Surrey property owners lose bid to have land reclassified as farm

A B.C. property assessment document is seen in a 2017 file image.

Landowners in Surrey have lost their bid to have their property reclassified as a developing farm, with the province's Property Appeal Assessment Board finding using the parcel for that purpose would be "untenable."

Farmland in B.C., the board points out, is "invariably" assessed at a value "well below the land's actual value" – meaning there is a financial benefit to having a property classified as a farm.

The 9.5-acre lot – which is zoned for agricultural use – was classified as residential and assessed at $2.761 million. In October of last year, Dhanda, Jasmin and Balbir Dhana applied to have it classified as a tree farm, a move that followed three similar applications in previous years.

"However, none of these initiatives ever resulted in a viable farm operation," the assessment appeal decision notes.

The application said the land was being cultivated, specifically that the owners had planted 4,000 cedar trees in 2022 and 100 fruit trees in 2021 and that the plan was to sell these trees in the coming years. In addition, the owners claimed they were using three acres of the land for hay production and had already sold hundreds.

An inspection found the land did not have an adequate irrigation source, that cedar seedlings were not planted in a way that would properly promote their growth, and that harvesting the hay would be extremely difficult given the crop was sparse and the condition of the land.

The report also noted another significant problem.

"Weed control is a known essential practice with respect to agriculture and it has not been managed appropriately," the inspection report is quoted as saying.

"The sound agricultural practice of weed control is not present. This is the case for both hay and tree cultivation."

The appeal board explained that classifying the land as a developing farm is only possible if the assessor is satisfied that a "viable" operation is underway or will be "established within certain time parameters."

In this case, the board said the evidence raised questions about whether the claimed number of trees had been planted before the owners' application was submitted – or planted at all.

In addition, the "excessive mortality" among the seedlings that were found on the property was due to factors such as "weeds, inappropriate spacing, heat, and lack of water."

To succeed, the applicants would have had to demonstrate their crops were being "farmed in accordance with sound agricultural practices'" and "properly cultivated."

The board was not convinced this was the case on this particular property.

"The appellants’ bid to have their land parcel classified as farm based on its status as a 'developing farm' is, based on the evidence before me, untenable," the decision said, upholding the assessment of the property as residential.