to the Commission
for review and comment. By Resolution #232/1998, the Commission provided the following
comments with respect to the Property:

Page 3 of 9
 ALC File 56444 Reasons for Decision

• Agreement to the eventual exclusion of the ALR land identified as “Block 3” (i.e. the
portion of the Property directly northwest of the proposed 212 Street extension);
• Non-support for the proposed greenway within the ALR, adjacent to 212 Street;
• Recommendation for the Township to establish a Development Permit Area
designation adjacent to the ALR; and,
• Request for the Township to provide the Commission with opportunity to comment
on subsequent neighbourhood plans with respect to drainage, land use patterns,
subdivision layouts, buffering and screening, which may impact the ALR.

[11] In 2003, the Township provided an overview of the Northeast Gordon Estate
Neighbourhood Plan (NGENP) to the Commission for review and comment. By Resolution
#609/2003, the Commission provided the following comments with respect to the Property:
• That the draft NGENP did not meet the criteria set out in Resolution #232/1998 for
the exclusion of “Block 3” (i.e. the portion of the Property directly northwest of the
proposed 212 Street extension); and,
• That the Township should address planning for the retention of “Block 3” within the
ALR.

In reference to Resolution #609/2003, the Commission also sent a letter to the Township
which specifically stated the following with respect to the Property:
• That the draft NGENP did not meet the criteria set out in Resolution #967/1990
for exclusion of the portion of the Property previously identified (i.e. “Block 3”);
and,
• That the Township should address planning for the retention of the Property
within the ALR.

[12] In 2005, the Township referred a revised draft of the NGENP to the Commission for
review and comment. By Resolution #149/2005, the Commission did not make any specific
comments with regards to the Property; however, the Commission did identify three items of
concern:

Page 4 of 9
 ALC File 56444 Reasons for Decision

• Item 1: The Commission was unable to support the draft plan and that the
Commission required a better understanding of the Township’s larger transportation
strategy;

• Item 2: The Commission needed a better understanding of the long-term strategy for
stormwater management in farm areas;

• Item 3: The Commission wanted more study and specifics provided as to the
agriculture/urban interface

[13] In 2006, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board, now Metro Vancouver,
initiated the preparation of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). The RGS process involved
consultation with key stakeholder groups and government agencies, including the
Commission. In 2010, the regional bylaw was introduced for the RGS and final adoption was
given by the GVRD Board in July 2011. The Property was designated as “General Urban”
within the Urban Containment Boundary of the RGS. The Commission did not provide
written comment to oppose the proposed “General Urban” designation for the Property.

[14] In 2007, the Township developed a draft Master Transportation Plan (MTP), which
specifically addressed the proposed 212 Street extension through the Property. In 2010, the
Township’s Council endorsed the MTP and proceeded with amendments to the OCP to
incorporate the MTP road classifications. While comment on the road classifications was
requested of the Commission, there is no record of a formal response.

[15] In 2012, the Township initiated a process to prepare a comprehensive update to the
Official Community Plan first adopted in 1979. The process included consultation with
stakeholders and government agencies, including the Commission. In 2013, a bylaw was
introduced to amend the OCP which identified the Property as “Urban”. The Commission
provided written comments to the Township which did not oppose the proposed “Urban”
designation for the Property.

Page 5 of 9
 ALC File 56444 Reasons for Decision

[16] In 2017, the current Application was submitted. At this time, Commission staff requested
information on the status of the three issues identified in Resolution #149/2005, to which the
Township stated that the Commission’s concerns had been addressed, and provided the
following:

• Item 1: With respect to the Township’s larger transportation plan, the Township
adopted the MTP in 2009;

• Item 2: With respect to stormwater management in farm areas, the Township stated
the following:
o The Township has based the Willoughby Community Plan on the Willoughby
Stormwater Management Plan;
o The Township’s Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw requires that
the rate of discharge from urban areas is controlled to predevelopment rates
in accordance with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
guidelines for managing stormwater runoff;
o All neighbourhood plans have companion engineering servicing plans which
confirm the sizing of detention ponds; and,
o Engineering servicing plans are a standard prerequisite prior to
commencement of development in any neighbourhood.

• Item 3: With respect to the agriculture/urban interface, the Township has two
Development Permit Areas (DPAs) in the Willoughby Community Plan that deal with
the “urban/rural” interface, of which DPA “I” applies to the Property. The primary
objective of DPA “I” is to protect farming, establish design guidelines for the form and
character of intensive residential and multi-family development, and to ensure that
urban development respects the environmentally sensitive nature of the Milner
Escarpment and the adjacent agricultural land. The Township also noted that the
Smith Neighbourhood Plan was adopted by Council in 2017 which calls for an
ecological greenway along 210 Street, a portion of which would act as a buffer along
the ALR boundary for the Property.

Page 6 of 9
 ALC File 56444 Reasons for Decision

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

Issue: Whether the Proposal is consistent with the Commission’s comments in

Resolutions #967/1990 and #232/1998 regarding the proposed transportation corridor
and associated exclusion.

[17] The Executive Committee finds that the Proposal is consistent with previous
comments made by the Commission in Resolutions #967/1990 and #232/1998 and
therefore approves the exclusion.

[18] The Executive Committee, however, recognizes that a greenway is proposed along the
south side of the 212 Street extension within the proposed exclusion area. The
Executive Committee finds that the location of a greenway along the ALR boundary may
result in trespass or urban/rural conflicts. In order to mitigate any potential trespass or
urban/rural issues, the Executive Committee requires that there be no pedestrian access
on the south side of the 212 Street extension. Additionally, the Executive Committee
requires the construction and maintenance of a fence adjacent to the ALR boundary to
be located within the proposed exclusion area (i.e. on the non-ALR side).

[19] The Executive Committee also recognizes that the portion of the Property to remain
within the ALR does not currently have legal road access. The Executive Committee
requires that a secured legal road access be established from Smith Crescent prior to
the exclusion. The Executive Committee advises that a new application will be required
to register the secured legal road access from Smith Crescent.

DECISION

[20] For the reasons given above, the Executive Committee approves the Proposal to
exclude 8 ha from the ALR subject to the following conditions:

Page 7 of 9
 ALC File 56444 Reasons for Decision

PRIOR TO EXCLUSION
a. the registration of a covenant for the construction and maintenance of a 6 foot high
chain-link fence for the purpose of buffering the ALR portion of the Property from the
excluded area in accordance with Schedule A;
b. the fencing and associated covenant must be located on the approved exclusion area
(i.e. on the non-ALR side);
c. the submission of an application under s.6 of the Agricultural Land Reserve Use,
Subdivision and Procedure Regulation in order to register and dedicate a road right-of-
way to provide secure access to the portion of the Property to remain within the ALR in
accordance with Schedule A;
d. the registration and construction of a road-right-way for the 212 Street extension on the
approved exclusion area;
e. the submission of a survey plan delineating the area to be excluded;
f. the survey plan to be in substantial compliance with Schedule A of this decision;

ONGOING
g. no stormwater outfall to be directed to the portion of the Property to remain within the
ALR;
h. no pedestrian access may be located on the south side of the 212 Street extension; and,
i. the exclusion to be completed within three years from the date of release of this decision
(May 4, 2021).

[21] This decision does not relieve the owner or occupier of the responsibility to comply
with applicable Acts, regulations, bylaws of the local government, and decisions and
orders of any person or body having jurisdiction over the land under an enactment.

[22] These are the unanimous reasons of the Executive Committee.

[23] A decision of the Executive Committee is a decision of the Commission pursuant to s.

11.1(5) of the ALCA.

Page 8 of 9
 ALC File 56444 Reasons for Decision

[24] Resolution #143/2018

Released on May 4, 2018

Frank Leonard, Chair

On behalf of the Executive Committee

Page 9 of 9
 Schedule A: Agricultural Land Commission Decision Map
ALC File 56444 (Tara Ridge Estates)
Conditionally Approved Exclusion
ALC Resolution #143/2018

The Property

Conditionally Approved Exclusion (8 ha)

Fencing Requirement

ALR Access Requirement 1