Zoning rules crowd out real farmers
It’s not a job for local politicians, says David Baines.
By July 2016, the speculation reached stratospheric levels. One application — for a 41,000-square-foot house with 23 bedrooms and bathrooms — was rejected. Not because it was too big, but because it looked as if it was being developed as a hotel. David Baines
In his May 26 article, Postmedia reporter Sam Cooper noted that the B.C. government’s decision to exempt farmland from the 15 per cent foreign buyers tax is fuelling runaway speculation on property in the Agricultural Land Reserve.
He also noted that several other provincially sponsored tax breaks have been contributing to an agricultural land rush in the Metro Vancouver area — lower property taxes on farmland that meets minimal production levels, a 50 per cent break on school and transportation taxes, and an exemption from the property transfer tax if the constructed home is occupied by a family member for at least a year before it’s sold.
Mentioned only in passing were “controversial zoning rules” that permit farmland buyers to build much larger homes on farmland than on residential lots. This is a significant understatement. Regulations on house size are the main determinant of land prices, and they are a municipal responsibility. By allowing farmland buyers to build monster homes where blueberry bushes once grew, municipal politicians are opening the door to rampant farmland speculation and crowding out real farmers.
This was confirmed by Site Economics Ltd., a private consulting firm hired by the City of Richmond to report on the issue. It found that the ability to build very large houses on ALR land “is the primary factor driving small ALR lot prices to levels in the order of $750,000 to $1.5 million per acre.”
The firm concluded that restricting the maximum house size to 4,200 square feet, which is the largest house size allowed on the average residential lot in Richmond, “would reduce ALR land prices to market standards and past trends, allowing farmers with the intention of actual farming to acquire or lease these types of properties.”
Although the Agricultural Land Commission has recommended a maximum house size of 5,382 square feet, the final word lies with individual municipalities. This is a problem — it leaves the long-term preservation of farmland in the hands of local politicians who are more concerned with shortterm issues, such as getting re-elected.
The result is radically different house size limits in different municipalities.
Delta has restricted the maximum size to 5,005 square feet. Port Coquitlam, consistent with the provincial guideline, has imposed a limit of 5,382 square feet. In Maple Ridge, the maximum is 6,995 square feet. In Pitt Meadows, council has directed city staff to prepare a bylaw limiting house size to 18,000 square feet.
As recently as last month, there was no established limit in several other municipalities, most notably Richmond.
Richmond has become ground zero in the struggle over farmland preservation. (Cooper mentioned the municipality 21 times in his article.) Several years ago, Richmond council, with mayor Malcolm Brodie at the helm, floated a proposal to limit house size, but buckled under pressure from farmers who don’t want any regulations that might compromise their land values, and more specifically from Indo-Canadian farmers who claim they need extra large houses to accommodate their extended working families. That has left the gate wide open for developers and speculators.
In 2010, the average application for home construction on Richmond farmland was 7,329 square feet. By 2015, it had soared to 12,087 square feet. Some are much larger, most notably the 21,733-square-foot house (with 13 bathrooms) conspicuously located at the corner of Steveston Highway and No. 4 Road. Some offended neighbours have tagged it “Brodie’s bungalow.”
By July 2016, the speculation reached stratospheric levels. One application — for a 41,000-square-foot house with 23 bedrooms and bathrooms — was rejected by city staff. Not because it was too big, but because it looked as if it was being developed as a hotel, which isn’t allowed.
The council then asked the B.C. agriculture ministry to draw up rules limiting and standardizing house size on ALR land. In October, the ministry rejected the request, making it clear that house size would remain a municipal responsibility.
Rather than embracing that responsibility, Richmond council took no substantive action until Nov. 19, when the Globe and Mail published a feature story on the problem. Like Cooper’s article, the Globe story focused on the “astonishing” provincial tax breaks that make building on ALR land so attractive, and only in passing mentioned Richmond’s failed attempts to limit house size.
Richmond councillor Harold Steves, who has lobbied for controls on ALR farmland, pressed his fellow councillors to take meaningful action. On Nov. 22 — just three days after the article was published — council directed city staff to prepare a report on limiting house size.
With restrictions on the way, Steves and fellow councillor Carol Day sought a moratorium on building permit approvals, but Brodie and the remaining six councillors defeated the motion. That opened the door for a rash of permit applications.
It wasn’t until late March that council finally declared a moratorium, but the damage was done. From January to March, the city received 45 applications to build houses on Richmond farmland, more than double the entire previous year. The average application was for 12,918 square feet, the largest was a massive 32,660 square feet.
In April, after extensive research and public consultation, city staff recommended a maximum of 5,382 square feet, consistent with the ALC’s guideline and the majority of survey respondents. Then the farming lobby intervened.
The city’s Agricultural Advisory Committee, which is compromised almost entirely of Richmond farmers, recommended 12,387 square feet. Its rationale was simply that this size is consistent with the “current average” of approved building permits, an average that has offended so many citizens.
It made no attempt to relate its recommendation to the actual needs of the farming community, most likely because no working farm actually needs a 12,387-square-foot farmhouse.
The Richmond Farmers’ Institute, which is also controlled by Richmond farmers (many of whom are also members of the agricultural advisory committee), also recommended a maximum size “consistent with recent house sizes” on farmland, which it set at a slightly more modest 10,763 square feet. Although this figure is exactly twice the size recommended by city staff, twice the size endorsed by the ALC and the majority of survey respondents, and two and half times the optimal size calculated by Site Economics, Brodie deemed it a “compromise.” He noted that some homes built on Richmond farmland have been as large as 23,000 square feet.
What we’re doing is at least cutting in half the size of homes that we’re allowing,” he told reporters.
This is a neat but disingenuous manoeuvre: allow unbridled speculation, then take the most objectionable house size that ensues as the starting point for your “compromise.”
Sadly, six other councillors concurred and shot down councillor Day’s more genuine compromise motion of 7,500 square feet. The only concession was an agreement to review the bylaw in six months, which ensures that the issue will continue to simmer into next year.
Although Brodie and the majority of his fellow councillors acted against the wishes of most Richmond residents and placed Richmond farmland at continuing risk, it is important to note they never wanted to be saddled with this responsibility in the first place. They have repeatedly asked the B.C. government to impose provincewide limitations on house size. The government has demurred, precisely because it doesn’t want to get involved in the same sort of imbroglio that is happening in Richmond and many other municipalities.
Hopefully the NDP (which created the ALR) and the Green party (which promised during the election campaign to restrict “mega mansions” on ALR land) will implement new rules that, in the words of one of the “bungalow” neighbours, reflect its true spirit and purpose, which is to grow things, not build things.
Although Brodie and the majority of his fellow councillors acted against the wishes of most Richmond residents and placed Richmond farmland at continuing risk, it is important to note they never wanted to be saddled with this responsibility in the first place.