REPORT TO

MAYOR AND COUNCIL

PRESENTED: JUNE 1, 2009 - SPECIAL MEETING REPORT: 09-80

FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION FILE: 10-31-0151
SUBJECT: PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)

PROPOSAL:
The applicants have applied under
Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural Land
Commission Act to exclude three (3)
properties fronting 44 Avenue (totaling
4.46 ha /11.01 acres in size) from the
Agricultural Land Reserve.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:
That Council advise the Provincial
Agricultural Land Commission that the
Agricultural Land Reserve exclusion is
supported subject to implementation of
urban/rural edge planning measures.

RATIONALE:
The proposal takes into consideration
the rural/urban interface provisions of
the Rural Plan and completes a critical
element of the Township’s road
network as shown in the Murrayville
Community Plan (thereby improving
traffic circulation in Murrayville). It will
also serve to implement urban/rural
edge planning measures developed in
consultation with the Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands; and is
consistent with previous Council
recommendations supporting previous
applications on this site.
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 2 . . .

RECOMMENDATION:
That Council advise the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission that the Hendricks et al
Agricultural Land Reserve exclusion application for property located at 21696 and 21846 – 44
Avenue and 4386-216 Street is supported, subject to implementation of edge planning
measures in compliance with Ministry of Agriculture and Lands standards.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicants have applied under Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to
exclude the subject 4.46 ha (11.01 acre) site (3 properties) fronting 44 Avenue in the Murrayville
area from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The purpose of the exclusion is to create 21 single
family lots averaging approximately 1,800 m2 (19,375 ft2 or ½ acre) in size. Staff recommend
that the exclusion application be supported and forwarded to the Provincial Agricultural Land
Commission (PALC) for review. The proposed ALR exclusion provides for the implementation of
rural/urban interface measures contained in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) “Guide
to Edge Planning” and completes an integral element of the Township’s road network as shown
in the Murrayville Community Plan and the Township’s Subdivision and Development Control
Bylaw Highway Classification Schedule “P-1” map, thereby improving traffic circulation in
Murrayville.
Similar applications for the exclusion of the subject site were previously received in 1993 and
2003 and endorsed by Council. In both cases, the PALC indicated it would initiate a future
reconsideration of the application if it was determined that the proposal forms part of an edge
planning initiative acceptable to the PALC, MAL and Township of Langley.
The applicant has offered to initiate the establishment of an “Agricultural Enhancement Trust
Fund” to ensure the proposed exclusion results in a net benefit to agriculture. Should the
Provincial Agricultural Land Commission approval be subject to the establishment of an
Agricultural Enhancement Trust Fund, staff will bring forward a report for consideration by
Council outlining the administration, cost, benefits and other implications on the Township of
Langley.
If the proposal is approved by the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, applications to
amend Township’s Official Community Plan, Rural Plan and Murrayville Community Plan, as
well as rezoning and subdivision applications will subsequently be required.

PURPOSE:
This report provides Council with a recommendation with respect to an ALR exclusion
application on 44 Avenue in the Murrayville area.
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 3 . . .

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE MAP

102 A V E

96 A V E

88 A V E

80 A V E

72 A V E
D
R
R
E
V

64 A V E
LO

HW
G

Y
NO
1
56 A V E
SUBJECT

48 A V E
FR
AS
ER
HW
40 A V E Y

32 A V E

24 A V E

16 A V E

8 AVE

0 AVE
240 ST

248 ST

264 ST
200 ST

208 ST

272 ST
216 ST

256 ST
224 ST

232 ST
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 4 . . .

SUBJECT
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 5 . . .

TOWNSHIP ZONING BYLAW NO. 2500

PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 6 . . .

Preliminary Site Layout – SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT

PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 7 . . .

Preliminary Site Layout & Future Road Network

PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 8 . . .

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Owners: Alan Hendricks

Elizabeth Hendricks
21846-44 Avenue
Langley, BC
V3A 3E8

Chin-Chu Huo
Mei-Yu Yeh
21696-44th Avenue
Langley, BC
V3A 3E8

Robert James Frain

4386-216th Avenue
Langley, BC
V3A 7R2
and
Shawn Robert Frain
Cheryl Lynne Frain
21646-44th Avenue
Langley, BC
V3A 3E8

Applicant/Agent: Alan Hendricks

21846-44 Avenue
Langley, BC
V3A 3E8

Legal Description: Lot 2 Section 31 Township 10

NWD Plan 68899

Lot 1 Section 31 Township 10

NWD Plan 68899

Parcel “ONE” (Reference Plan 17269) of

Parcel “A” (Reference Plan 4268) of the
South West Quarter Section 31 Township
10 NWD

Civic Address 21696, 21846 – 44th Avenue and

4386 – 216th Street

Subject Site Size: 0.55 ha (1.35 acres) (Parcel 1)

1.77 ha (4.38 acres) (Lot 1)
2.14 ha (5.28 acres) (Lot 2)
4.46 ha (11.01 acres)
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 9 . . .

Existing Zoning: Rural Zone RU-1 (1.7 ha/ 4.2 acres)

Official Community Plan: Rural Residential/Agricultural

Rural Plan: Small Farms/Country Estates

Neighbouring Murrayville Plan: Single Family One

E.S.A. Designation E.S.A. # 076 – Upland, Murray and

Anderson Cr. Areas (Rating - # 3)

BACKGROUND/ HISTORY:
The Agricultural Land Commission Act allows Council the opportunity to provide
recommendations on exclusion applications made to the Provincial Agricultural Land
Commission. Recommendations to the PALC are generally based on community objectives
and policies contained in the various Municipal Plans, including the Rural Plan.

In 1993 a similar ALR exclusion application was made for the subject site consisting of 23 lots
averaging approximately 930 m2 / 10,010 ft2 including a landscape buffer adjacent to the rural
area. Council endorsed the application which was then forwarded to the Provincial Agricultural
Land Commission. Council’s endorsement was subject to the following conditions:

x Dedication of land to accommodate a required municipal detention pond;

x Dedication of a buffer together with a 6 metre (20 foot) easement for a municipal trail;
and
x Contribution of one fifth of the construction cost of 44 Avenue or $100,000, whichever is
less.

The Agricultural Land Commission subsequently refused the application indicating that:

x The subject properties have very good agricultural capabilities (i.e. Class 2 & 3
improved);
x 44 Avenue currently serves as a solid separation between the ALR to the south and the
urban land use to the north. Also, the narrow configuration of the three properties
serves as an ideal buffer in and of itself; and
x An approval would heighten the expectations of neighbouring property owners in the
ALR and could lead to a gradual erosion of ALR lands in the surrounding area.

In 2003 a similar ALR exclusion application (for these three lots and a portion of a fourth not
included in the current application) was made for the subject site consisting of 22 lots averaging
approximately 1800 m2/19,376 ft2 including a 7.5 metre wide landscape buffer adjacent to the
rural area. The fourth lot in that application is not included in the current application. Council
endorsed the application which was then forwarded to the Provincial Agricultural Land
Commission. Council’s endorsement was based on the following:
1. An opportunity to create a density transition (i.e. 1800 m2 / 22 lots) between urban and
rural uses along the new (proposed) ALR boundary;
2. An opportunity to create a landscaped buffer between urban and rural uses along the
new (proposed) ALR boundary;
3. An opportunity to connect a much needed road link between 216 Street and Benz
Crescent (to be eventually extended to 224th Street); and
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 10 . . .

4. An opportunity to complete the construction and upgrading of 44th Avenue between 216th
Street and Benz Crescent at no cost to the Township.

A copy of the 2003 staff report to Council is included as Attachment C.

The Agricultural Land Commission subsequently refused the application for the same reasons
outlined in its 1993 decision, however they acknowledged the challenges to agriculture which
exist as a result of the configuration of the properties and their limited potential for agricultural
development. The Commission however maintained the position that taking these rural
residential properties and converting them into urban density residential lots would not provide
an effective buffer when compared to what currently exists. While the Commission
acknowledged the limited agricultural potential, it believed that the parcels were suitable for
some agricultural uses, and in their existing configuration, formed part of a transition area
between urban density residential areas and farm land. It was the Commission’s opinion that
shifting the ALR boundary across the road provided no benefit to agriculture and widening the
road was not justification for allowing exclusion of the properties located south of the road.

The Commission also advised the applicants that the Commission and the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries were working with the Township of Langley to review the
Langley Rural Plan. Policies and more specific techniques for edge planning are still under
discussion, especially where (as here) the Commission does not agree with the use of the
“Small Farms/Country Estates” designation as a transitional density between urban and full-
scale agricultural development. The Commission has indicated that it would initiate the future
reconsideration of the application if it was determined through inter-agency review and Council
updating of the Langley Rural Plan that allowing the subject proposal would form part of a
mutually satisfactory resolution of edge planning policies for the Township of Langley.

DISCUSSION/ ANALYSIS:
The applicants have applied to exclude the three subject properties (located within the Rural
Plan area abutting Murrayville) from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The applicants propose to
create 21 single family lots averaging approximately 1800 m2 (19,375 ft2) in size with Suburban
Residential SR-3 zoning. Also proposed is a buffer at the rear of the lots adjacent to the rural
properties (15 metre / 49.2 feet wide) as a demonstration of edge planning principles, as well as
necessary road dedications and widening for 44 Avenue and 216 Street. The applicants are
also proposing a financial contribution towards establishment of a Langley Agricultural
Enhancement Trust Fund or other agricultural priorities Township Council identifies. See
applicants letter in Attachment A.

ADJACENT LAND USES INCLUDE:

North: 44 Avenue (half road dedication and construction) beyond which are residential lots
zoned Residential Zone R-1E;
South: Rural properties zoned Rural Residential Zone RU-1;
East: Rural properties zoned Rural Residential Zone RU-1; and
West: 216 Street beyond which are properties zoned Rural Golf Course Zone RU-10
(Langley Golf Centre).

The subject site is located along the Murrayville / Rural Plan boundary (within the Rural Plan
area). The Township’s Rural Plan land use provides policies designed to minimize potential
conflicts along the urban/rural interface. Measures applicable in this instance include the
provision of:

x Spatial features such as arterial roads or provincial highways, railroads or hydro rights-
of-way;
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 11 . . .

x Enhanced residential density transitions between urban and rural uses (i.e. increasing
the lot size with distance from the urban boundary);
x Larger and deeper lots on the urban side of the interface and fencing or landscape
buffering along the interface; and
x Notice on title indicating the proximity of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve.

The proposed development specifically addresses several of the aforementioned policies

including density transition, and larger and deeper lots with fencing and landscape buffering
along the proposed urban/ rural interface. The north side of 44 Avenue is within the Murrayville
Community Plan area with a land use designation of Single Family One and is zoned
Residential Zone R-1E. These existing lots are approximately 930 m2 in size with an
approximate density of 11 units per hectare (4.5 units per acre). The proposed development on
the south side of 44 Avenue (i.e. subject Agricultural Land Reserve exclusion application)
proposes to create 21 single family lots having an approximate lot size of 1800 m2/1/2 acre
resulting at an approximate density of 4.7 units per hectare (1.9 units per acre) thereby creating
a density transition area adjacent to the ALR boundary. In order to create the density transition
the applicant is proposing larger and deeper lots (33 metre frontage and 54.5 metre depth) in
keeping with the Township’s Suburban Residential Zone SR-3 requirements as well as a
landscape buffer and fencing along the rural/urban interface. The buffer is proposed to be 15
metres wide consisting of existing and planted native trees and vegetation. Previous
applications proposed buffers of 6 metres and 7.5 metres in width. Buffering details will be in
accordance with the Agricultural Land Commission’s requirements and will be secured through
a restrictive covenant at the rezoning stage.

44 Avenue (between 216 Street and 224 Street) has been partially completed as a result of a
number of single family residential subdivision approvals in the past. Both the Murrayville
Community Plan and the Township’s Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw Highway
Classifications Schedule “P-1” map identify 44 Avenue (between 216 Street and 224 Street) as
a 20 metres collector road eventually linking 216 and 224 Street. This connection is considered
to be a critical link in the Murrayville road network and if provided would improve traffic
circulation in the area. The portion of 44 Avenue abutting the subject site is currently a half road
(10 metres wide). The applicant’s proposed subdivision would result in the dedication and
construction of the south half of 44 Avenue adjacent to the site, creating a significant portion of
the much needed link between 216 Street and Benz Crescent. The remaining portion of 44
Avenue at and east of Benz Crescent will need to be secured from others at a later date. The
design alignment of this remaining segment of 44 Avenue is largely within the urban designated
area.

The proponent has submitted the following documents in support of the exclusion request as
follows:

x Completed application form;

x A proposed subdivision and ALR buffer plan showing details of the proposal;
x A cross section drawing showing the ALR edge planning and building setbacks;
x A context plan showing the subject area and the surrounding land uses;
x A copy of recent Title Searches;
x Proof of notice of adjacent ALR owners;
x Photograph of the exclusion proposal signage;
x Copies of ALR exclusion proposal advertising (Attachment A);
x Agrologist Report – dated January, 2004 by EvEco Consultants Ltd. (Attachment D).
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 12 . . .

In support of the exclusion application the applicant engaged an agrologist to undertake an

analysis of the subject site. This report from Eveco Consultants dated January 2004 indicates
that “the subject Properties are limited in their options for soil bound agricultural, are restricted
for non-soil bound agriculture by their size, location and narrow configuration across from the
Murrayville area, and represent an opportunity to resolve some important improvements in local
public infrastructure and zoning considerations. It is also our opinion that, if these issues are
not addressed, these and future owners of the Properties will continue to pressure agencies for
resolution”. This report is attached as Attachment D.

In accordance with the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission’s exclusion application

procedures, the applicant has circulated details of the proposal to adjacent property owners
(also located in the ALR); has posted a sign on site and placed advertisements in the local
newspaper indicating that the property is under application for exclusion. Two supporting
submissions were received in response to the notification (see Attachments B).

Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC):

On September 11, 2003 the Langley Agricultural Advisory Committee (LAAC) reviewed the
previous application and provided the following comments:

x Contains no benefits to agriculture; but also does not take anything away from
agriculture;
x Comprises many possible future agricultural uses;
x 30 foot buffer too small (insufficient);
x Should the subdivision application be approved, a restrictive covenant on the lots should
state the owner’s acknowledgment of adjoining to agricultural land.

The current application (which addresses several of AAC’s previous comments) will be
forwarded to the Agricultural Advisory Committee for information.

Agricultural Enhancement Trust Fund:

The applicant has also stated that he wishes to make a significant contribution to an
“Agricultural Enhancement Trust Fund” in order to ensure that the exclusion application provides
a net benefit to agriculture. The Township of Langley at this point in time does not have an
Agricultural Enhancement Trust Fund; however, examples exist in Delta and Abbotsford.
Attachment E to this report is information with respect to the establishment and operation of
Trust Funds. Staff recommend that should the exclusion application be approved by the PALC
that staff be directed to prepare a report to Council on the establishment of an “Agricultural
Enhancement Trust Fund”, or alternatives, including the administration, costs and benefits
involved.
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 100178 (ALAN & ELIZABETH HENDRICKS ET AL)
Page 13 . . .

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:

Council may consider supporting the ALR exclusion application on the basis of the following:
1. An opportunity to facilitate the completion of a much needed road link between 216
Street and Benz Crescent in accordance with the Murrayville Community Plan and the
Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw;
2. An opportunity to implement urban / rural interface (i.e. edge planning) measures in
accordance with PALC and MAL recommendations including:
a) An opportunity to create an enhanced density transition between urban and rural
uses along the new (proposed) ALR boundary;
b) An opportunity to create a landscaped buffer between urban and rural uses
along the new (proposed) ALR boundary;
3. An opportunity should the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission approve the
application subject to such a condition, to consider the applicant’s offer to establish an
Agricultural Enhancement Trust Fund.

If the exclusion application is approved by the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, the
proponent will be required to submit various Community Plan Amendment applications
(incorporating the lands into the Murrayville Plan) as well as Rezoning and Subdivision
applications. Road widening, servicing, buffering, environmental, tree protection and other
development requirements will be secured in accordance with normal Rezoning and Subdivision
approval process.
Respectfully submitted,

William Ulrich
DEVELOPMENT PLANNER
for
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

JG:BD:WU/wu

ATTACHMENT A ALR Application

ATTACHMENT B Two Letters submitted by Residents
ATTACHMENT C Previous report to Council 2003
ATTACHMENT D Agrologist Report (under separate cover)
ATTACHMENT E Agricultural Enhancement Trust Funds – background information

This report constitutes the “Local Government Report” as required under section 12 or 29 of the
Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation.
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT E