[Central Saanich] Vantreight Farm subdivision | Approved

I notice that there isn't a thread for the Vantreight Farm subdivision story. It wasn't approved by Central Saanich council, but somehow I doubt that is the end of it.

Couple of items:

http://www.bclocalne...s/14900026.html

http://www.bclocalne...s/14022452.html

Should the CRD have any say in Central Saanich's Vantreight Farms subdivision issue?
Answer Votes %
Yes 184 54%
No 158 46%
Total: 342 100%

http://cfax1070.com/...s.php?poll=1473

VANTREIGHT FARM HOUSING PLAN DEEMED A REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUE

http://cfax1070.com/...hp?newsId=12189

Jan 27, 2010

A COMMITTEE OF THE CAPITAL REGIONAL BOARD HAS SERVED NOTICE THAT THE CRD WILL EXPECT TO HAVE INPUT INTO ANY DECISION TO ALLOW A HOUSING PROJECT ON THE VANTREIGHT FARM PROPERTY IN CENTRAL SAANICH.

[...]

...

Vantreight and Woodwynn: two farms, two sustainability models
By Robert Randall, VibrantVictoria.ca
http://vibrantvictoria.ca/?p=2178

Does agriculture have a sustainable future in the Victoria region? According to two local farmers, the answer is yes. An earlier article profiled Madrona Farm in Saanich’s Blenkinsop Valley, which is at the finish line of a bid to turn the farm over to The Land Conservancy. This article profiles two local farms that are struggling to find ways to stay relevant.
Vantreight’s Hill Project

In Central Saanich, long-time daffodil farmer Ian Vantrieght has a plan to ensure long-term stability: transforming several acres of what he calls non-productive land on his property on Wallace Drive into 58 single family homes. After buying out his brother Michael for control of the farm in 2006, Ian initially conceived a plan to develop a mix of townhomes and single-family-homes (89 units in total) on the calved-off piece of land. Dubbed The Hill Project, the plans for the 33-acre site have since been downscaled and have been ping-ponging through the development process for over three years. Dozens of iterations were drawn up and scrapped (Vantreight counts 82) and contentious meetings were held at Central Saanich Council with project critics, supporters, the CRD, Council and Staff debating everything from the merits of developing on the Agricultural Land Reserve to interpretations of the Regional Growth Strategy. [...]

“Farmland should be saved for farming” - We couldn’t agree more!
My name is Ryan Vantreight. I am a young father, local farmer and a proud member of the community of Central Saanich.

What we want most of all is to continue the farming tradition that has been in my family for five generations – to explore and implement exciting, innovative ways of farming and to connect our farm, the flowers and, most importantly, the food it produces directly to the community in which we live. We want our farm to thrive, we want to work hard, and, personally, I want to be able to pass a successful farming operation to my children, if one day they want to be farmers too. That is my motivation every day, from sunup to sundown.

At the present moment, our future is uncertain. Five years ago my father and my uncle had a very long and very public dispute about ownership and the future of the farm that ended in the courts ruling the farm to be sold in its entirety, piece by piece. If my father and I were not completely committed to the continuation of our farming tradition, we could have given-up at that point, allowed the land to be sold and the farm would not exist today. Thankfully, a deal was reached to buy my uncle’s share and the land was mortgaged in order to preserve the farm as a whole. We knew then, as we know now, that this deal left us with only two choices in the business plan: to sell land or to sell land. The only question has been which land to sell in order to continue the farm and satisfy the debt. Our goal has always been to sell land that is not arable, that is not farmable and that is not in the ALR in order to preserve the land base we currently farm today. And so we focused our efforts on The Hill Project, which achieves all of these goals.

What some members of the community may not realize is that if the Hill Project is not successful, then the only other option in the business plan is to sell our arable farmland piece by piece. The landscape will inevitably be changed forever and the future agricultural use of that land for food production will be uncertain and impossible to control. Selling the farm has never been our goal and is what we have been trying to avoid for over five years.

This is, and always has been, about keeping the farm together so we can continue to farm it. At a CRD meeting I attended on January 27th, I said to the Committee, "Our hearts are in the land and our futures are staked in it." And I meant it. My heart is in this land, and I long for a time when I can stop worrying about the very existence of the farm, and simply farm it.

We have so many innovative ideas and plans for the future that will connect the farm and the community even further. We hope to continue to positively contribute to our community and local economy through our ever-expanding local food programs and environmental initiatives, such as the use of anaerobic digesters to create heat and power for the farm and community. The community wants and needs farms, and I am a farmer ready and willing. Our goal is to preserve our farmland for farming purposes – in this sense, I believe we want the same thing the community wants.

So my question to the community is this: How can we come closer together on this issue to meet our mutual needs, and keep this family farm intact?

If you want to learn more about Vantreight Farms and our Hill Project please visit http://www.facebook....ww.daffodil.com or contact Ian or myself directly at 250-652-7777.

Sincerely,


Ryan Vantreight

Ryan, thank you for your contribution and welcome to VibrantVictoria.ca.

I hadn't realize you posted this until today.

They put out a short video

I tried to embed it, but somehow that did not work

Just to let everyone know, there is an open house at the farm on Saturday from 10 am to 2 pm.

There is a public hearing on Wednesday July 14th at the Cedar room in the Saanich Fairgrounds at 6:30 pm.

Rezoning passed tonight 4-2. Vicky Husband was sure pissed off on the radio tonight.

http://www.timescolo...6130/story.html

I wonder: the anti-development folks raise the question losing ground for 'food' growing. I have never consumed a daffodil.

I wonder: the anti-development folks raise the question losing ground for 'food' growing. I have never consumed a daffodil.

The 32 acres being developed are not farmland, it is a rocky outcropping.

Also, the Vantreight have always grown more acres of food than daffodils and under the management of the fifth generation, Ryan, they have very heavily shifted to local food production and direct sales to restaurants and consumers.

I am totally in favour of this project and I hope it sails through 4th reading.

They sure do have a strong NIMBY group in Central Sannich though.

These are the same folks that wanted to prevent people on the "wrong side of the street" hooking up to the local water and sewer.

http://cfax1070.com/...news&Itemid=155

...B-C Supreme Court has upheld the re-zoning by-law that allows a housing development on a portion of the Vantreight farm property in Central Saanich.

Mr Justice Victor Curtis has rejected an application by the Central Saanich Residents and Ratepayers Association to quash the by-law, saying that he does not find it is contrary to the Official Community Plan...

^Yahoo.

I have been waiting till the reasons for judgement in the case were posted online before commenting on the case. Citation: Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society v. Saanich (District), 2011 BCSC 491

Main Points of Interest in the Judgement
* Bylaw1712 is legal
* The development is in keeping with the OCP and brings many benefits sought by the OCP
* The Regional Growth Strategy is not directly legally binding on councils.
* An OCP is a policy document and not a legal straightjacket. It is also not possible to meet all the objectives when considering individual development proposals.
* Council, as the representatives elected by the community to govern, has a right to interpret the OCP and measure how a development meets, or does not meet, different objectives of the OCP
* The court decision is a victory for local agriculture

The case was brought by the Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society against the District of Central Saanich to quash bylaw 1712 allowing the Vantreight Hill project development. Bylaw 1712 is an amendment of Land Use Bylaw 1309.

The Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society asserted that the bylaw allowing the development was in contravention of the Official Community Plan.

Here is what is the core of the judgement:

[37] I find it difficult to understand exactly what distinction there may be between a bylaw which is in “absolute and direct collision” with an Official Community Plan and one which is in the words of the Local Government Act is not “consistent with the relevant plan”. For the purposes of this application, I will consider whether or not bylaw 1712 is consistent with the Official Community Plan of the District of Central Saanich.
[38] Bylaw 1712 was passed in conjunction with a covenant concerning the Vantreight lands, and in my opinion it is appropriate when examining whether or not the bylaw was consistent with the OCP to consider the bylaw and the covenant together because the approval of the bylaw put in place the measures agreed to in the covenant.
[39] The enactment of the bylaw and its accompanying covenant clearly achieved some of the objectives of the OCP including by:
1. consolidating the land actually suited for farming and further restricting it from any development which would remove it from agricultural uses;
2. creating park land;
3. creating public trails to be paid for by the development;
4. making available 25 acres of land for a public garden on a 25-year lease;
5. requiring the developer to provide water and sewage utilities at its expense;
6. requiring the residential building to conform to Energuide standards thus contributing to protecting the environment; and
7. granting the farmland a nuisance easement over the residential lots to facilitate adjacent farming operations.
[40] None of the foregoing results can be said to be contrary to the Official Community Plan. Clearly, the nub of the objection is that 57 residential units, which all may have suites is in the petitioner’s submission too dense a development to be fairly characterized as rural. I note that there is no evidence the land to be built upon is suitable for agricultural use, nor is there any evidence it has been used as crop or pasture land.
[41] Whether the development permitted by the bylaw is inconsistent with the concept of rural as set out in the District’s Official Community Plan is a matter of interpretation. An Official Community Plan is not drafted in the terms of a statute but rather, in terms of objectives and policies, which are necessarily much less specific than statutory terms. It is obviously not possible to promote each of the many objectives of the Official Community Plan equally in a single instance, therefore decisions applying that plan must involve the exercise of judgement in balancing various objectives in each case.
[42] The Court in considering a bylaw passed by a municipal council is not dealing with an adjudicative decision by an administrative tribunal, but a decision by elected council members, who have concluded in the exercise of their judgement, how best to accommodate the various policies and objectives they must serve. This does not empower council to misinterpret the Official Community Plan but it does suggest that the court ought not to interfere with any reasonable interpretation consistent with the OCP.
[43] The District of Central Saanich’s OCP was given third reading by Council October 20, 2008 and finally passed and adopted November 3, 2008. The 2008 Official Community Plan included the R-5 zoning which permitted a single family residence density of one house per .2 hectares in a rural area. Inferentially, the Council adopting the OCP accepted that the meaning of rural at the time of adopting the plan could include such a density. On December 13, 2010, after having considered the issue of whether the proposed residential development would fit in with the Plan’s rural designations, and having obtained covenants which clearly advance a number of the objectives of the OCP, Council passed bylaw 1712. This bylaw permitted more density than R-5 and was passed as R-5 Amended, but it limited the density to significantly less than permitted in the urban zones. In my opinion, having considered the plan itself, the staff recommendations and the benefits conferred by the covenant taken with the bylaw, Council was acting reasonably in passing bylaw 1712. I am not persuaded that bylaw 1712 is inconsistent with the Official Community Plan adopted by the District of Central Saanich and I dismiss the petition to quash the bylaw.

The judge clearly found that the development is in keeping with the OCP but more importantly that the OCP is a policy of council. As a policy, though one with a legal framework to give it weight, Council has a right to make decisions based on their interpretation of the plan. It is also clear that a council can not ignore an OCP. Interestingly, he found that the CRD Regional Growth Strategy does not bind any council.

To make it entirely clear - Bylaw 1712 is legal and arguments saying it was not legal lost in the courts.

He also recognizes that the OCP is a long document and that it is not possible to meet all the objectives of the OCP in each single instance. Clearly the whole process between the Council and Ian Vantreight was a negotiation of benefits for both parties that meet the objectives of the OCP. The consolidation and covenant against subdivision of the agricultural land is the single biggest action taken to protect the rural nature of Central Saanich and protect farming in this region in decades. This one action goes a very long way to meeting core objectives of the OCP.

I am glad to see that the judgement came out quickly and was entirely common sense. I found the opposition to the Hill project irrational and the lawsuit little more another than a nuisance lawsuit designed to make the Vantreights and Central Saanich look bad.

From the start the whole objection has felt like an irrational anger against farming by suburbanites that moved into farm country. Beyond the dislike of active agriculture, to me it felt like the opposition was politically motivated for ideological reasons. The opposition seemed have a strong streak of people opposed to the idea of profit and people that are perceived to be on the right politically.

I am sure this will be a major election issue in the fall in Central Saanich. I expect the council race to be mean and nasty against the council members that supported local agriculture.

A Central Saanich group is asking the highest court in Canada to rule on a council decision to allow a housing development on land owned by the Vantreight family.

The Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society has filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It wants the court to overturn lower-court decisions that said it was not for the courts to interfere with an elected council's "reasonable interpretation" of an official community plan.

[...]

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz1kk6djurh

I wonder if the clubhouse where the "residents and ratepayers of Central Saanich" has one of those direct line phones that dials the wambulance when you pick it up...

The the Supreme Court of Canada does not have to accept the appeal. They will review the submission of the ratepayers and consider if there is an argument to be made that the three BC Appeal Court judges made a mistake in applying the law in this case.

Most cases that do get to the Supreme Court of Canada do not end up with a different judgement.

To date, the four judges at two levels, have found that Central Saanich was entirely within their rights to approve the subdivision. The Supreme Court of Canada would have to rule that the four judges made mistake in ruling that way.

The final legal hurdle ended today. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal of the Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society with costs today.

The BC Supreme Court already said the RROCSS had to pay the costs for Central Saanich and Ian Vantreight for the case at that level, now the Supreme Court of Canada has also said they are liable for costs. This is likely not a small bill for the RROCSS and I wonder how they will be able to pay it.

.

Central Saanich = 1
NIMBY's = 0