Neighbours of a rural South Surrey property where more than 600 trees – many of them believed to be more than 100 years old – were cut down this month for “agricultural purposes” say the clearing highlights a critical flaw in the Tree Protection Bylaw that leaves functional forests across the city vulnerable to development.
“It’s a pretty blatant loophole,” Eileen Makepeace said of the regulation’s clause 29 (f).
The clause lays out conditions for obtaining a permit to cut trees on land that is not in the Agricultural Land Reserve, but is zoned for agriculture use.
These include that landowners must swear that the proposed tree removal is for agricultural purposes that cannot occur unless the site is cleared; provide an arborist report; and, enter into a restrictive covenant, promising to not apply for subdivision, rezoning or development of the site for at least 10 years.
A requirement for replacement trees, along with other provisions that are part of permits sought for subdivision, etc. only take effect if the 10-year agreement is not upheld, the clause notes.
Makepeace contends the clause provides those who may be eyeing a property’s future development potential more than farming with an easy way to cut costs, and said it is a stark contradiction of the city’s messaging around urban-forest protection.
READ ALSO: Surrey tree protection bylaw tougher but environmentalist calls for more
READ ALSO: City of Surrey seeks residents’ input on urban tree strategy
She reached out to Peace Arch News with concerns following clearing that took place on some 13 acres of private property in the 19300 block of 8 Avenue.
“I just watched some huge, broad-leaf maple – the girth I wouldn’t be able to put my arms around – come down,” she said. “The firs, the cedars, not to mention the native plants, are totally wiped out.
“It sounds like it’s basically, if you say it’s for agriculture, Surrey will let you do anything.”
Property owner Randy Bishop told PAN he is aware of neighbours’ concerns with the clearing, but said he has no plans to develop the site.
Rather, he said his situation highlights a need for “some sort of third layer of property taxation” for land kept in its raw state.
Bishop said he purchased the subject property about eight years ago as a long-term investment and for possible family use, but mounting costs – including property and speculation taxes – associated with simply continuing to hold onto it as-is prompted him to seek farming status.
“There’s not a lot of incentive to just hold natural land in its current state,” Bishop said. “In fact, there’s penalties.
“So I decided, OK, I’m going to basically farm it.”
The land will be used by a local farmer for cattle, he said, noting just enough was cleared to create the grazing area needed to qualify for farm status.
According to BC Assessment officials, properties formally classified as ‘Farm Class’ receive an exemption from property taxation. Exactly how big of an exemption is unclear, but Bishop said it is significant enough to make farm status “a very attractive taxation structure.”
He confirmed he has taken similar steps with other properties he owns, but said he does not consider himself a developer. He is co-owner of a Vancouver lighting business.
His other real estate investments include the 125-acre Governors Point, just south of Bellingham. Purchased in 2018, three quarters of the property – 98 acres – was donated to Whatcom Land Trust for a public nature reserve; as part of the agreement, Bishop also pledged to build a third fewer homes on its western side than allowed.
Makepeace said while the “damage is done” as far as the 8 Avenue property is concerned, she and other area residents have enlisted wildlife biologist Myles Lamont – a member of Surrey’s environment and climate change committee – to draw attention to the issue and perhaps help convince city officials to close the bylaw loophole.
Lamont, who also lives in the area, said what transpired at the 8 Avenue site highlights “issues and weaknesses” that need to be resolved, including the window that 29(f) leaves open for developers to use agriculture as a “guise” for full-scale land-clearing.
In addition to the potential long-term impact to the watershed, Lamont said he has concerns with the one-year length of the permit that was issued, as well as word from federal officials that a nesting-bird survey does not appear to have been completed.
Nadia Chan, the City of Surrey’s trees and landscapes manager, said by email that nesting-bird surveys are typically required for tree-cutting permits related to development, as well as for non-development applications within riparian areas, or those with five or more trees.
She said such a survey was not required for the 8 Avenue site as the permit was issued outside of the breeding season.
Regarding the permit length, Chan said one year is the typical term, except if the permit is issued between March 1 and Aug. 31. Those permits may be shorter in length, as they may require a breeding-bird survey, she said.
Bishop told PAN that a federal wildlife official raised no concerns during a site visit in mid-August.
Coun. Mike Bose – head of the city’s environment and climate change committee – and other city officials were not immediately available to comment further.
tracy.holmes@peacearchnews.com
Follow us on X www.peacearchnews.com/newsletters
