B.C. landowners lose bids to retain farm status after inspections reveal little-to-no agricultural activity

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

A pair of property owners in B.C. have lost their bids to have their land classified as farms after inspections revealed little-to-no agricultural activity was actually taking place.

The province's Property Assessment Appeal Board, in separate decisions posted online last week, noted that there is a financial benefit to having a property classified as a farm.

"If land is classified as farm, it is not assessed at its actual (or fair market) value but, rather, the land is valued and assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Values for Farm Land Regulation," the board wrote.

"These prescribed values commonly result in a significant decrease in the land value assessment relative to what would otherwise be the land’s fair market value, and in turn, a significant reduction in property taxes. That being the case, the Board has repeatedly stressed that the burden is on the property owner to strictly comply with the regulatory requirements governing farm classification."

THE LANGLEY PROPERTY

In the first case that came before the board, Wilhelm Verheyden was appealing the classification of his 9.79-acre parcel of land as a mix of business and residential, and the assessed value of $3,554,000.

Until 2021, the board said, the property had been classified as a farm "based on its asserted use as a trout farm." But the assessor found that the licence to operate a trout farm had lapsed a decade ago.

"Notwithstanding this lack of lawful operating authority, the appellant continued to assert that he was operating a trout farm, reporting income to the assessor associated with that trout farm operation in 2014, 2016 and 2018," the decision reads.

Upon inspection, the assessor confirmed that there was no operating trout farm.

However, Verheyden maintained that the land – on which there are "two dwellings, and a barn that is used for non-farm purposes" – was currently operating as a nursery.

The board's decision noted if and when Verheyden decided to change the "fundamental nature of his intended farm operation" he would have been required to re-apply for farm designation. It also says he did do this eventually, but that the application was rejected.

The board said that a site visit found a few hundred plants and trees in pots and planters on the property, but ultimately that there was "no active nursery operation."

The board found that the property was likely being used by Verheyden's son, who operates a landscaping company, as a "temporary storage facility for plants and trees"

THE BOWEN ISLAND PROPERTY

In the second case, Jose Claudio Barron was appealing the classification of a 46-acre "essentially vacant land parcel" on Bowen Island that had been assessed as a residential property with a value of $1,453,000.

In 2014, according to the board, Barron successfully applied to have the land classified as a farm that would grow trees, herbs and vegetables. While an inspection the following year revealed a "high mortality of the plantings" it continued to be classified as a developing farm.

A 2021 inspection of the property, however, found "no legitimate farming activity is currently being undertaken."

The first issue identified was access. The assessor reported to the board that there is no road leading to the property and that it was not serviced by water or utilities. Getting to the piece of land, the decision said, involved a challenging trek.

"In order to access the property, the assessor undertook what he characterized as a 30 to 60+ minute hike, depending on the individual’s fitness, that 'can only be accomplished on foot with some sections requiring assisting hands due to the steep terrain and obstacles,' and it required a ‘laboured effort (due to) strenuous elevation change(s).'"

While Barron said he uses another more easily navigable route to access his land, the board said it was nevertheless too challenging to be "viable" access for a farm.

The board also found that the land itself was not viable for farming, despite Barron's submission that “a large portion of this property produces Christmas trees, organic herbs, fruit, potatoes and garlic.”

While there was some evidence of planting and a fair bit of wild vegetation, nothing was being grown at a "commercially viable level," according to the board.

"I am satisfied that this property does not presently qualify – if it ever did – to be classified as a farm," the chair of the board's panel concluded.