(recorded by Nancy Beach, who also provided the transcipt)
Tracy Love: Tracy Love, representing BC Assessment.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, we’re just waiting for the appellant.
Nancy Beach: Hello, can you hear me?
Adrien Jakes: Okay, you’re on there now.
Nancy Beach: Yes, thank you.
Adrien Jakes: It’s very, you’ll have to speak up a little bit.
Nancy Beach: Okay well you’re on speakerphone because I’m trying to record this hearing.
Adrien Jakes: Oh, I prefer you didn’t do that.
Nancy Beach: Why is that? Are you trying to hide something?
Adrien Jakes: No, absolutely not. But I’m just personally, myself would prefer that you didn’t record it. You’ll have to ask the other… The other folks on the line, and if they agree, that’s great. So let’s ask, first of all, I’m the chair of the panel that’s going to look at the information today.
I’m here with two other members of the independent panel. I’ll get them to introduce themselves, please.
Sarah Brandy: Good morning, I’m Sarah Brandy, panel member.
Esther Ostrower: Esther Ostrower, panel member.
Adrien Jakes: And BC Assessment…
Tracy Love: Tracy Love representing BC Assessment, and I just wanted to apologize on behalf of BC Assessment for sending you the incorrect number this morning.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, so I’ll ask the panel members, do you mind if Ms. Beach records this?
Esther Ostrower: Adrien, should we caucus about that?
Adrien Jakes: No, I think we need to make it clear, you either want to or you don’t want to. So I’ll ask Sarah first.
Sarah Brandy: I’m indifferent either way.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, Esther, how about you?
Esther Ostrower: I’m okay with it.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, and BC Assessment, are you okay as well?
Tracy Love: I have no problem.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, fair enough. We’ll move on then. So basically we have about half an hour total time. We allow you as the appellant Ms Beach. To partake with about eight minutes of information. And we do the same for BC Assessment. When you start your presentation, we will not interrupt. And when you’re getting close to the end of the eight minutes, one of my panel members will indicate to you that you have a couple minutes remaining, and we’ll ask that you wind it up at that point.
The first question I’m going to ask is, does BC Assessment have a recommendation today?
Tracy Love: Not at this time.
Adrien Jakes: Okay. Ms. Beach, I am just looking at the information. I haven’t opened any information, but I’ve looked at it. There’s an awful lot by the looks of it. You only have a very short period of time to give evidence here. I’m going to ask that you focus on 2022, what was going on in that particular year.
That’s the year we’re doing now. And the burden of proof to make any changes lies with yourself.
Nancy Beach: I’m sorry, could you repeat that last sentence so I can hear you?
Adrien Jakes: The burden of proof? Is that the one?
Nancy Beach: Yes, thank you.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, the burden of proof lies with you, the appellant. So I’m going to turn the meeting over to you.
All we know about your property is that there’s five parcels of land here and we know the addresses. So one of my panel members will indicate when you’re getting close to the time. Okay, so I’ll leave it up to you. We’re in front of our computers waiting for your directions.
Nancy Beach: Thank you very much. I was told that I would have an hour and a half because there are five parcels and that my meeting would start at 10:30.
Basically I’ve been farming this land for many years now, and for 14 years I had farm status on the land, and in 2019 it was unjustifiably denied. And BC Assessment gave a false statement, which the Property Assessment Appeal Board judged my property on, and they also added a false statement, and then I took it to the Supreme Court judge, and she misinterpreted a part of the farm regulation and she also had to accept the facts that were given to her because she wasn’t allowed to judge based on any other facts apparently.
So since then BC assessment has been basically relying on that judgment to disqualify my farm status on a continuing basis. And also, repeatedly, year after year, I think it’s three or four years now, I’ve been told from the time I applied in October until the time of the PARP hearing that BC Assessment did not have time to discuss my situation with me because they had so many people applying for farm status or the like.
And so I’m not really happy with your process of me saying something and then BC assessment having a little eight minute period, and then you trying to study all the long, complicated facts online to do, to make a determination. I haven’t really had a proper back and forth with BC assessment for a long time.
And I think these issues need to be carefully addressed. I’m going to make a statement and I would like the opportunity for BC Assessment to respond and then for me to have the opportunity to respond once again to what they say. In any case, I’m going to point out a particular…
Tracy Love: Mrs. Beach, this is Tracy from BC Assessment. May I respectfully interrupt and just let the panel know that I had the admin check the time booked for this hearing and it was booked for 90 minutes. It just does not show up correctly on your schedule.
Nancy Beach: Thank you.
In any case, I’m going to point out one issue which basically I think our whole situation revolves around in that the judge, Judge Justice Power, who judged the Supreme Court stated case she seemed to judge our situation basically on her view that our land was not predominantly being farmed.
It’s a large piece of land, and a small part of it was more intensively farmed, and in the farm regulation there is allowance for such things. However, the whole rest of the farm was also being farmed. I did disagree that I am required to earn or to produce $10,000 worth of produce per year. But, I am doing it anyways. And in 2022, I produced $9,000 and something, which was actually sold, and then more than enough to get over the $10,000 amount has been held over for 2023. And that amount has been accounted for in the page that I gave you showing my estimation of the the value of the plants that have been on the property all winter long. There’s very many other questions that have been discussed with BC Assessment about my situation, and I’ve answered them all correctly and and within the FARM Regulation.
Adrien Jakes: I’m going to just interrupt you just for a half a second, and I apologize for doing that, but on the understanding that we have an hour and a half. Is that what 90 minutes is? We obviously could allow you a lot more time to give us evidence, et cetera, et cetera. I’m figuring maybe 20 minutes.
Carry on. I apologize for interrupting.
Nancy Beach: You’re allowing me 20 minutes instead of 8 minutes. Is that what you’re saying?
Adrien Jakes: That is correct, yes.
Nancy Beach: Okay, because I thought I would at least have half an hour. And then BC Assessment would have half an hour, and then you would have half an hour to analyze the… The written pages. However, as I said, I would prefer it went back and forth somewhat. And can I allow BC Assessment now to make some kind of a statement that I can respond to afterwards?
Adrien Jakes: What we allow you to do is present your evidence and information first. Once you’ve completed your portion of it, we then turn it over to BC Assessment. They’re allowed their opportunity to present evidence and information. Then we will ask questions after each presentation. So it’s entirely up to you if you wanna give up your time now and have BC assessment present their information, we could do it that way.
Nancy Beach: And then you can allow me to have some more time after that?
Adrien Jakes: I think that could become awkward. I think I, I. Let me ask the panel members what they feel.
Nancy Beach: Thank you.
Sarah Brandy: It’s Sarah. I feel we should follow the format that every other appeal has gotten.
Adrien Jakes: Okay.
Sarah Brandy: To be fair for all appellants.
Adrien Jakes: And Esther?
Esther Ostrower: I just think if BCA can give two lines of what is the problem, then it will be easier for the appellant to respond to just that, but not their whole presentation, just what is the issue.
Adrien Jakes: Okay. Okay. Would that be okay with you, Ms. Beach?
Nancy Beach: That sounds good. Thank you.
Adrien Jakes: Okay. BC Assessment, why don’t you give us a shortened version of just exactly what is the issue. Okay?
Tracy Love: The issue would be, in our opinion, only 0. 07 acres of the 402 acres is being farmed, which triggers the intensive farming legislation of a requirement of income of $10,000 per year. And we find that the income produced is questionable as to be market value. We find that the prices of the… Of the flowers sold is higher and inflated than market value.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, and Ms. Beach, if you want to respond to that, you’re welcome to.
Nancy Beach: Thank you very much. Okay we’ve dealt with the market value of the snowdrops, which has been in question in the years past.
We’ve dealt with them in a PARP meeting before. And I presented evidence that Art Knapps, I think it was, nursery sold them for $1.40 or more, I think it was, per bulb. And I sold them for less than they did. BC Assessment as Janice Weninger, the assessor approved that amount and didn’t have any more question about it within that meeting.
And then another year later, she brought the question up again. I shouldn’t have to be repeating the same information year after year. That has been settled. Snowdrop bulbs are little flowers that, you might think, “Oh, they’re small. They’re only worth 10 cents each”. They’re not. They’re very valuable bulbs. And depending on the variety, they can be $12 for a single bulb, or something like that. I just charge a reasonable amount. And also, the mixed plant pots that they come in are not just snowdrops. They have other plants in with them. It’s actually very within reason to charge what I charge for them.
I also have provided the $10,000 as I said. This has been going on year after year, but as BC assessment has agreed, we are not to be judged on previous years. Each year is different and needs to be judged on its own. So once again, I have sold #9,000 and something worth of sales in 2022, which you can look at in my application to confirm. And also that I have pictures of my plants in the plants plots showing my held over plants to be sold for 2023.
And as far as the .07 acres of 400 acres I’m not sure exactly that’s the exact correct figure. It may not be much more than that, however, but as I always like to say, I don’t need to hoe 400 acres in order to… acquire the $10,000 thankfully. And so I use the amount of land that is required to provide that amount.
However, I’m going to also say, as I have in all the years, that the rest of the land is also being used for Honeybee forage land. We have four…
Adrien Jakes: you’re breaking up on your…
Nancy Beach: Oh, we have four hives which have once again survived the winter. They are locally adapted bees. In the first many years, they died every winter, for the most part. Because we were getting our bees from elsewhere, but now we have these locally adapted ones and I think this is the third year that they have survived the winter and they’re making very good use of the 400 acres.
And I think Howard Kushner, who judged my PAAB, Property Assessment Appeal Board submission whose judgment came out last September. What was he, what was I going to say? Oh yes, he brought up an old case law example in which I suppose the large piece of land for bees to forage on was disqualified. However, I have more recent case law examples, which I have presented to BC assessment, which actually have been approved by PAAB. And they show that forage in large areas of land for bees is actually acceptable as being qualified as farm.
And in addition to that, I use the whole 400 acres for gathering plants like cedar, fir, ferns, native plants, which are potted up and sold as part of my farm operation. So the whole 400 acres has contributed to our farm status, legitimately, and that has not been respected by BC Assessment. They’ve got an arbitrary amount, .07 acres, which they consider to be minuscule. However, there is no size limit in the farm regulation. That is an arbitrary, nebulous decision to reject it. Whereas the farm regulation says that the assessor must qualify land as farm if I follow the rules, and I am.
Okay I think those points have basically been covered. And I would appreciate being able to give BC Assessment another opportunity to state if there is any more issues which should be covered.
Adrien Jakes: You’ll have to repeat that.
Nancy Beach: Okay, I think I’ve just covered the issues that BC Assessment just brought up and I would like to give them an opportunity to tell me if there’s any other issues that need to be addressed.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, I think at this point we’re going to bring your evidence information to a conclusion and then turn it to BC Assessment and they present their evidence and then when they’re through, you’ll have the opportunity to ask any questions at that point.
Nancy Beach: I appreciate being able to ask questions, but if I had any more time, I think I would direct you to my submissions which show my application and all my invoices and there’s pictures in there and so forth.
Adrien Jakes: Okay.
Esther Ostrower: Adrien, when do we ask questions?
Adrien Jakes: When the appellant has finished her presentation. And I think she’s getting close to her time, we’ll let you continue then for, say, another three or four minutes.
Nancy Beach: Thank you. You can look at my application, which I think is… noted properly in my submission.
I did ask BC assessment in October the 25th, 2022, since Howard Kushner who judged the PAAB submissions September ‘22 said that I hadn’t provided enough evidence, “Please tell me what evidence you want me to include in the application so that I can include it.” But I got no response to that, basically, until the January 16th or so email from BC Assessment telling me that I should apply for a PARP hearing in case BC assessment didn’t get back to me. And that’s that. So I’ve tried to provide all the evidence that BC assessment wanted. And I can see my picture of honey. Two jars of honey in front of me, but I don’t know what you’re looking at. Let’s see, does it even have a page number on that? Maybe not so much.
Adrien Jakes: Is there things you want us to be looking at here?
Nancy Beach: I’ve got my letter in there that I just mentioned about BC assessment. I’ve got my invoices. I’ve got a picture of the honey, and I think in here is a picture of the, yeah, farm plants that are held over for 2023. So there you go, but they’re also pictured in other years that…
Adrien Jakes: okay, we’ll give you a minute or so to wind up your presentation and we’re going to move on to BC assessment.
Nancy Beach: Okay. Thank you very much. I think I’ve done it, but I think it could be helpful for you to look at the other submissions that I’ve provided as well.
Adrien Jakes: We only have a certain amount of time, and I’m concerned that we won’t have enough time to look at all the information.
Okay, we’re going to turn it over to BC Assessment in a minute, but first of all, we’re going to ask our panel members for questions.
Sarah Brandy: Hi, this is Sarah. So you mentioned that Art Knapp Nursery sells the snow drop bulbs for about $1.40 a bulb and that you sell them for less than that. But you never actually mentioned what you sell them for. Could you tell me that please?
Nancy Beach: I don’t remember offhand. I’ve got the figures written somewhere else. Let’s just say around $1.30 or something like that. The pots are sold for $200 each, and I’m not talking all the pots. I have different sized pots, but this is one that was in question. And I have over 150 snow drops in each pot, plus other plants. So I’ll let you do the math.
Sarah Brandy: Okay. Thank you. That wasn’t clear from the invoices what made up those large snow drop pots. So that’s helpful. And you mentioned that in 2022, you made less than $10,000. You made $9000 and something. Could you give me that figure again, please?
Nancy Beach: Okay, I have to look on this application to find out exactly what I’ve reported there, and I’m getting close to it.
Okay $9, 055, and over $1, 000 is held over for sale in 2023.
Sarah Brandy: Okay, thank you. That’s all the questions for me, thank you.
Nancy Beach: Thank you. It’s
Esther Ostrower: It seems to me that the dispute is around the $200 being charged for the snowdrop pot. You’re saying that there’s 150 bulbs in the pot?
Nancy Beach: I said over 150.
Esther Ostrower: And so the person who buys it then does what?
Nancy Beach: Why would you… ask that? I’m not understanding what exactly you want to know.
They buy it and they take it home. Okay?
Esther Ostrower: Okay, and so all of those are in the one pot?
Nancy Beach: Yes.
Esther Ostrower: Okay, thanks.
Nancy Beach: Thank you.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, I have a couple questions for you. Let’s just carry on with the snowdrops and the pot. 150 bulbs per pot
Nancy Beach: Over 150.
Adrien Jakes: And you sell them for $200?
Nancy Beach: Yes.
Adrien Jakes: That correct?
Nancy Beach: Yes.
Adrien Jakes: And who is Peace Nurture Nursery?
Nancy Beach: I have Peace Nursery.
Adrien Jakes: You’re the owner of Peace?
Nancy Beach: Yes.
Adrien Jakes: Okay. And I’m just looking at the receipts here. Okay. So based on all these receipts, In 2022, your total income was $9, 055. Is that correct?
Nancy Beach: That’s how much was sold, yes.
Adrien Jakes: Yeah, so that’s your sales.
Nancy Beach: It’s my sales, but let’s not get too confused about this because…
Adrien Jakes: Okay, so my next question has to do with honey production.
Nancy Beach: Okay.
Adrien Jakes: How many pounds of honey do you get from your hives?
Nancy Beach: How many pounds? I’m sorry? How many pounds of honey do I get, you say?
Adrien Jakes: How many pounds of honey did you get in 2022?
Nancy Beach: I don’t know about get, because there may be a lot more in the hives than was actually sold. But we have sold $75 worth. And, is that alright?
Adrien Jakes: Now you also said in your conversation that you just had with us there was a comment that .07 acres are being used, and you said, “probably a little bit more than that.” Yet in your application I think you’re indicating, I saw it here, let me just try and find it. Let me just find it. Where’s the application? Here it is. Okay. Sorry, just bear with me a second here.
Nancy Beach: No worries.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, here we are. You’re indicating total number of acres used, 240, 242, 342. Almost all of the property is being used. And yet in your comments, you said a little more than .07 acres is being used. Can you clarify that for me, please?
Nancy Beach: I don’t know where I said… Okay, I did talk about more intensive farming in smaller areas that have been fenced and they occur on all these different properties, different plots.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, but you said in your comments probably a little bit more than 0. 07 acres.
Nancy Beach: Okay.
Adrien Jakes: I just need clarification on what you mean by that.
Nancy Beach: I haven’t actually, measured the plots and figured it out like BC Assessment has. They determined 0. 07 or so, they also said there was only five plots, whereas in fact there was seven.
Adrien Jakes: No, that’s not the question I’m asking you. You told us in your conversation, and you recorded it so you could go back and listen to that just for clarification. I’m not sure what you meant by, there’s only, BC assessment is saying you’re farming .07 acres, and you said, “it’s a little bit more than that.” But then I’m looking at your application. And your application shows almost the whole property is being farmed.
Nancy Beach: I’m sorry to say that I don’t mean to be rude, but you did just interrupt me because I’m trying to explain the situation. And, okay, so just let’s assume as BC Assessment said that it’s about .07, but I was saying, the most intensively farmed part of it, the fenced plots, are possibly .07. But BC Assessment has only claimed that there are five of those plots, whereas in fact there are seven, so I don’t know how they made their calculations from five or seven. And in addition to those plots are the beehives and, yeah, because they’re not inside the plots. And also, there is the area that goes between the plots. There’s roadways and trails. And if you look at Section 4- 2.1 [of the farm regulation], it accounts for other ways that the land is being used than the intensively farmed ways that I’ve described.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, that answers my question. Thank you very much.
Nancy Beach: Thank you.
Adrien Jakes: So I’m going to ask BC Assessment if they have any questions before they move on with their presentation.
Tracy Love: I had a question. How big are the large pots that fit 150 bulbs in them?
Nancy Beach: They vary in size somewhat. They’re over two gallons, basically.
Tracy Love: So on your application you mentioned in previous years the sale of Christmas trees. Is that still an ongoing project?
Nancy Beach: When I wasn’t given much credit for the Christmas trees, I didn’t continue with my plans of growing the quantities, and, yeah the timing for sales as I had before necessarily. But basically I’ve always had a mixed type of farm with honey and horticulture. And the Christmas trees continue to be part of it, but only part of it. And I did sell some Christmas trees in 2022.
Tracy Love: Do you have any receipts for those sales?
Nancy Beach: Yes, I do, and they are included in what I’ve sent you.
Tracy Love: Okay and, so are, you’re selling the Christmas trees out of pots also? Or do you have an area where they’re planted on the island?
Nancy Beach: They’re in containers.
Tracy Love: Okay. I don’t really have any other questions right now.
Nancy Beach: Thank you.
Adrien Jakes: Okay. You want to go ahead now with your presentation?
Tracy Love: Okay. Alright, to start this is an application for five properties with a total area of 402.19 acres. All but .62 acres are out of the ALR, so .62 acres on 240 Bridgeman Road is in the ALR. It’s our contention after inspecting the property and looking at the various plots that are fenced that .07 acres is being farmed. It is also our contention that when you look at a farming operation when a relatively small area on each of the properties is being used for any sort of agricultural activity, it can’t be said that the properties are being operated as an integrated unit to constitute a farm operation.
They’re not making a reasonable contribution to the total operation, so we would have to look at each property individually to see what was actually being done on each property. And our previous inspections and the applications that have been submitted don’t tell us that there are more areas being used than was previously at the 2020 inspection.
I’ll go to BC assessment evidence that’s been uploaded. The first two files, 61184 and 85 are actually comparable sales and a comparable sales map for the residential values. But that doesn’t seem to be an issue today, so I don’t even know if we need to get into that. The file 61493 are photos from 2020 showing different areas that were walked on the property. It’s showing a very natural state property.
Adrien Jakes: Can I just stop this for a minute?
Tracy Love: Yep.
Adrien Jakes: Can I just stop this for a minute? I don’t see the numbers you have just indicated. So would you…
Tracy Love: 6149, 61493.
Adrien Jakes: 61943, I do not have…
Tracy Love: No, 6, 61493. Beach Field Inspection.
Esther Ostrower: Third one down.
Adrien Jakes: Gimme the number again please. I’m sorry.
Tracy Love: 6 1 4 9 3. It’s the third file down on the BC assessment evidence and those pictures were taken in August of 2020. Then we have 6 1 4 9 4, which might be helpful to you. It’s an overview of the five properties and how they are related to each other geographically.
Adrien Jakes: Okay.
Tracy Love: The reason that we, I know past evidence is not taken into consideration, I did include the Supreme Court case because it does have a good description of the appellant’s points of view and BC assessment’s point of view which is why it was included. It is 27 pages, but if you did look at that, page 4, 6, 7 and 21 actually has both the appellant information and BC assessment information.
Then, the last 3 files, 61496-97-98, are all applications from previous years, 2020, 2022, and then the same application that the appellant uploaded, this latest one for 2023. The reason that we showed past applications is that we’re not seeing any difference in the evidence submitted for area in use. No new pictures of cultivated areas.
It’s BC assessment’s contention that cultivation of native plants is different than collection of native plants. We don’t see any fencing around a lot of these native plants that are being collected, any husbandry, pruning, irrigation, fertilizing. That type of thing hasn’t been proved that they’re actually managing these plants. They’re just gathering them and foraging is not considered an agricultural, qualifying agricultural use.
We feel that the properties are not being used predominantly for a qualifying agricultural use. Only .07 acres out of 400, basically 403 acres is not predominant use. We also have in question our understanding was that the pots of snowdrops, for example had much less bulbs in them than is now being stated.
And pots of snowdrops being sold for $50, $100, and $200 as the receipts indicate, is far above the market value of what we were able to find anywhere else. BC Assessment would ask that when you look at the applications and the receipts provided that you be upholding the residential value for the 2023 role.
Also the honey for hives would not be considered being using 403 acres to forage for four hives of bees. If you had maybe 150 hives, that would be more in question of using that much area. We would need to see receipts for hives and nooks and possibly your registration for your hives to prove that there were a lot more bees on site before we would take into consideration more area being used.
Also, I would just like to state that even if it is the opinion of the PARP panel that there should be some farm class granted, these are non ALR properties, so we would have to calculate the income versus the area used and they would definitely be split class properties. And some of the properties may not even be considered at all because the area is so small that’s being farmed on them. But for now, we are asking that the panel confirm the residential values of these properties for the 2023 role.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, thank you Ms. Love. Panel members, questions please?
Sarah Brandy: Yes, it’s Sarah. Ms. Love, could you just explain, so the appellant has said that she made over 9, just over $9,000, but that she held product over for sale in 2023. Does that count towards the 2022 sales value?
Tracy Love: Normally, that would count. Usually it’s in the case of hay or something like that people are storing and holding over. I think it comes back to the fact of our dispute over the value of the plants that are being sold and also where they’re being stored. As it looks like from the receipts from the Peace Nursery, they’re being sold on Cortes Island. So are they actually being stored on Salt Spring Island? That’s another question that we had.
Adrien Jakes: Okay. More questions from the panel?
Esther Ostrower: You mentioned that in fact there was only a little bit being farmed so that you couldn’t look at all the properties together. Has this point been raised with the appellant before such that she would make separate applications?
Tracy Love: It is in the TAB and Supreme Court decisions. It’s mentioned in both of those, so she would have got copies of those.
Esther Ostrower: It’s mentioned that it should be done separately?
Tracy Love: No, it’s mentioned that, considering these five properties to be a one farm operation when they’re using such a tiny amount of property, They have, if you have a small property that you want included in your farm operation, it has to be able to prove that it’s making a reasonable contribution to the farm operation as a whole.
And some of these properties only have a very small plot of of land, like a garden bed area that they’re using. So it’s, if you look at the total value that they’re saying they’re selling, I We’re saying that those small one little plot of land of the garden on a lot is not a reasonable contribution to the whole operation.
So even if it is determined that the receipts should be accepted and we would be looking at each individual property and we might not necessarily be granting farm class on all of them.
Esther Ostrower: Okay, my point is that notwithstanding the legal cases, has BCA looked at the individual properties with the appellant? Or hasn’t it just added up all of the acreage and then said she had to have $10, 000?
Tracy Love: We have listed, and I cannot find it, but it was listed, I think it’s in the Supreme Court case how much land is being used on each of the individual five parcels.
So it has been looked at how much land as a whole for the 403 acres, but also where it is on each parcel. And if I don’t think that it would be successful for some of those parcels to put in an application separately, because there’s going to be such a minute area used that they would again have to then have 410, 000 just for that area.
It’s more to her advantage, obviously, to have the five properties together as one farm operation and only have to make $10, 000 for all five properties.
Esther Ostrower: Okay. The other thing is that you there’s been a big concern about the snow drops. And you had said that you were not aware before that there were so many per pot. Has this influenced your decision?
Tracy Love: No.
Adrien Jakes: Any other questions, Esther?
Esther Ostrower: No.
Adrien Jakes: No? Okay, so Ms. Beach, I’m going to ask you if you have any questions. This is not a time to go over evidence. It’s time to ask questions of BC Assessment. Okay?
Nancy Beach: Thank you. Okay. Why despite, ah, PAAB, I believe, and BC assessment both noting my more intensive farm operation in the fence plot that was ALR, why has that area not been given farm status?
Tracy Love: You’re saying that all of the area you use contributes to the $10,000 in income. We wouldn’t be taking just that one property. You’re not making the whole $10, 000 off of that one, one property, unless that is your contention and you could reapply for that one property and say, “I’m making all the money off of this one” and it might qualify for farm classification. But you’re saying you’re using five properties in order to make that $10,000.
Nancy Beach: I hear you. Thank you. And why are you saying that gathering and collecting plants from the 400 acres is not included as a qualifying farm product when it says, in fact, in the farm regulation that seedlings and seeds is a qualifying farm product?
Tracy Love: Those are a qualifying farm product if after you collect them, then you manage and cultivate them. So if you’re replanting them for a long period of time so that they grow over years and are worth significantly more money. If you’re just selling the seeds outright, or selling the seedlings as soon as they’re collected, that’s considered foraging.
And it’s not managing or cultivating the plants. You can manage and cultivate them where they sit on your property without having to move them to a garden area, but we have to see that, they are being managed, that there’s no weeds around them, that they’re being pruned, that they’re being protected with fencing or, that you have some way of making sure that they have water and fertilizer and that type of thing. So that would have to be proven.
Nancy Beach: And why have you not acknowledged that I have cultivated those plants and also that farm inspection occurred in August and-
Adrien Jakes: I’m sorry, I can’t hear you. Could you repeat all that, please?
Nancy Beach: Okay. Why has BC Assessment not acknowledged that I have cultivated those plants that I have gathered and sold? And also, that my normal process is removing plants from the properties in the summertime because there’s no way of watering them there. So they’re stored elsewhere, but they’re also put back there for the late fall, winter and spring seasons. So that is where they are, and why hasn’t BC Assessment acknowledged that when they’re trying to question whether the snowdrops, for example, are actually being only grown elsewhere? Not to mention that the plots, the various plots on the property, had snowdrops in them. Many snowdrops.
Tracy Love: I’m sorry, what was the… Specific question.
Nancy Beach: Okay. Why has BC Assessment not acknowledged that I have not only gathered plants from the 400 acres, but I have cultivated them?
Tracy Love: It wasn’t our observation when we inspected the property that they were being cultivated. And, for example, your Christmas tree sales of… $10 a potted tree would indicate that they were not grown over a period of time. They were probably very small seedlings still if that is what you were able to sell them for. We’re looking for you looking after these plants for a considerable amount of time, growing them and managing them, and then selling them for a profit, that’s fine. It does not seem that is what’s happening on our inspection, or you haven’t provided any photos of tended garden beds or managed cultivated plants.
It’s very overgrown. The one picture you’ve supplied with your application, you have a picture of two jars of honey and a picture of a tiny little plot that I can’t tell what’s growing there. It looks like grass and weeds. So they need to be tended and managed those areas for us to consider that you’re cultivating the plants.
Nancy Beach: I’m having a hard time understanding why you can’t see that those plants in that particular picture are covered with leaves for the winter so they don’t freeze and that they’re, they definitely are not weeds. They are various types of cultivated plants and I hope you will take a closer look. Not to mention that Janice Wenninger also visited the property in January of one year, might have been 2020 or 2019, and she knew very well that my plants are typically maintained there over the winter type period and not in the summer?
Tracy Love: And so, where are you taking these plants in the summer?
Nancy Beach: To Cortes Island, but I’ve also had my friend in Crofton care for some of them there.
Tracy Love: I was going to ask the number of pots that were moved.
Adrien Jakes: I was gonna ask the appellant if she could speak up a little bit, I’m really having trouble hearing her.
Nancy Beach: I’m sorry, do you want me to repeat what I just said?
Adrien Jakes: That would be excellent, thank you.
Nancy Beach: Huh. What did I just say?
Tracy Love: You were saying that you were moving the pots in the summer?
Nancy Beach: Oh yeah. Thank you. I do move the pots, plants, off for the summer period because we do not have a capacity to water them on Saltspring. So they’re moved away to water them, and then in the rainy period, late fall, winter, spring, they are put on the land.
Tracy Love: How many pots do you think you’re moving and how are you getting them? Is it not a, at least one ferry ride to Cortes Island? Are you taking them all across on the ferry to your property?
Nancy Beach: Sure. And it’s a truckload. I don’t know exactly the number of containers. It varies.
Adrien Jakes: Any other questions for BC Assessment?
Nancy Beach: Thank you. Okay, so this word predominantly used, that I think is what, oh, yes, the judge misinterpreted. However, why are you, BC Assessment, continuing to question that when you know about the farm regulation rules which allow for more intensive farming in a certain part of the property and also other areas that contributed to, contribute to that farmed area being allowed farm status? Do I have to name the sections I’m referring to? Four, I think it is 4 – 2.1, particularly it names different ways that the larger piece of land can contribute. And it says let’s see, what’s the word, without “limitation”? Now, without limitation should be taken seriously, correct?
Tracy Love: I’m not positive what your question is.
Nancy Beach: Okay. I think section four in brackets 2.1 of the farm regulation says that without limitation, if the larger piece of land contributes to the more intensively farmed smaller piece of land, then the larger piece of land also qualifies as farm. And there’s no limit on the size that can be. And you have arbitrarily decided that it’s a minuscule amount that is being more intensively farmed. But, I don’t see that as fair, and I’m wondering why you do? Because that is not what is in the Farm Regulation, which says that you must qualify the larger piece of land if it contributes to the more intensively farmed part.
Tracy Love: I think you’re maybe referring to 4-3.1 of the Act. It’s “Since the vast majority of the land is not being used for agriculture, the portion used for qualifying agriculture use does not amount to a reasonable contribution to a farm operation.” It was decided by BC Assessment, The Property Assessment Appeal Board, and agreed by the Supreme Court that .07 of an acre on a 403 acre parcel is not a reasonable contribution.
Adrien Jakes: Does that answer your question, Ms. Beach?
Nancy Beach: Not well. But thank you.
Tracy Love: I’m sorry, I think it comes down to what a reasonable person would consider reasonable. And point, less than one acre of 402 acres is to most people not a reasonable contribution.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, any other questions from anyone?
Nancy Beach: I’d like to point out a part of the farm regulation, if you don’t mind.
Adrien Jakes: You’d have to speak up a little bit. I’m really having difficulty hearing you.
Nancy Beach: Okay, I’d like to point out a part of the farm regulation, if you don’t mind.
Adrien Jakes: I’ll give you a couple of minutes then. Yep.
Nancy Beach: Thank you. Unfortunately, I’m not sure I can… Access it within that length of time. Excuse me. I have to cough.
Adrien Jakes: We’re actually running out of time. You have to allow the panel time to adjudicate there as well. So we’ll give you maybe a couple of minutes to the outside and then we need to move on.
Nancy Beach: In any case, I’m just going to, I’m just going to point out, the farm regulation talks about if there is not ALR. Okay, let’s begin with, if there is ALR, then we should have farm status on the ALR. However, if there isn’t ALR, then it talks about if there’s 50% of the land that is helping to qualify the smaller part, then it should have farm status. And if there’s 25, and another of the sections is if there’s 25% of the land, then it should have farm status. What the “predominantly” word is talking about is “it is used for business”, I forget other descriptions, but that type of thing.
If it’s not actually zoned or used for other business purposes, then and if it’s got zero use for it, either if it’s not being used at all, or if it’s being used for farm, it can still qualify as farm, the whole thing.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, so I think what we’re going to do at this point is we as a panel are going to leave the conference call. Please don’t hang up. We’re going to discuss the information that’s been put forward today, come back and give you our decision for today, and that decision is for this year only. Now when we’re gone, I would really appreciate if BC Assessment and you, Ms. Beach, do not have any conversations about the situation. Understood?
Nancy Beach: Yes. Thank you.
Adrien Jakes: Okay. Just so we don’t miss any information that might be important to us in order to make a decision. So if you could just hold on for a few minutes. We’ll go offline, we’ll come back and give you our decision.
Nancy Beach: Thank you.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, I think we’re back. Sorry to take as long as it did. There’s some confusion over some of the details here. Ms. Beach, are you still available?
Nancy Beach: Yes, thank you.
Adrien Jakes: And BC assessment, you’re still on the line?
Tracy Love: Yes.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, so our decision today is to grant farm status on 0.07 acres. I don’t know how you would set that up, but that’s our decision. We also feel that it would be prudent to do a physical examination of the property, if indeed that is available for BC assessment, that might help to clarify or to make some of the information more clear.
Tracy Love: So is this .07 on one property or how is it split?
Adrien Jakes: Why don’t we determine where the actual, these .07 acres are, which property are they on?
Tracy Love: It’s scattered on all the properties. It’s an accumulation of garden beds on each of the properties that adds up to .07.
Adrien Jakes: Can we put it on one of the properties? Is that appropriate or not?
Tracy Love: I would think not, but that’s the panel’s decision.
Adrien Jakes: We’re going to grant farm class on 0. 07 acres. I don’t know where it is. Maybe the appellant could tell us where most of the growing is taking place. Which property?
Nancy Beach: As BC Assessment just said, it’s on all those different properties. They have claimed that the property next to Bridgeman Road, the ALR part, has been the most intensively farmed. However…
Adrien Jakes: So I’m asking you, listen, we need to move on here, so I don’t want to be rude, but we do need to move on. What I’m asking for is if you could tell us which property most of the growing is taking place. Could you do that, please?
Nancy Beach: Yeah, it’s, I don’t think it’s actually a reasonable question, but if I could maybe transfer, if I could maybe transfer I’m sorry I didn’t hear you because…
Adrien Jakes: I’m asking you to tell us which property you want us to grant 0. 06 acres worth of farm on.
Nancy Beach: Okay, how about, can we do lot 9 and, and lot A?
Adrien Jakes: No, just one of them.
Nancy Beach: Okay.
Adrien Jakes: Tell us where it is.
Nancy Beach: How about lot A then?
Adrien Jakes: What address?
Nancy Beach: That doesn’t have a civic address, but it’s right beside the Indian Reserve. It’s Lot A.
Tracy Love: Do you have a roll number or a PID number?
Nancy Beach: Not off the top of my head. I’d have to look on…
Tracy Love: Okay, but you’re saying it’s Lot A in the legal description?
Nancy Beach: Yes.
Tracy Love: Okay.
Adrien Jakes: Does that help you?
Sarah Brandy: Is that one of the ones on the Menhinick Drive?
Nancy Beach: Yes.
Sarah Brandy: I think it’s number three on our ROPD.
Tracy Love: Okay.
Adrien Jakes: Okay, so we don’t need the appellant to stay on what we do. Figure out the numbers. She’ll get that information first week of April.
Tracy Love: I, yes, we can. I don’t have time to figure it out right now.
Adrien Jakes: Yes, we understand that. Okay, so that’s our decision today, Ms. Beach. You’ll get the information in the mail, or you get the, I’m sorry, I’m having some difficulty with this phone. So you’ll get that information first week of April. And then, I think if you’ve done this before, you know that you can take this to the Property Assessment Appeal Board. Okay, so that’s our decision. We ask now that you leave the conference call, please. And we’ll I think what we’ll do is, panel members, and we’ll come back with the other numbers.
Tracy Love: Okay.
Nancy Beach: Thank you. Can I say one thing?
Adrien Jakes: We have to leave now, so thank you very much.
Nancy Beach: Thank you.
Adrien Jakes: Bye now.
Nancy Beach: Bye.