NOTE: This article represents the personal opinions of Brian Webster and not those of Salt Spring Island’s Local Community Commission (of which he is a member) or the Capital Regional District.
By BRIAN WEBSTER
It’s not new to see conflict between agriculture and neighbours who want a rural lifestyle without the sounds and smells of farming. It’s happened on Salt Spring Island before and in other B.C. communities. It seems everyone wants farmers to farm, but some want it to happen only if it doesn’t disturb their peace and quiet.
Salt Spring is a rural community with a long history of farming. This is reflected in our official community plan, which recognizes “agriculture’s contribution to the island’s social, economic and environmental nature and appeal.” That plan’s objectives include retaining and building on the island’s agricultural base and supporting “farming as a social, cultural and economic priority.”
Our OCP sets out a policy that “farming activities and necessary structures should continue to be allowed by zoning . . . on all properties where they are currently allowed.” As a result, Salt Spring’s zoning regulations permit agriculture on properties in numerous zones, including those zoned Rural, Rural Upland, Rural Watershed and others, in addition to zones designated as Agricultural.
As of 2017, 2,855 hectares of Salt Spring (17 per cent of the island) was within the province’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and another 3,359 hectares outside the ALR were considered actual or potential farmland. Combined, these two areas include 36 per cent of Salt Spring.
There are zones on Salt Spring where agriculture as a principal use is not permitted, including most of those categorized as Residential. As a result, people who don’t want to live near farming have options. However, those who choose to live in zones where farming is permitted need to be prepared for the possibility that their neighbours will farm.
THE NATURE OF FARMING
While every farm is unique, most farming takes place outside and commonly involves the use of equipment and/or the keeping of animals, both of which may create sound, odours or other “nuisances.”
As urban growth encroached on farmland in many areas of B.C., especially during the latter half of the last century, some non-farmer residents in areas with agriculture pressed for their local governments to prohibit farm-related “nuisances.” This pressure led to concerns that the long-term survival of agriculture and local food was coming under threat, leading the province to bring in a law to protect farming.
B.C.’s RIGHT TO FARM ACT
The Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act took effect in 1996. It says that a farmer may not be prevented from carrying out “normal farm practices” as defined by the province.
However, the act has been applied unevenly. For farms located within the ALR, the act prevents anyone (individual or local government) from stopping normal farm practices. But if the farm is outside the ALR, the act only prevents individuals from suing a farmer for “nuisances” resulting from normal farming practices; it leaves local governments with discretion around their nuisance bylaws.
The result: farming on Salt Spring properties within the ALR is exempt from the CRD noise bylaw, but farms outside the ALR are not. For a community in the unusual position of having most of its potential farmland outside the ALR, this is a problem.
Salt Spring is further challenged by the small scale of local farming. For example, the average flock size of conventional poultry producers in B.C. is more than 22,000 hens. On Salt Spring, the vast majority of poultry farmers have fewer than 50 birds.
If we — and CRD bylaw enforcement — look to mainstream agriculture for our understanding of farming, we’re going to have trouble understanding the challenges of Salt Spring farming. Likewise, the tendency of some to dismiss small-scale agriculture as “hobby farms” undeserving of protection is particularly problematic on our island, as the vast majority of our island’s roughly 200 farms are part-time enterprises.
THE SALT SPRING NOISE AND ANIMAL CONTROL BYLAWS
CRD Bylaw No. 3384 covers Salt Spring. It prohibits “any noise or sound in the Electoral Area which creates a noise that disturbs or tends to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of the neighbourhood or of persons at or near the source of such noise or sound.”
The bylaw exempts certain activities, including “the noise associated with legitimate farm operations.” However, the exemption only applies if “all reasonable measures have been taken to abate noise.” This empowers CRD staff to determine what abatement measures are reasonable and to force farmers outside the ALR to implement them, even if they go against normal farm practices.
As a result, some small-scale poultry producers who live outside the ALR but still in areas where agriculture is permitted have been told to get rid of their roosters or face enforcement action.
Salt Spring is also covered by CRD Bylaw No. 1465, which prohibits keeping an animal that “disturbs or tends to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment comfort or convenience of the neighbourhood . . . .” This provision has one exemption: “except in an Agricultural Zone.”
However, the bylaw does not define an “Agricultural Zone” and CRD staff have interpreted this to mean only lots zoned A1 or A2, even though properties in numerous other zones have the same ability to farm under our zoning bylaw as do lots zoned A1 or A2.
A PATH FORWARD
As a result of all this, Salt Spring’s current noise and animal control bylaws are preventing some small-scale farmers located outside the ALR from carrying out normal farm practices on land zoned for agriculture. Others have carried on, but fear that one cranky neighbour could one day force them to stop farming. Some small-scale farmers considering a move to Salt Spring have hesitated as they are unsure whether farming is welcome here anymore.
Recent action against small-scale farmers raises the spectre of growing limits on farming outside the ALR. Today it’s roosters; tomorrow, who knows?
But a straightforward solution is possible. Common-sense clarifications to definitions in CRD bylaws 1465 and 3384, plus one substantive change to the noise bylaw could eliminate the problem.
First, the terms “agriculture zone” and “land zoned for agriculture use” could be interpreted — through a Salt Spring-specific CRD policy — to mean a zone where zoning permits agriculture as a principal use.
Second, consistent with the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, the bylaws could define farming as “growing, producing, raising or keeping animals or plants, among other activities.” Where normal farming activities are being legally carried out as a business, they could be considered “legitimate farm operations,” regardless of the size of the lot or the scale of the operation.
And finally, Section 4 (5) of the Salt Spring noise bylaw could be replaced with the following exemption:
(5) On a lot where agriculture is a permitted use, conducting legitimate farm operations.
These simple changes would protect small-scale farming while continuing to shield residents living on the 64 per cent of Salt Spring that does not permit farming from noise and other farming-related nuisances.
A solution is available, but does our community have the will to demand it?
I could not agree more. I have been around SSI since childhood (1961) and have lived here full time since 2019, after an academic (read cities) career. Through the last 6 years I have been astounded and appalled by the tripe we hear from those who have a very romanticized and sanitized (or do I mean Bowdlerized) view of country life. The rooster story is just the latest example, though certainly one of the silliest.