Terms & Conditions

Web Site Terms and Conditions of Use

1. Terms

By accessing this web site, you are agreeing to be bound by these
web site Terms and Conditions of Use, all applicable laws and regulations,
and agree that you are responsible for compliance with any applicable local
laws. If you do not agree with any of these terms, you are prohibited from
using or accessing this site. The materials contained in this web site are
protected by applicable copyright and trade mark law.

2. Use License

  1. Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials
    (information or software) on Inside Langford’s web site for personal,
    non-commercial transitory viewing only. This is the grant of a license,
    not a transfer of title, and under this license you may not:

    1. modify or copy the materials;
    2. use the materials for any commercial purpose, or for any public display (commercial or non-commercial);
    3. attempt to decompile or reverse engineer any software contained on Inside Langford’s web site;
    4. remove any copyright or other proprietary notations from the materials; or
    5. transfer the materials to another person or “mirror” the materials on any other server.
  2. This license shall automatically terminate if you violate any of these restrictions and may be terminated by Inside Langford at any time. Upon terminating your viewing of these materials or upon the termination of this license, you must destroy any downloaded materials in your possession whether in electronic or printed format.

3. Disclaimer

  1. The materials on Inside Langford’s web site are provided “as is”. Inside Langford makes no warranties, expressed or implied, and hereby disclaims and negates all other warranties, including without limitation, implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement of intellectual property or other violation of rights. Further, Inside Langford does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials on its Internet web site or otherwise relating to such materials or on any sites linked to this site.

4. Limitations

In no event shall Inside Langford or its suppliers be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of data or profit, or due to business interruption,) arising out of the use or inability to use the materials on Inside Langford’s Internet site, even if Inside Langford or a Inside Langford authorized representative has been notified orally or in writing of the possibility of such damage. Because some jurisdictions do not allow limitations on implied warranties, or limitations of liability for consequential or incidental damages, these limitations may not apply to you.

5. Revisions and Errata

The materials appearing on Inside Langford’s web site could include technical, typographical, or photographic errors. Inside Langford does not warrant that any of the materials on its web site are accurate, complete, or current. Inside Langford may make changes to the materials contained on its web site at any time without notice. Inside Langford does not, however, make any commitment to update the materials.

6. Links

Inside Langford has not reviewed all of the sites linked to its Internet web site and is not responsible for the contents of any such linked site. The inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by Inside Langford of the site. Use of any such linked web site is at the user’s own risk.

7. Site Terms of Use Modifications

Inside Langford may revise these terms of use for its web site at any time without notice. By using this web site you are agreeing to be bound by the then current version of these Terms and Conditions of Use.

8. Governing Law

Any claim relating to Inside Langford’s web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of British Columbia without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

General Terms and Conditions applicable to Use of a Web Site.

Who Should You Hire To Clean Your House?

Anyone who’s ever hired someone to clean their house knows the dangers of setting out on this hunt. On the one hand you’ll be able to search Craigslist or Used Victoria and sift through the tons of ads for independent people who will clean your home. On the opposite end of the spectrum there are corporations like Merry Maids and Molly Maids. This option you realize will cost you more, but that is not all. Let’s have a closer look at both extremes of your options for hiring a cleaning service.

This really is where most people start in their own quest to find only the right fit for their maid or house keeper. On the ‘garage sale’ sites like Craigslist you’ll find a list so long as your arm of individuals willing to come out and clean your house. In the event you have ever attempted this approach you probably have a number of your own stories, both comedy and horror, of how things went with your first cleaning or following ones.

The most prominent comments we hear from people who’ve hired independents is about unreliability. You’ll reserve the appointment and they merely won’t show up. Or they’ll telephone half an hour as soon as they should be there to tell you they are not coming. All proud of herself for troubling to call and offer a laughable explanation about:

  • An ill kid
  • a broken down car
  • another customer who needed her more

But these reasons only begin after you have sifted through the available candidates and decided to give one a chance. You start by contacting a dozen or so future candidates for your cleaning service that is new. Only unprofessional are you prepared to see on the other end of the phone? Typically you will get someone who looks confused regarding what you may be calling about. Who? What? Oh yes, that Craigslist ad. Right. From the first moment you feel as though you are trying to sell her on you rather than the other way around. These women could possibly be wonderful, but you will not get the sense that they are running a little business or are in any way serious about cleaning as a vocation.

That’s actually what you need though is not it? Somebody who’s not just doing this kind of work until something better comes along. It is no fun anymore because you surely don’t want to have to be going through this arduous process when the cleaning service you simply hired determines!

Professional Corporate Cleaning Services

On the other end of the cleaning services scale is the large, typically franchised, corporate house cleaning services. Think ‘The Maids’. This choice adds lots of stability in the relationship but at a price. Usually that is rather a high cost. It is what keeps most home owners from contacting them in the very first place. The other drawback to the corporate franchise alternative is the fact that you give the relationship that could develop between you along with your house keeper. With the franchise maids you never really know who might show up on your own doorstep on the day.

The Most Effective Option For Cleaning Services Victoria

At Burley Cleaning you actually get the finest of both worlds. They are small enough you don’t have to bust your children’s piggy bank to pay them but not so enormous that you cannot create that personal relationship with your housekeeper. They always arrive on time at the arranged day and time. They bring their own professional grade cleaning equipment and a complete variety of non-poisonous environmentally friendly cleaning products as well. They have properly trained amazing cleaning teams who understand just what they are doing. Cleaning the cobwebs from ceilings, dusting high up on picture rails and upper window frames and working down to carpets, rugs, and the floors.

Burley Cleaning always take meticulous notes about your cleaning preferences and your home so that if your regular team isn’t accessible they can supply you with seamless cleaning services every time and never miss a beat. Having your cleaning team arrive with all their own cleaning supplies and gear means that you save money by never having to buy cleaning stuff in the grocery store again!

It won’t take any time at all for you to be comfortable with leaving Burley Cleaning’s bonded and insured cleaners working in your house while you take some time to do something that you find pleasurable!

Survey seeking support for funding the ALC ends this Sunday

The deadline for supporting improved ALC funding by completing the ALC Fee Review Consultation survey is 9pm THIS Sunday, July 8.

The Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) under the direction of a progressive agricultural advocate Chair Richard Bullock is seeking public support for increasing fees for exclusion, subdivision and change of land use applications to the ALC to enable cost recovery, as the ALC is a funding-starved commission unable to properly protect Agricultural Reserve Lands (ALR).

Here is the web address for the survey:

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/aboutind/ALC_Consultation/response.htm

The City of Langford has a checkered history of ALR Exclusions. In recent history, starting back in 2006 and continuing through to 2010, there were at least 10 applications for exclusion from the ALR made from landowners within the City of Langford. Langford City Council appointed a committee of Langford citizens and Councilor Lillian Szpak creating the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) to consider all 10 applications. The committee was subject of quite a bit of controversy as noted in the Inside Langford article, “ALR Exclusion applications forwarded to the ALC.” A local government, such as the City of Langford, can not decide to exclude, include, subdivide or do a change of use of ALR land, as the reserve in provincially governed, however the local government does get to include their own recommendation and effectively has a veto since the landowner can not apply directly to the ALC but must do so through their local government. So if a local government chooses to not forward an application it has effectively vetoed it. Other municipalities have done this, a recent example was the District of Saanich rejecting an application for ALR exclusion. In the end the City of Langford followed the recommendations of its Agricultural Advisory Committee and forwarded all 10 applications to the ALC for consideration.

Of those 10 application, 3 of them were allowed exclusion completely and 2 more were granted partial exclusion by the ALC. You can find a link to the ALC rulings on Green Langford under the subheading ALC Reports/Decisions and in another Inside Langford story, “Results of ALR removal applications,” that generated some interesting comments.

In the past, “the municipality of Langford toyed with the idea of applying to remove all its ALR land,” as quoted from Tyee article “How to Safeguard BC’s Farmland.” Against the wishes of some local residents the wetlands area known as Hull’s Field was excluded from the ALR and became a commercial development and City Centre Park.

Note:
The Garden City Lands Coalition Society has the ALC Fee survey link and links to some great examples to help you think of what you wish to highlight in the comment fields of the survey.

If you care about food security, local food production and Agricultural Reserve Lands (ALR) please TAKE this SURVEY NOW!!!

Langford’s AAC to reconsider 2 properties

Langford’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) is meeting again to reconsider two properties. Both had previously been looked at and the AAC had failed to come to agreement on whether there was a benefit to agriculture in removing them from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). For the properties to be reconsidered, presumably a new argument will be presented on how removing them will create a net benefit to agriculture.

If you need a primer on ALR and the goings on in Langford so far you could check out:

ALR exclusion applications forwarded to the ALC

Monday’s Council Meeting: ALR exclusions

If you have not yet read, “Let Them Eat Condos,” in the current issue of Focus Magazine, you could read that at:

www.focusonline.ca

Up until the meeting time, you can download the agenda, and full agenda package here.

Please note: after the meeting these documents will no longer be available online.

You can also find the Minutes, of the 2 past AAC meetings at the City of Langford’s website.

Here’s some highlights from the staff reports:

CITY OF LANGFORD
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 @ 5:30 p.m.

REPORTS
a) 3398 Luxton Road
– Staff Report (File No. ALR-06-05)

That the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommend that Council:
OPTION 1
1. Direct staff to submit a letter report to the Agricultural Land Commission stating that the
City would support the exclusion of property at 3398 Luxton Road from the Agricultural
Land Reserve subject to any future redevelopment of the subject property being guided
by “Edge Planning” and/or “Agricultural Urbanism” principles at the time of rezoning to
attain a net benefit to agriculture;
AND
2. Request a cash contribution of $150,000.00 from the applicant at time of building permit
towards the Agricultural Land Reserve Fund that would be exclusively allocated in
regular payments to the Joseph Lohbrunner Farm Project at 1152 Lippincott Road;
OR
3. Request a cash contribution of $150,000.00 from the applicant at time of building permit
towards the Agricultural Land Reserve Fund that would be exclusively allocated in
regular payments to the Joseph Lohbrunner Farm Project at 1152 Lippincott Road AND
a one acre parcel from the subject lands to the City to be secured in a community land
trust managed by the City for farming-purposes;
OR
4. Request an amenity land contribution worth $150,000.00 to be secured in a community
land trust managed by the City for farming-purposes;
AND
5. Direct staff to work with the property owner to ensure that any future redevelopment of
land that may be excluded from the ALR is guided by ensuring carful edge planning and
buffering is undertaken to protect the present and future agricultural use of the ALR
lands;
OR
OPTION 2
6. Reject the application to exclude the property at 3398 Luxton Road from the ALR.
—————————————————————————————–

b) 3639 Happy Valley Road
– Staff Report (File No. ALR-09-01)
BACKGROUND
The applicant has provided another agrologist ‘s report which provides a more detailed analysis
of the central portion of the subject property (Map Area C – shown on page 5).
The overall land capability summary notes that in general, the property (Map units A, B and C)
are moderately well-suited for agriculture with improvable limitations due to aridity, fertility and
undesirable soil structure. The stoniness and depth to bedrock limitations within Map Unit A,
however, is considered unimprovable.
The report explains that the minor limitations for map Unit B and C could be improved with deep plowing, irrigation, and fertilization. However, the report also notes that these improvements may not be economically feasible due to the small size (1.03ha) of farmable land. The small size should be taken into consideration in evaluating the potential of this parcel to support an economically viable farm operation.
Council may wish to note that the ALR lands west of the subject site are identified in the
Agricultural Suitability Review as possible exclusion with net benefit to agriculture, however the adjacent properties on the east side of Happy Valley Road are proposed to be retained in the ALR.

CONCEPT PLANS (PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT)
The applicant has submitted two draft concept plans of which he may wish to pursure by way of a future rezoning application . Both plans would require meeting all of the City ‘s standards at a later date if a rezoning application was to come forward and these plans do not presuppose the requirements of the Approving Officer or the potential lot layout.
The applicant has explained that the proposed concept plans represent the minimum threshold
of economic feasibility. In Option #2, the applicant is proposing to extend the properties into
Map Area B so the potential future lot owners could have larger yards for food producing
gardens. It should be noted that these plans may not coincide with the Agrologist’s report with
respect to what is or is not farmable due to the soil limitations and costs to upgrade the land.

NET BENEFIT TO AGRICULTURE
Council may wish to request that as a condition of any future rezoning, land improvements such as deep plowing, irrigation and fertilization are undertaken by the applicant, to the satisfaction of a Professional Agrologist, on the lands that are considered improvable (notwithstanding the financial cost of upgrades) and therefore could be recommended to be retained In the ALR (the remaining 1.94 acres /77.4% of the site).
Additionally, to ensure the farmable land provides a considerable benefit to agricultural
production, Council may wish to have the City acquire a portion of the ALR land to be secured in a public trust (City of Langford), and be available to undercapitalized farmers on a lease, or
lease to purchase basis for agricultural uses. Altemaltively, the applicant has proposed to retain the farmable land for the purpose of farming it for themselves to produce a variety of berry crops.
Another option for Council is to secure a cash donation for a value commensurate with the
property at 3398 Luxton Road (approximately $150,000 per acre ) to be payable to the City of
Langford’s ALR Fund so the City can either use the cash to acquire farmable land or to allocate
these funds to other means to boost the net benefit to agricultural in South Langford.

**(I note that in the Madrone report are hand written notes by the ownder indicating (where the report suggests fertilizing could improve the class of soil) that fertilizing would harm Bliston Creek. – Cheryl)

OPTIONS
That the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommend that Council:
1. Direct staff to submit a letter report to the Agricultual Land Commission stating that the City would support the following portion of land to be excluded from the ALR subject to any
future redevelopment of the subject property being guided by ” Edge Planning” and/or
“Agricultural Urbanism” principles at the time of rezoning to attain a net benefit to
agriculture:
i) Map Unit A as shown in the Madrone Environmental Services Ltd. report dated March
3′”, 2008 comprising 0.56 acres (22.6% of the land) of the northern portion of the
property at 3639 Happy Valley Road; OR
ii) Map Unit A, C and a portion of B as shown in the Figure 4 – Option #2 comprising
approximately 1.25 acres (50% of the land) of the northern and central portion of the
property at 3639 Happy Valley Road; OR
iii) Map Unit A, C and B as shown in the Madrone Environmental Services Ltd. report dated
March 3rtl , 2008 comprising 2.5 acres (100% of the land) of the northern and central
portion of the property at 3639 Happy Valley Road.
AND
iv) The applicant be advised that the City is not making any representations with respect to
any future subdivision of the property.
AND
2. That Council will accept one or more of the following to satisfy the City’s objectives of
increasing the net benefit to agriculture:
i) That the applicant will retain ownership of the remaining ALR land and upgrade the land
to make it farmable so the applicant can farm the land to produce a variety of berry
species; OR
it) That the lands that may be retained in the ALR are donated to the City and secured in a
public trust (City of Langford ), and be available to undercapitalized farmers on a lease,
or lease to purchase basis for agricultural uses; OR
III) That the applicant retain half of the land to remain in the ALR and that the other half be
donated to the City and secured in a public trust (City of Langford), and be available to
undercapitalized farmers on a lease, or lease to purchase basis for agricultural uses;
AND
iv) That regardless of the Options chosen, the applicant provide a cash donation for a
value commensurate with the property at 3398 Luxton Road (approximately $150,000
per acre) to be payable to the City of Langford ‘s ALR Fund so the City can either use the
cash to acquire farmable land or to allocate these funds to other means to boost the net
benefit to agricultural in South Langford.
AND
3. Direct staff to work with the property owner to ensure that any future redevelopment of land that may be excluded from the ALR is guided by the following:
i) Ensure careful edge planning and buffering is undertaken to protect the present and future agricultural use of the ALR lands; and
OR
4. Reject the application to exclude the property at 3639 Happy Vallery Road from the ALR.