UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Regulating urban encroachment on agricultural land : a study of the relationship between small municipalities… Graesser, Alice Phillips 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 G72.pdf [ 9.51MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078418.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078418-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078418-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078418-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078418-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078418-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078418-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078418-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078418.ris

Full Text

REGULATING URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND: A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SMALL MUNICIPALITIES AND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION by ALICE PHILLIPS GRAESSER B.A., Reed College, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA OCTOBER 1981 (c) A l i c e P h i l l i p s Graesser, 1981 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community & Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date ^&>LtA>> l & , / ? $ • / DE-6 (2/79) ABSTRACT This i s a study of the involvement of small munici-p a l i t i e s with the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve (ALR) system. The analysis focusses on how the system operates to resolve differences between the province and l o c a l i t i e s over use of a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Case studies of f i v e municipalities are presented. The thesis concludes that municipal p r i o r i t i e s i n use of designated a g r i c u l t u r a l land have usually prevailed, sooner or l a t e r , through operation of Reserve system procedures. Part I develops the implications of the ALR system, established i n 1973, for small communities. On one hand, the P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission (PALC) was mandated to slow the conversion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to urban uses, and was impowered to exercise a form of zoning control for t h i s purpose even within municipal areas. On the other hand, municipal governments with d i f f e r e n t p r i -o r i t i e s , such as creating new housing or i n d u s t r i a l space, have t y p i c a l l y wished to continue patterns of conversion of the a g r i c u l t u r a l lands within which they are situated. The Reserve system includes procedures, such as block exclusion applications, through which l o c a l governments can seek to have ALR land converted to urban purposes. Chapter 1 raises four questions about the experience of small municipalities with these procedures: 1. Are outcomes reasonable i n the l o c a l situation? 2. Do small municipalities play an active and s i g n i f i c a n t role i n the process of deciding applications? 3. Is the ALR system subject to "regulatory capture" by municipalities? 4. Does " o f f i c i a l community planning" supplement the formal Reserve system as a means of resolving p r o v i n c i a l - l o c a l c o n f l i c t s over use of a g r i c u l t u r a l land? Chapter 2 outlines the procedures and p o l i c i e s of the PALC for dealing with municipal applications and community plans. In Part I I , case studies are reported for the munici p a l i t i e s of Keremeos, Armstrong, Salmon Arm, 100 Mile House and M e r r i t t . In each case, a l l municipal transactions with the PALC from 1974 to 1979 are described. Information was obtained from Commission f i l e s , supplemented by interviews, s i t e v i s i t s and l o c a l f i l e s . Community plans are also reviewed for t h e i r stance toward A g r i c u l t u r a l Reserve land. Part III summarizes the experiences of the f i v e municipalities and draws conclusions. Outcomes of municipal PALC rel a t i o n s are found to have been "reasonable" for the l o c a l i t i e s , inasmuch as the PALC has ultimately acceded to most exclusion applications, and these decisions have caused no evident "hardship" to l o c a l i n t e r e s t s . The pro-cedures suited the needs and resources of small m u n i c i p a l i t i well. Indeed, there i s some ind i c a t i o n of "capture" of the PALC and cabinet i n the general success of i n i t i a t i v e s from regulated communities. Community planning has r a r e l y served as a means of resolving provincial-municipal differences, since the PALC has played a passive and pro forma role i n i v assuring that the p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n a g r i c u l t u r a l land preservation i s expressed i n key sections of plans which designate future land uses. The f i n a l chapter r e f l e c t s on the implications of these findings for the balancing of p r o v i n c i a l and municipal interests within the ex i s t i n g regulatory framework. Pro-cedural changes are suggested which would o f f s e t factors which have tended to t i l t the balance i n favour of municipal preferences i n t h i s sector of the B r i t i s h Columbia a g r i c u l t u r a l land use regulatory regime. V TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1 1 LIST OF TABLES * LIST OF FIGURES x i LIST OF MAPS x i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i i i INTRODUCTION 1 PART I: ISSUES, METHODS AND CONTEXT Chapter 1. MUNICIPAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES: ISSUES AND CASES FOR RESEARCH 5 1.1 Conserving A g r i c u l t u r a l Land: The S h i f t from Local to Pro v i n c i a l Land Use Regulation 5 1.2 The E f f e c t of the Reserves on Land for Urban Development 7 1.3 "Shared Decision Making" 8 1.4 The Reserve System as a Regulatory System 11 1.5 The Small Town Environment 14 1.6 Overview of Municipal Contact with the Reserve System 15 1.7 Summary and Questions for Analysis 20 1.7.1 Reasonable Outcomes 23 1.7.2 Role of Small Mun i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Application Process 23 1.7.3 Regulatory Capture 24 1.7.4 Community Planning as a Means of Resolving Provincial-Municipal Disagreements over A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use 24 1.8 Case Study Approach 24 1.8.1 The Municipal Cases 25 1.8.2 Sources of Information 29 1.8.3 Description and Analysis 31 v i 2. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE SYSTEM AND MUNICIPALITIES: INSTITUTIONS, PROCEDURES AND POLICIES 37 2.1 Basic Application Procedures 37 2.1.1 Exclusion Applications 38 2.1.2 Inclusion Applications 42 2.1.3 Non-Farm Use and Subdivision Applications 42 2.1.4 1977 Amendments to the Act 42 2.1.5 Block Exclusion Application Procedures 43 2.1.6 Other Procedures Involving M u n i c i p a l i t i e s 44 2.1.7 N o t i f i c a t i o n and Hearing Requirements 45 2.2 Land Commission P o l i c i e s 48 2.2.1 Defining Legitimate Urban Need 49 2.2.2 A g r i c u l t u r a l Capability C r i t e r i a 52 2.2.3 Early Trade Offs of Urban Need and A g r i c u l t u r a l Capability 53 2.2.4 Summary of Substantive Issues Involved i n Municipal Applications 54 2.3 Procedural Norms 56 2.4 Community Plans and the Reserve System 57 2.5 Summary: The I n s t i t u t i o n a l and Policy Environment for Balancing Municipal Development and A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Preservation 61 PART I I : THE CASE STUDIES 3. THE MUNICIPAL VIEWPOINT: A SURVEY OF SMALL TOWN OFFICIALS 69 4. THE VILLAGE OF KEREMEOS 73 4.1 1975 Exclusion Application: Residential 77 4.1.1 Application Narrative 77 4.1.2 Process Inputs and Environment 7 8 4.2 1977 and 1978 Non-Farm Use Applications: Sewage Treatment Plant and Effluent Disposal 79 4.2.1 Application Narrative 79 4.2.2 Process Inputs and Environment 81 4.3 The Community Plan 82 v i i 5. THE CITY OF ARMSTRONG 86 5.1 1974 Exclusion Application: Shopping Centre 90 5.1.1 Application Narrative 90 5.1.2 Process Inputs and Environment 91 5.2 1975 Exclusion Application: Access Road and Highway Commercial 91 5.2.1 Application Narrative 91 5.2.2 Process Inputs and Environment 93 5.3 1976 Private Exclusion Application: Highway Commercial 94 5.3.1 Application Narrative 94 5.3.2 Process Inputs and Environment 95 5.4 The Community Plan 95 6. THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF SALMON ARM 100 6.1 1975A Exclusion Application: Various Uses Proposed 101 6.1.1 Application Narrative 101 6.1.2 Process Inputs and Environment 106 6.2 1975B Exclusion Application: Shopping Centre 109 6.2.1 Application Narrative 109 6.2.2 Process Inputs and Environment 110 6.3 1975C Non-Farm Use Application: Sewage Treatment and Effluent Storage 111 6.3.1 Application Narrative 111 6.3.2 Process Inputs and Environment 113 6.4 1978A Non Farm Use Application: Road Right-of-Way, and 1978B Exclusion Application: Residential 114 6.4.1 1978A Application Narrative 114 6.4.2 1978B Application Narrative 115 6.4.3 Process Inputs and Environment 115 6.5 1979 Exclusion Application: Residential 116 6.5.1 Application Narrative 116 6.5.2 Process Inputs and Environment 117 6.6 The Community Plan 118 7. THE VILLAGE OF 100 MILE HOUSE 122 7.1 1975 Exclusion Application: Residential and Industrial 123 7.1.1 Application Narrative 123 7.1.2 Process Inputs and Environment 127 7.2 1979 Exclusion Application: Industrial 128 7.2.1 Application Narrative 128 7.2.2 Process Inputs and Environment 129 7.3 Future Exclusions Recommended i n Response to the Community Plan 129 7.4 The Community Plan 130 v i i i 8. THE TOWN OF MERRITT 133 8.1 1977 Exclusion Application: Industrial 133 8.1.1 Application Narrative 13 3 8.1.2 Process Inputs and Environment 137 8.2 The Community Plan 137 PART I I I : ANALYSIS 9. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF THE BLOCK APPLICATION PROCESS AND COMMUNITY PLANS 14 2 9.1 Reasonable Outcomes for Small M u n i c i p a l i t i e s 144 9.1.1 Hardship and the Public Interest 145 9.1.2 Decision C r i t e r i a 148 9.2 The Role of Small Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Process 149 9.2.1 Municipal Resources and Technical Information 149 9.2.2 The Municipal Role i n Taking the I n i t i a t i v e 150 9.3 Obtaining Municipal Consent i n the Regulatory Process 153 9.4 Community Plans and Future Prospects 158 9.4.1 Plan Content 159 9.4.2 Consultation During Plan Preparation 162 9.4.3 Summary 165 9.5 Conclusion 165 10. THE BALANCE OF PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL INTERESTS IN INCREMENTAL LAND USE REGULATION 168 10.1 Third-Party Support 169 10.2 Problems and System Improvements 171 10.2.1 Waiting Period 171 10.2.2 Decision C r i t e r i a 172 10.2.3 Public Monitoring on a Geographic Basis 173 10.3 Research Opportunities 174 10.3.1 New Development Patterns 174 10.3.2 Cumulative Impacts of Reserve Losses 174 10.3.3 Decision Making 175 10.3.4 Community Plan Implementation 175 i x SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 179 APPENDIX 1: COMPARISON OF SELECTED SECTIONS, AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT, 1973, 1977, AND 1979 VERSIONS 192 APPENDIX 2: PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT: CONTENT 196 APPENDIX 3: POLICY CIRCULARS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 197 X LIST OF TABLES 1. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Recommendations Compared with Cabinet Decisions, Urban Block Applications, 1974-1979 19 2. Cases Selected from among B r i t i s h Columbia Municipalities 27 3. Acres Excluded and Included i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves, 1974-1979, Comparing Rural, Urban and Case Study Block Applications and Private Applications 28 4. Applications Included i n Case Studies: Refer-ence .Numbers, Type, and Acreage Requested and Approved for Exclusion/Use 30 5. Major Types of Applications, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve System: Before 1977 Amendments 40 6. Major Types of Applications, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve System: After 1977 Amendments 41 7. N o t i f i c a t i o n and Hearing Requirements, A g r i -c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act Application Procedures, Before 1977 Amendments 46 8. N o t i f i c a t i o n and Hearing Requirements, A g r i -c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act Application Procedures, After 1977 Amendments 47 9. Keremeos Applications Included i n Case Study 74 10. Armstrong Applications Included i n Case Study 87 11. Salmon Arm Applications Included i n Case Study 102 12. 100 Mile House Applications Included i n Case Study 124 13. Merritt Application Included i n Case Study 134 14. Public Interest Content of Case Study A p p l i -cations: Uses, Development Proposals and Ownership Issues 14 6 15. Commission Response to Case Study Applicants 155 16. Consultation between Commission and Munici-p a l i t y on Community Plans 163 x i LIST OF FIGURES Number of Urban Block Applications and Number Where Acreage Requested Was Excluded, 1974-1979 Acreage Requested and Excluded, Urban Block Applications, 1974-1979 Flow Chart for Applications under the A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Commission Act Outcome of Case Study Applications, Showing Decision Sequence of Related Applications and Acres Requested and Excluded i n Each Commission Decision or Recommendation Flow Chart for Case Study Applications x i i LIST OF MAPS 1. Keremeos A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve and Case Study Applications 75 2. Keremeos Community Plan 76 3. Armstrong A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve and Case Study Applications 88 4. Armstrong Community Plan 8 9 5. Salmon Arm A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve and Case Study Applications 104 6. Salmon Arm, D e t a i l , A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve and Case Study Applications 105 7. Salmon Arm Community Plan , r • J 8. 100 Mile House A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve and Case Study Applications 125 9. 100 Mile House Community Plan 126 10. Meriritt A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve and Case Study Applications 135 11. Merritt Community Plan 136 x i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank the municipal o f f i c i a l s and consultants who talked with me about t h e i r experiences with the Land Reserve system, p a r t i c u l a r l y John Cornelissen, Leo Den Boer, Mayor M. Kirton, John Lainsbury, Stuart Lawrence, Ron Mann, Mayor Ross Marks, Mayor Frances Peck, Tony P e l l e t t , Gordon Petersen, Michael Rosen and John Sutherland. I would also l i k e to thank Sue Austen and Rose Langston of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission s t a f f for t h e i r invaluable assistance and Professor Brahm Wiesman for good advice and great patience. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation provided f i n a n c i a l assistance. The completion of t h i s project owes much to the support and confidence of M.W.G., M.B.A., L.F., B.M., and J.T.A. INTRODUCTION This thesis describes those workings of the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve system which most d i r e c t l y involve municipal governments with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i n "shared decision making." When i t was estab-lis h e d by the Land Commission Act of 197 3, the B r i t i s h Columbia p r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve system was unique i n North America.^" The system's major aim was to slow the loss of scarce p r o v i n c i a l food producing lands to urban development. To do so, the system removed certa i n l o c a l government powers over land use and placed them i n the hands of p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s . The system i s comprised of p r o v i n c i a l zones, c a l l e d A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves, and procedures for provin-c i a l control over the use, incl u s i o n and exclusion of land from the zones by a p r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission and the p r o v i n c i a l cabinet. Following l e g i s l a t i v e changes i n 1977, municipal land use planning has become an important accretion to the system. The major impact of the Reserve system has been at the boundaries where town and country meet. . . .where growing communities impinge upon the neighbouring farmland. 2 1 2 This impact has been f e l t not only i n metropolitan areas but i n the smaller urban centres of the i n t e r i o r , where munici-p a l i t i e s found t h e i r developable land incorporated into the Reserves and thus set aside for a g r i c u l t u r a l use only. The system incorporates procedures whereby landowners, l o c a l governments and other e n t i t i e s can seek adjustments to Reserve boundaries and to regulations i n order to accommodate development. More recently, municipal land use planning a c t i v i t y has provided another potential forum for sorting out these interests i n a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Both the applica-t i o n process and community plans involve r e l a t i o n s between the province and municipal governments i n which d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of public and private interests are a r t i c u l a t e d and resolved within a context of governmental land use decisions, p o l i c i e s and planning. The thesis investigates the operation of the A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Reserve system as i t involves small municipalities through the exclusion application process, and how community plans have dealt with the Reserves as a fact of l i f e . The investigation i s limited to non-metropolitan municipalities of the B r i t i s h Columbia i n t e r i o r , whose development oppor-t u n i t i e s have been s i g n i f i c a n t l y narrowed by the establishment of the Reserve system. The i n s t i t u t i o n a l environment for municipal exclusion applications i s comprised of the applica-t i o n procedures mandated by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission  Act and regulations; substantive issues r e f l e c t i n g Land Commission and other p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s ; the Commission's 3 procedural norms; and, recently, community planning. The investigation focusses on the experience of f i v e small municipalities selected as case studies, and t h e i r experience with t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework. NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated i n these notes as "BCLC" according to the style of the document c i t e d . 1. For the background to the 1973 l e g i s l a t i o n , see David Baxter, The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - A  Review, Report No. 8 (Vancouver: Urban Land Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, A p r i l 1974). 2. BCLC, Keeping the Options Open ([Burnaby, 1975]), p. 14. PART I ISSUES, METHODS AND CONTEXT 4 CHAPTER 1 MUNICIPAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES: ISSUES AND CASES FOR RESEARCH 1.1 Conserving A g r i c u l t u r a l Land: The S h i f t from Local to P r o v i n c i a l Land Use Regulation  The aim of the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land, Commission Act of 1973 1 was to slow the rate of farmland con version to urban uses. Ins t i t u t i o n s established by the new l e g i s l a t i o n were intended to slow the conversion process to . . . c a r e f u l l y controlled rate. . . .Land would not be locked into farmland reserves forever, and exclusions [to allow urban development] would be made as conditions changed.2 Such a system required a means for removing land from the farmland reserves as deemed necessary. The conversion of farmland to urban uses had been proceeding apace under t r a d i t i o n a l l o c a l government land use 3 controls. The major intention of the approach taken by the B r i t i s h Columbia government i n i t s 197 3 l e g i s l a t i o n was to remove a g r i c u l t u r a l l y capable land from the exclusive con-t r o l of l o c a l governments. Local governments could not be expected to rate the preservation of foodlands very high among th e i r p r i o r i t i e s , and programs to deal with the loss of a g r i c u l t u r a l land had foundered on "pressure [on l o c a l 4 j u r i s d i c t i o n s ] to change zoning." So the new l e g i s l a t i o n 6 established p r o v i n c i a l a g r i c u l t u r a l use zones, presided over by a p r o v i n c i a l , not l o c a l , agency. The mechanism established by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act to oversee such land use changes was comprised of (1) land zoned by the p r o v i n c i a l government exclusively for a g r i c u l t u r a l and other compatible uses, the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves; (2) land use and subdivision control within the Reserves by a p r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission and the p r o v i n c i a l cabinet; and (3) a set of procedures available to land owners, l o c a l governments, and others, for seeking the removal or exclusion of land from the Reserves, per-mission to subdivide Reserve land, or permission for non-farm uses of Reserve land. The Reserve system gives formal land use control to a p r o v i n c i a l agency and the cabinet, but municipalities have a tangential but p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t 5 role where they f e e l t h e i r interests to be affected. The intervention of the p r o v i n c i a l government to supersede t r a d i t i o n a l l o c a l government powers implies consid-erable differences between the concerns of the province set out i n or implied by the Act and the interests of l o c a l areas as interpreted by municipal councils and regional d i s t r i c t boards, the two " l e v e l s " of l o c a l government i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The Reserve system i s i n some respects an extension of the sectoral land use p o l i c i e s which have been pursued by 7 . . most Canadian provinces. Sectoral p o l i c i e s rest on pro-v i n c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l prerogatives and to some extent on the 7 bureaucratic interests and power of p r o v i n c i a l government l i n e departments. This p o l i c y making st y l e has been much resented at the l o c a l l e v e l , e s p e c i a l l y i n r u r a l areas, where a d i f f e r e n t set of concerns i s the norm, where many sectoral p o l i c i e s have had t h e i r biggest impacts, and where r e a l c o l -l i s i o n s between p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l interests have often occurred.^ 1.2 The E f f e c t of the Reserves on Land for Urban Development Since the Reserves were established i n 1974 and 1975, many municipalities have formally sought to change the use of Reserve lands or to remove land from the Reserve. Through October, 1979, at least one-third of the municipalities i n B r i t i s h Columbia had undertaken t h e i r own block exclusion 9 applications to have land removed from the Reserve. "Block" exclusion applications are those made by l o c a l governments rather than private persons. The implication of the term, used by the Commission, i s that the land involved i s a sub-s t a n t i a l area, not a single parcel. In addition, municipal-i t i e s have make block appeals to the Commission for permission to use Reserve land for various non-farm, public inte r e s t purposes. The immediate e f f e c t of the creation of the Reserves was to reduce the supply of land for urban development. Because the l e g i s l a t i o n did not a f f e c t any factors related to demand for urban land, some observers expected a gradual erosion of the Reserves at the interface between urban 8 development and Reserve land, an outcome not at odds with the aims of the l e g i s l a t i o n . This would occur i n response to pressure for urban development operating through p o l i t i c a l pressure, or the expectation of p o l i t i c a l pressure, on the Commission and the cabinet. At best, the Commission might achieve an orderly process of urban growth."*"^ These expec-tations were countered by those who hoped that the e f f o r t s of the Commission to e s t a b l i s h the Reserves as a fact of l i f e would persuade developers and municipalities to consider other alternatives than a g r i c u l t u r a l land as s i t e s for urban d e v e l o p m e n t . S o m e wanted the Commission to take an active stance to encourage alternative s i t e s and modes of development."*"^ The persistence of urban demand for a g r i c u l t u r a l land and the municipal response to t h i s demand i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the comments of the former general manager and chairman of the Commission, Gary Runka, made i n 1980. He was c r i t i c a l of municipal p o l i t i c i a n s who continue to pursue the develop-13 ment of Reserve lands. According to a recent commentary by Mary Rawson, a former member of the Commission, demands for the development of Reserve lands arise from "the very poor 14 use of so much urban land." Continued demands for the ri g h t to develop Reserve lands are l i k e l y to receive support from municipal councils. 1.3 "Shared Decision Making" The B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve system has sectoral aims, but i t makes e x p l i c i t provision for input 9 from l o c a l governments. Mun i c i p a l i t i e s and regional d i s t r i c t s can apply to the Pr o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission to have land removed or excluded from the Reserves for develop-ment and non-farm use. Local governments may also comment on private applications for exclusion or non-farm use. When the Reserve boundaries or plans were f i r s t established, l o c a l governments made proposals for the areas to be included. Over the years, the Commission has referred to the "shared" nature of the decision making and land use p o l i c i e s established for the Reserves. While t h i s may have begun as a t a c t i c a l response to the objections raised.by municipalities 15 to the removal of the i r exclusive powers over land use, the Commission has continued to assert the importance of j o i n t l y a r r i v i n g at land use p o l i c i e s and decisions concerning Reserve lands. For example, the Commission stated i n 1975: The establishment of the Land Commission was i n response to a clear need for shared decision-making i n the land planning process. I t was only through the s p i r i t of co-operation which emerged from the j o i n t e f f o r t s of the general public and l o c a l , regional and p r o v i n c i a l governments that the ALR's [Reserves] were established i n so short a period of time. The Commission w i l l continue to encourage such p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the ongoing administration of the ALR.16 The need for shared decision making was reaffirmed i n the Commission's Annual Report of 1977. In t h i s Report and other documents, the Commission has stressed consideration of l o c a l government input such as "up-to-date [local] i n f o r -17 mation" and " l o c a l government regulations and concerns." The formal municipal exclusion and use application procedures ensure that m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and th e i r i n t e r e s t s , are involved i n the process and that t h e i r values are represented. A d d i t i o n a l l y , municipal concerns are given legitimacy i n the Commission's c r i t e r i a for evaluating applications: the issues of urban need or demand, community objectives, and l o c a l public i n t e r e s t . (Chapter 2 d e t a i l s these issue areas.) Issues such as these are capable of wide interpretation. The Commission and the p r o v i n c i a l Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s have extended the notion of shared decision or p o l i c y making into the area of community planning. Planning l e g i s l a t i o n , embodied i n the Municipal Act, requires that municipal plans include appropriate p o l i c i e s for Reserve lands, p o l i c i e s which conform to p r o v i n c i a l objectives. Both Commission and Ministry have urged municipalities to consult with the Commission and to include appropriate p o l i c i e s for the Reserves i n t h e i r community plans. From the point of view of a recent chairman of the Commission, Perhaps the most important event now underway i n many areas of the province that w i l l determine land use i n the 1980's and far beyond, i s the development of o f f i c i a l community plans and settlement plans.18 The content of these plans, whether conforming to Commission p o l i c i e s or not, may of course have l i t t l e impact on future development of Reserve lands unless the plan p o l i c i e s are 19 the r e s u l t of l o c a l commitment. The Commission has adopted the goal of determining the use of Reserve lands inside municipalities i n some measure j o i n t l y with m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 11 1.4 The Reserve System as a Regulatory System The regulatory nature of the Reserve system implies c e r t a i n normative expectations on the part of the government and the public, and also suggests potential problems i n f u l f i l l i n g those expectations. These expectations and prob-lems have a d i r e c t bearing on the a b i l i t y of the Reserve system to balance p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l i n t e r e s t s . The goal of any regulatory program i s to protect important public interests that would not otherwise be considered.20 In the case of the Reserve system, these interests are p r o v i n c i a l concern to preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l land. The estab-lishment of administrative bodies l i k e the Commission with regulatory functions has arisen out"of the desire of govern-ments to remove themselves from making decisions involving private rights and other c o n f l i c t i n g interests by "a p a r t i a l i n s u l a t i o n of decisions from s h i f t s of government po l i c y and from the pressure of private i n t e r e s t s . " In such situations, the r e s u l t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n often has j u d i c i a l functions regarding private property r i g h t s , which i t c a r r i e s out within a general p o l i c y framework established by the l e g i s -lature. Procedural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s tend to include making decisions i n an "open and public manner. . .which the agency w i l l attempt to substantiate through the development of 21 rules and precedents." These agencies are often expected to "defend the public i n t e r e s t against sectional i n t e r e s t s " both by "protecting public p o l i c y positions against powerful i n t e r e s t s . . .and. . .by holding the r i n g f a i r l y among the 22 discernible interests themselves." In theory a regulatory system presided over by an independent body i s one where decisions are made i n the public i n t e r e s t based on sound technical information free from p o l i t -i c a l pressure or special i n t e r e s t influence. This i d e a l i s 23 held by the Commission. However, i n the more complex f i e l d of economic regulation, North American research has shown a pervasive tendency for such regulatory agencies to be cap-tured by the groups or persons whose a c t i v i t i e s they were established to regulate. Various reasons suggested for t h i s phenomenon include the locus of necessary technical informa-t i o n and other resources with the regulated p a r t i e s , uncertainties i n the technical basis of regulation, the absence of countervailing views i n the regulatory process, the a b i l i t y of the regulated to refuse consent and to use time as a weapon, and the position of the regulatory agency as a special i n t e r e s t among others w i l l i n g to bargain and 24 compromise. Frank Popper, writing i n 1974 about the s h i f t of land use controls from the l o c a l to state l e v e l i n the United States, predicts capture of newly established s t a t e - l e v e l regulatory i n s t i t u t i o n s . He argues that the absence of land use regulation from the l i t e r a t u r e on regulatory capture i s due to i t s r e l a t i v e l y recent a r r i v a l on the state and federal 25 regulatory scenes. He points out that s h i f t i n g the locus of decision making to the state l e v e l may confirm the r e l a t i v e strength of inter e s t groups, powerful l o c a l l y , who are also l i k e l y to be able to press t h e i r points of view at the senior 13 2 6 government l e v e l . One of the functions of Canadian l o c a l governments has been to press p r o v i n c i a l governments on behalf of l o c a l concerns, sometimes with the aim of f i s c a l 27 assistance or land use related p o l i c y changes. Another observer of the United States land use regulation scene notes the " p o l i t i c a l power of l o c a l governments i n the states", whatever the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n of l o c a l governments v i s - a - v i s the states. This p o l i t i c a l power i s often supported by other i n t e r e s t groups "dependent on l o c a l planning and zoning arrangements" who stand to lose when 2 8 j u r i s d i c t i o n i s sh i f t e d to senior l e v e l s of government. Land use and development control of lands i n the Reserves, the function of the Reserve system and Commission, can be viewed as a version of economic regulation where the substantive issues are less complex and the regulated e n t i -t i e s perhaps less powerful and more fragmented than i s the case with economic regulation i n the United States or Canada. The Commission has access to technical assistance and i s not at the mercy of applicants for information, but a clearcut correct decision may not be easy to reach. Where facts do not lead to a simple decision, the dynamics of the regulatory process are important to the decision, and the p o s s i b i l i t y of capture cannot be ruled out. Access to the Reserve system for l o c a l governments i s assured, and the outcome of t h e i r block applications may well depend on t h e i r p o l i t i c a l weight, the independence of the Commission, and the actions of other interested p a r t i e s . 14 1.5 The Small Town Environment Most of the over 11,000,000 acres of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves are located well away from urban development. However, the topography of B r i t i s h Columbia ensures that v i r t u a l l y a l l urban settlements other than mining or logging towns are located on the va l l e y or other lands comprising 29 the province's scarce farmland. The Reserve around many municipalities was i n i t i a l l y established at some distance from exi s t i n g development to permit expected urban growth during the following f i v e years or so. However, smaller municipalities found much of th e i r developable land area 30 included i n the Reserves. As t h e i r populations grew, the consequent demand for development s i t e s could not be s a t i s f i e d by the much reduced supply of land remaining out-side the Reserves. Most v a l l e y towns are now imbedded i n the Reserves. Small towns have r e l a t i v e l y limited administrative and technical c a p a b i l i t i e s and modest, i n f l e x i b l e revenue sources. T y p i c a l l y , t h e i r c a p i t a l expenditures are large compared with revenues, or else they do without the kinds of public, or private, f a c i l i t i e s larger centres take for granted. U t i l i t y requirements, such as new community sewage disposal f a c i l i t i e s , have a high c a p i t a l cost which small towns may fin d i t d i f f i c u l t to amortize with slow growth r e l a t i v e to the system's extent. Major development propo-sals , whether employment generators or r e s i d e n t i a l or commercial uses, are l i k e l y to be few and far between and 15 large compared with the l o c a l trend of economic growth and land development. Small size means there are few alternative s i t e s available for major projects. Many smaller towns with apparent though limited i n f i l l s i t e s cannot be sure such land w i l l be placed on the market. The sum of these conditions i s a favourable orientation toward growth and i n d i v i d u a l develop-ment proposals. Attitudes toward planning and development control are not favourable. This i s the r e s u l t of experience with p r o v i n c i a l - l e v e l planning and the regulatory nature of much land use po l i c y i n the past, i n the environment 31 described above of limited growth opportunities. To summarize, small municipalities are l i k e l y to have limited resources, to favour growth, to be dependent on out-side forces for major development proposals, and to resent planning and development controls. Development trends are d i f f i c u l t to predict i n such an environment. How, then, do small muni c i p a l i t i e s , with t h e i r limited resources and development s i t e s and t h e i r stop and go development trends, fare i n the regulatory environment of the Reserve system? 1.6 Overview of Municipal Contact with the Reserve System Although there have been a large number of municipal block exclusion applications, involving at le a s t one t h i r d of the province's m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , the number related to urban development has been i n decline since 1975. Included i n the category of urban applications are those made by regional d i s t r i c t s i n connection with t h e i r urban settlements or on behalf of municipalities for urban purposes. Si m i l a r l y , the acreage requested i n these applications has declined. The decline occurred both for a l l urban-related applications and for those applications related to smaller urban settlements and municipalities of under 10,000 popu-32 l a t i o n . Figures 1 and 2 i l l u s t r a t e these downward trends. The figures also show the increasing match i n terms of acreage requested and excluded between the block applications made by l o c a l governments and the cabinet decisions. Cabinet has generally concurred with the Commission recommendations on municipal and other urban related block exclusion applications. (See Table 1.) In the case of urban block applications related to municipalities and settlements of less than 10,000 population, only one application out of fo r t y - s i x has received cabinet approval contrary to Commission recommendation. The large number of applications and high acreage involved i n 1975 applications were the r e s u l t of what the Commission has referred to as "fine tuning" the newly 33 designated Reserve boundaries. The increase i n the number of applications decided and i n the acreage excluded i n 1977 might be explained as l o c a l government optimism i n response to the el e c t i o n of a new government thought to be less sym-pathetic to the Reserve system concept. The government changed i n December, 1975, and the Commission appointed by the former government was r e t i r e d i n October, 1976. Decisions on many applications made during 197 6 and i n response to the FIGURE 1 Number 20 --15 --10 --5 0 NUMBER OF URBAN BLOCK APPLICATIONS AND NUMBER WHERE ACREAGE REQUESTED WAS EXCLUDED, 1974-1979 A l l Urban Applications Urban Applications, Places with Population under 10,000 74 75 76 77 : 78 79 74 75 76 77 78 79 Decision Year Number of Applications Number of Applications where acreage requested was excluded SOURCES: B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, S t a t i s t i c s 1978 and S t a t i s t i c s 1980 and s t a f f ; S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1976 Census  of Canada, Catalogue 92-805, table 3. FIGURE 2 ACREAGE REQUESTED AND EXCLUDED, URBAN BLOCK APPLICATIONS 1974-1979 A l l Urban Applications Acres 7000 _,_ 6000 in n Urban Applications, Places with Population under 10,000 5000 --4000 --3000 — 2000 4-1000 74 75 76 77 78 79 74 75 Decision Year 76 77 78 79 Acreage Requested Acreage Excluded SOURCES: B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, S t a t i s t i c s 1978 and S t a t i s t i c s 1980 and s t a f f ; S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1976 Census  of Canada, Catalogue 92-805, table 3. TABLE 1 AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS COMPARED WITH CABINET DECISIONS, URBAN BLOCK APPLICATIONS, 1974-1979 Decision Year Acreage Requested Acreage Excluded Number of Applications Commission Recommend. Cabinet Decision Total Cabinet Decision D i f f e r s from Commission Recommend. 1974 1,489 536 526 4 0 1975 13,458 3,384 3,592 20 2 1976 5,150 1,314 1,939 19 2 1977 4,563 3,459 3,599 17 1 1978 1,871 756 811 16 3 1979 2,283 733 738 8 1 SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia Provincial A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, S t a t i s t i c s  1978 and S t a t i s t i c s 1980, and s t a f f . NOTE: "Urban Block Applications" include urban-related applications from municipalities and regional d i s t r i c t s but not applications generated by fine tuning boundary reviews which are r u r a l i n nature. See note b, Table 3 for description of fine-tuning reviews. 20 change i n Commission membership would have been made i n 1977 at the e a r l i e s t . In late 1977, changes i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land  Commission Act made i t easier for disappointed private ex-clusion applicants to appeal to cabinet. This l e g i s l a t i v e change may have reduced the number of municipal block applications made on behalf of private owners, who now had another route to a cabinet hearing. Overall, the s i t u a t i o n described by these data i s one of an increasing concurrence between the pos i t i o n taken by the Commission (and ultimately cabinet) i n i t s recommend-ation and by l o c a l governments i n t h e i r urban related applications. 1.7 Summary and Questions for Analysis The 197 3 r e t r i e v a l of land use powers from l o c a l governments by the B r i t i s h Columbia government, i n support of the p r o v i n c i a l sectoral p o l i c y aim to conserve a g r i c u l -t u r a l land, i s i n l i n e with moves elsewhere i n Canada during 34 . the past decade. The means chosen to carry out p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y toward a g r i c u l t u r a l land are primarily regulatory, r e s u l t i n g i n a reduced supply of land for urban uses without af f e c t i n g the demand. In these circumstances, the sectoral focus of policy and continuing demand for urban land could be expected to generate c o n f l i c t between the aims of the Pro v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission and municipal governments. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve system provides 21 formal means for adjudicating such disagreements by adjusting Reserve boundaries i n what i s i d e a l l y a shared decision pro-cess between municipalities and the province. Many small i n t e r i o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , often e s p e c i a l l y vulnerable to the swings of p r o v i n c i a l resource and land p o l i c i e s , have become involved i n the procedures of the Reserve system. A review of block applications for exclu-sion of land from the Reserve through 1979 shows that those from small municipalities and urban settlements of under 10,0 00 population have declined i n number and acreage over the years while land excluded as a r e s u l t of these applica-tions has come to match more cl o s e l y the acreage sought by the municipal applicants. The statutory process of block exclusion applica-tions made by small municipalities i s d i s t i n c t i v e i n the area of sectoral, intergovernmental land use p o l i c y because i t gives municipalities a p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e . Several aspects of the Reserve system emphasized here have implica-tions for the i d e a l of shared decision making between p r o v i n c i a l and small municipal governments. The sectoral focus of p r o v i n c i a l a g r i c u l t u r a l land p o l i c y , p r o v i n c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l prerogatives, and the regulatory, h i e r a r c h i c a l nature of the Reserve system may i n t e r f e r e with the notion of shared decision making. Local interests could receive short s h r i f t when they c o n f l i c t with p r o v i n c i a l concerns with a g r i c u l t u r a l land. The Reserve system as an approach to sectoral land use policy could focus on agriculture to the detriment of legitimate trade o f f s with other l o c a l l y important uses. The Commission, as regulatory agency, could experience some form of "capture" by the groups, such as l o c a l governments, whose a c t i v i t i e s i t was established to control for the public good. The potential for capture by p a r t i c i p a t i n g municipalities seems limited by the r e l a t i v e l y straightforward nature of the issues involved and apparent power of p r o v i n c i a l i n s t i t u -tions. However, the Commission or cabinet may f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to make trade o f f s on purely substantive grounds, thus allowing scope for other factors to bear on application decisions. Small municipalities, with limited resources, could be at a disadvantage i n j o i n t decision making through the exclusion application process and community plan preparation. The nature, scale and pace of small town development might make trade o f f s easier with respect to single projects, but make trends more d i f f i c u l t to evaluate with respect to o v e r a l l urban land needs i n the near and medium term. Community planning might provide scope for making j o i n t l y determined p o l i c i e s i n a more comprehensive context compared with the s i t e - s p e c i f i c , a g r i c u l t u r a l focus of block exclusion applications. Such an approach would be a useful adjunct to the formal regulatory functions of the Reserve system. However, community plans also might r a t i o n a l i z e a return to the t r a d i t i o n a l holding function for a g r i c u l t u r a l land zoning. 23 In view of these factors and t h e i r possible implications, and the growing congruence between l o c a l government applications and Commission and cabinet decisions, the questions set out below are explored: 1.7.1. Reasonable Outcomes Are the outcomes of block exclusion applications made by small municipalities reasonable i n the l o c a l s i t u a -tion? This question i s approached by examining the context of block exclusion applications to see i f outcomes cause hardship to the l o c a l area concerned, from the point of view of l o c a l public i n t e r e s t , and to see i f outcomes conform to decision c r i t e r i a based on the aims of the Reserve system l e g i s l a t i o n and the legitimate trade o f f s s p e c i f i e d i n Commission p o l i c y . 1.7.2. Role of Small Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Application Process Are the land use p o l i c i e s or decisions r e s u l t i n g from block exclusion applications the outcome of a process i n which small municipalities play an active and s i g n i f i c a n t role? This study treats decision making as a "black box," so the question i s explored i n terms of process inputs. Do small municipalities have adequate s t a f f and technical re-sources to carry out t h e i r block applications? Are small municipalities able to obtain and present good information on the issues relevant to t h e i r applications? Do small 24 municipalities take an active role i n pursuing t h e i r applications, e s p e c i a l l y when the substantive issues are not clearcut? 1.7.3. Regulatory Capture Is there any evidence that the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve system i s subject to regulatory capture? What are the procedural circumstances of Commission recommendations to refuse block exclusions? Are information resources indeed available to the Commission as well as to l o c a l government applicants? Are views presented to the Commission in opposition to l o c a l government proposals? Has the Commission bargained or negotiated? Have municipalities refused consent to Commission or cabinet decisions? 1.7.4. Community Planning as a Means of Resolving P r o v i n c i a l -Municipal Disagreements over A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use If i t i s to serve as a useful adjunct to the basic regulatory operations of the formal Reserve system, o f f i c i a l community planning should make cer t a i n contributions: Has the o f f i c i a l community plan process become a forum for a comprehensive approach to resolving p r o v i n c i a l - l o c a l land use c o n f l i c t s over a g r i c u l t u r a l land? To what extent does the Commission share i n the preparation of relevant p o l i c i e s of community plans? What are the nature of those p o l i c i e s ? 1.8 Case Study Approach In order to describe the l o c a l context i n some d e t a i l , and make judgments about block application outcomes and the 25 role of small municipalities i n the application process, a series of case studies i s presented. The case studies include a l l block applications made by f i v e small munici-p a l i t i e s , as well as t h e i r community plan experience and p o l i c i e s regarding Reserve land. As background to the case studies, an outline of p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s related to the Reserve system and to community planning i s set out. These p o l i c i e s established the procedures and standards, and the substantive issue areas of Reserve system administration and community planning. The case studies cover the period from late 1972 to 1980. They centre on municipal applications for Reserve exclusions or for non-farm use permission, and on community plan documents. In order to show the sequence of inter a c t i o n , reference i s made to other formal contacts between the muni-c i p a l i t i e s and Commission. Examples of these are appeals against the 1972 and 1973 Orders-in-Council p r o h i b i t i n g subdivision or development of potential a g r i c u l t u r a l reserve land, municipal input into the Reserve plan designation process, and selected private applications d i r e c t l y related to the municipal block applications. 1.8.1. The Municipal Cases The f i v e municipalities selected for the case studies are Keremeos, Armstrong, Salmon Arm, 100 Mile House and Merr i t t . The fi v e were selected from among small, non-metropolitan municipalities which had (1) made application on t h e i r own behalf to the Commission i n a block application for exclusion by the end of 1979, and (2) prepared community plans with assistance from the 1977 Revenue Sharing Act planning grants program. The f i v e had completed t h e i r community plan at least through an accessible d r a f t stage by early 1980. They are a l l located r e l a t i v e l y near Vancouver (for purposes of research v i s i t s ) , are part of di f f e r e n t regional d i s t r i c t s , and demonstrate as wide a variety of physical and settlement features as possible within the confines of the other selection c r i t e r i a . Table 2 sets out the B r i t i s h Columbia municipal government context and the size , status, and regional d i s t r i c t location of the f i v e municipalities selected. Armstrong and Salmon Arm are located at the northern end of the Okanagan region. Farming a c t i v i t y i n and around the municipal areas centres on mixed farming, with some orchards i n Salmon Arm. Keremeos, i n the lower Similkameen Valley, i s an orchard area with some vegetable and forage crops. Merritt and 100 Mile House are i n the ranching areas of the Thompson and Fraser plateaus, respectively. 27 TABLE 2 CASES SELECTED FROM AMONG BRITISH COLUMBIA MUNICIPALITIES B r i t i s h Columbia Mun i c i p a l i t i e s • 139 Receiving Planning Grants, 1978 & 1979: 103 Non-Metropolitan* Mun i c i p a l i t i e s under 10 ,000 population, 1976 Census: 87 Municipalities Selected: 5 Municipal Municipal 1976 Regional Cases Status Population D i s t r i c t s Keremeos v i l l a g e 702 Okanagan-Similkameen Armstrong c i t y 2260 North Okanagan Salmon Arm d i s t r i c t 9355 Columbia-municipality Shuswap 100 Mile House v i l l a g e 1585 Cariboo Merritt town 5680 Thompson-(cit y , 1980) Nicola SOURCE: B.C., Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , Annual  Report 1978, pp. 33-5; [B.C., Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , Planning Services], "1979 Planning Grants" (typewritten, .[1980]); S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1976 Census of Canada, Catalogue 92-805, table 3. * Outside the Capital Regional D i s t r i c t , Central Okanagan Regional D i s t r i c t , and the lower Fraser Valley. Table 3 compares the acreage excluded from Reserves as a r e s u l t of block applications between 1974 and 1979 for ru r a l and urban purposes with acreage excluded through private applications. It i s clear from Table 3 that the case study municipalities have had a r e l a t i v e l y n e g l i g i b l e impact on the Reserves. The reverse i s not necessarily true. Rather, from the perspective of such small municipalities TABLE 3 ACRES EXCLUDED AND INCLUDED IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES, 1974-1979, COMPARING RURAL, URBAN AND CASE STUDY BLOCK APPLICATIONS AND PRIVATE APPLICATIONS Type of A p p l i c a t i o n Acres Requested f o r E x c l u s i o n Acres Approved f o r Exclusion Acres Excluded B l o c k 3 ApplicatJ v i a .ons Rural* 3 Urban Case Study A r e a s 0 Block E x c l u s i o n P r i v a t e E x c l u s i o n T o t a l E x c l u s i o n I n c l u s i o n 106,263 88,791 d e 93,040 87,450 24,441 111,841 82,188 76,245 n. a. 76,245 n.a. 11,205 n.a. 11,205 n.a. 638 n.a. 638 n.a. SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, S t a t i s t i c s 1978 and S t a t i s t i c s 1980, and s t a f f a s s i s t a n c e . a. Block a p p l i c a t i o n s are a p p l i c a t i o n s made by l o c a l governments. b. Rural f i n e - t u n i n g e x c l u s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s , g e n e r a l l y made by r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s , r e s u l t from l a r g e s c a l e , r u r a l boundary reviews c a r r i e d out by the Commission with r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t a s s i s t a n c e . These exercises turn on a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y and sometimes p a r c e l s i z e and c o n s t i t u t e adjustments to i n i t i a l Reserves i n l i g h t of improved c a p a b i l i t y mapping rather than the urban develop-ment pressures r e l e v a n t to urban a p p l i c a t i o n s . c. Included i n "Urban" acreage f i g u r e s . d. To A p r i l , 1980. e. Not a v a i l a b l e . 29 the acreage involved may be very s i g n i f i c a n t indeed. (The maps i n Chapters 4-8 show the large Reserve areas i n the f i v e case study municipalities.) 1.8.2. Sources of Information Major data sources for the case studies are open A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission application and community plan review f i l e s , community plan documents, and interviews with municipal o f f i c i a l s , planners and engineers. This material was supplemented by regional d i s t r i c t f i l e material, i n t e r -views with regional d i s t r i c t planners, some municipal f i l e s , information from Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s and Ministry of Agriculture s t a f f , as well as others involved with the Commission's work and the municipal applications, including former Commission members and Commission s t a f f . Many of the interviews were conducted during a v i s i t to each municipal-i t y and to regional d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s i n the spring of 1980. These interviews followed a review of the Commission's application f i l e s and were designed to be open-ended and responsive to the p a r t i c u l a r circumstances of each municipal s i t u a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n . Each application included i n the case studies i s assigned a reference number related to the date of the application. These reference numbers, set out i n Table 4, are used i n the text to d i s t i n g u i s h among the applications under discussion. The Commission maintains a separate f i l e for each application and community plan, and each f i l e i s distinguished by a unique number. TABLE 4 APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN CASE STUDIES: REFERENCE NUMBERS, TYPE, AND ACREAGE REQUESTED AND APPROVED FOR EXCLUSION/USE Application Exclusion (E) or Acreage Acreage Municipality Reference No. Use Permission (U) Requested Approved Keremeos 1975 E 25 25 1977 U 10 0 1978 U 10 0 Armstrong 1974 E 10 4 1975 E 4 4 1976 a E 13 13 Salmon Arm 1975A E 708 466 1975B E 15 15 1975C U 80 0 1978A U n.a. b n.a. 1978B E 44 13 1979 E 108 108 100 Mile House 1975 E 147 91 1979 a E 56 56 Merri t t 1977 E 35 35 b SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia Provincial A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, Application f i l e s . a. Private applications. b. Road right-of-way. 31 1.8.3. Description and Analysis The case studies are presented i n a series of descriptions divided into three parts: application narrative, process inputs and environment, and the community plan. I n i t i a l contacts between the Reserve system and the municipal-i t y through municipal "blanket" appeals of the Orders-in-Council freezing farmland and through municipal proposals for the regional Reserve plan boundaries are noted where relevant. The case narratives comprise accounts of formal contacts made by municipalities with the Commission through selected exclusion and non-farm use applications. The narratives are based on Commission f i l e s and other documents, and rel a t e the sequence of often connected applications and events, the arguments made by municipalities and others for the exclusion or use, and the positions taken by the Commission. The second part of the description relates information on the issues and information sources which were incorporated into the process. This part also adds d e t a i l s about the con-text and t a c t i c s of the municipality and others involved obtained through interviews and f i l e s . Where necessary, t h i s part attempts to c l a r i f y further the sequence of events, surrounding the applications. The description concludes with an outline of the provisions of community plan documents which relate to the Reserves i n the municipal area, e s p e c i a l l y the plan strategy towards, the Reserve system, and Commission comments on the plans. NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated variously i n these notes as "BCLC," "BCPLC," and "BCPALC" according to the st y l e of the documents c i t e d . 1. O r i g i n a l l y t i t l e d the Land Commission Act. Amendments in 1977 which narrowed the scope of the Act to a g r i c u l -t u r a l land changed the t i t l e to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land  Commission Act. This t i t l e w i l l be used i n the text unless the reference i s s p e c i f i c a l l y to the 1973 version. 2. B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, " B i l l 42: Land Commission Act Background Paper" (V i c t o r i a , 8 March 1973), pp. 4-5, quoted i n Barry Edward Smith, "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - 1973" (M.A. thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975), p. 122; and p. 11, quoted i n M.J. Fumalle, "Public Policy and the Preservation of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n the Southern Okanagan Valley" (M.A. thesis, University of V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1975), p. 192. This interpretation of the goal of the 1973 l e g i s l a t i o n i s further confirmed by BCLC, Keeping the Options Open (.[Burnaby, 1975]), p. 5 and Interview with Mary Rawson, former member of the BCPALC, Vancouver, 13 May 1980. 3. "Local government" refers to both regional d i s t r i c t s and to c i t i e s , towns, v i l l a g e s and d i s t r i c t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a l l mandated by the Municipal Act. "Municipalities" i s used to re f e r only to c i t i e s , towns, v i l l a g e s and d i s t r i c t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 4. B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, "Background Paper," quoted i n Smith, "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act," pp. 52-4. This rationale i s also described i n BCLC, Options, p. 5 and Interview, Rawson. David Baxter, The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - A Review, Report No. 8 (Vancouver: Urban Land Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, A p r i l 1974), describes the strong l o c a l government opposition to t h i s approach. 5. During the 197 3 debate i n the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, the o r i g i n a l b i l l was attacked not only for removing control over municipal lands from munic i p a l i t i e s , but also for i t s lack of consultation procedures i n the designation of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves. The b i l l was duly amended before passage to increase municipal input into the designation process and subsequent changes i n the Reserves. Again, Baxter, Land Commission Act Review i s thorough i n his description of the changes r e s u l t i n g from l o c a l government opposition. 33 6. For discussion of the notion of a regional, p r o v i n c i a l or national public i n t e r e s t i n a g r i c u l t u r a l land preservation as a public good, see Paul W. Barkley and David W. Seckler, Economic Growth and Environmental Decay; the Solution Becomes the Problem (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972), pp. 136-7 and 153-5; C.R. Bryant and L.H. Russwurm, "The Impact of Non-Farm Development on Agriculture: A Synthesis," Plan Canada 19 (June 1979):122-3; .H. Craig Davis and William E. Rees, "Agriculture and Uncertainty -Keeping the Options Open" (mimeo, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, July 1977); R.S. Rodd and W. Van Vuuren, "A New Methodology i n Countryside Planning," . . • Proceedings Of the 1975  Workshop . . ., Canadian Journal Of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics 23 (1975): IT2; and William Toner, Saving Farms and  Farmland: A Community Guide, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 333 (Chicago: American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , July 1978), pp. 3-4. 7. Canadian provinces have long exercised various powers over land use and development, es p e c i a l l y i n the area of resource e x p l o i t a t i o n . Ontario and B r i t i s h Columbia have both recently proposed.refinements i n planning l e g i s l a t i o n to bring about conformity of l o c a l government land p o l i c i e s with stated p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s and i n t e r e s t s . The proposals involve e x p l i c i t and public d e f i n i t i o n of pr o v i n c i a l interests and th e i r enshrinement i n land use and development p o l i c i e s to which a l l l o c a l government planning should conform. The proposals are for hierarch-i c a l , top-down co-ordination of land use pol i c y between the two level s of government. B r i t i s h Columbia, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , The Planning Act: A Discussion Paper ( [Vic t o r i a , September 1980J.) ; Canadian Institute of Planners, Task Force on Planning Acts, Interim Report, Prepared by Hugh Kellas and Brahm Wiesman (Ottawa, June 1980); Mark W. Frankenna and David T. Sheffman, Economic  Analysis of Prov i n c i a l Land Use P o l i c i e s i n Ontario (Toronto: University of Toronto Press for the Ontario Economic Council, 1980), chap. 3; Ontario, White Paper on  the Planning Act (Toronto, May 1979). 8. Doug Halverson, "Local Planning for Rural B r i t i s h Columbia: Responding to the Metropolis," PIBC News (Vancouver) 22 (October-November 1980); Mohammed A. Qadeer, "Issues and Approaches of Rural Community Planning i n Canada," Plan Canada 19 (June 1979):113-16; C. Gary Runka, "Overview: Planning for Rural Land," Address delivered at Canadian Institute of Planners Annual Conference, Kitchener-Waterloo, June 1980 (mimeo). 9. BCPALC, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve S t a t i s t i c s , A p r i l 1,  1980 and A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve S t a t i s t i c s , October 1,  1978 (Burnaby, .[1980]. and n.d.). -34 10. Peter L. Arcus, "Some Thoughts on B i l l 42 (An Act to Est a b l i s h a Pr o v i n c i a l Land Commission)" (mimeo, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, March 1973), p. 6; Baxter, Land  Commission Act Review, pp. 24-7; Stanley Hamilton, Commentary to Land Commission Act Review, by Baxter, pp. 3-4. This outcome has been confirmed by a Commission s t a f f member, J u l i e Glover, "Residential/Farm C o n f l i c t s : The Work of the Green Zone Committee," i n The Urban  Fringe i n the Western Provinces, Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research (Toronto, September 1979), p. 1. 11. Baxter, Land Commission Act Review, pp. 24-5; Correspondence from R.L. Wilkinson, Director, Production and Marketing Services, Department of Agriculture, 15 March 1974, quoted i n Smith, "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act," p. 228. 12. Mary Rawson, 111 Fares the Land. Land Use Management at the Urban/Rural Resource Edges: The B r i t i s h Columbia  Land Commission, Urban Prospects Series ([Ottawa]: The Macmillan Company of Canada for the Ministry of State for Urban A f f a i r s , 1976), p. 34. 13. Quoted i n "B.C.'s Green Acres: A Look at the Future of Farmland i n B r i t i s h Columbia," Urban Reader (Vancouver) 7 (no. 5/6, 1979):16. 14. "What's Happening to the Land Commission?" PIBC News (Vancouver) 21 (January-March 1980):9. 15. Interview, Rawson. 16. BCLC, Options, p. 10. Other statements of t h i s p osition have appeared i n the Land Commission's various Annual Reports. 17. BCPLC, Annual Report, Year Ended March 31, 1977 (Burnaby, 1977), ss. 1.0(vi) and 3.5.1. 18. A.C. Kinnear, Chairman, BCPALC, "Address to B.C. F r u i t Growers Association Annual Convention," 23 January 1980, (typewritten).p. 12. Under the planning provisions of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, regional d i s t r i c t s may prepare settlement plans for unorganized parts of th e i r area; community plans are prepared by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Both community and settlement plans have the same statutory content requirements. 19. The importance of p o l i t i c a l and administrative commitment to implementation of plans i s described i n Hammer, 35 Greene, S i l e r Associates, with PADCO Inc., Comprehensive  Planning Assistance i n the Small Community, Prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C: Government Printing O f f i c e , March 1969); and Lawrence Susskind, "Should State Government Mandate Local Planning? . . . No," Planning 44 (July 1978):17. 20. Runka, "Overview," p. 7. 21. Peter Sel f , Administrative Theories and P o l i t i c s : An  Inquiry into the Structure and Process of Modern  Government (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973), pp. 96, 97. 22. Ibid., p. 287. 23. This notion i s ni c e l y set out i n C. Gary Runka, " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Rights: Who Has the Responsibility?" Agrologist 4 (Autumn 1975):21, i n his references to the effectiveness of "independent Commissions" as land use control agencies. Several of the BCPALC Annual Reports have stressed t h i s i d e a l : BCPLC, Annual Report 1977, s. 1.0 ( i ) ; BCPALC, Annual Report, Year Ended March 31,  1978 (Burnaby, 1978), p. 5; and BCPALC, Annual Report,  Year Ended March 31, 1979 (Burnaby, 1979), p. 3. 24. A succinct summary i s provided by Bruce M. Owen and Ronald Braeutigam, The Regulation Game: Strategic Use  of the Administrative Process (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 9-18. 25. "Land Use Reform: I l l u s i o n or Reality?", Planning 40 (September 1974):15. 26. Ibid., pp. 15, 16. The impact of s h i f t i n g regulatory j u r i s d i c t i o n to a more senior l e v e l of government i s noted by others: David E. Ervin et a l , Land Use Control:  Evaluating Economic and P o l i t i c a l E f fects (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 56-7; R. Kenneth Godwin and W. Bruce Shepard, "State Land Use P o l i t i c s : Winners and Losers," Environmental Law 5 (Spring 1975); and R. Robert Linowes and Don T. Allensworth, The P o l i t i c s of Land Use: Planning, Zoning,  and the Private Developer (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973), p. 161. 27. Godwin and Shepard, "State Land Use P o l i t i c s , " p. 713, id e n t i f y l o c a l o f f i c i a l s as part of an issue public normally concerned with "zoning at the l o c a l l e v e l " whose members "are accustomed to dealing with t h e i r state representatives." 36 28. Linowes and Allensworth, The P o l i t i c s of Land Use, p. 160. 29. B r i t i s h Columbia, Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat, Resource Planning Unit, A Land Use Planning  Framework, Prepared i n co-operation with the Resource Analysis Branch, Ministry of the Environment ({Victoria], July 1977), p. 29, shows the c o n f l i c t s among uses which t h i s engenders. 30. For a discussion of the "growth allowance" p o l i c y , see Christianna K. Crook, Environment and Land Use P o l i c i e s  and Practices of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (.[Victoria ]: B r i t i s h Columbia Inst i t u t e for Economic Policy Analysis, 1975), Vol. 1, p. 134; Rawson, 111  Fares the Land, pp. 26-8; and Smith, "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act," pp. 193-4. 31. The s i t u a t i o n of small towns and t h e i r attitudes toward planning and development control are summarized i n Halverson, "Local Planning"; Gerald Hodge and Mohammed A. Qadeer, "Towns and V i l l a g e s i n Urban Canada: A Report Prepared for Canadian P a r t i c i p a t i o n Secretariat for Habitat 1976" (mimeo, .[Ottawa]: Ministry of State for Urban A f f a i r s , March 1976); Qadeer, "Rural Community Planning," pp. 108-15; and Runka, "Overview," pp. 4-5, 7. 32. Calculations based on 1976 Canada Census and BCPALC, S t a t i s t i c s 1978 and S t a t i s t i c s 1980. 33. BCPLC, Annual Report, A p r i l 1, 1974 - March 31, 1975 (Burnaby, 1975), p. 3. 34. A si m i l a r s h i f t from municipal to state control began i n the United States during the same period. See Popper, "Land Use Reform"; Godwin and Shepard, "State Land Use P o l i t i c s , " pp. 708-10; Richard B. Spicer, Increasing State and Regional Power i n the Development  Process, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 255 (Chicago: American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , March 1970); and Susskind, "State Government." CHAPTER 2 THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE SYSTEM AND MUNICIPALITIES: INSTITUTIONS, PROCEDURES AND POLICIES The formal procedures of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve system make provision for municipalities whose developable land areas were placed i n the Reserves to seek amendments to the Reserves. These formal procedures comprise an i n s t i t u -t i o n a l framework within which competing uses for Reserve lands and competing values attached to those lands may be resolved. A second framework for resolving such c o n f l i c t s , municipal community plans, has also come into use recently. The operation of both these statutory frameworks has been sp e c i f i e d through Land Commission and other p r o v i n c i a l -l e v e l p o l i c i e s . These p o l i c i e s help to define both the nature of the issues at hand and the procedural aims of the Reserve system—including community planning. This chapter outlines the i n s t i t u t i o n a l and policy framework within which the Commission and municipalities operate i n resolving t h e i r d i f f e r e n t intentions towards Reserve land. 2.1 Basic Application Procedures The basic procedures through which the Land Commission administers the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves may be viewed as the adjudication of rezoning applications or of zoning 38 variances to allow a non-farm use or otherwise prohibited subdivision. These procedures are shown diagramatically i n Figure 3 and certain features of the procedures are set out i n Table 5. The zone i s the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve, i n which No person s h a l l occupy or use . . . land for any pur-pose other than farm use, except as permitted by t h i s Act or the regulations or by order of the commission upon such terms and conditions as the commission may impose.1 These procedures are established by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, by regulations made under the Act, or by 2 government and Commission p o l i c y . References i n the text to sections of the Act are made in terms of the Types of Application set out i n Tables 5 and 6. 2.1.1. Exclusion Applications Local governments (municipalities and regional d i s t r i c t s ) may apply (1) to remove or exclude land from the Reserves; (2) for permission for the non-farm use or sub-d i v i s i o n of Reserve land; or (3) to include land i n the Reserves. Private applications and other government agencies may make applications for the same purpose. As shown i n Table 5, the major difference between procedures for l o c a l government "block" applications and private applications i s the locus of the ultimate decision. Where municipalities or regional d i s t r i c t s are the applicants, the Commission advises cabinet rather than makes binding decisions. The recommenda-tion procedure i s mandated by cabinet, not statute. Where applicants are private persons, the Commission decides on the FIGURE 3 FLOW CHART FOR APPLICATIONS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT •EXCLUSION FROM THE ALR ^ <- •REMAIN IN THE ALR-s. 9(8) * s.9(7) ct-i- it i io* 1 I ( ^ l . . ! ^ ! • I r;-r I 8.9(1) , (b)< S - 1 1 ( 4 ) Orders-Subdivision -INCLUSIONS—, Reqs - — S u b ' n along ALR bdy "^-Conditional Use Subdi , s.8(12>-*| Use r*rciw*T] L I U I I K ) I ( "it M a I • l U a J IjUutxWltlJ H— W i R T f i n f f — i t i l l aatfcrrliatla* ».«. ao»«e r e d clonus*—i [ a.cu—-ndatlawi ) [•£"£! I fill] MP r w i V n , —I r-wims—i I t e u ^ M l . j J | »n,HU.Ua j H~ wiiRJrillh 1 l l l l l l i l «.lK#f n a i l * * I r ~ " . . J ; — I IIHIIal t>utfc»rli«t»«i I I • r r a ' K I L « - | larlwta I t r d M L COVIMitil **.<>•«•• 1 I • « . t 5 J . l i U 0-_J p W U l C M*»laC | '•Fclfett B l i i l l fT I nuairrr»LiTi fICJC f l JT iTTT . I_i 11 ioi _ j cattu * i I 'III! I3IT1 e* carta 1 » » . a l * t r a j »l t l l l t i | A . PRIVATE "BLOCK" OR LOCAL GOVT. J If l « M I . I « l * a | P a M l " , " ! L j " - 1 * a ' » « J L j *0 LAK> t lSll lat I PRIVATE AND "BLOCK" SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia Pr o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, ca. 1979. S B c l S ? 7 E ! r . T 7 i S e ^ i ° n n u m b e r s " f e r to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, as am. by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73. For corresponding sections of the 1979 REvised Statute see Appendix 1. * Procedure brought into e f f e c t by 1977 amendments to the Act. * s.8(14) I w r o i f i i w M i e a t I I y TABLE 5 MAJOR TYPES OF APPLICATIONS, AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE SYSTEM: BEFORE 1977 AMENDMENTS Type of A p p l i c a t i o n A p p l i c a n t Locus of Approval or Decision Commission Role Statutory Appeal Procedure Block E x c l u s i o n l o c a l govt. Commission Cabinet advisory no P r i v a t e E x c l u s i o n p r i v a t e owner Commission d e c i s i o n yes Block I n c l u s i o n l o c a l govt. Commission Cabinet advisory no P r i v a t e I n c l u s i o n p r i v a t e owner Cabinet advisory no P r i v a t e Appeal, E x c l u s i o n Refusal p r i v a t e owner Commission (authorize appeal) ELUC * d e c i s i o n Use/Subdivision l o c a l govt, p r i v a t e owner Commission d e c i s i o n no C o n d i t i o n a l Use l o c a l govt, p r i v a t e owner Commission d e c i s i o n no t SOURCE: Land Commission Act, S .B.C. 1973, c. 46 and B.C. Regs. 60/74, 494/74, and 93/75. * Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. TABLE 6 MAJOR TYPES OF APPLICATIONS, AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE SYSTEM: AFTER 1977 AMENDMENTS Type of A p p l i c a t i o n A p p l i c a n t Locus of Approval or Decision Commission Role Statutory Appeal Procedure Block E x c l u s i o n l o c a l govt. Commission Cabinet advisory no P r i v a t e E x c l u s i o n p r i v a t e owner Commission d e c i s i o n yes Block E x c l u s i o n l o c a l govt. Commission Cabinet advisory no P r i v a t e I n c l u s i o n p r i v a t e owner Cabinet advisory no P r i v a t e Appeal, E x c l u s i o n Refusal p r i v a t e owner Commission (leave to appeal) • M i n i s t e r (leave to appeal) ELUC** d e c i s i o n Block Use/Subdivision* l o c a l govt. Cabinet advisory P r i v a t e Use/Subdivision p r i v a t e owner Commission d e c i s i o n — C o n d i t i o n a l Use l o c a l govt, p r i v a t e owner Commission d e c i s i o n — SOURCE: A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C 1973, c. 46, as am. by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73; and B.C. Regs. 60/74, 494/74, 93/75 and 313/78. * Major changes made by 1977 amendments. ••Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. 42 applications, subject to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. Certain appeal and decision procedures were changed by the 1977 amendments to the Act. (See Table 6). 2.1.2. Inclusion Applications After the i n i t i a l designation of the Reserves, private and public or l o c a l government applicants have been able to apply to add land to the Reserves. A l l inclusions are decided 3 by cabinet upon the recommendation of the Commission. The Commission processes these applications and analyzes them as they would applications on which they make decisions to allow or refuse exclusion. 2.1.3. Non-Farm Use and Subdivision Applications Before the 1977 amendments, applications for non-farm use or subdivision of Reserve land, without removal from the Reserve, were made by l o c a l governments and by private owners under the Act or, i n certa i n situations, under a regulation which sets out certa i n public i n t e r e s t uses which the 4 Commission may permit. The Commission decided on approval or r e f u s a l . After the 1977 amendments, l o c a l government block applications for use or subdivision could be made under a new section which provides for a cabinet decision on the 5 Commission's recommendation. 2.1.4. 1977 Amendments to the Act The 1977 amendments to the o r i g i n a l Land Commission  Act changed i t s t i t l e to A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act and removed provisions r e l a t i n g to non-agricultural land. Greater access to cabinet for l o c a l government and private applicants i s provided. As noted, municipalities, regional d i s t r i c t s and the Commission may now seek cabinet approval for permission for non-farm use or subdivision of lands retained i n the Reserves. This procedure now p a r a l l e l s the block exclusion application process, with the Commission making recommendations to cabinet rather than making the decision. Private applicants whose request for exclusion of lands from the Reserves had been refused by the Commission and whose request for leave to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet had been refused by the Commission under section 9(7) could now seek leave to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee (ELUC) from the Minister responsible (variously the Minister of Environment 7 . . . and the Minister of A g r i c u l t u r e ) . Cabinet may now i n i t i a t e the release or addition of lands to the Reserves. 2.1.5. Block Exclusion Application Procedures The procedures observed by the Commission and l o c a l governments i n handling t h e i r exclusion and i n c l u s i o n applications were not e n t i r e l y mandated by statute before 1977. Rather, the Act, regulations and government and g Commission p o l i c i e s together established the procedure. Thus the Commission's r o l e regarding municipal exclusion applications has depended on cabinet policy rather than statute. In practice, municipal block applications for 44 exclusion or non-farm use are forwarded to the Commission, accompanied by relevant information. The extent of t h i s information was i n i t i a l l y not s p e c i f i e d by regulation. Later c i r c u l a r s and regulations s p e c i f i e d i n some d e t a i l what i n -formation the Commission needed as a basis for i t s 9 recommendation. After 1977, public hearing reports had to accompany the application. (These procedures are outlined i n Figure 3.) The Commission's s t a f f c o l l e c t and c o l l a t e further information as needed on each application. The Commission then meets and takes a formal decision on the application. Its recommendation and the rationale behind i t are then conveyed to cabinet through ELUC or the respon-s i b l e Minister, and a copy i s sent to the l o c a l government -. • ,.10 applicant. 2.1.6. Other Procedures Involving M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Although not the focus of t h i s study, other statutory and regulatory procedures formally involve municipalities i n Reserve administration, and municipalities become involved i n fine tuning boundary reviews as well. F i r s t , municipalities may advise the Commission on a range of private exclusion and use applications. Secondly, they played a formal role i n the establishment of the Reserve boundaries. Thirdly, the block application procedures described above have been used to f i n a l i z e the r e s u l t s of comprehensive fine tuning Reserve reviews. These reviews, i n i t i a t e d by the Commission, recommend substantial changes to a Reserve because of improved mapping or other indicators that the o r i g i n a l Reserve 45 boundaries should be changed. In general, reviews have concerned r u r a l rather than urban areas (see Table 3). Over the years the Commission has developed increasingly formal-ized procedures to be followed i n carrying out reviews. Local governments usually make the formal applications for these changes through the block exclusion process.^''" 2.1.7. N o t i f i c a t i o n and Hearing Requirements Many of the basic application procedures require some form of n o t i f i c a t i o n of interested parties and a hearing. The requirements are set out i n the Act and i n regulations 12 made under the Act. These requirements are outlined i n Tables 7 and 8. Before 1977, l o c a l government block a p p l i -cations for exclusion required no public hearing, public n o t i f i c a t i o n , or n o t i f i c a t i o n of owners of adjacent land. After the amendments, a public hearing, held by the l o c a l government applicant, and appropriate notice became 13 mandatory. These new sti p u l a t i o n s also apply to l o c a l government applications for non-farm use and subdivision made under the new section of the Act. Private exclusion applications have not required public notice or hearing but rather the n o t i f i c a t i o n of other affected owners and a hearing by the Commission which the 14 applicant may attend. The regional d i s t r i c t may hold a public information meeting i n connection with any private application. Inclusion applications require public notice and hearing only where l o c a l governments have applied for the TABLE 7 Type of App l i c a t i o n Block Exclusion Private Exclusion Block Inclusion Private Inclusion Use/Subdivision (under Act) Use/Subdivision (under Regulations) NOTIFICATION AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS, AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT APPLICATION PROCEDURES, BEFORE 1977. AMENDMENTS Commission Hearing** option of Commission Optional Public Info. Meeting option of Regional Dist. Public Hearing* i f private owner option of regional d i s t . Prior N o t i f i c a t i o n / Representations from: Affected Owners Local Govt. X X i n d i r e c t SOURCE: Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46 and B.C. Regs. * P r i o r notice required. ** Open to the public i n practice but no formal public notice given. TABLE 8 NOTIFICATION AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS, AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT APPLICATION PROCEDURES, AFTER 1977 AMENDMENTS Type of Ap p l i c a t i o n Commission Hearing* Optional Public Info. Meeting Public Hearing** Prior N o t i f i c a t i o n / Representations from: Affected Owners Local Govt. Block Exclusion and Use/Subdivision X X Private Exclusion X X option of regional d i s t . X X Block Inclusion X i f private owner Private Inclusion X option of regional d i s t . Use/Subdivision (under Act) X option of Commission X option of applicant i n d i r e c t Use/Subdivision (under Regulations) X SOURCE: A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, as am. by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73; and B.C. Regs. * Open to the public i n p r a c t i c e ; no p u b l i c notice given. ** Requires p u b l i c n o t i c e . 48 inclusion of pr i v a t e l y owned land. Subdivision and non-farm use applications generally require less i n the way of n o t i f i -cation and hearing, except for block applications by munici-p a l i t i e s and regional d i s t r i c t s . Hearings or information meetings for private use or subdivision applications are 16 otpional rather than required. For a l l types of applications, the procedures set out in the Act or regulations ensure that the appropriate l o c a l government i s made aware of the application. Since private applications are made through the regional d i s t r i c t s , and since the information required by regulation includes items from any municipality whose area i s affected, both lev e l s of l o c a l government are informed i n d i r e c t l y . Otherwise, the Commission i s required by regulation to seek the comments or advice of l o c a l governments. 2.2 Land Commission P o l i c i e s In order to carry out the administrative tasks set out i n the Act and prescribed by the government, the Commission has developed p o l i c i e s to guide i t s decision 17 making on applications. In 1973, the Commission inherited p o l i c i e s established by the government for the equitable administration of the orders-in-council "freezing" farmland 18 for farm uses. These p o l i c i e s have remained more or less i n t a c t . Commission p o l i c i e s concern both the substantive c r i t e r i a which guide decision making on each application and the Commission's view about how the formal procedures should be carried out. There i s considerable continuity of these c r i t e r i a and procedural aims, although the o v e r a l l approach of successive Commission members may have varied. The administrative context has evolved from (1) concern with equitable and reasonable administration of the farmland freeze, to (2) r a t i o n a l , planning c r i t e r i a for designating o v e r a l l Reserve "plans" or boundaries on a regional basis, to (3) the factors which the Commission, and municipalities consider i n dealing with separate and s e r i a l exclusion and non-farm applications. 2.2.1. Defining Legitimate Urban Need Before the Reserves were designated, and during the process of t h e i r designation, the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet and l a t e r the newly appointed Commission developed p o l i c i e s to deal with the p a r t i c u l a r issues of the farmland freeze, then with the t r a n s i t i o n from freeze to designation, and f i n a l l y with the designation of the Reserves. At a l l stages these p o l i c i e s gave municipal councils a spe-c i f i c r o l e , and involved substantive c r i t e r i a which are s t i l l r e f l e c t e d i n Commission p o l i c i e s . The municipal experience with p r o v i n c i a l a g r i c u l t u r a l land p o l i c y began with the farmland freeze i n s t i t u t e d i n December, 1972. The freeze was meant as an interim measure to control the subdivision and l a t e r use of a g r i c u l t u r a l land while l e g i s l a t i o n was brought forward and debated i n the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. The Land Commission Act was passed, and the regional A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves designated i n accordance with the Act. The period between the freeze and designation of Reserves lasted from one and one-half to two years, depending on the regional d i s t r i c t . The cabinet, ELUC, the Department of Agriculture, various ministers and eventually the Commission were a l l involved at times during t h i s period i n establishing c r i t e r i a for adjudicating non-farm subdivision and use of a g r i c u l t u r a l l y capable land."1" By May, 1973, the p r o v i n c i a l government and Commission had established a t r a n s i t i o n p o l i c y whereby municipalities could make "blanket" appeals for the release of land from the freeze i n order to avoid an immediate shortage of land for housing. This t r a n s i t i o n a l p o l i c y thus recognized urban housing as a legitimate use of farmland. Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s and regional d i s t r i c t s were requested to support t h e i r blanket appeals to release land for t h i s housing with documentation showing "areas surrounded by development, sewered, or c l e a r l y 20 . . needed for development i n the near future." The implica-t i o n was made that the . l o c a l government should examine i t s land use needs and s i t e s i n a f a i r l y thoroughgoing way before seeking i t s release from the freeze. This r e l a t i v e l y comprehensive approach was further refined i n instructions given municipalities and regional d i s t r i c t s i n July, 1973, about t h e i r recommendations for the Reserve plans or boundaries. To summarize, land might be recommended for exclusion from the proposed Reserves i n order to allow for about f i v e years of predicted growth. This growth was to be accommodated f i r s t by urban i n f i l l i n g , then on land with low c a p a b i l i t y for agriculture. Only i f these alternatives were not available, or i f there were exist i n g "substantial, p a r t i a l l y used, public works designed to serve the vacant area," could expansion areas be proposed 21 around urban centres on a g r i c u l t u r a l l y capable land. Thus by mid-1973 a series of p o l i c i e s to determine what should be retained as designated farmland or Reserves had been established. These c r i t e r i a became the issues on which municipal and other exclusion and non-farm use applications turned: -p r i o r commitment to development, including substantial commencement and i r r e v e r s i b l e p r i o r approvals and public works commitments or i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; -a need for the urban land use proposed; -no alternative s i t e s for the needed urban development in the form of i n f i l l s i t e s or low c a p a b i l i t y land. In these circumstances, l o c a l governments might legitimately claim the use of Reserve land for urban development. A fourth general c r i t e r i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y for municipal and regional d i s t r i c t exclusion applications, was l a t e r expressed in a c i r c u l a r of September, 1974: -"urgent" and " v i t a l to the general community or public interest."22 Whatever the procedural context for decision making, these c r i t e r i a are open to wide interpretation, depending on the interests of and technical resources available to those involved. For example, the i n f i l l p otential of urban areas i s often i n dispute, since predicting s i t e a v a i l a b i l i t y de-pends on the willingness of owners to s e l l or develop t h e i r land, and on the timing of these private decisions. Viewed from the perspective of servicing costs, the development potential of lands of low a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y may also be low. When exi s t i n g public works are taken to commit land to development, f i n a n c i a l and l o c a l l e g i s l a t i v e commitment may be substituted for physical i n s t a l l a t i o n , and the f l e x i b i l i t y of e x i s t i n g systems regarding options for l o g i c a l service extensions subject to the whims of engineering designs prepared for municipalities or other agencies. The absence of alternative s i t e s hinges on these interpretations and a host of others, depending on what i s considered f i n a n c i a l l y , s o c i a l l y and p o l i t i c a l l y reasonable. Perhaps the most d i f f i -c u l t aspect of interpretation i s the prediction of the urban demand for land, i n i t i a l l y the " f i v e year growth allowance" and l a t e r a more general problem of phasing land a v a i l a b i l i t y with t h i s demand and i t s r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial and indus-t r i a l components. The prediction of population trends i n small towns i s notoriously d i f f i c u l t and the decisions of a few owners can make a great difference to the supply of urban land there. 2.2.2. A g r i c u l t u r a l Capability C r i t e r i a These urban-oriented c r i t e r i a , however d i f f i c u l t of interpretation, seem r e l a t i v e l y comprehensive, and the farm related and a g r i c u l t u r a l land c a p a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a were at least equally so. The Reserve boundary proposals of the Department of Agriculture, to which municipalities and regional d i s t r i c t s were asked to react, were founded on the Canada Land Inventory's (CLI) a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y rating of land. The rating i s a measure of the li m i t a t i o n s on the range of crops which can be produced, and does not take account of current a g r i c u l t u r a l technology, farm economics, parcel or farm s i z e , etc. 2.2.3. Early Trade Offs of Urban Need and A g r i c u l t u r a l Capability Mary Rawson's 111 Fares the Land outlines the approach taken by the Commission i n preparing i t s recommendations to the government on each regional A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve plan. The Commission r e l i e d primarily on a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y ratings but incorporated trade o f f s between urban development and aspects of land use af f e c t i n g the v i a b i l i t y of farm units: Capability Guidelines: - a l l class 1, 2, 3 and 4 land included i n Reserves; - i f c a p a b i l i t y was 40% class 4 or better, land included; -class 5 and 6 land was included i f usable i n con-junction with class 1-4 land; -class 7 lands were included where they were a "natural part of the a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape"; -other low c a p a b i l i t y lands included i f t h e i r exclusion would "encourage ruinous intrusion of incompatible uses"; Some Urban Considerations: -land " f u l l y committed to urban development" was excluded unless i n open space use; -high c a p a b i l i t y lands were excluded where they "were i n the immediate path of urban development, or i n areas where urban intrusion had proceeded so far i t seemed un l i k e l y the trend could be halted" eg. commitments through community plans, servicing programs.25 The kinds of trade o f f s s p e c i f i e d above continue to be made 54 by the Commission i n dealing with exclusion and non-farm use applications. The Commission has continued to view municipal urban land requirements as legitimate under some circum-stances . 2.2.4. Summary of Substantive Issues Involved i n Municipal Applications Throughout i t s subsequent deliberations on municipal applications, the Commission appears to have retained and elaborated the c r i t e r i a set out above. The c r i t e r i a used to estab l i s h the Reserves were l a t e r applied to exclusion a p p l i -cations, as evidenced p a r t l y by the schedule of information required to be supplied to document the applications. The Commission recently updated an information sheet for a l l applicants, "Points for Applicants to Consider." It sets out at length factors weighed by the Commission, notes that these are i n t e r r e l a t e d , and states that the Commission considers those which are relevant to the p a r t i c u l a r application at hand. With the addition of the two starred items, the l i s t below outlines the "Points" according to the locus of the impact of exclusion. The starred items are considerations derived from e a r l i e r p o l i c i e s which may apply to municipal and regional d i s t r i c t public i n t e r e s t applications. The starred items are supported by aspects of the Act and for example, B.C. Regulation 93/75. The l i s t comprises an out-l i n e of the issues l i k e l y to be involved i n applications and of the c r i t e r i a which the Commission must weigh i n making i t s decision. 55 Issue Content, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Decision C r i t e r i a : Subject Property or Site - i t s a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y - i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y of proposed use - r e s u l t i n g parcel size with respect to type of a g r i c u l t u r a l potential -physical r e s t r i c t i o n s on i t s a g r i c u l t u r a l use Surrounding Land - i t s a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y -impact of proposal on i t s a g r i c u l t u r a l use -impact of i t s e x i s t i n g use on use of subject property A g r i c u l t u r a l Community -impact of proposal on farm community -proposal i s i n support of or i n c o n f l i c t with area agriculture -regional, community objectives Urban Community -need for proposed (urban) u s e — p u b l i c i n t e r e s t * -existence of alternative or lower c a p a b i l i t y , non-Reserve s i t e s for proposed use -prior commitment to development* -regional, community objectives The urban-related land use issues surrounding the Reserves appear to have remained stable since the designation process i t s e l f . O r i g i n a l l y developed to promote a compre-hensive approach to l o c a l government farmland freeze appeals, and l a t e r to l o c a l government input into Reserve designations, most of the urban-related c r i t e r i a and a g r i c u l t u r a l concerns continue to guide Commission deliberations on exclusion and other applications. The complexity of trade o f f s among these c r i t e r i a i s p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n view of the wide range of interpretations which the urban related c r i t e r i a admit. 2.3 Procedural Norms The procedural requirements of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act focus on the locus of decision and the rights of property owning applicants to n o t i f i c a t i o n and hearing. Referrals to interested l o c a l governments and information requirements have been spe c i f i e d i n increasing d e t a i l i n regulations (see section 2.1 above). In the view of the past chairman of the Commission: . . . I see no problems and many advantages to the process that has existed from the beginning whereby applications from municipalities and regional d i s -t r i c t s are decided upon by Cabinet aft e r receiving recommendations from the Commission and the Environment and Land Use Committee. 2^ The process allows regional as well as p r o v i n c i a l input into the decision process, according to the Chairman, and even more l o c a l i z e d input from the municipal l e v e l . The Commission's annual reports and the writings of i t s members have stressed t h i s j o i n t governmental aspect of application procedures. The Commission sought to be f l e x i b l e by giving consideration to both " l o c a l concerns" and to "a regional or pr o v i n c i a l plan", according to i t s former general manager 2 8 and chairman, Gary Runka. This norm i s re f l e c t e d i n the r e f e r r a l processes set out i n the regulations and i n the nature of the c r i t e r i a established for considering applica-tions. It i s also important to the Commission's view of what i t s r ole should be i n community planning. Several of the Commission's annual reports have stated that i t s decision making should be shared with other 57 interested parties, p a r t i c u l a r l y l o c a l governments but also 29 the public. This concern i s central to r e l a t i o n s between the Commission and municipal governments, and the Commission's notion of i t s role i n community planning. It summarizes the statutory and regulatory provisions for a municipal role and the substantive c r i t e r i a which r e f l e c t the trade o f f s among interests involved i n Reserve administration. More narrowly, the Commission has been concerned with procedural fairness, unbiased consideration, decisions based on good technical information. These norms rel a t e to the impact of the Reserve system on property rights and to i t s regulatory nature. Fairness means that similar applications should be treated consistently and so as not to impose undue f i n a n c i a l hardship on applicants or others subject to Reserve 30 controls. The notion that the Commission should "treat private and public inte r e s t without bias" was expressed i n 31 1975 by the then Commission chairman Gary Runka. This im-p a r t i a l i t y objective i s related to the Commission's desire to base i t s decisions on technical inputs and to the i d e a l of consistency. Decisions should be based on access to good 32 technical information, p a r t i c u l a r l y about the land resource. 2.4 Community Plans and the Reserve System In 1977, B r i t i s h Columbia made several alterations to i t s l e g i s l a t i o n which had the e f f e c t of encouraging a surge of municipal planning a c t i v i t y : 103 municipalities began or resumed formal plan preparation i n 1978 and 197 9, out of a 33 t o t a l of 139 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Changes to the planning 58 sections of the Municipal Act s p e c i f i e d new contents for municipal community plans and firmly directed municipalities to give p r i o r i t y to c e r t a i n p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s . New l e g i s l a t i o n enacted at the same time, the Revenue Sharing Act, provided cost-shared planning grants "aimed at encouraging the preparation of o f f i c i a l p o l i c y plans to guide both 34 regional and community development." This funding seems to have encouraged many smaller municipalities to undertake planning for the f i r s t time. Subsequent planning a c t i v i t y has generated opportunities for j o i n t Commission and municipal shared decision making and also for c o n f l i c t s over medium term proposals for the use of Reserve lands. The Municipal Act now s p e c i f i e s that an o f f i c i a l community plan, prepared by a municipality at i t s own d i s -cretion, must i n i t s statement of land use p o l i c i e s deal with s. 810(2) (e) the preservation and continuing use of a g r i c u l t u r a l land for present and future food production[.]35 The same provisions are to be included i n o f f i c i a l settlement plans prepared by regional d i s t r i c t s for unincorporated areas within t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . Further, the plans should give consideration to s. 810(3)(b) the stated objectives, p o l i c i e s and programs of the government[.]36 Both the Commission and the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s have c i r c u l a r i z e d municipalities and regional d i s -t r i c t s to promote the co-ordination of municipal planning with the p o l i c i e s espoused by the Commission and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. By co-ordination i s meant conformity of plans to Commission p o l i c i e s and l i a i s o n with the Commission during the preparation of community plans, which may propose non-farm use of Reserve lands. The Commission has been concerned that o f f i c i a l community planning a c t i v i t y should support ex i s t i n g Reserves rather than weaken thei r future i n favour of other municipal p r i o r i t i e s . C irculars i n 1978 and 1979 spelled out the Commission's views about the interface between community and settlement planning and the Reserves: -Most municipalities have adequate land outside Reserves for development; and - i f urban encroachment i s proposed during the l i f e of the plan, the Commission should be brought into the planning process early on.37 The Commission appointed a s t a f f member to l i a i s e with municipalities on t h e i r community planning, and the Commission subsequently undertook to review draft community and s e t t l e -ment plans referred to i t . By early 1979, the Commission f e l t that i t was necessary to set out s p e c i f i c p o l i c i e s toward the Reserves which should be incorporated into community plans, and these policy suggestions were c i r c u l a r i z e d to l o c a l governments by the Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s : 1. A l l Lands within the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve should be included i n most cases within a single a g r i c u l t u r a l use designation i n o f f i c i a l plans. 2. Minimum parcel size regulations should not be stipulated for A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve lands i n o f f i c i a l plans. 3. In zoning bylaws, minimum parcel size regulations for the zone designation covering A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve lands should be stated as applying only when land i s excluded from the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve or when subdivision within the Ag r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve i s approved pursuant to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. 4. In both o f f i c i a l plans and zoning bylaws, i t should be c l e a r l y indicated that lands within the A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Reserve are subject to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, and that subdivision and new non-farm uses are not permitted unless approved by the Commission.38 These and other c i r c u l a r s summarized community plan p o l i c i e s which were i n c o n f l i c t with the future of the Reserves: -By implication, municipalities were not contacting the Land Commission u n t i l the plans were i n f i n a l d r a f t form, i f at all;39 -municipalities were using the Reserves as a "zoning or subdivision t o o l " , presumably to l i m i t or phase development; 4 0-community plan p o l i c i e s were sometimes i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t with the Act;41 and -some municipalities viewed th e i r community plans as a "basis for requesting the release of land from the Ag r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve."4 2 As early as 1978 the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s and the Commission saw the community plan both as an opportunity to sort out differences between the Commission and municipal-i t i e s i n a comprehensive way and as a threat to t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s . The Ministry has given municipalities r e l a t i v e l y free r e i n over t h e i r plan p o l i c i e s . Technically the Ministry has some leverage over v i l l a g e , town and d i s t r i c t municipality plans, since they must be registered (villages) or deposited with the Ministry (towns, d i s t r i c t s ) i n order to become f u l l y o f f i c i a l . According to some p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s , these powers have not been exercised to persuade municipalities to make changes i n plans, because such action would be resented and place the document i n a peculiar position i n . . . . 44 the eyes of municipal o f f i c i a l s . 2.5 Summary: The I n s t i t u t i o n a l and Policy Environment for Balancing Municipal Development and A g r i c u l t u r a l Land P r es e r va t io n \ . In order to slow the conversion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to urban uses, the B r i t i s h Columbia government removed u l t i -mate control over land use and subdivision from l o c a l govern-ment hands and placed these powers i n the hands of the Ag r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission and cabinet. The new arrangements provided formal procedures for municipal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Reserve system of a g r i c u l t u r a l zoning. Following on i n i t i a l municipal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the process of designating the Reserves, municipal requirements for urban land are provided for i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land  Commission Act and regulations. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s may apply for the removal of land from the Reserves and Commission control or for permission to subdivide for non-farm use. The Commission recommends to cabinet on these applications. The Commission view of i t s r o l e stresses technical information, equity, freedom from bias or l o c a l pressures, and f l e x i b i l i t y with respect to the needs of l o c a l and regional areas. The Commission, following i n the footsteps of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, has developed a set of substantive c r i t e r i a or factors on which to make i t s decisions on applications. These c r i t e r i a define the kinds of substantive issues which arise i n municipal and private applications. Weighing these factors i s the crux of the Commission's function of balancing conservation and development; ecological p r i n c i p l e s and economic, s o c i a l and 45 p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s ; and the p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l public i n t e r e s t . To t h i s statutory set of procedures and i n s t i t u t i o n s and Commission p o l i c i e s concerning i n d i v i d u a l applications has now been added another arena within which the future use of Reserve lands can be dealt with. The Revenue Sharing  Act and Municipal Act planning amendments of 1977 have encouraged a surge of municipal planning a c t i v i t y . The Mini-stry of Municipal A f f a i r s and the Commission have urged that community plans support the Reserve system. Ministry c i r c u -l a r s suggest that, while the province sees community plans as a context for municipal-Commission consultation, munici-p a l i t i e s see t h e i r plans more as a means of backing t h e i r development preferences for Reserve lands. The Commission's administrative functions which i t exercises through the application process are e s s e n t i a l l y regulatory, involving rezoning land from a g r i c u l t u r a l to other uses. It ca r r i e s out a j u d i c i a l function within a general p o l i c y framework. It expects to "defend the public interest against sectional i n t e r e s t " , by both "protecting public p o l i c y positions against powerful interests . . . and by holding the rin g f a i r l y among the discernible interests themselves." I t i s both referee and representative of the p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n a g r i c u l t u r a l land. As the Commission would have i t , the balancing of interests i s t h e i r main job: public and private i n t e r e s t s , l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l , urban and a g r i c u l t u r a l . The application process i s incremental and s e r i a l . Yet each decision about Reserve land contributes to the shaping of long-term options for development. A more comprehensive approach to Reserve land use was taken i n the o r i g i n a l desig-nation process and i s p o t e n t i a l l y available i n community and settlement plan formulation. The Commission's procedural norms are those appropriate to a regulatory body dealing with property r i g h t s . The imple-mentation of these norms i s a matter of conformity with the dictates of administrative law. However, the implementation of " f l e x i b i l i t y " towards " l o c a l concerns and regional plans", or "shared decision-making" i s less straightforward, both i n the municipal application process and i n the community planning context. The Commission has developed a set of c r i t e r i a to help i t make such trade o f f s . M u n i c i p a l i t i e s have d i r e c t access to the Reserve system and can, i n t h e i r planning, take a comprehensive stance i n t h e i r p o l i c y towards the Reserves. Part II reports on the operation of these p o l i c i e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the f i v e case study mu n i c i p a l i t i e s . 64 NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated variously i n these notes as "BCLC," "BCPLC," and "BCPALC" according to the s t y l e of the documents c i t e d . 1. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, s. 10(1), as amended by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73. This section and others have been reworded i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Revised Statutes of 1979. In t h i s thesis, sections of the Act are c i t e d to the Act as consolidated following the 1977 amendments. Corresponding sections of the 1973, 1977 consolidated, and 1979 revised statutes are set out i n Appendix 1. The applications included i n the case studies were a l l made under the 1973 and 1977 versions of the l e g i s l a t i o n . 2. Selected procedural and substantive regulations made under the Act are l i s t e d i n Appendix 2 and t h e i r content noted. The cabinet makes regulations under the Act by Order-in-Council, and they are duly gazetted as pro-v i n c i a l regulations. 3. Before 1977, under procedures established by B.C. Reg. 494/74; afte r 1977, under new procedures established by S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, ss. 8(11)-(14), as amended by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73, and by B.C. Reg. 313/78. 4. Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, s. 11(4) and B.C. Reg. 93/75. 5. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, s. 9(1)(b), as amended by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73. 6. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C, 1973, c. 46, s. 9(1) (b), as amended by S.B.C 1977, c. 73. 7. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C, 1973, c. 46, s. 9(8), as amended by S.B.C 1977, c. 73. 8. Procedures for municipal block exclusion applications were developed i n the course of dealing with the f i r s t such cases i n mid-1974, for example the 1974 application from the c i t y of Armstrong, application reference number 1974, BCPALC Application f i l e 91-T-74-02508. The f i l e contains correspondence between D. Stupich, Minister of Agriculture and W.T. Lane, Chairman of the Commission (31 May 1974 and 4 June 1974), concerning the Commission's role i n the process. Eventually procedures for munici-pal applications were established and l o c a l governments informed by c i r c u l a r l e t t e r from the Commission Chairman (6 September 1974) . The procedures were mandated by regulation only i n 1978 (B.C. Reg. 313/78). 65 9. William Lane, Chairman, BCPLC c i r c u l a r to Regional D i s t r i c t s and M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , "Re Suggested 9(1) Pro-cedure - Application to B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission," 6 September 1974; B.C. Regs. 60/74, 494/74, and 93/75. 10. Commission-published application s t a t i s t i c s show that the cabinet decision generally confirms the Commission's f i n a l recommendation on each block applic a t i o n . See Table 1 above. 11. Descriptions of major fi n e tuning boundary reviews can be found i n the Commission's annual reports. 12. B.C. Regs. 60/74, 494/74, 93/75, and 313/78. 13. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, s. 9(1), as amended by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73; and B.C. Reg. 313/78, s. 4. 14. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, s. 9(3), as amended by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73; and B.C. Regs. 60/74 and 313/78. 15. B.C. Regs. 60/74 and 313/78. 16. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 1973, c. 46, 11(4), as amended by S.B.C. 1911, c. 73. This section remained unchanged by the 1977 amendments. 17. "Decision making" and "decision" refer to the recommend-ations the Commission makes to cabinet as well as Commission decisions which are f i n a l . 18. These p o l i c i e s were set out i n B.C. Regs. 4/73 and 19/73. 19. This period i s covered by David Baxter, The B r i t i s h  Columbia Land Commission Act - A Review, Report No. 8 (Vancouver: Urban Land Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Business, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, A p r i l 1974); Christianna K. Crook, Environment and Land Use  P o l i c i e s and Practices of the Province of B r i t i s h  Columbia ( [ V i c t o r i a J : B r i t i s h Columbia I n s i t i t u e for Economic Policy Analysis), Vol. 1; and Barry Edward Smith, "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - 1973," (M.A. thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975). 20. Environment and Land Use Committee and W.T. Lane, Chairman, Land Commission c i r c u l a r to Secretary Treasurers, A l l Regional D i s t r i c t s , copies to A l l Municipal Clerks, 29 May 197 3, .[BCLC, "Land Commission Act Handbook"], item I-h. 66 21. BCLC to A l l Regional D i s t r i c t Boards and A l l Municipal Councils, "Re: A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves" [underlined i n original] , 11 July 1973, .LBCLC, "Land Commission Act Handbook"], item I l - g . 22. Lane, BCLC, c i r c u l a r to l o c a l governments, 6 September 1974. 23. BCLC, c i r c u l a r to l o c a l governments, 11 July 1973. 24. The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) rating system i s outlined i n BCLC, Keeping the Options Open([Burnaby, 1975],), p. 7 and, i n somewhat more d e t a i l , BCPALC, The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve: Protecting B.C.'s Farm-land (Burnaby, 1979), n.p. 25. I l l Fares the Land. Land Use Management at the Urban/  Rural/Resource Edges: The B r i t i s h Columbia Land  Commission, Urban Prospects series H-Ottawa] : The Macmillan Company of Canada for the Ministry of State for Urban A f f a i r s , 1976), pp. 24-7. 26. [BCPALC], "Points for Applicants to Consider" (mimeo), 26 October 1979. 27. A.C. Kinnear, Chairman, BCPALC, "Address to B.C. F r u i t Growers Association Annual Convention," 23 January 1980 (typewritten), p. 5. 28. C. Gary Runka, " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Rights: Who Has the Responsibility?" Agrologist 4 (Autumn 1975):21. See also BCPLC, Annual Report, Year Ended March 31, 1977 (Burnaby, 1977); BCPALC, Annual Report, Year Ended  March 31, 1978 and Annual Report, Year Ended March 31,  1979 (Burnaby, 1978 and 1979) . 29. BCLC, Options, p. 10; BCPLC, Annual Report, A p r i l 1,  1974 - March 31, 1975 (Burnaby, 1975), pp. 4, 12; BCPLC, Annual Report 1977, ss. 1.0 ( i i i ) and 3.5.1. 30. BCPLC, Annual Report 1977, s. l . O ( i i i ) ; Environment and Land Use Committee and Lane, c i r c u l a r to l o c a l govern-ments, 29 May 1973; Gordon Gram, BCPALC s t a f f , informal t a l k to students at School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 15 November 1979. 31. Runka, " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Rights," p. 21. 32. BCPALC, Annual Report 1978, p. 5; BCPALC, Annual Report, Year Ending March 31, 1979 (Burnaby, 1979), p. 3; BCPLC, Annual Report 1977, s. 1.0(i); Runka, Ibid. 67 33. B r i t i s h Columbia, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , Annual  Report 1978: Report for the Year Ended December 31,  1978 ( V i c t o r i a , n.d.), pp. 33-5; and .[British Columbia, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , Planning Services], "1979 Planning Grants" (typewritten, ,[1980] ) . 34. B r i t i s h Columbia, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s and Housing, Annual Report 1977: Report for the Year Ended  December 31, 1977 ( V i c t o r i a , n.d.), p. IT". 35. R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290. 36. R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290. 37. BCPALC c i r c u l a r to A l l Regional D i s t r i c t s and Munici-p a l i t i e s , "Re O f f i c i a l Settlement Plans, O f f i c i a l Community Plans, and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves," 14 July 1978; BCPALC c i r c u l a r to A l l M u n i c i p a l i t i e s and Regional D i s t r i c t s , "Re C o n f l i c t Between A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve Designation and Local Land-Use L e g i s l a t i o n , " 11 A p r i l 1979. 38. William N. Vander Zalm, Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s , c i r c u l a r to A l l M u n i c i p a l i t i e s and Regional D i s t r i c t s , "Re: A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act Relative to Local Government O f f i c i a l Plans and Regulatory Bylaws," 28 March 1979. This c i r c u l a r memorandum was followed by the BCPALC's of 11 A p r i l 1979 r e i t e r a t i n g the p o l i c y suggestions i n more d e t a i l . 39. BCPALC c i r c u l a r to l o c a l governments, 14 July 1978; William N. Vander Zalm, Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s , c i r c u l a r to Municipal Councils, .[regarding o f f i c i a l community plans], 14 August 1979. 40. Vander Zalm c i r c u l a r to l o c a l governments, 28 March 1979. 41. BCPALC c i r c u l a r to l o c a l governments, 11 A p r i l 1979; Vander Zalm c i r c u l a r to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , 14 August 1979. 42. Vander Zalm c i r c u l a r to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , 14 August 1979. 43. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, ss. 306(1), 307, and 711(7). 44. Personal communications, B r i t i s h Columbia, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , Planning Services s t a f f , 1980. 45. Runka, " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Rights," p. 21. 46. Peter Self, Administrative Theories and P o l i t i c s : An  Inquiry into the Structure and Processes of Modern  Government (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973), p. 287. PART II THE CASE STUDIES 68 CHAPTER 3 THE MUNICIPAL VIEWPOINT: A SURVEY OF SMALL TOWN OFFICIALS As an introduction to the experience of the f i v e case study muni c i p a l i t i e s , t h i s chapter outlines the views of the i r o f f i c i a l s , taken as a group, toward the Reserve system. The survey i s impressionistic, based on interviews with municipal o f f i c i a l s and consultants, and helps to interpret the documented case studies which follow i n Chapters 4 through 8. Municipal o f f i c i a l s have mixed feelings about the Reserve system as i t impinges on t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . They give i n t e l l e c t u a l support to the notion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land preservation, and accept the Reserve system as p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y . But they are well aware of the ambiguities of such an i d e a l and seek to reach some sort of modus vivendi with the Commission. They believe that a l l the Reserve land within t h e i r municipal boundaries w i l l not and should not remain under Commission control and i n a g r i c u l t u r a l use. That the Reserves constitute a hurdle for development pro-posals i s taken for granted. At the same time, the Reserves are not necessarily seen as a major planning issue or community problem for o f f i c i a l s or residents. 70 In e f f e c t , o f f i c i a l s and t h e i r technical consultants regard Reserve lands as a holding zone, the t r a d i t i o n a l function of municipal a g r i c u l t u r a l zones. This view may be expressed e x p l i c i t l y or implied. For example, one mayor observed that Reserve lands w i l l ensure the c i t y a good supply of land for r e s i d e n t i a l needs for years. Several o f f i c i a l s stated that the conversion of land from agriculture to urban development i s in e v i t a b l e . In some community plans or zoning bylaws, Reserve lands intended for development i n the foreseeable future are designated d i f f e r e n t l y than other Reserve lands. Expressions of skepticism about the economic future of l o c a l a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises are reinforced by the absence of farming on lands included i n the Reserves and by the intentions of present farmers to s e l l o f f t h e i r land. Since the Reserve i s a holding zone, o f f i c i a l s conclude that the Commission should not concern i t s e l f over "marginal" a g r i c u l t u r a l land but rather should d i r e c t i t s energies to preserving "prime" a g r i c u l t u r a l land. The Commission's expressed concern about the impact of urban encroachment or intrusion on adjacent farming a c t i v i t i e s i s then seen as meddling i n an area of the municipal mandate. Since urban development i s inevitable, the best approach for the munici-p a l i t y and Commission i s to concentrate on conserving the best a g r i c u l t u r a l lands and to give proper weight to the s u i t -a b i l i t y of marginal a g r i c u l t u r a l lands for urban development. In l i n e with Union of B r i t i s h Columbia Muni c i p a l i t i e s p o l i c y , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , not the Commission, should be 71 d i r e c t i n g urban development and should therefore control 2 marginal Reserve lands. Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s acting responsibly through planning and regulation should be able to get on with the job without unreasonable obstruction by the Commission. Muni c i p a l i t i e s should be able to give proper attention to selecting the best s i t e s for urban development. Many o f f i c i a l s and t h e i r technical advisors are concerned with the e f f e c t the Reserve may have on the growth of th e i r communities. In smaller communities such as Keremeos and Armstrong, there i s concern that the Reserves have interfered with the provision and improvement of needed commercial, entertainment and recreational services. Con-tinued development i s seen i n a pos i t i v e l i g h t as an opportunity without negative e f f e c t s . As the Union of B r i t i s h Columbia Mun i c i p a l i t i e s p o l i c y regarding the Reserves would have i t : The U.B.C.M. recognizes and supports the need to conserve land for agriculture, for recreational pur-sui t s and le i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s and for retention of areas i n a natural state. The j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Land Commission should be confined to the preservation of a g r i c u l t u r a l land having a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of „[CLI} 1 to 4 and to the protection and provision of recreational land. The use and development of marginal a g r i c u l t u r a l land having c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of [CLI] 5 to 8 should be determined by l o c a l governments. The Land Commission should have the rig h t to appeal decisions made by l o c a l governments on the use and development of marginal a g r i c u l t u r a l land to the Environment and Land Use Committee of the Cabinet.3 72 NOTES 1. The interviews are l i s t e d separately i n the Bibliography. 2. Union of B r i t i s h Columbia M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , "Land Use Policy Statement Q-04," Minutes of the 74th Annual Con- vention of the Union of B r i t i s h Columbia Municipalities",  Held at Vernon, B r i t i s h Columbia on September 21st.7  22nd., and 23rd., 1977 ({New Westminster], n.d.), p. 109. 3. Ibid. This policy statement, new i n 1977, remains current. CHAPTER 4 THE VILLAGE OF KEREMEOS A v i l l a g e of over 700 people, Keremeos i s located on the Similkameen River. Backed by steep h i l l s , the v i l l a g e i s divided into two l e v e l s , the upper bench area of more recent r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions and high school s i t e , and the lower bench area which contains the downtown, i n d u s t r i a l , and older r e s i d e n t i a l sectors. A substantial part of the lower bench i s floodplain, currently within the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Both bench areas are capable of supporting tree f r u i t s as well as forage crops. The v i l l a g e i s imbedded i n the Reserve, and most undeveloped, r u r a l land within i t s boundaries i s located i n i t s western half and i s comprised of high c a p a b i l i t y Reserve land. (See Map 1.) Formal contacts between the v i l l a g e and Commission have included an appeal of the farmland freeze and several a p p l i -cations for exclusion and non-farm use. Of these applica-tions, one was made on the v i l l a g e ' s behalf by a private owner and one by the regional d i s t r i c t . A j o i n t community and settlement plan for the Keremeos area has been drafted. Map 2 shows the community plan proposals. The applications are outlined i n Table 9, which shows the sequence of a p p l i -cations, reconsiderations by the Commission, duration, TABLE 9 KEREMEOS APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN CASE STUDY Reference Number 1975 1977 1978 Type of A p p l i c a t i o n Exclusion Non-farm use Non-farm use Section of Act or Regulation No. s. 9(1) B.C. Reg. 93/75 s. 9(1)(b) Use Proposed R e s i d e n t i a l Sewage treatment and d i s p o s a l Applicant V i l l a g e Private owner Regional D i s t r i c t Duration of Procedure Apr. 1975-Apr. 1976 Apr.-Oct. 1977 Jan.-Nov. 1978 Decision Sequence Date Acres Date Acres Date Acres A p p l i c a t i o n 8/75 25 4/77 10 1/78 10 Commission Recommend./Decision 1/76 7 2/76 25 10/77 0 3/78 0 Cabinet Decision 4/76 25 not applicable 11/78 0 SOURCE: BCPALC A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e 91-V-75-02565 O/B-V-77-04286 91(b)-V-78-05883 MAP 1 KEREMEOS AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE & CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS Agric u l t u r a l Land Reserve APPLICATIONS: For Exclusion, Use -once -twice (L97j) Excluded, Permitted 1977 Refused Village Boundary SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia, Ministry of the Environment, Surveys & Mapping Branch, "Constituent Sheet A-5, Agri c u l t u r a l Land Reserve Plan for the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t " ; B r i t i s h Columbia Provincial A g r i -c u l t u r a l Land Commission, Application f i l e s [see Table 9 above]. MAP 2 KEREMEOS COMMUNITY PLAN FUTURE LAND USE R Residential C Commercial 1 Industrial A Administrative, Cul-t u r a l , I n s t i t u t i o n a l M Mixed Residential & Administrative OS Open Space SH Smallholdings ROADS •••••Major Existing v a t Major Proposed Agr i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve Proposed for Exclusion S3 V i l l a g e Boundary SOURCE: Keremeos, "Keremeos Community Plan [Map]," Oka-nagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department, [ca. May 1980]; and Keremeos, Keremeos' Community and  Settlement Plan, Draft pre-pared by Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department, October 197 9, Map #6, "Agricultural Land Reserve." purpose and acreage requested and approved for exclusion or non-farm use."1" The v i l l a g e has no community sewage c o l l e c t i o n and disposal system, a s i t u a t i o n at the root of i t s applications for exclusion and non-farm use of Reserve land. In 1975 the v i l l a g e sought the exclusion of 25 acres of land for housing s i t e s because most available i n f i l l land on the lower bench could not be developed u n t i l a sewage system was i n s t a l l e d . The exclusion sought was approved. In 1977 the owner of a 10-acre s i t e adjacent to the v i l l a g e boundary unsuccessfully sought approval on behalf of the v i l l a g e for use of the s i t e for sewage treatment and disposal. Immediately following that refusal by the Commission, the regional d i s t r i c t applied for the non-farm use of the s i t e under new provisions of the Act. Approval was refused by cabinet on the Commission's recommendation, but only a f t e r appointment by the Environment and Land Use Committee of an inter-departmental Task Group to evaluate alternative s i t e s . 4.1 1975 Exclusion Application; Residential 4.1.1. Application Narrative In 1975, Keremeos applied for the exclusion of 25 acres on the upper bench for housing. (See Map 1 for location.) In i t s a pplication, the v i l l a g e argued that there was a shortage of r e s i d e n t i a l land i n the lower bench area because much of the area was unsuitable for septic tank operation and the limi t e d quantity of suitable land was not coming onto the market rapidly enough. 78 The Commission recommended exclusion of only the southern t h i r d of the land sought. This s t r i p bounded a proposed sewer l i n e and i t s development would " f a c i l i t a t e " i n s t a l l a t i o n of the sewage l i n e . The land was of high a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y i f i r r i g a t e d , and the proposed sewer system would make available the very large i n f i l l potential of the lower bench. The v i l l a g e immediately sought the Commission's reconsideration of i t s recommendation. It argued the amount of land recommended for exclusion would not be s u f f i c i e n t u n t i l the sewer system was i n s t a l l e d , the land remaining i n the Reserve was subdivided into l o t s too small to farm, and the exclusion of t h i s area as a whole would reduce housing pressure on more viable farmland i n the area. In February, 1976, the Commission accepted these arguments and recommended the exclusion of the entire 25 acres sought by the v i l l a g e . The Commission also accepted the suggestions of the v i l l a g e planner that housing should be oriented to the south, away from the a g r i c u l t u r a l land to the north of the excluded area, and that a large fence to separate a g r i c u l t u r a l and r e s i d e n t i a l uses be a condition of the exclusion. Cabinet rejected the fencing as a condi-t i o n of the exclusion. 4.1.2. Process Inputs and Environment The Commission's f i r s t recommendation was based on extensive information provided by the v i l l a g e ' s planner, the planning director for the regional d i s t r i c t . The Commission concluded from t h i s information that the supply of developable i n f i l l land on the lower bench was shortly to be enhanced by a sewer system and that i n s t a l l a t i o n of a sewer l i n e was planned for e x i s t i n g upper bench residences. The Commission may also have f e l t that the land at f i r s t refused for exclusion was of higher a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y than the southern s t r i p , although t h i s i s not documented 2 i n i t s formal recommendation. In fact, the upper bench sewer l i n e was deleted from the system design at the request of residents there during 1975. The Commission's second recommendation to exclude a l l 25 acres was based on a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the delays l i k e l y i n sewer system i n s t a l l a t i o n . 4.2 1977 and 1978 Non-Farm Use Applications: Sewage Treatment Plant and Effluent Disposal 4.2.1. Application Narrative By 1977, after a long search for an available and suitable s i t e , the v i l l a g e ' s engineers s e t t l e d on a s i t e for a sewage treatment plant and ground disposal s i t e for e f f l u -ent. E a r l i e r s i t e s had been refused a P o l l u t i o n Control permit, as had discharge to the r i v e r of e f f l u e n t from secondary treatment. After the v i l l a g e took an option on a 10-acre s i t e , the engineers, on behalf of the owners, applied i n A p r i l for permission to use the s i t e for non-farm purposes. The application argued that alternative s i t e s 80 had been found wanting or were not available a f t e r a three year search. The s i t e had, by the time of the application, become a contentious l o c a l issue, and the Commission received correspondence supporting and opposing the application. In October the Commission refused permission for non-farm use as a sewer f a c i l i t i e s s i t e , c i t i n g the high a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of the larger 65-acre parcel of which the 10 acres formed a corner. The larger parcel would be more d i f f i c u l t to farm i f the 10 acres were i n another use, and the sewage f a c i l i t i e s should be located on lower c a p a b i l i t y land. Immediately the regional d i s t r i c t reapplied on behalf of the v i l l a g e for non-agricultural use of the s i t e under the new provisions of the Act. Local government non-farm use applications could be made under the same procedures as block exclusion applications, with the Commission making a recommendation to cabinet for a f i n a l decision. The regional d i s t r i c t had held the required public hearing which the new provisions also required. Accompanying i t s January, 1978, application to the Commission were further submissions by the v i l l a g e engineers and a large number of l e t t e r s i n opposition to the application and to the sewage treatment and disposal f a c i l i t i e s . The Commission recommended r e f u s a l , r e i t e r a t i n g i t s previously stated objections to the project s i t e and adding c r i t i c i s m of the engineer's evaluation of alternative s i t e s . 81 The c r i t i c i s m was based on advice sought and received from a Department of Agriculture engineer, and centred on the inconsistent evaluation given various alternative s i t e s over the years. The Commission also formally noted the almost unanimous public opposition to the proposal. The Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet was unable to decide on the application and appointed an i n t e r -agency Task Group to report on sewage treatment and disposal alternatives. The Group's recommendation for a lower bench treatment s i t e and r i v e r disposal led to a f i n a l r e j e c t i o n of the regional d i s t r i c t ' s application by cabinet. The v i l l a g e subsequently proposed a second lower bench s i t e , which was successfully opposed by downstream users because of implications for r i v e r water q u a l i t y . Eventually (1981), the Task Group proposal was implemented after further opposition and a P o l l u t i o n Control Board hearing. 4.2.2. Process Inputs and Environment The Commission's persistent assertion that alternative sewage treatment and disposal s i t e s had not been adequately investigated i s quite remarkable. The v i l l a g e ' s engineers presented voluminous data and correspondence on t h e i r search for treatment and disposal s i t e s and design approaches to various s i t e a l t e r n a t i v e s . However, the Department of Agriculture engineer, who advised the Commission, asserted that the s i t e s had not been consistently evaluated for physical s u i t a b i l i t y for proposed combinations of treatment 82 and disposal. People objecting to the subject s i t e added to the Commission's skepticism by making further suggestions for s i t e s . The opposition to the two applications arose from upper bench property owners who did not want sewage treatment and disposal f a c i l i t i e s near t h e i r homes or businesses. They objected to the nuisance of odour and e f f e c t on property values, condemned the loss of such high qu a l i t y a g r i c u l t u r a l land, and suggested that e f f l u e n t seepage would impair the quality of water obtained from lower bench wells. Their po s i t i o n supported the Commission's, although they stressed d i f f e r e n t concerns. Their position was, however, ultimately i n c o n f l i c t with the interests of the downstream residents of Cawston who vehemently opposed the alternative of r i v e r disposal. The Cawston group eventually found regulatory support i n a Po l l u t i o n Control Board hearing which withdrew the permit issued for a second lower bench s i t e . (In 1981, however, the P o l l u t i o n Control permit issued for the Task Group s i t e was upheld at a similar hearing.) Presumably, throughout these applications and hearings, the interests of lower bench property owners were represented by the v i l l a g e council and i t s engineers. 4.3 The Community Plan The Keremeos O f f i c i a l Community Pl a n / O f f i c a l S e t t l e -ment Plan dr a f t , prepared during 1979 and 1980 by regional d i s t r i c t planning s t a f f , i s comprised of p o l i c i e s for both 3 v i l l a g e and fringe area. The community plan was scheduled 83 for public hearing and adoption at the end of 1980. The objectives of the plan include the protection and preserva-tion of "productive farmland and lands having a high 4 ca p a b i l i t y for Agriculture" and supporting a g r i c u l t u r a l . . 5 a c t i v i t y . To meet the objective of accommodating residen-t i a l growth and to provide r e s i d e n t i a l choice, r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l development i s to be directed to areas suited for such use. One c h a r a c t e r i s t i c required of such areas i s that t h e i r development w i l l not r e s u l t i n the loss of good a g r i c u l t u r a l land. The plan proposes changes i n municipal land use and zoning designations and i n the Reserves to bring municipal bylaws and the Reserve i n l i n e with each other and with e x i s t i n g uses and subdivision patterns. Two areas subdivided into small l o t s and i n urban uses are proposed for exclusion from the Reserve (see Map 2). An area i n a g r i c u l t u r a l use and i n the Reserve which i s zoned i n d u s t r i a l i s proposed for a g r i c u l t u r a l designation. Undeveloped roads i n the a g r i c u l -t u r a l area of the v i l l a g e are to be cancelled. An e x i s t i n g small holding area within the Reserve i s to be designated as such but l e f t i n the Reserve. It i s largely subdivided into small l o t s . The plan shows the extension of the new sewer system to t h i s area, which i n combination with the exist i n g water l i n e w i l l r e s u l t i n services capable of supporting development to urban dens i t i e s . Other development p o l i c i e s include proposals to l i m i t subdivision instrusion on a g r i c u l t u r a l operations and to avoid high c a p a b i l i t y a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n locating new roads. 84 The Commission's comments on the plan support the approach taken. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Commission of f e r s i t s support for a block exclusion application for the two areas proposed for removal i n the plan. However, the Commission feels that proposed major roads through the Reserve should and could be rerouted. 85 NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia Pr o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated i n these notes as BCPALC. 1. Unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d , the actions of the Keremeos council, the Commission, and others are documented i n BCPALC f i l e s as follows: Application BCPALC Application Reference No. F i l e No. 1975 91-V-75-02565 1977 O/B-V-77-04286 1978 91(b)-V-78-05883. These f i l e s are open to public inspection at the Commission's Burnaby o f f i c e . Community plan comments made by the Commission and related correspondence are found i n BCPALC Plan Review f i l e number PL-V-80-09991. 2. Interview with C. Gary Runka, former General Manager and Chairman, BCPALC, Burnaby, 25 September 1980. 3. Keremeos, Keremeos' Community and Settlement Plan, Draft prepared by Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department, October 1979; Keremeos, "Objectives and P o l i c i e s of Keremeos' Community and Settlement Plan," Draft prepared by Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department, December 1979; Keremeos, "Keremeos Community Plan .[Map]," Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department, [ca. May 1980].. 4. Keremeos, "Objectives and P o l i c i e s , " objective no. 2, p. 4. 5. Ibid., objective no. 3, p. 4. 6. Ibid., objective no. 4 ( i i i ) ( 2 ) , p. 5. CHAPTER 5 THE CITY' OF ARMSTRONG Armstrong i s a small town i n the Spallumcheen Valley north of Vernon. Its development outward i s constrained by h i l l s i n the southern section and an escarpment near i t s northern boundary, and by a number of substantial A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Reserve segments (see Map 3). Two areas of Reserve land continue well within the developed sections of the community, div i d i n g i t s old commercial area from most r e s i d e n t i a l sections to the west and south and from the major highway along the c i t y ' s eastern boundary, highway 97A. Much of the central Reserve lands are low l y i n g and r e l a t i v e l y wet. Armstrong's two exclusion applications and a c l o s e l y related private application (1976) concerned an area adjacent to highway 97A and i t s inters e c t i o n with Armstrong's main street. The area was optioned by a developer who pro-posed a shopping centre and l a t e r other commercial develop-ments before the Reserve was designated. Each exclusion was ultimately approved, r e s u l t i n g i n a 20-acre commercial s i t e along the highway. Table 10 outlines these applications. 86 TABLE 10 ARMSTRONG APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN CASE STUDY Reference Number 1974 1975 1976 Type of A p p l i c a t i o n Exclusion Exclusion Exclusion Section of Act or Regulation No. s. 9(1) s. 9(1) s. 9(2) Use Proposed Commercial (shopping centre) Commercial, road Commercial Applicant C i t y C i t y Private owner Duration of Procedure Oct. 1973-Sept. 1974 Aug. 1975-May 1976 Aug. 1976-Feb. 1977 Decision Sequence Date Acres Date Acres Date Acres A p p l i c a t i o n 10/73 10* 4/74 4* 8/75 4 8/76 13 Commission Recommend./Decision 5/74 4 9/75 0 12/75 0 4/76 4 2/77 13 Cabinet Decision 9/74 4 5/76 4 Not Applicable SOURCE: BCPALC A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e 91-T-74-02508 91-T-75-02564 92-T-76-02609 * "Application" made before designation of Reserve included a supermarket s i t e , 10 acres i n a l l . When t a p p l i c a t i o n was revived a f t e r designation, the supermarket proposal had been dropped by i t s proponent and al s o dropped from the C i t y ' s request for exclusion. 88 MAP 3 ARMSTRONG AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE AND CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS Agricultural Land Reserve . . — city Boundary EXCLUSION APPLICATIONS APPLICATION OUTCOME (T97^ Excluded 1974 Refused a c c a a a r o a d 1975 a o p i i c i o n SOURCE: British Columbia, Ministry of the Environment, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Constituent Sheets 36 & 38, Agricultural Land Reserve Plan for the North Okanagan Regional District"; and British Columbia Provincial Agricultural Land Commis-sion, Application f i l e s [see Table 10 above]. 89 ARMSTRONG COMMUNITY PLAN FUTURE LAND USE Residential Coanercial Industrial Open Space t Agriculture IO/P Institutional & Parks SCS School ri^pl Agricultural ni'i:'"' Land Reserve • City Boundary TRANSPORTATION Major Roads Exist in? tmmrn* Proposed SOURCE: Armstrong, City of Armitrono- O f f i c i a l Community ?lan. Prepared by Stanley Associate* Engineering i t s . , July i3?5, figure 6ne, "Future land oiePlan* and Figure Four, "Proposed Roadway Network." 90 5.1 1974 Exclusion Application: Shopping Centre 5.1.1. Application Narrative The City of Armstrong wrote the Commission during the Reserve designation process requesting that a 10-acre s i t e next to highway 97A not be included i n the Reserve since i t was wanted for a supermarket and shopping centre, and the Commission agreed to consider t h i s request. In the event, the land was included i n the Reserve boundary. The City's request was reactivated i n March, 1974, reduced to 4 acres to accommodate the shopping centre proposal. In i t s e a r l i e r request the c i t y had argued that there were no s i t e s available for a shopping centre i n the old business d i s t r i c t and that the community needed the tax revenues and shopping f a c i l i t i e s the centre would provide. The parcels i n question could be e a s i l y serviced by simple extension of c i t y systems. Letters from l o c a l merchants were submitted to show that there was no opposition from ex i s t i n g businesses to the centre development. The Commission's recommendation i n May accepted these l e t t e r s as evidence that the centre would not be detrimental to the e x i s t i n g downtown. Later correspondence suggested t h i s decision was taken r e l u c t a n t l y and influenced by the un-suitable e x i s t i n g location of the B r i t i s h Columbia Liquor Commission outlet and Hydro substation immediately north of the shopping centre s i t e . 5.1.2. Process Inputs and Environment During the Reserve designation process, the Commission had been provided with information from the shopping centre developer, who had an option on the s i t e and area to the south and east of i t (see Applications 1975 and 1976). The developer i n i t i a t e d and a c t i v e l y participated i n the applica-2 t i o n process. Thus the Commission was apprised of his intentions to develop the entire area on which he had an option, approximately 25 acres. The Commission's recommend-ation on the 1974 application makes no reference to t h i s information. As i t turned out, the information on hand from the developer did not contain c r u c i a l data about the transportation and access implications of the shopping centre or of l a t e r commercial development intended for the area. The Commission took the peculiar p o s i t i o n at the time of Reserve designation and l a t e r that the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the shopping centre on the proposed s i t e was a matter of i t s impact on the ex i s t i n g and h i s t o r i c business area. In view of the c i t y ' s eagerness for the shopping centre and the reported views of residents about e x i s t i n g shopping f a c i l i t i e s , i t would have been unlikel y that the Commission would receive any l o c a l support for i t s position against a popular proposal. 5.2 1975 Exclusion Application: Access Road and Highway Commercial 5.2.1. Application Narrative In the following year, the construction of the shopping centre was refused approval by the Department of Highways because no provision was made for a previously agreed improvement of access to the centre from highway 97A. The Department wanted the main access to the centre from highway 97A to avoid the dangerous inters e c t i o n of Pleasant Valley Road, Armstrong's main street, and the highway. The c i t y , i n August 1975, therefore applied for the exclusion of land for a d i r e c t l i n k between the frontage road serving the shopping centre c i t y (Smith) and 97A, and for the parcel thereby enclosed. The c i t y argued that there was a shortage of commercial s i t e s i n Armstrong, that the Department of Highways required the new access road to be b u i l t , and that the access would also provide a safer access to the c i t y as a whole. The Commission recommended refusal of the applica-tion on the grounds that no evidence was presented for the need for more commercial s i t e s , more s i t e s on the highway would be detrimental to the ex i s t i n g downtown area, and that the e a r l i e r shopping centre exclusion was only r e l u c t a n t l y approved. Upon the request of the area Member of the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly and the Department of Highways, the Commission agreed to reconsider i t s recommendation i n October, 1975. The reconsideration was based on detailed plans from the Department of Highways. Highways claimed i t was faced with the shopping centre as a f a i t accompli and was just t r y i n g to make the best of a bad bargain to improve access to the c i t y , including an improved road network to western portions. In December, the Commission again recommended against the exclusion, basing i t s decision now. on the negative impact that the Department of Highways network plans would have on Reserve land i n Armstrong. The c i t y again sought reconsideration i n February, 1976, r e i t e r a t i n g i t s previous arguments. The Department of Highways then submitted plans at the Commission's request showing that the only alternative way to eliminate the dangerous inters e c t i o n and improve the access to Armstrong would involve encroachment of a realigned 97A on operating farms immediately east of the e x i s t i n g i n t e r s e c t i o n . The regional d i s t r i c t plan now showed the area along 97A for future commercial development. The Commission changed i t s recommendation i n A p r i l , 1976, to approval of the exclusion application. This decision was based on the regional d i s -t r i c t plan designation and the need to correct the e x i s t i n g dangerous in t e r s e c t i o n . The Commission added that i t would not support further urban uses i n the Reserve south and west of the subject area. 5.2.2. Process Inputs and Environment Although i t had received information on the long term plans of the developer for the entire area along 97A, the Commission received information on Department of Highways road network plans for Armstrong through the series of recon-siderations of t h i s application. The application i t s e l f was the f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n of the f u l l access implications of the shopping centre. Network plans for other areas of Armstrong 94 were revealed next, and f i n a l l y the very expensive realignment eastwards of 97A. It appears that the c i t y , the shopping centre developer and the Department of Highways used t h e i r disagreements to gain the Commission's approval of a mutually preferred solution. Highways obtained a r e l a t i v e l y cheap solution to a long-standing problem, p a r t i a l l y financed by the devel-oper. The developer got a very d i r e c t access between the highway and his shopping centre, and as i t turned out, other commercial land i n the area i n which he had an i n t e r e s t . The c i t y obtained assistance i n eliminating a safety hazard. Once the shopping centre had been approved by the c i t y and Commission, Highways was i n a p o s i t i o n to bring pressure to bear for i t s preferred access alignment. 5.3 1976 Private Exclusion Application: Highway Commercial 5.3.1. Application Narrative Within a few months the developer of the shopping centre applied on his own behalf to have land to the south and west of the shopping centre excluded for commercial expansion. The c i t y supported the application and the mayor and an alder-man attended the Commission hearing. The Commission had contacted the c i t y enquiring about i t s p o l i c i e s regarding alternative s i t e s for urban development, and the c i t y had rei t e r a t e d i t s e a r l i e r arguments, noting also the land immediately south of the old business d i s t r i c t was too wet to develop. The developer argued that the land he sought was separated from farmland by the highway so that i t s commercial use would not intrude on a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Its proposed development would permit further road improvements i n the c i t y by allowing for westwards connections. The newly appointed Commission approved the application i n February, 1977. 5.3.2. Process Inputs and Environment Although the Commission does not issue a rationale for i t s decisions on private applications, i t seems that the Commission's decision to exclude t h i s t h i r d area of the developer' s o r i g i n a l 1973 proposal- was f i n a l l y a recognition that the two previous exclusions had e f f e c t i v e l y removed 4 the f e a s i b i l i t y of farming the remaining, southern portion. 5.4 The Community Plan The Armstrong O f f i c i a l Community Plan, dated June, 1979, does not designate urban land uses for the Reserve lands within the c i t y . (See Map 4.) A workshop to develop community goals for the plan did not i d e n t i f y the Reserve as an issue, nor, consequently, i t s preservation as a goal.** However, as a development objective, the p r o v i n c i a l govern-ment's p o l i c i e s for a g r i c u l t u r a l land are to be respected 7 i n the c i t y , even i f these p o l i c i e s have no strong l o c a l commitment.^ Much of the undeveloped land i n the c i t y i s within the Reserve, and the plan p o l i c i e s propose a strategy to determine the location of future r e s i d e n t i a l development after e x i s t i n g subdivided r e s i d e n t i a l land i s i n f i l l e d . The c i t y also has undertaken to consider r e s i d e n t i a l development at higher density i n i t s r e s i d e n t i a l land use p o l i c i e s . The c i t y i s to request a detailed s o i l analysis, from the Commission, of the Reserve i n the northern and southwestern areas of the c i t y to determine areas of least a g r i c u l t u r a l consequence. Following on t h i s determination, when demand for development s i t e s can be demonstrated, the Council w i l l support exclu-sion applications for r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l purposes. Si m i l a r l y , when the need for i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s i s demonstrated, 9 councxl w i l l support exclusion of appropriate lands. Within the railway loop, the area i n the Reserve immediately east of the exi s t i n g i n d u s t r i a l s i t e i s mentioned as an "ideal loca-t i o n " for i n d u s t r i a l expansion but not indicated as such on the land use map."^ This plan had not been referred to the Commission up to October, 1980. As well as considering strategies for making Reserve lands available for future r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l development, the plan proposes a future road network through the Reserve. A low-priority l i n k to the southwest i s suggested to extend Rosedale through the Reserve to Otter Lake Road. As part of a scheme to improve downtown c i r c u -l a t i o n and parking, a high p r i o r i t y connection i s proposed across the Reserve segment between the downtown and shopping centre i n order to l i n k Patterson Ave. to Smith Road and, thence v i a the new access road, to highway 97 A.^ The community goal workshop indicated special concern with downtown c i r c u l a t i o n and access road improvements. Once the commitment to these improvements was made, i n l i n e with requirements for community plan contents, both physical constraints and f i n a n c i a l subsidies appear to have c o n t r i -buted to the high p r i o r i t y Patterson-Smith-97A road l i n k proposal. The plan p o l i c i e s on commercial development intend to maintain the e x i s t i n g separation, comprised of Reserve areas, between the downtown core and the auto-oriented shopping mall. Low l y i n g Reserve lands near the downtown area are proposed for a c q u i s i t i o n for parks accessible to the c i t y 13 centre and higher density r e s i d e n t i a l areas proposed nearby. The strategy set out i n the plan for deciding the eventual location of future development on Reserve land within the c i t y was the subject of disagreement with the council, the community and between the c i t y ' s planning consultant and council. The planner and some members of the community pre-ferred that the best areas for r e s i d e n t i a l development be spe c i f i e d i n the plan and that development phasing should be indicated by incorporating these areas. At least some members of council preferred to avoid a c o n f l i c t with the Commission over t h i s issue, and with landowners as well. Therefore the approach taken i n the plan i s to postpone t h i s issue, and to suggest i t can be resolved on the technical grounds of s o i l q u a l i t y . Nevertheless, increasing pressures from immigrants and the opportunity they create for land subdivision, sales and development w i l l , i n the view of the 98 mayor and the planner, lead to further applications for exclusion supported by the c i t y within the five-year plan 14 period, as soon as the need can be proven. 99 NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated i n these notes as BCPALC. 1. Unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d , the actions of the Armstrong council, the Commission and others are documented i n BCPALC f i l e s as follows: Application BCPALC Application Reference No. F i l e No.  1974 91-T-74-02508 1975 91-T-75-02564 1976 92-T-76-02609 2. Interview with Mayor M. Kirton, Armstrong, 28 May 1980. 3. Interview, Kirton. 4. Interview with C. Gary Runka, former General Manager and Chairman, BCPALC, Burnaby, 25 September 1980. 5. Armstrong, City Of Armstrong O f f i c i a l Community Plan, Prepared by Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd., July 1979, Figure One, "Future Land Use Plan." 6. Interview with John Lainsbury, Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd., Vernon, 27 May 1980. 7. Armstrong, Plan, p. 37. 8. Interviews, Kirton and Lainsbury. 9. Armstrong, Plan, pp. 13, 37. 10. Ibid., p. 13. 11. Ibid., pp. 32-4 and Figure 4, "Proposed Roadway Network." 12. Interview, Lainsbury. 13. Armstrong, Plan, pp. 11, 19. 14. Interviews, Kirton and Lainsbury. CHAPTER 6 THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF SALMON ARM A municipality of over 9000 people on Shuswap Lake, Salmon Arm was formed by the amalgamation i n 1971 of the v i l l a g e and surrounding d i s t r i c t municipality. Salmon Arm i s comprised of a r e l a t i v e l y compact commercial and r e s i -d e n t i a l core, the former v i l l a g e , surrounded by scattered small subdivisions throughout an area east and north of t h i s core, surrounded i n turn by a r u r a l area of h i l l s and farming areas. The subdivision area has been intended for serviced r e s i d e n t i a l development for a number of years, and zoned accordingly. The remainder of the municipality outside the subdivision area i s e s s e n t i a l l y r u r a l and coincides with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve except for mountainous sections on the periphery. Extensive Reserve lands e x i s t south and west of the core area i n the Salmon River Valley and north and east of the subdivision area on the r o l l i n g bench lands and creek v a l l e y . (See Map 5.) The Salmon River Valley i s an area of mixed farming; the bench areas have been planted i n orchards. In 1972, the municipality received a study from i t s engineers delineating a sewerage area. This area roughly coincided with the subdivision area established by zoning 100 101 and, now, with the Reserve boundary outside the Salmon River Valley. Sewer mains have subsequently been i n s t a l l e d i n the sewer area."*" The municipality followed up i t s early e f f o r t s to have lands removed from the farmland freeze by seeking the exclu-sion of land near the boundary between the subdivision area and the Reserve. Municipal development p o l i c i e s related to financing servicing programs appear to have motivated more recent applications. One application, i n 1975 (1975C), unsuccessfully sought 80 acres of land i n the Salmon River Valley as a s i t e for a sewage treatment, and eff l u e n t storage f a c i l i t y for spray i r r i g a t i o n . The f i r s t a pplication made i n 1975 comprised a fine-tuning of the Reserve boundary (1975A). The series of applications made i n 1978 and 1979 concerned a road right-of-way and adjoining land. Table 11 outlines the nature of the case study applications. 6.1 1975A Exclusion Application: Various Uses Proposed 6.1.1. Application Narrative Following the designation of the Reserve plan i n September 1974, Salmon Arm applied to exclude 14 s i t e s along the boundary di v i d i n g the sewage-subdivision area and the Reserve. The sewage funding bylaw received M i n i s t e r i a l approval during the same month, October. The municipality argued i n i t s application that i t had made commitments to subdivision and development i n i t s previous planning and zoning bylaw and i t s sewerage i n s t a l l a t i o n plans, so that the Reference Number Type of A p p l i c a t i o n Section of Act or Regulation No. Use Proposed Applicant Duration of Procedure Decision Sequence  TABLE 11 SALMON ARM APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN CASE STUDY 1975A Exclusion s. 9(1) various D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y Oct. 1974-May 1975 Date Acres 1975B Exclusion s. 9(1) Commercial (Shopping Centre) D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y May-July 1975 Date Acres 1975C Non-Farm Use B.C. Reg. 93/75 Sewage treatment, e f f l u -ent storage D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y Feb.-June 1975 Date Acres O A p p l i c a t i o n Commission Recommend./Decision 10/74 708 2/75 466 5/75 15 6/75 15 2/75 80 3/75 4/75 6/75 Cabinet Decision 5/75 466 7/75 15 Not Applicable SOURCE: BCPALC A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e no. 91-H-75-02545 91-H-75-02556 O/B-H-75-02330 TABLE 11 - Continued Reference Number 1978A 1978B 1979 Type Of A p p l i c a t i o n Non-Farm Use Exclusion Exclusion Section of Act or Regulation No. B.C. Reg. 93/75 s. 9(1) (a) s. 9(1) (a) Use Proposed Road right-of-way R e s i d e n t i a l Residential Applicant D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y Duration of Procedure Jan.-Feb. 1978 Mar. 1978-Feb. 1979 Nov. 1979-Oct. 1980 Decision Sequence Date Acres Date Acres Date Acres A p p l i c a t i o n 1/78 3/78 44 11/79 108 Commission Recommend./Decision 2/78 permitted 8/78 13 3/80 108 Cabinet Decision Not Applicable 2/79 13 10/80 108 SOURCE: BCPALC A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e no. O/B-H-78-05884 91-H-78-06490 91a-H-79-09782 MAP 5 SALMON ARM AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE & CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS Agr i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve APPLICATIONS: For Exclusion, Use -once -twice ( S v Excluded, Permitted, 1975A-U Reference No. 1975A, Site 1 1975C Refused -•Municipal Boundary SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia, Ministry of the Environment, Surveys & Mapping Branch, "Constituent Sheets 13 & 14, Agr i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve Plan for the Columbia-Shuswap Re-gional D i s t r i c t " ; and B r i t i s h Columbia Provincial A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, Application f i l e s [see Table 11 above]. MAP 6 SALMON ARM DETAIL -AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE & CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS • Agricultural Land Reserve APPLICATIONS: For Exclusion, Use -once -twice 1978B) E x c i u d e d » Permitted 15T8B Refused Site 7 of 1975A-7 Application 1975A ROADS Auto Road Con-• nector Proposed Right-of-Way tmmm^m Existing O Ul SOURCE: See Map 5 above. 106 s i t e s should be removed from the Reserve i n l i n e with these e a r l i e r commitments. Three of the 14 s i t e s had been removed e a r l i e r from the farmland freeze; another s i t e was wanted for community recreation; others were sought to promote e f f i c i e n t servicing of road frontage. Many were affected by subdivision and development proposals i n various stages of commitment. The Commission recommended the exclusion of 8 of the 14 s i t e s , basing i t s position on a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y and on the degree of commitment of each parcel to subdivision and development as measured by the e a r l i e r Environment and Land Use Committee decision regarding the land freeze, municipal zoning, and development approvals and servicing plans. Following the Commission's recommendations to cabinet i n February, 1975, both the municipality and the l o c a l member of the l e g i s l a t i v e assembly requested reconsideration of parcel number 11, at the west end of the developed urban area and on the edge of the Salmon River Valley farming area. The Commission had recommended i t s retention i n the Reserve. The parcel had been optioned i n February, during the a p p l i -cation process, by the Mainline Co-operative Society for a major shopping centre, a long-planned consolidation of i t s operations onto one s i t e . The cabinet decision i n May followed the Commission's o r i g i n a l recommendation. 6.1.2. Process Inputs and Environment The Commission's recommendation on the 14 separate areas varied with the nature and location of each. The information available to the Commission r e l a t i n g to p r i o r development commitment included the status of subdivision and development approvals, and the municipality's servicing intentions embodied i n municipal zoning and sewerage plans and p r o v i n c i a l confirmation of the sewerage plans. One s i t e was the location of a proposed municipal recreation area. A e r i a l photos were available to assess e x i s t i n g use and development. A g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y data was c o l l e c t e d for the parcels. The Commission's evaluation of the i n f o r -mation constituted a mini-boundary review of the Reserve, which,may have been necessary because there was no regional d i s t r i c t input i n the Reserve designation process and poor 2 local, information available during the process. In applying shortly a f t e r the designation to have a number of s i t e s on the edge of the Reserve removed, Salmon Arm was s a t i s f y i n g the expectations of various owners and developers that the municipality would t r y to ensure they could develop t h e i r land. The municipality was thus showing good f a i t h to i t s constituents i n upholding i t s previous 3 commitments manifested through zoning and sewer plans. The approval by the province i n October 1974 of a sewerage loan bylaw tended to undercut the recently established Reserve boundaries. This was because Salmon Arm would not consider phasing the i n s t a l l a t i o n of a c o l l e c t i o n system, even though the subdivision/sewer area contains s u f f i c i e n t land to house up to 30,000 people at single family densities, compared with perhaps 10,000 i n 1980 i n the entire 108 municipal area. Phasing could have directed development into preferred i n f i l l areas near the v i l l a g e core and away from the Reserve boundary. However, phasing was p o l i t i c a l l y unacceptable, since exi s t i n g subdivisions were already scattered throughout the entire subdivision/sewer area. Phasing would therefore have meant d i f f e r e n t i a l l e v e l s of service to parts of the area, an approach which had not been 4 previously signalled to owners by zoning bylaw. When the Commission informed Salmon Arm of i t s recommendation on the 14 s i t e s , i t suggested the municipality downzone areas i n the Reserve outside the subdivision boundary, but did not attempt to obtain downzoning i n exchange for the release of the parcels and did not attach t h i s con-d i t i o n to i t s advice to cabinet. Between i t s meeting on the application and i t s advice to cabinet, i t added some shallow parcels along roads and the s i t e of the proposed recreation complex to those recommended for exclusion. These changes were based on consultation with municipal o f f i c i a l s . The municipality did eventually downzone some areas by decreasing densities through changes i n minimum l o t sizes from 5 to 10 acres. The l o c a l importance of the Co-operative s i t e , parcel 11, arose aft e r the i n i t i a l Commission recommendations on the application. The option on the s i t e was taken up only after the Commission's recommendation was conveyed to the municipality. Cabinet refused the exclusion aft e r input from the l e g i s l a t i v e assembly member and from Salmon Arm 109 stressing the importance of the shopping centre. The s i t e was considered something of a test case by the Minister of Agriculture, the Commission manager and at least one Commissioner. 6.2 1975B Exclusion Application: Shopping Centre 6.2.1. Application Narrative Salmon Arm immediately reapplied for exclsuion of the parcel involved i n the proposed Co-operative shopping centre s i t e (1975A-11). In a lengthy b r i e f , the municipality pre-sented a series of rationales for the exclusion. Major points included the contention that the parcel was not es s e n t i a l to r e t a i n i n a g r i c u l t u r a l use and would eventually be excluded; that new commercial space to the west of the downtown area was needed and s i t e s were not available there for the necessary shopping centre, much in public demand; and that the Co-op had long planned to consolidate i t s operations and had the f u l l support of i t s members (some 7800) espec i a l l y following a recent f i r e i n an e x i s t i n g building and notice to vacate another s i t e held on short-term lease. Salmon Arm was also concerned that unless t h i s shopping centre were able to proceed, the council would be forced to accept one or both of two less desirably located shopping centre proposals. The municipality was w i l l i n g to rezone for agriculture some 150 acres along the highway, so that the net change i n Reserve lands or a g r i c u l t u r a l acreage would be p o s i t i v e . After a hasty search by i t s s t a f f for alternative 110 s i t e s and a deluge of form l e t t e r s from 2000 Co-op members supporting the exclusion, the Commission r e l u c t a n t l y recommended the release of the parcel. Their reluctance stemmed from the danger of intrusion of a shopping centre into the high c a p a b i l i t y a g r i c u l t u r a l land of the Salmon River Valley west of the municipal core and pressures for future road improvements there which might follow the shopping centre development. 6.2.2. Process Inputs and Environment Salmon Arm's reapplication s p e c i f i e d the e x i s t i n g commercial s i t e s which were available and why the municipal-i t y considered them poorly.located compared with the subject s i t e . The co-op had rejected them because of size or price or both. A f i r e i n one of the Co-op's major r e t a i l i n g locations a few months afte r the application was made fore-closed t h e i r option of continuing to operate i n t h e i r various scattered locations. The Commission supplemented th i s information by a b r i e f telephone investigation of two other major commercial s i t e s . This investigation revealed that unresolvable personality and other issues related to s i t e ownership and option holders entered into t h e i r evaluation by the Co-op and Salmon Arm. To locate other s i t e s and successfully option them looked l i k e taking several months of negotiation. Meanwhile the Co-op mounted a very public campaign and involved i t s members from a wide surrounding r u r a l area I l l i n a mimeographed form l e t t e r - s i g n i n g e f f o r t , supported vigorously i n V i c t o r i a by the member of the l e g i s l a t i v e assembly. The proposal by Salmon Arm, that i t trade rezoning from urban use to a g r i c u l t u r a l for the release of the parcel was not taken up by the Commission. The municipality argued vigorously for the Co-op's viewpoint, but there i s some i n d i -cation that i t had wanted the shopping centre to be b u i l t on a s i t e i t owned on the highway. Because i t sought to recoup i t s investment, the price i t asked was well above 5 that of the more remote and larger s i t e i n the Reserve. 6.3 1975C Non-Farm Use Application: Sewage Treatment and Effluent Storage ' ' '. 6.3.1. Application Narrative In February, 1975, Salmon Arm also sought permission for non-farm use of an 80-acre s i t e i n the middle of the f e r t i l e Salmon River Valley. The s i t e was to be part of the municipality's new sewage c o l l e c t i o n , treatment, and disposal system. The municipality had taken an option on the s i t e , which was at the time p a r t i a l l y occupied by an unpaved, private a i r s t r i p . The rest of the parcel was i n forage. The municipality intended to construct a treatment plant and e f f l u e n t holding or storage ponds there. E f f l u e n t disposal was to be by spray i r r i g a t i o n . Contracts for new trunk sewers were i n the process of being l e t . Salmon Arm stated that the s i t e was less a c t i v e l y farmed than others i n the r i v e r v a l l e y , since the a i r s t r i p 112 limited farm use. The municipality's engineers had recommended the s i t e a f t e r considering i t s f e a s i b i l i t y , environmental e f f e c t s , and the "public i n t e r e s t " . The P o l l u t i o n Control Branch had approved the s i t e for treatment and storage, but had not yet approved disposal through spray i r r i g a t i o n . Such a method would be b e n e f i c i a l because of increasingly scarce i r r i g a t i o n water i n the area. Coinciding with Salmon Arm's application, the Commission received l e t t e r s from four nearby farmers and a p e t i t i o n from.the same area objecting to the municipal pro-posal. Their objections centred on the impact of e f f l u e n t storage and spraying on prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land with slow drainage. At the end of March the Commission informed the municipality that i t was reluctant to approve the proposed use since the s i t e was good a g r i c u l t u r a l land. The Commission wondered i f the P o l l u t i o n Control Branch would approve storage so close to the River and noted the l e t t e r s objecting to the proposal. In A p r i l , after receiving a report that a Chamber of Commerce survey i n Salmon Arm showed r e s i -dents opposed to lake disposal of sewage eff l u e n t , the alternative at hand, the Commission reconfirmed i t s opposition to a treatment plant on the s i t e . Instead, the Commission suggested a foreshore s i t e on the lake for treatment, and stated that i t favoured spray i r r i g a t i o n for disposal. Commission s t a f f had contacted P o l l u t i o n Control o f f i c i a l s , and they would not object to the foreshore treatment s i t e . 113 At t h i s point a meeting was arranged for May between the Commission Chairman, representatives of Valley farmers, and the municipality. Between A p r i l and June, 1975, Salmon Arm decided to locate the treatment plant on the foreshore s i t e . The issue then became the location of s i t e s for ef f l u e n t storage and for spray i r r i g a t i o n . Five alternatives, including the subject s i t e , were investigated by the Chairman of the Commission at the time of the May meeting. As a r e s u l t , the Commission's f i n a l reconfirmation of i t s decision to refuse permission for the 80-acres v a l l e y s i t e noted that treatment was now planned for the foreshore s i t e , that a storage s i t e location should depend on the spray s i t e selected by a current study, that the Commission f e l t the best s i t e to be one i n the southeast corner of the municipal area but that i t would consider a l l s i t e s proposed except the subject of the present application. 6.3.2. Process Inputs and Environment To date, the municipality has not located or developed an e f f l u e n t storage or spray i r r i g a t i o n s i t e . The new sewage treatment plant has been constructed on the foreshore and discharges into the Salmon Arm of Shuswap Lake. The south-eastern storage and disposal location was judged unsuitable, and negotiations for a preferred s i t e on benchlands i n Indian Reserve 3 were unsuccessful. The Commission made a concerted e f f o r t to a s s i s t Salmon Arm to f i n d an alternative sewage treatment and effluent 114 storage s i t e . The Commission received support for i t s decision to refuse the application by farmers whose land surrounded the proposed s i t e , and from the l o c a l member of the l e g i s l a t i v e assembly. The municipality had obtained i t s own data on the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y rating of the s i t e . The Commission was also able to develop i t s own s o i l s and engineering data for evaluating the alternative s i t e s . 6.4 1978A Non-Farm Use Application: Road Right-of-Way, and 1978B Exclusion Application: Residential 6.4.1. 1978A Application Narrative The next set of applications from the municipality for exclusions from the Reserve revolved around a road right-of-way forming an important and costly component of proposals towards a future road network. The road would j o i n two exis t i n g segments to form a route around the slopes of Mount Ida at the southern edge of present urban develop-ment. (See Map 6.) In early 1978 the Commission approved the dedication for road use of the proposed right-of-way. The Commission refused a request to commit i t s e l f to future exclusion of adjacent parcels, a request made by Salmon Arm to further i t s negotiations with property owners of the right-of-way i n order to avoid expropriation and presumably reduce the road costs to the municipality. The Commission did indicate i t would not object to the exclusion of severed parcels north of the right-of-way, separated from the main body of the Reserve and too small to farm. 115 6.4.2. 1978B Application Narrative In March, 1978, Salmon Arm sought exclusion of 44 acres on the north and south of the roadway right-of-way '(1978A) to further negotiations with owners of the r i g h t - o f -way. The municipality questioned the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of the narrow benchlands and pointed to th e i r d e s i r a b i l i t y as a r e s i d e n t i a l area. The Commission recommended release only of lands to the north of the proposed road, stating that the land has a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y for tree f r u i t s , the municipality had not shown the need for additional residen-t i a l land, and that the severed remnants north of the road were now unsuitable for farming. The municipality apparently entered a f i n a l argument at a meeting between the Minister of Highways and Public works, the l e g i s l a t i v e assembly member, and a council member. The cabinet decision agreed with the Commission's recommendations to r e t a i n lands to the south of the roadway i n the Reserve. 6.4.3. Process Inputs and Environment The Commission based i t s decision on the second 1978 application on the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of the severed parcels. The c a p a b i l i t y received a somewhat lukewarm evaluation by the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r a l i s t and regional S o i l S p e c i a l i s t . He affirmed that the parcels north and south of the road could again produce tree f r u i t s on a commercial basis with the application of considerable inputs to the abandoned land. 1 1 6 Salmon Arm was quite open i n i t s wish to use the Reserve as a bargaining tool to further i t s road improvement plans, and from the beginning hinted i t might apply for exclusion of the entire area i f i t s more moderate requests purely i n the interests of negotiating with the owners of the road right-of-way were not s a t i s f i e d . The municipality accepts that i t can not claim urban need as a reason for exclusion. The Auto Road i s a municipal project of long standing, and exclusion of land on both sides of the r i g h t -of-way would reduce a c q u i s i t i o n costs for the municipality by allowing a trade of municipal up-zoning of the adjacent land for the right-of-way once the land was out of Commission control. Expropriation proceedings could be avoided. Salmon Arm pursued i t s application a f t e r the Commission's recommendation by contacting the Minister of Highways and Public Works to set up a meeting with him for t h e i r MLA and an alderman. 6 . 5 1 9 7 9 Exclusion Application: Residential 6 . 5 . 1 . Application Narrative True to i t s word, i n 1 9 7 9 Salmon Arm expanded on the 1 9 7 8 applications by seeking the exclusion of a much larger area south of the proposed road—the remaining Reserve lands on the benches between the urban area and the mountain slopes, an area of over 1 0 0 acres. The municipality added the points that adjacent urban development, slope 117 conditions, and o f f i c i a l subregional plan designation supported removal from the Reserve for urban development, as did the public i n t e r e s t i n obtaining the road r i g h t of way at a reasonable price and without unpopular expropria-t i o n proceedings. The regional d i s t r i c t commented that the area was ph y s i c a l l y i s o l a t e d from other Reserve lands and that release of an adjacent parcel i n 1975 (1975A-7) had cast the die for the area under consideration. Following a s i t e v i s i t , the Commission recommended exclusion, c i t i n g the topography and r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n from other Reserve lands, both of which seemed "to l i m i t the s u i t a b i l i t y " of the area for agriculture. Cabinet approved the exclusion i n October, 1980. 6.5.2. Process Inputs and Environment The Commission's 1980 exclusion recommendation, for 108 acres which included 30 acres south of the road r i g h t -of-way refused i n the previous application, seems to have been largely based on a s i t e v i s i t by the Commission i n the company of municipal and regional d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s and the l o c a l member of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture Farmer's g Advisory Committee. The regional d i s t r i c t ' s arguments, made f o r c e f u l l y i n support of the municipality, also seem to have carried weight i n Commission analyses of the i s o l a t i o n of the s i t e from other Reserve segments. As well, the Regional D i s t r i c t ' s recent subregional plan designates the area as suitable for eventual urban use, a designation based on land s u i t a b i l i t y . This designation brings the subregional 118 plan into conformity with the Salmon Arm o f f i c i a l community plan and removes the necessity for the municipality to seek regional d i s t r i c t approval for development. This arrangement i s seen as desirable by the regional d i s t r i c t board, since i t 9 reduces f r i c t i o n between the l o c a l governments. 6.6 The Community Plan The Salmon Arm O f f i c i a l Community Plan was adopted i n January, 1980. It i s based on e a r l i e r planning done i n 1971 and 1974. 1 0 In addition to objectives such as e f f i c i e n t and economical growth, s i t e s for i n d u s t r i a l and commercial uses, housing and trunk servicing, the plan states that i t i s a D i s t r i c t objective to "maintain the v i a b i l i t y of good a g r i c u l t u r a l land, and protect i t from unnecessary or prema-ture conversion to other u s e s . " 1 1 The plan has been reviewed by the Commission but not by the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s . 1 ^ Outside the Salmon River and Deep Creek v a l l e y s , the plan suggests two other uses for Reserve land: small l o t urban development i n a few areas along the subdivision area-Reserve boundary and potential acreage r e s i d e n t i a l i n the remainder of the Reserve. The l a t t e r use w i l l depend on whether the land has a high a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y and whether i t s water servicing i s adequate for r e s i d e n t i a l uses. The plan states that the entire Reserve should be reviewed . . . 13 i n l i g h t of i t s c a p a b i l i t y ratings. With an abundance of land available and serviced for urban r e s i d e n t i a l development within i t s subdivision area, 119 Salmon Arm seeks to ensure that i t can also o f f e r potential residents the option of smallholdings or acreage r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e s i n much of the remaining area outside the Salmon River Valley. To t h i s end i t has provided for such uses i n i t s community plan so that interested owners and developers can use the plan to back up t h e i r applications to the Commission . . 14 for permission to subdivide. The Commission reviewed the plan i n late 1979. The Commission f e l t i t could not support the release of lands from the Reserve suggested by the plan because no urban need for the lands was demonstrated. However, i n March, 1980, the Commission recommended the exclusion of one of the areas slated for small l o t development which was the subject of the municipality's 1979 application. Commission s t a f f have expressed willingness to cooperate with municipal o f f i c i a l s i n reevaluating the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of some areas within the Reserve which the municipality con-siders of low c a p a b i l i t y . In l i g h t of the Commission's decision on the 1979 exclusion application, such a r e v a l u -ation might indeed lead to the development of Reserve lands advocated i n the plan. 120 NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated i n these notes as BCPALC. 1. Unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d , the actions of the Salmon Arm council, the Commission and others are documented i n BCPALC f i l e s as follows: Application BCPALC Application Reference No. F i l e No. 1975A 91-H-75-02545 1975B 91-H-75-02556 1975C O/B-H-75-02330 1978A O/B-H-78-05884 1978B 91-H-78-06490 1979 91a-H-79-09782 Community plan comments by the Commission and related correspondence are found i n BCPALC Plan Review f i l e number PL-H-80-09990. Interview with Tony P e l l e t t , Planning Director Columbia-Shuswap Regional D i s t r i c t , Salmon Arm 30 May 1980. 3. Interviews, P e l l e t t and with John Sutherland, Planning O f f i c e r , Salmon Arm D i s t r i c t Municipality, 30 May 1980. 4. Interview with Ron Mann, Urban Programme Planners, R.E. Mann Ltd., Vancouver, 13 May 1980. 5. Interview, P e l l e t t . 6. Interviews with Mr. Harrington, Dayton and Knight Ltd., Consulting Engineers, West Vancouver, 14 May 1980 and with Sutherland. 7. Columbia Shuswap Regional D i s t r i c t , Deep Creek-Canoe  Creek O f f i c i a l Sub-Regional Plan By-law, No. 304, [Salmon Arm], Adopted 17 January 1980. 8. Members are ^ .appointed by the Federation on a regional d i s t r i c t basis to provide advice to the Commission on request. B r i t i s h Columbia Federation of Agriculture, "Guidelines for the Farmer Advisors to the B.C. Land Commission Nominated by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture" (mimeo, {Victoria]., [current, 1980],). 121 9. Interview, P e l l e t t , and Columbia Shuswap Regional D i s t r i c t , Subregional Plan. 10. Salmon Arm, O f f i c i a l Community Plan, D i s t r i c t of Salmon  Arm, Bylaw No. 1310, Prepared by Urban Programme Planners, Adopted 24 September 1979 (January 1980), p. 2. 11. Ibid., p. 3. 12. Personal communication from T. Maftechuk, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , Planning Services, June 1980. 13. Salmon Arm, Plan, pp. 9, 18-19, 22, 26, and Figure 5. 14. Interviews, Mann and Sutherland. CHAPTER 7 THE VILLAGE OF 100 MILE HOUSE A v i l l a g e of 1,600 i n 1976, 100 Mile House i s located north of a range of h i l l s along Bridge Creek and highway 97 on the Cariboo Plateau. Its s i t e i s at the southern edge of a large ranch owned by Bridge Creek Estate Ltd. U n t i l 1965, the Estate company controlled development i n the v i l l a g e through a leasehold system: "Thus an orderly develop-ment of both business . . . and r e s i d e n t i a l property was assured.""'' Most development i n the v i l l a g e since 1965, when the v i l l a g e was incorporated, has taken place i n Bridge Creek Estate subdivisions, and the r e s u l t i n g pattern i s u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y compact for a small r u r a l town. The close re l a t i o n s h i p between the v i l l a g e and the Estate has been r e f l e c t e d for over a decade i n the person of the Mayor and Estate President, Ross Marks. Developable land within the v i l l a g e i s outside the Reserve, or has been supported for exclusion by the Commission. The Reserve boundary coincides with much of the v i l l a g e boundary, and an i n d u s t r i a l area adjacent to the v i l l a g e on the north i s imbedded i n the Reserve. Major Commission contacts have been with the v i l l a g e d i r e c t l y or with Bridge Creek Estate as the major land owner i n the 122 123 area. (See Table 12.) Exclusion applications, and l a t e r negotiations related to the community plan and a Reserve boundary review i n the area, have concerned the i n d u s t r i a l area immediately north and west of the v i l l a g e proper and r e s i d e n t i a l expansion into the Reserve segment south of 2 the v i l l a g e . 7.1 1975 Exclusion Application: Residential and Industrial 7.1.1. Application Narrative In January 197 5 the v i l l a g e mayor contacted the Commission to complain that the designated Reserve plan (November, 1974) had ignored the v i l l a g e ' s proposals, so that the v i l l a g e was l e f t without lands to accommodate f i v e years growth i n accordance with t h e i r e a r l i e r planning and the Commission's stated designation p o l i c i e s . The mayor asked the Commission to review the s i t u a t i o n and advise him on how to proceed. Both areas of concern were outside the v i l l a g e boundaries, which coincided at that time with the developed urban area. This contact occurred i n the context of a concerted c r i t i q u e of the Cariboo Reserve by municipal 3 and regional elected representatives. After v i s i t s to the area by Commission s t a f f , the Commission considered the exclusion of the two areas sought: one north of the v i l l a g e on Exeter Road for i n d u s t r i a l purposes, and one south of the v i l l a g e for r e s i d e n t i a l purposes. (See Map 8.) The v i l l a g e stressed i t s careful p o l i c y of compact, staged development and preliminary planning for r e s i d e n t i a l TABLE 12 100 MILE HOUSE APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN CASE STUDY Reference Number 1975 1979 Type of A p p l i c a t i o n E x c l u s i o n E x c l u s i o n Section of Act or Regulation No. s. 9(1) s. 9(2) Use Proposed R e s i d e n t i a l , I n d u s t r i a l I n d u s t r i a l A p p l i c a n t V i l l a g e P r i v a t e Owner Duration of Procedure Jan.-Sept. 1975 July-Dec. 1979 Dec i s i o n Sequence Date Acres Date Acres A p p l i c a t i o n 1/75 147 7/79 56 Commission Recommend. /De c i s i o n 7/75 91 12/79 56 Cabinet D e c i s i o n 8/75 91 Not A p p l i c a b l e SOURCE: BCPALC A p p l i c a t i o n F i l e 91-D-75-02551 92-D-79-09097 MAP 8 100 MILE HOUSE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE & CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve APPLICATIONS : For E x clusion Excluded Refused V i l l a g e Boundary, 1979 V i l l a g e Boundary, 1975 SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of the Environment, Surveys & Mapping Branch, "Constituent Sheet 1, A g r i -c u l t u r a l Land Reserve Plan f o r the Cariboo Regional D i s t r i c t ; and B r i t i s h Columbia Pro v i n -c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e s [see Table 12 aboveJ. U l MAP 9 100 MILE HOUSE COMMUNITY PLAN FUTURE LAND USE R C I P Sch OS Rosldentlal Commercial Industrial Institutional School Open Space, Recreation, Park Agricultural Land Reserve -Existing -Future Exclusion Supported by Land Commission I! • Major Roads • Village Boundary SOURCE: 100 Mile House, 100  Mile House O f f i c i a l Settle- ment/Community Plan Draft, December 1979, [Revised Febru-ary 1980], Prepared by Urban Programme Planners, R.E. Mann Ltd., Schedule B, "Urban Deve-lopment Area Plan" and " O f f i c i a l Community Plan, Village of 100 Mile House"; and Bri t i s h Colum-bia Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, Plan Review f i l e PL-D-79-09449. 127 development of the area required and the l o g i c a l d i r e c t i o n southward for e f f i c i e n t l y serviced new development. No land was available for l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l uses i n the v i l l a g e and the area requested on Exeter Road was a l o g i c a l extension of e x i s t i n g development there. The Commission recommended the release of part of both areas sought following a formal application from the regional d i s t r i c t on behalf of the v i l l a g e . The Commission cit e d the lack of alternatives for r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l development, and also noted the e f f e c t of e x i s t i n g i n d u s t r i a l uses on the a g r i c u l t u r a l s u i t a b i l i t y of the parcels for i n -d u s t r i a l development. Half of the proposed r e s i d e n t i a l area, deemed s u f f i c i e n t for f i v e years growth, was released. The Commission recommended that the easterly portion of the i n d u s t r i a l s i t e be retained i n the Reserve as a l i n k between ranch buildings and grazing area. The Commission recognized Exeter Road was already an area of i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y . Cabinet concurred with the Commission's recommendation. 7.1.2. Process Inputs and Environment The information on a g r i c u l t u r a l s u i t a b i l i t y of the i n d u s t r i a l s i t e was obtained from Commission s t a f f v i s i t s to the area and consultation with the v i l l a g e . S i m i l a r l y , information on available r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s was obtained from the v i l l a g e during the s t a f f v i s i t there. Few vacant r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e s remained i n subdivisions under development i n the v i l l a g e . Staff calculations of the capacity of the proposed r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e estimated i t would f i l l 10 years* 128 demand. The estimate was based on recent construction trends, and i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s i m p l i f i e d by the land's owner-ship by a single developer and the absence of i n f i l l s i t e s i n the compact v i l l a g e . The 1975 application by the v i l l a g e was couched i n terms of a complaint about the Reserve plan designated two months e a r l i e r . The application appears to have been part of an orchestrated c r i t i q u e of the Reserve by the regional d i s t r i c t board and certain other municipalities i n the 4 area. The exclusions sought were for areas for which the 5 owner had begun development planning and design by 1972. The development of the v i l l a g e had proceeded i n l i n e with Bridge Creek Estate decisions to make land available, on a phased basis, as had concomitant municipal boundary extensions. The s i t u a t i o n i s one of phased, compact development by a single developer-owner. 7.2 1979 Exclusion Application; Industrial 7.2.1. Application Narrative In 1979 the exclusion of further areas of the Exeter Road i n d u s t r i a l area was sought by the owner, Bridge Creek Estate. The applicant pointed out the absence of l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s near the v i l l a g e , and argued that since the s i t e s had never been used i n t h e i r ranching operations, i t would not disrupt them to remove the land from the Reserve. The area was rezoned and subdivided for l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l use. The regional d i s t r i c t noted the land's designation i n the o f f i c i a l settlement plan draft for i n d u s t r i a l uses. 129 In deciding to allow the exclusion, the Commission noted the applicant's arguments, the settlement plan pro-posals, the surrounding i n d u s t r i a l uses and t h e i r impact on i t s p otential use for spring grazing, and the regional d i s t r i c t ' s support for the exclusion. The Commission re-quired the owner to fence the s i t e with barbed wire along the new Reserve boundary. 7.2.2. Process Inputs and Environment Bridge Creek's application to exclude more land i n the Exeter Road i n d u s t r i a l area was made concurrently with the completion of a draft settlement/community plan and a major Reserve boundary review i n the surrounding area carried out by the Commission. It appears to have followed upon unsuccessful negotiations with p r o v i n c i a l agencies to develop an i n d u s t r i a l area owned by B.C. R a i l and the Crown 7 well south of the v i l l a g e outside the Reserve. 7.3 Future Exclusions Recommended i n Response to the Community Plan The Commission s t a f f report on the 1979 application suggested the Commission allow the exclusion, whose indus-t r i a l use i s suggested i n the plan, but "draw the l i n e " on g further development i n the area. This s t i p u l a t i o n was not included i n the Commission's decision on the application, nor i n i t s comments on the plan. The remainder of the r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e p a r t i a l l y released i n the 1975 application and now recommended for release by the Commission i n i t s community plan comments, 130 has not yet been the subject of an application (October, 1980). It i s designated for r e s i d e n t i a l development and shown outside the Reserve i n the community plan. The o r i g i n of t h i s proposed change i n the Reserve i s not cl e a r , but i t may be on the i n i t i a t i v e of the Commission s t a f f i n connection with the concurrent boundary review. The sug-gested exclusion for r e s i d e n t i a l purposes south of the v i l l a g e also includes another major parcel recently purchased by Bridge Creek west of highway 97. The proposal by the Commission i n response to the community plan conforms to the intention of Bridge Creek Estate to develop the southern sections of the v i l l a g e i n a phased manner. The control of development by a single developer who also owns adjacent a g r i c u l t u r a l areas gives the Commission an unusual assurance about future development patterns i n the Reserve around 100 Mile House. The Commission has been w i l l i n g to release land for urban development on a longer-term basis than f i v e years. 7.4 The Community Plan The 100 Mile House O f f i c i a l Settlement/Community Plan was prepared during 1979. The community plan has been f o r -warded to the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s for approval. A major Reserve boundary review of E l e c t o r a l Areas G and H of the Cariboo Regional D i s t r i c t was underway during plan preparation, and Reserve areas within the v i l l a g e were i n -cluded i n the review. In l i n e with recommendations a r i s i n g out of the review, the plan designates more of the remaining Reserve area south of the developed portions of the v i l l a g e 131 as the major future r e s i d e n t i a l development s i t e for the v i l l a g e . Park, recreation and open space consumes the remaining Reserve area between Bridge Creek and the future r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e s . The Commission, after reviewing the community plan d r a f t , indicated i t would support the exclu-sion of the r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e s . Other small portions of Reserve lands remaining within the v i l l a g e are to continue i n use for public recreation. The Reserve sections recommended for exclusion remain i n the Reserve at present. Plan proposals for i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s include the 56 acres recently excluded by the Commission i n the Exeter Road area (1979). The plan points out the d i f f i c u l t i e s of developing the proposed major i n d u s t r i a l park s i t e at some distance south of the v i l l a g e . Its distance from exi s t i n g services and i t s slope to the east may preclude development. The single source of c o n f l i c t between the Commission and v i l l a g e i n future appears to be the Exeter Road area i n the event the i n d u s t r i a l park s i t e cannot be developed. 132 NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated i n these notes as BCPALC. 1. "From Hay F i e l d to Thriving V i l l a g e , " 100 Mile House  Free Press, 14 May 1980, Special Supplement, "Cariboo C a l l i n g , " p. 3. 2. Unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d , the actions of the 100 Mile council, the Commission and others are documented i n BCPALC f i l e s as follows: Application BCPALC Application Reference No. F i l e No. 1975 91-D-75-02551 1979 92-D-79-09097 Community plan comments by the Commission and related correspondence are found i n BCPALC Plan Review f i l e number PL-D-79-09449. 3. Williams Lake Tribune, 16 January 1975. 4. The Mayor's l e t t e r seeking adjustment of the Reserve boundaries was dated 16 January 1975, and was sent simultaneously with the Regional D i s t r i c t Board meeting and comments by various municipal members of the Board reported i n the Williams Lake Tribune, 16 January 1975. 5. V i l l a g e Clerk Administrator, 100 Mile House to Cariboo Regional D i s t r i c t Administrator, 31 October 1973, 100 Mile House f i l e , No. 1 - L - l l . 6. Personal communication from BCPALC s t a f f . 7. Interview with Mayor Ross Marks, 100 Mile House, 4 June 1980. 8. 100 Mile House, 100 Mile House O f f i c i a l Settlement/ Community Plan Draft, December 1979, .[Revised February 1980.] , Prepared by Urban Programme Planners, R.E. Mann Ltd. 9. Ibid., pp. 21-2 and Interview, Marks. CHAPTER 8 THE TOWN OF MERRITT A sawmill and ranching town of 6,000, Merritt has had r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e contact with the Commission. The c i t y i s located on land between the confluence of the Nicola and Coldwater Rivers. Much of the Reserve, designated i n August, 1974, within the c i t y runs along the Nicola River and i s subject to flooding. Residential areas are f a i r l y compactly developed, with some recent subdivision and devel-opment on a h i l l s i d e area north of the r i v e r and main area of the c i t y . Sawmill operations take up large s i t e s on the southern edge of the c i t y . The single application which the c i t y has made to the Commission i s outlined i n Table 13. 1 8.1 1977 Exclusion Application: Industrial 8.1.1. Application Narrative In 1977 the Town of Merri t t sought the Commission's advice on how to proceed with an application to exclude part of a proposed i n d u s t r i a l park s i t e which was within the Reserve. The council decided to proceed with a muni-c i p a l application and submitted t h e i r request to the Commission i n March. The s i t e i s owned by the B r i t i s h 133 134 TABLE 13 MERRITT APPLICATION INCLUDED IN CASE STUDY Reference Number 1977 Type of Application Exclusion Section of Act s. 9(1) Use Proposed Industrial Applicant Town (Merritt became a City i n 1980) Duration of Procedure Mar.-June 1977 Decision Sequence Date Acres Application 3/77 35 Commission Recommend. 5/77 35 Cabinet Decision 6/77 35 SOURCE: BCPALC Application F i l e No. 91-Zz-77-04045 Columbia Development Corporation, who were prepared to develop i t j o i n t l y with the town. I t was not used for agriculture. The town expected that the imminent construc-ti o n of the Coquihalla Highway, and other highway upgrading i n the o f f i n g , would bring industry to M e r r i t t . BCDC was a c t i v e l y involved and about to get detailed design underway. The Regional D i s t r i c t Board supported the applic a t i o n . The Commission decided i n March to recommend exclu-sion of the s i t e , noting the town's reasons for i t s application, because the p a r t i c u l a r portion of the Reserve involved was a peninsula almost surrounding by lands outside the Reserve. MAP 10 MERRITT AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE & CASE STUDY APPLICATION Agricultural Land Reserve APPLICATION For Exclusion Excluded Municipal Boundary SOURCE: British Columbia, Ministry of the Environment, Surveys & Mapping Branch, "Constituent Sheet 3B, Agricultural Land Reserve Plan for the Thompson-Nicola Regional District"; and British Columbia Agricultural Land Commission, Application f i l e 91-ZZ-77-04045. MAP 11 MERRITT COMMUNITY PLAN FUTURE LAND USE R R e s i d e n t i a l C Commercial I I n d u s t r i a l Sch School llosp H o s p i t a l OS Open Space Major E x i s t i n g Major Proposed SOURCE: M e r r i t t , Town of  M e r r i t t O f f i c i a l Community  Plan, Prepared by Gordon Pe-tersen et a l . , [Urban Systems L t d . ) , March 1979, Figure 5.2.1, "Proposed Land Use Plan-Short Range," Figure 5.2.2, "Proposed Land Use Plan-Long Range," and Figure 5.9.1, "Roadway Network." 137 8.1.2. Process Inputs and Environment The Commission sought additional information on surrounding land use and zoning from the town following the i n i t i a l a pplication, and the town responded with a map. The a g r i c u l t u r a l s u i t a b i l i t y of the land i n question was judged by the Commission to warrant i t s exclusion, because of the nature of surrounding uses and the c a p a b i l i t y of the s i t e for a g r i c u l t u r a l uses. The straightforward processing of Merritt's applica-t i o n was hurried along, after the Commission's decision, by a request from the ELUC Secretariat. The town claimed that public support for the i n d u s t r i a l park was strong, and pointed out the int e r e s t of the Member of the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly i n seeing the development go ahead. 8.2 The Community Plan The M e r r i t t community plan, prepared during 1978, was adopted i n March, 1979. Among i t s stated purposes are the s i t i n g of new development so as to minimize i t s impact on a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Among i t s environmental objectives the plan includes the protection of high c a p a b i l i t y a g r i -c u l t u r a l land but recognizes that i n the long run expansion w i l l impinge on lower c a p a b i l i t y a g r i c u l t u r a l lands. Land use p o l i c i e s w i l l conform to t h i s objective by d i r e c t i n g urban development on to lands with c a p a b i l i t y ratings of 4-6. Land use designations are shown on two maps, a 3 short range and a long range plan. The short range plan 138 relates to e x i s t i n g municipal boundaries, and accommodates a l l uses on land outside the Reserve, with the exception of one i n d u s t r i a l s i t e and an e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision. No time or population horizon i s set for the short range plan i n the main document, but the plan appendix suggests that the acreage involved would serve at l e a s t the " i n t e r -mediate" population horizon of 8500 (requiring 7 3 acres to accommodate i n new developments) and almost the long range 4 population horizon of 11,000 (258 acres.) The long range plan shows development of Reserve lands i n CLI classes 4-6 for r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l uses. Non-Reserve residen-t i a l s i t e s amount to over 200 acres. Major future indus-t r i a l s i t e s are shown on Reserve lands adjacent to proposed highways, including the Coquihalla and an a r t e r i a l road network to connect major routes outside the c i t y centre and thereby d i r e c t truck t r a f f i c away from developed parts of the c i t y . The two major a r t e r i a l connectors, one for truck t r a f f i c and one for other l o c a l t r a f f i c are i n the nature of bypass routes and cut squarely through the high c a p a b i l i t y a g r i c u l t u r a l area along the Nicola River to the . . 5 east of the present municipal boundary. The Commission, i n commenting on the plan, expressed concern with the long range designation of Reserve lands of Class 3, 4 and 5 for urban uses and with the two highway routes bisecting Class 2 lands. i n response, the town emphasized the long-run nature of the proposed designations, stating that the town would not i n t e r f e r e with e f f o r t s i n 139 the interim to upgrade the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of the lands through i r r i g a t i o n . The highways route had been selected i n consultation with ranchers and Indian bands i n the area (and probably represents Highways Ministry pre-ferred routing). The Commission i n turn r e p l i e d that i t did not want to commit a future Commission, and that i t would not change i t s comments on the a r t e r i a l road propos-a l s , but would consider the routes when the need arose and was substantiated. 140 NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia Pr o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated i n these notes as BCPALC. 1. Unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d , the actions of the Me r r i t t council, the Commission and others are documented i n BCPALC Application f i l e 91-Zz-77-04045 and BCPALC Plan Review f i l e PL-Zz-79-08298. 2. Merritt, Town of Merritt O f f i c i a l Community Plan, Prepared by Gordon Petersen et a l . , ^ Urban Systems Ltd.], March 1979, pp. 1, 27 and 31. 3. Ibid., Figures 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. 4. Ibid., Appendix A. 5. Ibid., Figures 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. PART III ANALYSIS 141 CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF THE BLOCK APPLICATION PROCESS AND COMMUNITY PLANS This thesis set out to explore how the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve system operates as a means to resolve p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l differences over a g r i c u l t u r a l land use i n a small town setting. In Chapter 1, several questions were posed to guide t h i s exploration. This chapter applies the findings of the f i v e case studies to the questions. Figure 4 summarizes the case study application outcomes. It shows the sequential r e l a t i o n s h i p between applications, de-ci s i o n s , and reconsiderations for each municipality. Three of the f i v e municipalities (and related private applicants) undertook series of overlapping and r e i t e r a t e d applications. The block applications and private applications were made i n aid of a variety of urban needs, including public projects, private development proposals, and o v e r a l l needs for land suitable for community development. In v i r t u a l l y none of the applications was the urban need for the Reserve land demon-strated i n terms of demand for subject s i t e s . Instead, the demand was inferred by asserting the absence of alternative locations for the proposed use or general need. Assessments of a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y were often complex, and the 142 FIGURE 4 OUTCOME OF CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS, SHOWING DECISION SEQUENCE OF RELATED APPLICATIONS AND ACRES REQUESTED AND EXCLUDED IN EACH COMMISSION DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION Related A p p l i c a t i o n s ; Reference Numbers Net Acres Requested, Related A p p l i c a t i o n s Decision Sequence: Acres Requested ( ) S. Excluded i n Each Commission Recommendation or Decision 1974 19/5 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 MERRITT 1977 35 (35)-35 Acres Excluded, Related A p p l i c a t i o n s 35 KEREMEOS 1975 25 (25)- -7-25 25 1977 1978 10 (10) o N 0 ARMSTRONG 1974 1975 21 < 4 ) - 4 - , ^ ~ ~ - - ( 4 ) - 0 - 0 21 1976 v N i 3 ) 13 SALMON ARM 1975A 1975B 708 (708) -466 t <15>-15 481 1975C 80 ( 8 0 ) - 0 - 0 - 0 0 1978A 1978B . 1979 121 X-X* 1 ( 4 4 ) - 1 3 , „ ^ """--(108) 108 121 i n n MILE HOUSE 1975 1979 203 (147)-91 (56)-56 147 SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Application f i l e s . 144 v i a b i l i t y of lands for economic farm use a complicating factor. Local public or neighbourhood opinion, expressed i n an organ-ized fashion, was decisive i n three applications or series of applications, whatever the long-term consequences for the Reserve and the nature of and public i n t e r e s t i n the projects involved. Three municipalities f i l e d exclusion applications during 1974 and 1975 as follow-ups to the Reserve designation process (Armstrong, Salmon Arm, 100 Mile House). These municipalities were d i s s a t i s f i e d with the outcome and returned to the Commission to t r y again to exclude land from the new Reserves. In the case of Salmon Arm, the application was i n the nature of a fine-tuning boundary review. Once these early applications were processed, the number and acreage of case study block applications declined. This decline p a r a l l e l s the pattern of a l l urban applications shown i n Figures 1 and 2, Chapter 1. 9.1 Reasonable Outcomes for Small M u n i c i p a l i t i e s The cumulative outcome of the case study applications has been the release of land from the Reserves to accommodate municipal growth. (See Figure 4.) Two questions were posed i n Chapter 1 to help evaluate the reasonableness of block application outcomes from the point of view of the small municipalities and the l o c a l context. (1) Do application outcomes cause hardship to the l o c a l area or l o c a l public i n t e r e s t , and (2) do outcomes conform to decision c r i t e r i a 145 based on the aims of the Reserve system and legitimate trade o f f s among the c r i t e r i a ? 9.1.1. Hardship and the Public Interest If block application outcomes have caused hardship to a l o c a l area, some public i n t e r e s t would be affected by the re s u l t i n g s h i f t to an urban use or removal of land from the Reserve. The Commission had envisioned the use of municipal block applications for public i n t e r e s t purposes and large segments of land i n multiple ownership, and i n 1974 c r i t i -cized block applications made i n support of private develop-ment proposals. 1 Table 14 i l l u s t r a t e s the d i f f i c u l t y i n determining the l o c a l public i n t e r e s t i n the applications. The table outlines the proposed urban use; the current status of development on the subject land; whether the proposal i s a public or municipal project; whether there i s a s p e c i f i c development proposal connected to the application; and whether the subject land i s i n single ownership or optioned for the development proposal. Public projects of l o c a l benefit may have high nuisance value for some l o c a l areas; s p e c i f i c development proposals by single entrepreneurs may be viewed l o c a l l y as enormously b e n e f i c i a l to the community; the exclusion of lands i n multiple ownership from the Reserve i n order to keep down the price of urban land may be b e n e f i c i a l . Table 14 shows that much of the land excluded as a re s u l t of the case study applications remains undeveloped. The current status of development on the excluded land could TABLE 14 PUBLIC INTEREST CONTENT OF CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS: USES, DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND OWNERSHIP ISSUES A p p l i c a t i o n Proposed Urban Use Development Status, 1980 Excluded/Non-Farm Use Permitted M u n i c i p a l / P u b l i c Use or P r o j e c t S p e c i f i c Development Proposal Is O w n e r s h i p / I n i t i a t i v e with Single Owner/Option Holder? Keremeos 1975 housing small number of l o t s developed; some held f o r speculation? - no -1977 1978 Sewage t r e a t , p l a n t , e f f l u e n t storage yes yes yes yes yes yes Armstrong 1974 shopping centre developed no yes yes 1975 highway comm., access road road b u i l t ; l a r g e p o r t i o n of land developed part no yes 1976 highway comm. small amount of development no no yes Salmon 1975A Arm 1975B vari o u s shopping centre various developed part no part yes no yes 1975C sewage t r e a t , p l a n t , e f f l u e n t storage yes yes yes 1978A road r.o.w. none-municipality seeking p r o v i n -c i a l approval of road network yes yes no 1978B r e s i d e n t i a l no apparent development no no no 1979 r e s i d e n t i a l not a p p l i c a b l e (recent exclusion) no no no 100 M i l e 1975 House r e s i d e n t i a l , i n d u s t r i a l ca. 1/5 of r e s i d e n t i a l area developed; i n d u s t r i a l land developed no yes yes 1979 i n d u s t r i a l not a p p l i c a b l e (recent exclusion) no no yes M e r r i t t 1977 i n d u s t r i a l no development yes no yes SOURCES: B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e s ; interviews witli municipal o f f i c i a l s and c o n s u l t a n t s ; s i t e v i s i t s . 147 be taken to i l l u s t r a t e the absence of r e a l urban need, the d i f f i c u l t y of predicting the rate of development i n small towns, or the usefulness of having s u f f i c i e n t land available on the market to keep prices at reasonable l e v e l s . For pur-poses of t h i s analysis, i t i s assumed that the municipal applicants were acting i n the l o c a l public i n t e r e s t . Under t h i s assumption, the complete re f u s a l to exclude or permit non-farm use by the Commission and cabinet could be deemed a hardship for the municipality and l o c a l community. In the cases studied, municipalities were usually able to obtain at least p a r t i a l exclusion or non-farm use i f they persisted with t h e i r applications. Where there were strong l o c a l objections to the proposed urban use, however, the Commission held to i t s i n i t i a l refusals and the municipality had to look elsewhere for a s i t e for the proposed use (Keremeos and Salmon Arm sewage f a c i l i t i e s ) . The hardship attendant on the Commission's decision on the Keremeos sewage f a c i l i t y application was p a r t l y the r e s u l t of the confusion of powerful overlapping p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s responding to c o n f l i c t i n g statutory mandates and publics. In one a p p l i -cation where the development proponent or owner was w i l l i n g to reduce his immediate demands, 100 Mile House, 1975, the municipality also accepted the Commission's i n i t i a l decision. This example was a special s i t u a t i o n because the development proponent had complete control over development i n the municipality by v i r t u e of land ownership and could judge the adequacy of the land excluded. Remaining undeveloped areas 148 on the excluded land further confirms that the Reserve has not caused hardship by unduly l i m i t i n g the supply of land for urban purposes. 9.1.2. Decision C r i t e r i a The Commission usually referred to some of i t s decision c r i t e r i a i n recommending or deciding on the case study applications. However, i t i s not possible to judge the f i t of the outcomes to the Commission's substantive c r i -t e r i a . Often, the Commission made an i n i t i a l decision with reference to i t s c r i t e r i a and then subsequently altered that decision with no substantive change i n the s i t u a t i o n , i l l u s -t r a t i n g the uncertainties of measurement associated with urban need and a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y as well as the d i f f i -c u l t task of weighing these aspects. Where urban and a g r i c u l t u r a l concerns could be weighed with r e l a t i v e ease, the Commission decided applications with the most dispatch and t h e i r i n i t i a l recommendations were accepted by the a p p l i -cants. 100 Mile House and M e r r i t t both are r e l a t i v e l y dense communities, so that urban need can be more re a d i l y defined. The a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of Reserve lands i s generally lower i n these ranching areas, with the a g r i c u l t u r a l use of small parcels more limited i n r e l a t i o n to the extensive requirements of c a t t l e grazing. In contrast, the other three case studies demonstrate the r e a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n assessing both urban need and a g r i -c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y . Where there i s considerable i n f i l l land available outside the Reserve, and where small parcels 149 are capable of producing f r u i t s or heat-loving crops, the operational d e f i n i t i o n of urban need has turned on issues such as land p r i c e , ownership, and competition of the pro-posed urban use with similar e x i s t i n g uses. Such concerns were not e x p l i c i t l y part of the Commission's decision c r i -t e r i a developed from the Reserve designation process. When the Commission does consider these factors as determinants of urban need, i t s recommendations are reasonable from the municipal point of view. 9.2 The Role of Small Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Process 9.2.1. Municipal Resources and Technical Information In order to assess whether or not small municipalities have been able to p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n the application process, several questions were raised i n Chapter 1. One set of questions dealt with municipal s t a f f resources and access to information. Do small municipalities have adequate s t a f f and technical resources to carry out t h e i r block applications and can they obtain and present good information related to the relevant issues? Of the f i v e case study muni c i p a l i t i e s , only Salmon Arm has i t s own planning s t a f f . Yet with the aid of regional d i s t r i c t s t a f f , development proponents, or municipal consul-tants, the municipalities were able to marshal arguments and other assistance i n pursuit of t h e i r proposals regarding Reserve land. This information did not always re l a t e d i r e c t l y to the issues which the Commission has established as relevant 150 to exclusion and use applications, but such arguments signalled the commitment of municipal applicants to t h e i r proposals. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of technical information seems not to have been a problem for the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , but rather for the Commission i n the area of urban-related issues, es p e c i a l l y i n e a r l i e r applications. The quality of information about i t s concerns that has been available to the Commission, either from municipalities or i t s own s t a f f , has l e f t much room for interpretation by the Commission i n weighing the factors i t considers relevant. The Commission did not always have accurate information on the long run implications of the proposal or did not accurately interpret the information at hand. In the majority of case study applications, Commission s t a f f sought additional information from council s t a f f or from other agencies relevant to the municipal p o s i t i o n , or met with the municipal council to discuss the a p p l i c a t i o n . These contacts r e f l e c t d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the i n i t i a l i n -formation supplied with municipal applications, but they also r e f l e c t a concern to obtain the municipal view on aspects of the matters at issue and to ensure that the municipal view i s well represented. This Commission a c t i v i t y thus supplemented municipal e f f o r t s and s t a f f work. 9.2.2. The Municipal Role i n Taking the I n i t i a t i v e The second aspect of the municipal r o l e to be explored concerns the a b i l i t y of municipalities to take an active role i n the application process. This i s e s p e c i a l l y important 151 when the substantive issues could not be e a s i l y measured, a frequent occurrence i n the case studies. If municipalities were unable to pursue t h e i r applications a c t i v e l y , t h e i r role could degenerate into a passive one. The small municipalities comprising the case studies have taken the i n i t i a t i v e to use the application procedures of the Reserve system to further t h e i r land use and develop-ment goals. Figure 5 summarizes how three of the f i v e municipalities have extended the formal procedures when the Commission did not make a decision to t h e i r l i k i n g . The dotted l i n e s i n the figure show how these municipalities have gone beyond the formal procedures i n an e f f o r t to change the outcome of i n i t i a l Commission decisions. The municipal-i t i e s have reapplied for lands refused, either under the same or d i f f e r e n t sections of the Act; requested the Commission to reconsider the f i r s t r e f u s a l ; and presented anew t h e i r case to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet upon the Commission's formal recommendation to that body. Recon-siderations by the Commission were more common during the f i r s t few years after the establishment of the Reserves. Municipalities have also t r i e d other t a c t i c s to achieve a Commission decision i n t h e i r favour, such as appealing to members of the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly and to ministers to intervene for them and involving other p r o v i n c i a l agencies whose int e r e s t i n the application coincided with the municipality's. FIGURE 5 FLOW CHART FOR CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS Exclusion from ALR Remain i n ALR .9(1)-(a) A p p l i c a t i o n to Exclude by l o c a l government (b) .Salmon |Arm 75A/B,78/79 - f Public Hearing (after 1977) • Commission ' Recommendation Ap p l i c a t i o n to Allow Use/Subdivision by government I I I l o c a l Keremeos 77/78 Keremeos 75 100 Mile 75 Armstr. 75 Exclude a me .ef use Armstrong 75 Salmon Arm 75A 75B 78B Mun. does not accept l I Allow Use/ Subdivision Mun. Accepts  tlOO Mile 75| |Keremeos 78| >ELUC/Cabinet« ' F i n a l Decision Exclude Refuse Allow Use/ Subdivision Mun. does not accept Mun. Accepts Regulations/Orders Use S Subdivision Applicant L 3 nd -> Commission Salmon Arm 75C Refuse -Mun". does not accept Allow Mun. Accepts SOURCES: ( B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Com-mission] , "Flow Chart for A p p l i -cations under the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act," (ca. 1979]; and A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e s (see Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13 above]. 153 9.3 Obtaining Municipal Consent i n the Regulatory Process Based on the regulatory nature of the Reserve system, and noting the apparent convergence of municipal application and cabinet or Commission decisions over the years, Chapter 1 questioned the implications of the convergence. Is there evidence of some form of regulatory capture of the Reserve system by the municipalities? The l i t e r a t u r e on North American regulatory experience describes the capture of regulatory agencies by regulated parties where the consent of the regulated i s necessary for successful regulation. Matthew Holden, i n his paper Po l l u t i o n Control as a Bargaining Process, describes the con-di t i o n s which r e s u l t i n regulation by consent: the i n a b i l i t y of the regulatory decision-makers to "ordain" and the a b i l i t y 2 of the regulated to " f i l i b u s t e r " . Holden applies the term "successful" to regulatory a c t i v i t i e s whose outcomes r e f l e c t the goals of the regulatory agency. The Reserve system goal of slowing the conversion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to urban uses i s d i f f i c u l t to assess i n i n d i v i d u a l applications. However, in a number of the case study applications, municipalities have refused consent to Commission and/or cabinet decisions and persisted u n t i l land was excluded (see Figure 4; Keremeos 1975, Armstrong 1976, and Salmon Arm 1978B and 1979). These exclusions reversed the i n i t i a l "protective" decisions of the Commission, suggesting a discrepancy between the Re-serve system goal and outcomes of these block applications. Several aspects of the application process suggest that the Commission's position v i s - a - v i s the case study 154 municipalities has been r e l a t i v e l y weak. The case study municipalities have responded to i n i t i a l Commission refusals by pursuing th e i r applications, through the sequence of application, reconsideration, and reapplication shown i n Figures 4 and 5 and Table 15. When the Commission has at f i r s t refused block exclusions, they have often changed t h e i r decision i n the cases studied. The exceptions to t h i s obser-vation have been applications to which a segment of the l o c a l community has objected i n an organized way, lending support to the Commission's i n i t i a l r e f u s a l (Keremeos 1977 and 1978; Salmon Arm 1975C) or applications whose p a r t i a l exclusion was accepted by the developer (100 Mile House 1975). Where the Commission's c r i t e r i a are d i f f i c u l t to define, the resolution of municipal-Commission disagreements over Reserve land use and development seems to depend on the consent of the municipality to Commission recommendations. The process of gaining municipal consent has been lengthy. The Commission has shown i t s e l f w i l l i n g to respond to municipal requests for reconsideration,, and as a matter of course has dealt with reapplications. As shown i n Table 15, the Commission has also sought to modify or persuade the municipalities to abandon the development proposals supported by th e i r applications to which the Commission has objected. To counter municipal and t h i r d party development intentions on Reserve lands, the Commission has -recommended against the exclusion; -attached conditions to development; TABLE 15 COMMISSION RESPONSE TO CASE STUDlf APPLICANTS M u n i c i p a l i t y * A p p l I c a t i o n R n f o r i n r o Nnmbnr 197H Sn ltnon Atm 1975A 197511 1975C 197BP 1979 o tn W C n « a n o g § -H O O U q o o O o « Commission D e c i s i o n or Recommendation 3s 333 S U M W H O C o n d i t i o n s r e j e c t e d by cabinet Suggest nrcn f o r s i t e with lower aqr I c n l turn 1 c a p a b i l i t y Cabinet appoints Task Croup. Commission would reconsider I f no a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s found by Grot'p. Suggest a l t e r n a t i v e per 1977 a p p l i c a t i o n Suggest zoning change to d i r e c t development to sewered area v i a change in mini mum l o t s I z s S t a f f seeks a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e d u r i n g a p p l i c a t i o n process. Reluctant a p p r o v a l Id be approved Query whether sewage treatment f a c i l i t y c l o s e to r i v e r by P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Hoard. Suggest another s i t e Suggest another s i t e . Would co n s i d e r s e v e r a l s i t e s in connection with spray I r r i g a t i o n methods of e f f l u e n t d i s p o s a l I n d i c a t e no o b j e c t i o n to Inter e x c l u s i o n of p a r c e l s severed by t h i s road right-of-way from bulk of Penerve i n area Armstrong 1974 1975 197* Suggest Dept. of Highways f i n d a l t e r n a t i v e access to c i t y n shopping c e n t r e I n d i c a t e that they w i l l not c o n s i d e r f u r t h e r e x c l u s i o n s In area of 1974 (. 1975 a p p l i c a t i o n s P r i o r to d e c i s i o n , ask c i t y t o c o n s i d e r lonq term fu t u r e of M.P and t o d i r e c t development away from M,R iOO M i l e House 1975 1979 107 ; Approval of p a r t i a l e x c l u s i o n s u b j e c t to submission of s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n show l n g phasing. ? n l t l a l recommendation was changed to accommodate phasing. F e n d ng regitl red SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A p p l i c a t i o n f i l e s . 156 -recommended only part of the exclusion sought; - t r i e d to persuade the municipality to change i t s p o l i c i e s a f f e c t i n g the development of Reserve areas; -given notice that i t would consider no more applications from the area; or -indicated that i t might reconsider i t s decision i n l i g h t of further developments. These e f f o r t s to assert i t s viewpoint through i t s powers or by advice and persuasion have generally not succeeded i n changing municipal approaches to the development of the Re-serve lands i n the cases examined. The municipalities have persisted, often buoyed by t h i r d party i n t e r e s t and support. The Commission only infrequently has access to such t h i r d party support, although when i t has, i t has been able to maintain i t s i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n . On balance, the Commission's ro l e i n the application process has been r e l a t i v e l y passive compared with the case study m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' . While the Commission's advice has been followed by cabinet at the f i n a l stage of each case study application within a related municipal series, when the Commission's recommendations have not been accepted by the municipality and not been supported l o c a l l y , the Commission has eventually altered i t s decision. The community plan contents and process suggest the continuation of t h i s kind of regulatory decision-making. That i s , the p o l i c i e s found i n the community plans are generally extrapolations of past trends, some of which have been defended or pursued i n the exclusion applications 157 examined. Some plans o f f e r strategies for dealing with these pote n t i a l c o n f l i c t s (eg. Armstrong, M e r r i t t , Salmon Arm). The Commission i n i t s dealings with municipalities has been unable to ordain the outcome of block exclusion applica-tions. This i n a b i l i t y arises from several sources. The trade o f f s between urban need, a dimension d i f f i c u l t to measure or assess, and marginal a g r i c u l t u r a l lands whose c a p a b i l i t y by d e f i n i t i o n excludes economic considerations, are made i n a sit u a t i o n capable of wide inte r p r e t a t i o n . Secondly, the locus of f i n a l decision with the cabinet encourages follow-up applications and d i r e c t appeals from disappointed municipali-t i e s (Salmon Arm 1975B; Keremeos 1977 and 1978). 3 Lastly, municipal development i s a continuous process, consuming additional land each year. In the absence of r a d i c a l change in development patterns, t h i s confirms the view of municipal o f f i c i a l s that a g r i c u l t u r a l land i s a holding zone awaiting eventual urban development, so that no Commission or cabinet decision i s regarded as f i n a l . The case study municipalities have made use of t r a d i t i o n a l avenues to influence cabinet and persisted i n the i r e f f o r t s to obtain exclusions, just as they might pursue p r o v i n c i a l f i n a n c i a l assistance, seek the location of pro-v i n c i a l o f f i c e s i n t h e i r community, and so on. The system has operated i n the cases studied to resolve p r o v i n c i a l -municipal land use po l i c y disagreements through a prolonged process, at the end of which the consent of the municipality i s gained, at least i n the short run, for an adjusted Reserve 158 boundary. This resolution i s an interim one, as evidenced by municipal plans and the history of exclusion applications presented. E a r l i e r patterns of small-town development are to continue on the periphery of urban communities. 9.4 Community Plans and Future Prospects Pr o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s and l e g i s l a t i o n require conformity between Reserve lands and community plan future land use designations, including Reserve s i t e s to accommodate f i v e year's demand. Community plans should specify development phasing, along with major municipal road systems, a t r u l y long-term undertaking. The nature of the required plan form and content almost ensures that any designation of future urban land use w i l l not conform to p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s re-garding Reserve lands. In small municipalities where most phys i c a l l y developable municipal lands are within the Re-serves, any development beyond ex i s t i n g urban areas i s bound to involve Reserve lands. To do otherwise would require a si t u a t i o n of generous i n f i l l capacity or development directed outside municipal boundaries. Community plans i n the case study municipalities thus provide for a framework of p o l i c i e s and information within which the Commission and municipalities w i l l eventually sort out t h e i r differences over land use. Rather than resolving such differences, the plans provide a strategy or rationale for future exclusions i n the l o c a l public i n t e r e s t . Indeed, the plans or t h e i r regional counterparts have done so already. 159 9.4.1. Plan Content The f i v e community plans vary i n t h e i r commitment to the s p i r i t of the Reserve system and the p o l i c i e s of the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s and the Commission. Only Armstrong avoids designating i n map form Reserve lands for urban use. 100 Mile House and Keremeos have managed to co-ordinate designation of Reserve for urban development with Commission approval i n advance to obtain the necessary exclu-sions. Salmon Arm has succeeded i n obtaining the exclusion of one segment of Reserve land designated for small-lot development i n i t s plan. The plans show various strategies toward Reserve land development: -t i d y i n g up Reserve boundaries to remove areas commited to development or subdivided (Keremeos); -establishing an approach to future decisions about phasing the development of various Reserve segments based on a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y (Armstrong); -designating Reserve areas for which, as a matter of po l i c y , the municipality w i l l support or make future exclusion or subdivision applications (Salmon Arm); -concurrently negotiating for a major exclusion i n the context of a boundary review (100 Mile House); -taking a r e l a t i v e l y long-term approach to development phasing for Reserve lands i n a context of ample non-Reserve alternatives i n the medium term (Merritt). Much of the future land use set out i n the plan maps provides for r e s i d e n t i a l development. According to data coll e c t e d for the plans, each of the municipalities has s u f f i c i e n t non-Reserve land area within i t s boundaries to provide for r e s i d e n t i a l demand over the 5-year plan period. However, i n each case there i s some ind i c a t i o n that i n the 160 future, the municipality w i l l seek or support exclusion for housing purposes. The plans' various approaches to t h i s future competition among land uses often r e f l e c t s t h e i r planners' approaches to phasing or sequencing development. In the immediate future, the most conservative community plans with respect to the Reserve r e f l e c t an abun-dance of developable non-Reserve lands or subdivided Reserve lands within the municipal area (Merritt & 100 Mile House). Others intend to develop th e i r Reserve areas because they do not have any other s i t e s , because they are already substan-t i a l l y committed to urban or smallholding uses, or for various t a c t i c a l reasons (Salmon Arm). Merritt's plan i s the only one to specify the f u l l longer-run implications of development at current standards and practices for the surrounding Reserve. The treatment of i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t . Plans for 100 Mile House incorporate the most recent exclusion for i n d u s t r i a l purposes, but the major future i n d u s t r i a l area i s outside the Reserve on a s i t e well south of the v i l l a g e . The plan document echoes the skepticism of the v i l l a g e mayor that t h i s s i t e can i n fact be developed, but makes no a l t e r -native suggestions. M e r r i t t and Salmon Arm have vacant p a r t i a l l y serviced land i n i n d u s t r i a l parks, and i n Armstrong a more modest s i t e i s also vacant. Keremeos has an extensive area of vacant i n d u s t r i a l land i n i t s centre. The M e r r i t t long range plan map suggest additional i n d u s t r i a l areas which overlap with the Reserve. 161 The commercial uses proposed i n the plans generally are located within e x i s t i n g r e t a i l areas, and the plans express concern to maintain, improve, and expand ex i s t i n g central re-t a i l areas v i a redevelopment. Thus no s p e c i f i c provisions are made for shopping centre s i t e s . Whatever the plans may suggest, a municipality such as Mer r i t t , which does not have a shopping centre on i t s periphery, w i l l probably entertain ad hoc proposals for such development out of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 4 with exi s t i n g shopping services. The road network components of the community plans are one of t h e i r most problematic features for the Reserve system. The Keremeos, Armstrong and Merri t t plans show major new roads routed through high qu a l i t y a g r i c u l t u r a l land not otherwise proposed for urban development. The source of these proposals i s not clear, although the Armstrong and Merritt routings probably originated with the Ministry of 5 Transportation and Highways. In i t s plan reviews, the Commission has consistently expressed concern over road net-works designed to pass across Reserve lands. The emphasis which c i r c u l a r s from the ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , the Municipal Act planning sections, and li n k s between community plans and p r o v i n c i a l f i n a n c i a l assistance for road projects a l l give to road network proposals suggests that future re l a t i o n s between municipalities and the Commission over road rights-of-way could be acrimonious.^ The community plans prepared for the case study muni-c i p a l i t i e s propose to continue and expand ex i s t i n g modes of development. Their p o l i c i e s toward Reserve lands concern those lands d i r e c t l y , and the implications for Reserve lands of development p o l i c i e s such as housing densities, road routes, and servicing programs are l e f t unstated. Statements of support for Reserve retention, often coupled with capa-b i l i t y caveats, have been inserted i n the plans as required by p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s , at times at the i n s t i g a t i o n of 7 planning consultants. The data at hand do not make i t possible to separate the p o l i c i e s o r i g i n a t i n g with the planners or engineers from those of the municipal council or s t a f f . The interviews with municipal o f f i c i a l s suggest land use designations r e f l e c t the concerns of the municipality more than do general statements of support for Reserve lands. 9.4.2. Consultation during Plan Preparation Contacts between municipal and Commission s t a f f during Community plan preparation have occurred during two phases: survey and analysis, or concurrently with council reading and adoption of a f i n a l d r a f t . These contacts are summarised i n Table 16. The early contacts were between the planner hired to prepare the plan documents and the Commission s t a f f assigned for l i a i s o n with such planners. Planners sought advice on s p e c i f i c Reserve areas (Merritt) or more general advice about Commission views on conversion of Reserve lands g to urban uses (100 Mile House, Armstrong). Where there i s no evidence of these kinds of contacts, the planners i n -volved had long associations both with the municipality and had been involved i n Commission-municpal re l a t i o n s previously. TABLE 16 CONSULTATION BETWEEN COMMISSION AND MUNICIPALITY ON COMMUNITY PLANS Municipality Date of Plan Preparation J o i n t Community-Settlement Plan Commission Comment on Plan Keremeos 1979-80 X none through dr a f t September 80 to planner Armstrong 1977-78 (1) planner & Commission s t a f f l i a i s o n during plan preparation none Salmon Arm ? -79 (2) none November 79 to planner 100 Mile House 1978-79 X planner & Commission January 80 to planner M e r r i t t 1978-79 planner & Commission s t a f f l i a i s o n during plan preparation March & May 79 to Council SOURCE: B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, Plan Review f i l e s , interviews with municipal planners. The area around Armstrong i s e n t i r e l y within the r u r a l D i s t r i c t Municipality of Spallumcheen, which r e c prepared a community plan. Areas adjacent to Salmon Arm are comprised within the Deep Creek-Canoe Creek and Salmon Valley-Falkland Subregional Plans. 164 The Commission has reviewed four of the f i n a l drafts or adopted plans, and the r e s u l t i n g comments have been made to planners i n three cases and to council i n one. These c r i t i q u e s comment on the general d i r e c t i o n of development proposed i n the plan and stated support for the Reserves, then focus on proposals for s p e c i f i c pieces of Reserve land and road rights-of-way. There have been no substantive municipal responses to these review comments i n terms of plan proposals, although M e r r i t t expanded on i t s position by l e t t e r to the Commission."'"^ It i s d i f f i c u l t to see how a municipality could be responsive to such l a s t minute Commission input. The Commission must r e l y on municipalities to submit t h e i r plans for comment v o l u n t a r i l y . Reference to the Commission i s ensured only where the community plan has been prepared j o i n t l y with a settlement plan which must conform to Municipal A f f a i r s r e f e r r a l procedures i n order to gain p r o v i n c i a l approval. Timing of submission i s also at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Municipality. Where planners have sought advice from Commission s t a f f during plan preparation, the incorporation of such ad-vice into the plan seems to have depended on the planner's attitude, the conformity of Commission advice with l i k e l y municipal views, or the a v a i l a b i l i t y of other lands for urban expansion (Armstrong, 100 Mile House, and Merritt r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . ^ 9.4.3. Summary The process of consultation sketched above conforms to the i n s t i t u t i o n s and p o l i c i e s established by statute, the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , and the Commission. There has been some useful voluntary contact between planners and Commission s t a f f , although one plan has not been referred to the Commission yet. Nevertheless the consultation i s limited to Reserve lands per se, rather than the broader implications of plan p o l i c i e s for the Reserves. The practice of l a s t minute r e f e r r a l s of completed plans means that the Commission's views cannot be incorporated and that they do not get an a i r i n g at the public hearings which follow t h i r d reading of plan bylaws. The case study municipalities have shown an active concern with t h e i r Reserve lands i n t h e i r d i f f e r e n t plan strategies toward them. But i n t h e i r communication with the Commission during plan preparation and i n t h e i r p o l i c i e s , the municipalities have not expressed i n t e r e s t i n using community planning to deal p o s i t i v e l y with the implications of future development for e x i s t i n g Reserves. Rather, the Reserve boundaries are treated as a b a r r i e r to development. 9.5 Conclusion The small municipalities studied have taken an active and generally successful part i n the block application pro-cess i n order to s h i f t land out of the Reserves for develop-ment. Reserve system procedures and the legitimacy of urban needs recognized by Commission decision c r i t e r i a have been 166 well suited to small m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The procedures are well defined as far as the role of the Commission and the formal application process are concerned but also leave room for t r a d i t i o n a l municipal means to try to influence the Environment and Land Use Committee and cabinet. In terms of l o c a l concerns, the outcomes of block applications have been reasonable, with the exception of the Keremeos sewage treatment plan applications and, perhaps, recent Salmon Arm experience. The "success" of municipal block applications as an outcome of a lengthy process of r e p e t i t i v e considerations by the Commission suggests a weakness i n the Commission's role v i s - a - v i s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The Reserve system permits successive s e r i a l applications, and i n situations where the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y or farm v i a b i l i t y of the subject Reserve land i s i n contention, the case study municipalities have frequently refused to consent to i n i t i a l Commission recommendations and cabinet decisions and secured exclusion through r e p e t i t i v e applications with no apparent change i n circumstances. Municipal-Commission consultation during community plan preparation has been rather lim i t e d , with pro forma r e f e r r a l s to the Commission at an advanced stage i n the planning process. The Commission's and Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s p o l i c y and implementation suggestions may have, been help f u l to planners preparing plan documents. However the commitment of municipal o f f i c i a l s to Reserve-related p o l i -cies remains ambiguous. 167 NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated variously i n these notes as "BCLC," "BCPLC," and "BCPALC" according to the style of the documents c i t e d . 1. William Lane, Chairman, BCPLC c i r c u l a r to Regional Dis-t r i c t s and M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , "Re Suggested 9(1) Procedure -Application to B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission," 6 September 1974. B.C. Reg. 93/75 makes s p e c i f i c provision for non-farm use when the public i n t e r e s t i s involved. 2. Publication no. 9 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Water Resources Center, October 1966), p. 11. 3. BCPALC Application f i l e s "Keremeos," O/B-V-77-04286 and 91(b)-V-78-05883; and Interview with Tony P e l l e t t , Planning Director, Regional D i s t r i c t of Columbia-Shuswap, Salmon Arm, 30 May 1980. 4. Interview with Leo Den Boer, Clerk, Town of M e r r i t t , M e r r i t t , 5 June 1980. 5. The Armstrong road proposals follow the plans suggested i n the documentation of the 1975 and 1976 case study applications (see Chapter 5). 6. ^ B r i t i s h Columbia, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s , Planning Services Division]., " E l i g i b i l i t y Guidelines for Major Municipal Highway Grants under Part V of the Regulations of the Revenue Sharing Act," (mimeo) 22 November 1977. 7. Interviews with Gordon Petersen, Urban Systems Ltd., planner for Merritt, Kamloops, 2 June 1980 and with Michael Rosen, Urban Programme Planners, planner for 100 Mile House, Vancouver, 13 May 1980. 8. Interviews with Petersen, Rosen and John Lainsbury, Stanley Associates, planner for Armstrong, Vernon, 27 May 1980; and BCPALC Plan Review f i l e s "Merritt," PL-Zz-79-08298 and "100 Mile House," PL-D-79-09449. 9. This i s the case for Salmon Arm and Keremeos. 10. BCPALC Application f i l e "Merritt," 91-Zz-77-04045. 11. Interview with Lainsbury; as the planner for Armstrong he had disagreed with the views of the Commission s t a f f l i a i s o n . CHAPTER 10 THE BALANCE OF PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL INTERESTS IN INCREMENTAL LAND USE REGULATION The Reserve system attempts to balance the in t e r e s t s of the province and l o c a l areas. The answers to the questions posed i n Chapter 1 describe a regulatory environment i n which small municipalities have been able to pursue t h e i r interests e f f e c t i v e l y within p r o v i n c i a l a g r i c u l t u r a l land p o l i c y . The block application process seems to s u i t municipal resources and s k i l l s . The case study municipalities have generally used block applications i n an incremental fashion, a f t e r some early e f f o r t s to revise the Reserve boundaries su b s t a n t i a l l y . As piecemeal rezoning, the block application process,has been well suited to the pace and style of development i n the small case study m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . This incremental approach has placed the Commission at a disadvantage i n the process. The Commission's c r i t e r i a for evaluating applications are not easy to apply to small scale applications. The small scale of applications l i m i t s the Commission's access to support from persons or groups outside the statutory Reserve system. 1 168 169 10.1 Third-Party Support Frequently owners or developers have become involved i n the case study block applications. Other l o c a l people have only become involved when a development proposal has generated a strong reaction. In the case studies, there were no examples of intervention by organized i n t e r e s t groups or associations. The Commission's decisions and recommendations have conformed to expressions of public opinion unless i t appeared to be divided. This conformity has extended to situations where the Commission was i n strong disagreement with the views so expressed (Salmon Arm 1975B). Where no such expressions were forthcoming, the Commission has approved applications which i t at f i r s t refused but which were pursued by the municipal applicant (eg. Keremeos 1975, Armstrong 1975, and Salmon Arm 1978B and 197 9). When opinion was divided, the Commission has taken a conservationist position, refusing to make trade o f f s for urban needs (eg. Keremeos 1977 and 1978 and Salmon Arm 1975C). There i s no evidence that application procedures act as a ba r r i e r to intervention. The public hearing requirement i n e f f e c t since 1977 has made no difference 2 i n whether or not such intervention occurs. The incremental application process does l i m i t input from groups or individuals who might be expected to support Commission decisions against exclusion or use based on a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y and other farming-related issues. Small changes i n the Reserve land area have l i t t l e e f f e c t on the farming community or on the Reserve i t s e l f i n quantitative 170 terms. The e f f e c t i s even harder to assess when the land i n question i s not being a c t i v e l y farmed. Changes i n the Reserve i n the i n t e r i o r are monitored to a certa i n extent by the B r i t i s h Columbia Federation of Agriculture farmer advisors 3 and members of the Institute of Agrologists. But cumulative changes are not under public scrutiny. Any impacts of small changes i n i n t e r i o r Reserves would appear only af t e r small changes had accumulated over time to produce problems for the 4 farming community. As a r e s u l t , when the Commission makes a recommendation to refuse exclusion based on a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y grounds, there i s not l i k e l y to be any support for i t s p o sition i f the subject s i t e i s small r e l a t i v e to current farming practice or uneconomical to farm under current practice. The e f f e c t of these circumstances i s probably reinforced by the tendency of the public to believe that a regulatory agency established to carry out a p a r t i c u l a r public int e r e s t goal i s doing so e f f e c t i v e l y and without d i f f i c u l t y . ^ In the case of the Commission, b e l i e f i n i t s success i s reinforced by the furor when the cabinet does not follow the Commission's recommendation on a large application with p o l i t i c a l overtones, or, more commonly, when the cabinet overturns a Commission decision on appeal. These important applications appear, then, to be the sole source of problems i n the Reserve system. The absence of day to day public concern over the small applications i s a worrying feature of the Reserve system. Since the locus of decision i s with the cabinet, the Commission i s 171 only f i r s t among the i n t e r e s t groups acting i n connection with a block application. Where a decision among competing interests i s made by a p o l i t i c a l l y accountable body l i k e the cabinet, public support can be c r u c i a l . 10.2 Problems and System Improvements The analysis of the case studies suggests several problems i n the operation of the Reserve system v i s - a - v i s small m u n i c i p a l i t i e s : -The length of block application process from f i r s t a pplication to an accepted cabinet decision; -The uncertain role of the Commission's decision c r i -t e r i a i n the process of reaching a decision or recommendation; -The i s o l a t i o n of the Commission from outside support when making decisions primarily based on the CLI r a t i n g of a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of land. The r e l a t i v e weakness of the Commission's position v i s - a - v i s municipal applicants i n the case studies seems to be bound up with these problems. This weakness was evident before the 1976 change of government. The suggestions set out below for improvements to the system aim to give the Commission a firmer base of operations without requiring major changes i n the rules of the system. 10.2.1. Waiting Period Reapplications and, i n e a r l i e r years, reconsiderations of applications, unnecessarily wasted the time of a l l concerned with small m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' block applications. Generally, a lengthy period between application and accepted decision did not bring out additional information, e s p e c i a l l y i n the more 172 recent years, or time was not the factor which lim i t e d good information inputs. A statutory waiting period for reapplications i n the absence of substantial new information could be introduced. This would not remove the present access to cabinet for municipal applicants. The Commission would have to est a b l i s h a p a r a l l e l p o l icy to eliminate frivolous requests for recon-sideration of i t s recommendations on an application i n order to l i m i t prolongation through t h i s route. The Commission would also have to be more e x p l i c i t and consistent (as sug-gested below) on how i t u t i l i z e s decision c r i t e r i a , so that municipalities could be reasonably confident that the Commission would not refuse exclusion on shaky a g r i c u l t u r a l grounds, and so that cabinet would not be faced with c r i t i c i s m s of Commission analysis of the subject land. 10.2.2. Decision C r i t e r i a The Commission should t r y to ensure that i t s decision c r i t e r i a are applied with consistency. The Commission has stated that i t w i l l not consider economic or technological factors i n judging the c a p a b i l i t y of land for a g r i c u l t u r a l production. However, applicants include these issues i n t h e i r arguments and the Commission appears to have been swayed by these issues. In future, the community plans may a s s i s t the Commission i n assessing urban need. 173 10.2.3. Public Monitoring on a Geographic Basis The Commission publishes annual s t a t i s t i c a l reports containing a wealth of information on various types of application decisions at the regional d i s t r i c t l e v e l and at the l e v e l of municipality or l o c a l area for block applica-tions. The Commission should also publish maps showing annual and cumulative changes i n the Reserves and the location of these changes at the subregional d i s t r i c t l e v e l . Without a geographically referenced record, the cumulative impact of changes i n the Reserve on the province's farming communities w i l l remain as poorly understood as i t seems to be now. Pub l i c l y available information on the areal extent and location of changes i n the Reserve, including non-farm use, could help to reduce the i s o l a t i o n of the Commission i n i t s role as defender of the province's farmland and increase l i n k s with p r o v i n c i a l , regional and l o c a l groups who might o f f e r support regarding i n d i v i d u a l applications. The monthly publication, perhaps on a regional basis, of l i s t s of new applications would also help to inform members of the public and others who might be interested. Both the publication of maps and newspaper l i s t i n g s would require funding increases to support additional Commission s t a f f and material costs. Mapped information i s bound to generate c r i t i c i s m of ind i v i d u a l Commission decisions, o v e r a l l p o l i c y , and per-ceived inconsistencies, p a r t i c u l a r l y by d i s s a t i s f i e d private and governmental applicants. This i s not to say that the Commission does not make decisions i n an equitable and r a t i o n a l 174 fashion, but rather that the inevitable element of judgment which must enter into weighing up a range of values w i l l be evaluated d i f f e r e n t l y by d i f f e r e n t people and groups. Improvements i n the d e f i n i t i o n and application of decision c r i t e r i a could help reduce such sniping. 10.3 Research Opportunities 10.3.1. New Development Patterns The community plans surveyed for t h i s project continued exi s t i n g modes of development outward from developed areas. The c i t y of Vernon, a much larger community than the f i v e case studies, i s considering a f a i r l y r a d i c a l departure from t h i s pattern of growth i n order to avoid high c a p a b i l i t y 7 a g r i c u l t u r a l lands. Vernon's planning a c t i v i t i e s and those of any other municipality which has undertaken to change past development trends should be investigated to see what finan-c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and physical factors contributed to the s h i f t . Implementation of strategies proposed should be monitored, and an evaluation of the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the Vernon and other approaches to smaller municipalities and to d i f f e r e n t a g r i c u l t u r a l settings incorporated. 10.3.2. Cumulative Impacts of Reserve Losses The d i f f i c u l t y i n judging the cumulative impact of farmland losses on the farming community i n any area has been noted above. A study to separate the impact of farmland losses from other factors undermining the v i a b i l i t y of farming 175 communities would help to est a b l i s h the significance of the Reserve and of small losses of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to urban uses. 10.3.3. Decision Making This thesis has not analysed how decisions are made by the Commission, the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, and the cabinet, or the re l a t i o n s between these bodies. Recent changes i n the l i n e s of m i n i s t e r i a l respon-s i b i l i t y for the Commission and the di s s o l u t i o n of the Environment and Land Use Committee sec r e t a r i a t could have considerable impact on the Reserve system. An understanding of the role of the Environment and Land Use Committee and i t s former secretariat would help to c l a r i f y the implications of the case studies presented here. The Commission has always maintained a technical stance towards i t s r o l e , aiming to make decisions based on sound technical grounds. Yet i n the cases studied, the Commission has made changes i n i t s recommendations which are not ex-plained on purely technical grounds. This suggests that some p o l i t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n may have been involved, and an inves-t i g a t i o n of Commission operations to see i f bargaining occurs and, i f so, how i t takes place would further c l a r i f y the implications of the case study findings. 10.3.4. Community Plan Implementation In t h e i r community plans, the f i v e case study municipalities set out strategies and proposals for the 176 development of Reserve land, some which have already been p a r t i a l l y implemented. A wider survey of community plan p o l i c i e s toward the Reserve and t h e i r implementation could contribute to an improved planning process and to better integration of p r o v i n c i a l a g r i c u l t u r a l land p o l i c y and municipal development p o l i c y . The role of community and settlement plan documents i n Commission decisions should also be assessed to see i f the parties are able to take a more comprehensive view and what e f f e c t such a view has on the application process and outcome. 177 NOTES The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated i n these notes as "BCPALC." 1. These observations probably apply to private applications, but the Commission has greater j u r i s d i c t i o n over private applications since i t decides on them rather than recommends on them to cabinet. Richard Schultz, "Regula-tory Agencies and the Canadian P o l i t i c a l System," i n Public Administration i n Canada: Selected Readings, ed. Kenneth Kernaghan (Toronto: Methuen, 1977) describes the wide variations i n the "independence" of federal regulatory bodies, none of which are independent i n the j u d i c i a l sense. 2. For example, active intervention i n Keremeos, 1977, occurred before the hearing procedures were activated. The hearings i n connection with Salmon Arm 1978B and 1979 generated no intervention other than questions from a few adjacent owners. BCPALC Application f i l e s "Keremeos," O/B-V-77-04286 and "Salmon Arm," 91-H-78-06490 and 91a-H-79-09782. 3. B r i t i s h Columbia Federation of Agriculture, "Guidelines for the Farmer Advisors to the B.C. Land Commission Nomi-nated by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture," [ V i c t o r i a , current i n 1980]; and, for example, Linda Coady, BCFA s t a f f memoranda to BCFA Land Use Committee, "Summary of BCFA Land Use Policy and Attitudes toward the P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves," and " . . . copies of the 1980 reports of the Land Use Committees of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and the B.C. Institute of Agrologists," 8 August 1980. The memoranda discuss trends i n cabinet response to Commission decisions, and the Agrologists express con-cern over cer t a i n large scale exclusions permitted by cabinet. 4. Several surveys of the e f f e c t s of urbanization and r u r a l settlement on farming communities set out the hypothetical impacts of such cumulative losses: C.R. Bryant and L.H. Russwurm, "The Impact of Non-Farm Development on A g r i -culture: A Synthesis," Plan Canada 19 (June 1979): 122-39; Reg Lang, and Audrey Armour, Environmental Planning Resource-book, Prepared for the Lands Directorate, Environment Canada ([Ottawa]: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada i n Association with Supply and Services Canada and Multiscience Publications Ltd., 1980), pp. 180-81; James D. McCrae, The  Influence of Exurbanite Settlement on Rural Areas: A Review  of the Canadian Literature, Working Paper No. 3 ([Ottawa]: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, March 1980); and 178 Mary Rawson, 111 Fares the Land. Land Use Management at  the Urban/Rurll/Resource Edges: The B r i t i s h Columbia Land  Commission, Urban Prospects Series (['Ottawa:]- The Macmillan Co. o"f Canada for the Ministry of State for. Urban A f f a i r s , 19 76) , p. 20. 5. Bruce M. Owen and Ronald Braeutigam, The Regulation Game:  Strategic Use of the Administrative Process (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1978), p. 11. 6. Vancouver newspapers recently covered at least two applications concerning 626 acres and 523 acres respec-t i v e l y . For example: "Langley Deal: Opposition to land deal mounts," Vancouver Sun, 5 October 1979, p. A3 and Rick Ouston, "Original Commission Members Speak Out: Delta land decision sets "bad precedent'," Vancouver Sun, 23 January 1981, p. A3. 7. Vernon, Plan Vernon, Third Draft, December 1980; North Okanagan Regional D i s t r i c t , [Draft] O f f i c i a l Settlement  Plan Report: Schedule "A" to "Regional D i s t r i c t of  North Okanagan O f f i c i a l Settlement Plan By-Law No. 405,  1981", IVernon, 1981J ; and Commission comments, Plan review f i l e "Vernon" PL-T-80-11338. 179 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY General Works - Published Adler, Gerald M. Land Planning by Administrative Regulation:  the P o l i c i e s ~ o f the Ontario Municipal Board. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. [The A g r i c u l t u r a l Institute of Canada.,] "A Land Use Policy for Canada: The A g r i c u l t u r a l Institute of Canada's Position Statement." Agrologist 4 (Autumn 1975): 22-5. "B.C.'s Green Acres: A Look at the Future of Farmland i n B r i t i s h Columbia." Urban Reader (Vancouver) 7 (no. 5/6, 1979) :14-9. Barkley, Paul W. and David W. Seckler. Economic Growth and  Environmental Decay: The Solution Becomes the  Problem. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Baxter, David. The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - a Review. With Commentary by Stanley Hamilton, George Atamaneko [ s i c ] , and Don Ravis. Report No. 8. Vancouver: Urban Land Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, A p r i l 1974. Beattie, Kathleen G., Wayne K. Bond and Edward W. Manning. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Use of Marginal Lands: A Review  and Bibliography. Working Paper No. 13. [Ottawa]: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, 1981. Bryant, C.R. and L.H. Russwurm. "The Impact of Non-Farm Development on Agriculture: A Synthesis." Plan  Canada 19 (June 1979):122-39. Bryce, Herrington J. Planning Smaller C i t i e s . The Urban Roundtable Series. Lexington, Mass. and Toronto: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, 1979. Bureau of Municipal Research. Food for the C i t i e s : Disappearing Farmland and P r o v i n c i a l Land Poli c y . C i v i c A f f a i r s series. Proceedings of a Conference Held i n Toronto, March 30-31, 1977. [Toronto, ] June 1977. Canada. Federal Policy on Land Use. [Ottawa]: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1981. 180 Canada. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1976 Census of Canada. Population: Geographic Distributions, Census D i v i - sions and Subdivisions, Western Provinces and the  T e r r i t o r i e s . Catalogue 92-805 (Bullet i n 1.6). June 1977. Canada Works Project a f f i l i a t e d with the Douglas College Community Communications Centre. Preserving A g r i c u l - t u r a l Land: Guidelines for Action"! New Westminster, B.C.: Douglas College .[1978?]. Canadian Institute of Planners. Task Force on Planning Acts. F i n a l Report and Recommendations. Prepared by Hugh Kellas and Brahm Wiesman. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Planners, June 1981. ' . Interim Report. Prepared by Hugh Kellas and Brahm Wiesman. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Planners, June 1980. The Centre for Human Settlements, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Arable Land: The Appropriate Use of a  Scarce Resource. Seminar proceedings. Vancouver, 1978. "Changes to Planning Act Promised." CIP forum, no. 1 (January, 1981), p. 1. C o l l i e r , Robert. Regional Planning. Papers on Local Government, v . l , n.2. Vancouver: Centre for Continuing Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, [1970] . Crook, Christianna K. Environment and Land Use P o l i c i e s and  Practices of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Vols. 1 and 4. V i c t o r i a : B.C. Inst i t u t e for Economic Policy Analysis, 1975. Crook, Raymond L. i n collaboration with C.K. Crook. Towards  a Land Use Management Philosophy i n B.C. Paper pre-sented to the conference on Monitoring for Environmental Protection sponsored by Association of Professional Engineers of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Environmental Protection Service - Environment. Canada,: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, February 12-13, 1976. Distributed by the B r i t i s h Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee of Cabinet. .[Victoria.] Dexter, Lewis Anthony. E l i t e and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston, 111,: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Edwards, George C. I l l and Ira Sharkansky. The Policy Predicament. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1978. 181 Ervin, David E., J.B. F i t c h , R.K. Godwin, W.B. Shepard, and H.H. Stoevener. Land Use Control: Evaluating  Economic and P o l i t i c a l E f f e c t s . Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1977. Feldman, Lionel D. and Michael Goldrick, eds. P o l i t i c s and Government of Urban Canada: Selected Readings. Third e d i t i o n . Toronto: Methuen, 1976. Frankena, Mark W. and David T. Scheffman. Economic Analysis  of P r o v i n c i a l Land Use P o l i c i e s i n Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press for the Ontario Economic Council, 1980. "From Hay F i e l d to Thriving V i l l a g e . " 100 Mile Free Press, 14 May 1980, Special Supplement, "Cariboo C a l l i n g , " p. 3. Getzels, Judith and Charles Thurow, eds. Rural and Small  Town Planning. Chicago: APA Planners Press, 1980. Goodchild, Michael F. The Determinants of Land Capability. Occasional paper no. 7. Ottawa: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, 197 6. Godwin, R. Kenneth and W. Bruce Shepard. "State Land Use P o l i t i c s : Winners and Losers." Environmental Law 5 (Spring 1975):703-26. Gray, Edward C. A Preliminary Paper on Canadian A g r i c u l - t u r a l Land-Use Poli c y . Commissioned by the Food Prices Review Board. [Ottawa: Food Prices Review Boardl, February 1976. Halverson, Doug. "Local Planning for Rural B r i t i s h Columbia: Responding to the Metropolis." The paper presented to PIBC at Prince George, and CIP at Kitchener. PIBC News (Vancouver) 22 (October-November 1980):15-9. Hammer, Greene, S i l e r Associates, with PADCO Inc. Compre- hensive Planning Assistance i n the Small Community. Prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C.: Government Pr i n t i n g O f f i c e , March 1969. _______ Planning Effectiveness and "701" - An Evaluation. Prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g Office,. 1967. Harkness, Gary C. 'Letter: Defence of B.C.'s proposed Planning Act: "a balance between protecting l o c a l autonomy and managing p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t s " . ' CIP forum, no. 1 (January 1981), p. 2. 182 Higgins, Donald J.H. Urban Canada; Its Government and  P o l i t i c s . Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada, 1977. Hite, James C. Room and Situation; The P o l i t i c a l Economy  of Land-Use Po l i c y . Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1979. Holden, Matthew, J r . P o l l u t i o n Control as a Bargaining  Process; An Essay on Regulatory Decision-Making. Publication No. 9~. Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Water Resources Center, October 1966. Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research. The Urban Fringe i n the Western Provinces. Proceed-ings of a seminar which took place on February 26 and 27, 197 9, i n V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. ICURR Occasional Paper. Toronto, September 1979. Jacobson, Tom. "How Farmers Home Encourages Urban Sprawl." Planning 44 (October 1978):21-3. Kaiser, Edward J. and Shirley F. Weiss. "Public Policy and the Residential Development Process." Journal of  the American Inst i t u t e of Planners 36 (January 1970): 30-7. Krueger, Ralph R. "The Destruction of a Unique Renewable Resource: The Case of the Niagara F r u i t Belt." In Managing Canada's Renewable Resources, pp. 132-49. Edited by Ralph R. Krueger and Bruce M i t c h e l l . Toronto: Methuen, 1977. Lang, Reg and Audrey Armour. Environmental Planning Resource-book. Prepared for the Lands Directorate, Environment Canada. .[Ottawa]: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada i n Association with Supply and Services Canada and Multiscience Publications Ltd., 1980. Linowes, R. Robert and Don T. Allensworth. The P o l i t i c s of  Land Use: Planning, Zoning, and the Private Devel- oper . Praeger special studies i n U.S. economic, s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l issues. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973. McBride, George A. and Marion Clawson. "Negotiation and Land Conversion." Journal of the American Inst i t u t e  of Planners 36 (January 1970):22-9. McRae, James D. The Influence of Exurbanite Settlement on  Rural AreasT A Review of the Canadian Li t e r a t u r e . Working Paper No. 3~. [.Ottawa],.: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, March 1980. 183 Makielski, S.J., J r . The P o l i t i c s of Zoning: The New York  Experience. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Manning, Edward W. and J.D. McCuaig. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land and Urban Centres: An Overview of the Significance  of Urban Centres to Canada's Quality AgriculturaT  Land. Canada Land Inventory Report No. 11. [Ottawa] Lands Directorate, Fisheries and Environment Canada, July 1977. • and Sandra S. Eddy. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves of B r i t i s h Columbia: An Impact Analysis. Land Use in Canada Series, No. 13. [Ottawa]: Lands Direc-torate, Environment Canada, November 1978. and J.D. McCuaig with E.A. Lacoste. The Changing Value of Canada's Farmland: 1961-1976. Land Use i n Canada Series, No. 17. Ottawa: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, December 1979. Nowland, J.L. and J.A. McKeague, "Canada's Limited A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Resource." In Managing Canada's  Renewable Resources, pp. 109-18. ..Edited by Ralph R. Kreuger and Bruce M i t c h e l l . Toronto: Methuen, 1977. Ontario. White Paper on the Planning Act. Toronto, May 1979 Ontario Economic Council. Subject to Approval: A Review of  Municipal Planning i n Ontario. Carried out by Comay Planning Consultants Ltd.; PTs. R O S S and Partners; Proctor, Redfern Bousfield and Bacon. Edited by J.R. Bousfield. Toronto, 1973. Ontario. [Ministry of Agriculture and Food.] Food Land Guidelines: A Policy Statement of the Government of  Ontario on Planning for Agriculture, 1978. [Toronto]. Ontario. Planning Act Review Committee. Report of the Planning Act Review Committee. Toronto, A p r i l 1977. Ontario Institute of Agrologists. Foodland: Preservation  or Starvation - A Statement on Land Use Policy, n.p., June 1975. Owen, Bruce M. and Ronald Braeutigam. The Regulation Game:  Strategic Use of the Administrative Process. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1978. Popper, Frank J. "Land Use Reform: I l l u s i o n or Reality?" Planning, the ASPO Magazine 40 (September 1974):14-9. 184 Project Planning Associates. Planning for Smaller Towns:  A Report on Methods of Preparing Municipal Plans i n  Small Towns. London, September 1968. Qadeer, Mohammed A. "Issues and Approaches of Rural Community Planning i n Canada." Plan Canada 19 (June 1979) :106-21. Rawson, Mary. I l l Fares the Land. Land Use Management at  the Urban/Rural/Resource Edges: The B r i t i s h  Columbia Land Commission. Urban Prospects Series. [Ottawal: The Macmillan Co. of Canada for the Ministry of State for Urban A f f a i r s , 1976. "What's Happening to the Land Commission? PIBC News (Vancouver) 21 (January-March 1980):9-10. Rees, William E. The Canada Land Inventory Program: A Conceptual Framework for Regional Land-Use Planning. Vancouver:, Centre for Continuing Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, with the co-operation of the Union of B r i t i s h Columbia Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s , 1973. Rodd, R.S. and W. VanVuuren. "A New Methodology i n Country-side Planning." A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use i n Canada: Proceedings of the 1975 Workshop of the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Society Held at Banff, Alberta, March, 1975. Canadian Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l  Economics 23 (1975):109-40. Rogers, David L. and Larry R. Whiting, eds. Rural Policy  Research Alternatives. Papers of a Conference Held A p r i l 22-23, 1975 at Iowa State University. Ames: The Iowa State University Press, 1978. Rondinelli, Dennis A. Urban and Regional Development Planning: Policy and Administration. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975. Runka, C. Gary. " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Rights: Who Has the Re-s p o n s i b i l i t y ? " Agrologist 4 (Autumn 1975):19-21. Russwurm, Lorne H. The Surroundings of Our C i t i e s : Problems and Planning Implications of Urban Fringe  Landscapes. Ottawa: Community Planning Press, A p r i l 1977. Schultz, Richard. "Regulatory Agencies and the Canadian P o l i t i c a l System." In Public Administration i n  Canada: Selected Readings, 3rd ed., pp. 332-343. Edited by Kenneth Kernaghan. Toronto: Methuen, 1977. 185 Self, Peter. Administrative Theories and P o l i t i c s : An Inquiry into the Structure and Processes of Modern  Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973. Spicer, Richard B. Increasing State and Regional Power i n  the Development Process. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 255. Chicago: American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , March 1970. Susskind, Lawrence. "Should State Government Mandate Local Planning? . . .No. [. . . i n original],." Planning 44 (July 1978):17-20. Tindal, C.R. and S. Nobes Tindal. Local Government i n  Canada, An Introduction. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979. Toner, William. Saving Farms and Farmland: A Community  Guide. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 333. Chicago: American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , July 1978. Union of B r i t i s h Columbia M u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Minutes of the  73rd Annual Convention of the Union of BritisrT  Columbia Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Held at Vancouver, B r i t i s h  Columbia on September 15th, 16th and 17th, 1976. [New Westminster], n.d. __. Minutes of the 74th Annual Convention of the Union of B r i t i s h Columbia M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Held at  Vernon, B r i t i s h Columbia on September 21st., 22nd.,  and 23rd. , 1977. .[New Westminster!, n.d. Williams, Roger and David Bates. "Technical Decisions and Public Accountability." Canadian Public Administra-t i o n 19 (Winter 1976):604-32. I General Works - Unpublished Arcus, Peter L. "Some Thoughts on B i l l - 4 2 (An Act to Establ i s h a P r o v i n c i a l Land Commission)." Vancouver: Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, March, 1973. (Mimeographed.) B r i t i s h Columbia Federation of Agriculture. "Guidelines for the Farmer Advisors to the B.C. Land Commission Nominated by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture." [Victoria] , n.d. (Mimeographed.) 186 Davis, H. Craig and William E. Rees. "Agriculture and Uncertainty - Keeping the Options Open." Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, July 1977. (Mimeographed.) Fumalle, M.J. "Public Policy and the Preservation of A g r i c u l t u r a l land i n the Southern Okanagan Valley." M.A. thesis, University of V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Hodge, Gerald and Mohammed A. Qadeer. "Towns and V i l l a g e s i n Urban Canada: A Report Prepared for Canadian P a r t i c i p a t i o n Secretariat for Habitat 1976." [Ottawa!: Ministry of State for Urban A f f a i r s , March 1976. (Mimeographed.) Planning Institute of B r i t i s h Columbia. "Brief re: Proposed Planning Act." Submitted by the Planning Institute of B r i t i s h Columbia to the Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s , Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver, 197 9. (Mimeographed.) Runka, C. Gary. "Overview: Planning for Rural Land." Address delivered at Canadian Institute of Planners Annual Conference, Kitchener-Waterloo, June 1980. (Typewritten.) Smith, Barry Edward. "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - 1973." M.A. thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. B r i t i s h Columbia Government - Published B r i t i s h Columbia. Environment and Land Use Committee. Approvals Procedures for Land Development. 2nd ed. [Victoria],, 1979. Resource and Environmental Planning i n B r i t i s h Columbia. [ V i c t o r i a ] , 1975 B r i t i s h Columbia. Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat. Resource Planning Unit. A Land Use  Planning Framework. Prepared i n co-operation with the Resource Analysis Branch, Ministry of the Environment. [ V i c t o r i a ] , July 1977. B r i t i s h Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture. Agriculture  S t a t i s t i c s Yearbook, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978. V i c t o r i a , [1979J. Let's Be Good Neighbours. V i c t o r i a , September 197 71 [Pamphlet.] 187 B r i t i s h Columbia. Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s . Annual Report 1978: Report for the Year Ended December 31,  1978. V i c t o r i a , n.d. . The Planning Act: A Discussion Paper. .[Victoria, September 1980J. _________ S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Regional and Municipal Governments i n B r i t i s h Columbia, June 1980. V i c t o r i a , June 1980. B r i t i s h Columbia. Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s . Planning Services D i v i s i o n . Technical Guide for the Preparation  of O f f i c i a l Settlement Plans. Approved by the Tech-n i c a l Committee to the Environment and Land Use Committee of Cabinet on October 27, 1978 for use by pr o v i n c i a l agencies and regional d i s t r i c t s recognizing that the system of regional d i s t r i c t s i s currently under review by the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia. [Victoria]., A p r i l 1979. B r i t i s h Columbia. Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s and Housing. Annual Report 1977: Report for the Year Ended  December 31, 1977. V i c t o r i a , n.d. B r i t i s h Columbia. Regional D i s t r i c t Review Committee. Report of the Committee. V i c t o r i a : Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s and Housing, October 1978. B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission. Keeping the Options Open. -[Burnaby, 19751 . B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve S t a t i s t i c s , October 1, 1978. Burnaby, n.d. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve S t a t i s t i c s , A p r i l 1, 1980. [Burnaby,].1980,. Annual Report, Year Ended March 31, 1978 Burnaby, 1978. . Annual Report, Year Ended March 31, 197 9 Burnaby, 1979. Annual Report, Year Ended March 31, 1980 Burnaby, 1980. . The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve: Protecting B.C.'s Farmland. Prepared by J.W. Sawicki. Burnaby, 1979. B r i t i s h Columbia Pr o v i n c i a l Land Commission. Annual Report, A p r i l 1, 1973 - March 31, 1974. [Burnaby], n.d. 188 _. Annual Report/ A p r i l 1, 1974-March 31, 1975. Burnaby, 1975. _. Annual Report, A p r i l 1, 1975-March 31, 1976. Burnaby, 1976. _. Annual Report, Year Ended March 31, 1977. Burnaby, 1977. B r i t i s h Columbia Government - Unpublished B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of Agriculture. "Background Paper, B i l l 42." 8 March 1973. Quoted i n Barry Edward Smith. "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - 1973," pp. 52-4, 122. M.A. thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Quoted i n M.J. Fumalle. "Public Policy and the Preservation of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n the Southern Okanagan Valley," p. 192. M.A. thesis, University of V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission. .["Land Commission Act Handbook." Burnaby, 1973.1. B r i t i s h Columbia Provincial A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. Correspondence f i l e s . Application f i l e numbers "Armstrong" 91-T-74-02508, 91-T-75-02564, 92-T-76-02609; "Keremeos" 91-V-75-02565, O/B-V-77-04286, 91(b)-V-78-05883; "Merritt" 91- ZZ-77-4045; "100 Mile House" 91-D-75-02551; 92- D-79-09097; "Salmon Arm" 91-H-75-02545; 91-H-75-02556, O/B-H-75-02330, O/B-H-78-05884, 91-H-78-06490, 91a-H-79-09782. . Correspondence f i l e s . Plan review f i l e numbers "Keremeos" PL-V-80-09991; "Merritt" PL-Zz-79-08298; "100 Mile House" PL-D-79-09449; "Salmon Arm" PL-H-80-09990; "Vernon" PL-T-80-11338. [ B r i t i s h Columbia Pr o v n i c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission.,] "General Flowchart for ALC Fine Tuning Projects." [Burnaby], n.d. (Mimeographed.) . "Points for Applicants to Consider." [Burnaby], October 1979. (Mimeographed.) [ B r i t i s h Columbia Pr o v i n c i a l Land Commission],. "Hearings Held i n Conjunction with the Land Commission Act and Regulations." ,[Burnaby] , July 1976. (Typewritten) 189 Gram, Gordon. B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission s t a f f . Informal talk to students at School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 15 November 1979. Kinnear, A.C. Chairman, B r i t i s h Columbia Pr o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. "Address to B.C. F r u i t Growers Association Annual Convention." 23 January 1980. (Typewritten) B r i t i s h Columbia Le g i s l a t i o n and Regulations B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Environment and Land Use Act. S.B.C. 1971, c. 17. . A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. S.B.C. 197 3, c. 46 as amended by S.B.C. 1977, c. 73. ' Revenue Sharing Act. S.B.C. 1977, c. 62. B r i t i s h Columbia. Revised Statutes of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 9. . Municipal Act. R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290. B r i t i s h Columbia. Regulations. B.C. Reg. 4/73: Prohibiting  Subdivision of Farmland. Order i n Council 4483, Approved December 21, 1972, pursuant to the Environ-ment and Land Use Act. B.C. Reg. 19/73: Extending Application of B.C.  Reg.~4/73 - Subdivision of Farm Land. Order i n Council 157, Approved January 18, 1973, pursuant to the Environment and Land Use Act. _ _ _ _ _ _ B.C. Reg. 147/73: Amending B.C. Reg. 1973 -Subdivision of Farm Land [.Building Permits].. Order i n Council 1890, Approved June 4, 1973, pursuant to the Environment and Land Use Act. ' ' B.C. Reg. 60/74: Applications under Land Commission Act. Order i n Council 353, Approved and Ordered January 31, 1974, pursuant to the Land Commission Act. • B.C. Reg. 4 94/74: Applications to include land "Tn an A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Order i n Council 2412, Approved and Ordered July 19, 1974, pursuant to the Land Commission Act. 190 _. B.C. Reg. 93/75: A. Subdivision [and] B. Land ---Use. Order i n Council 420, Approved and Ordered January 30, 1975, pursuant to the Land Commission Act. _. B.C. Reg. 313/78: A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve  Procedure Regulation. Order i n Council 1979, Approved and Ordered July 27, 1978, pursuant to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. Local Government Plan Documents Armstrong. City of Armstrong O f f i c i a l Community Plan. Prepared by Stanley Associates Engineering. July 1979. Columbia Shuswap Regional D i s t r i c t . Deep Creek - Canoe  Creek O f f i c i a l Sub-Regional Plan By-law, No. 304. [Salmon Arm], Adopted 17 January 1980. Keremeos. Keremeos' Community and Settlement Plan. ,[Draft prepared by Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department.] December 1979. . "Keremeos Community Plan [Map]." Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department. [ca.May 1980.] . "Objectives and P o l i c i e s of Keremeos' Community and Settlement Plan." [Draft prepared by Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department.] December 1979. Merri t t . Town of Merritt O f f i c i a l Community Plan. Prepared by Gordon Petersen et a l . , .[Urban Systems Ltd.} . March 1979. North Okanagan Regional D i s t r i c t . ,[Draft] O f f i c i a l S e t t l e - ment Plan Report: Schedule "A" to "Regional D i s t r i c t  of North Okanagan O f f i c i a l Settlement Plan By-Law No.  405, 1981". {Vernon, 1981). 100 Mile House. 100 Mile House O f f i c i a l Settlement/Community  Plan Draft. Prepared by Urban Programme Planners, R.E. Mann Ltd. December 1979, Revised 11 February 1980. Salmon Arm. O f f i c i a l Community Plan, D i s t r i c t of Salmon  Arm, Bylaw No. 1310. Prepared by Urban Programme Planners. Adopted 24 September 1979. January 1980. Vernon. Plan Vernon. Third Draft. December 1980. 191 Interviews Cornelissen, John. Planner, Regional D i s t r i c t of Okanagan-Similkameen, Pehticton. Interview, 27 May 1980. Den Boer, Leo. Clerk, City of Merritt, M e r r i t t . Interview, 5 June 1980. Harrington, Mr. Dayton and Knight, Ltd., West Vancouver. Interview, 14 May 1980. Kirton, M. Mayor, City of Armstrong, Armstrong. Interview, 28 May 1980. Lainsbury, John. Planner, Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd., Vernon. Interview, 27 May 1980. Lawrence, Stuart. Engineer, Stanley Associates Engineering, Ltd., Kamloops. Interview, 21 May 1980. Mann, Ron. Planner, Urban Programme Planners, R.E. Mann Ltd., Vancouver. Interview, 13 May 1980. Marks, Ross. Mayor, V i l l a g e of 100 Mile House, 100 Mile House. Interview, 4 June 1980. Peck, Frances. Mayor, V i l l a g e of Keremeos, Keremeos. Inter-view, 26 May 1980. P e l l e t t , Tony. Planning Director, Regional D i s t r i c t of Columbia-Shuswap, Salmon Arm. Interview, 30 May 1980. Petersen, Gordon. Planner, Urban Systems Ltd., Kamloops. Interview, 2 June 1980. Rawson, Mary. Former member, Pr o v i n c i a l Land Commission, Vancouver. Interview, 13 May 1980. Rosen, Michael. Planner, Urban Programme Planners, R.E. Mann Ltd., Vancouver. Interview, 13 May 1980. Runka, C. Gary. Former general manager, member, and chairman, Provincial A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, Burnaby. Interview, 25 September 1980. Sutherland, John. Planning O f f i c e r , D i s t r i c t Municipality of Salmon Arm, Salmon Arm. Interview, 30 May 1980. APPENDIX 1 COMPARISON OF SELECTED SECTIONS, AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT, 1973, AND 1979 VERSIONS S.B.C. 1973, c. 46 Contents 1973 After 1977 Amendments R.S.B.C, c. 9 Notes P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission -membership -term of o f f i c e 2,3 2,3 2,3 1977 amendments provided f o r appointment or regional ad-v i s e r s ; Act and Commission now tagged " A g r i c u l t u r a l " . Agent of the Crown, S t a f f , Bylaws 4,5,6 4,5,6 4,5,6 Objects A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves Established -Commission may designate with cabinet approval -Regional d i s t r i c t board with or without municipal assistance to adopt land reserve plan and f i l e with Commission -hearing to precede adoption -Commission may designate plan as Reserve with cabinet approval -Commission may recommend amendments of plan to cabinet, and may designate as Reserve with cabinet approval - i f r e g i o nal d i s t r i c t f a i l s to submit a plan -approval -pending Reserve designation, land zoned for a g r i c u l t u r e deemed Reserve land 7(1) (a)-(hl) 8(1) 8(2) 8(3),(4) 8(5) 8(6) 8(7)-(9) 8(10) 8(11) 7(a)-(c) 8(1) 8(2) 8(3) 8(5) 8(6) 8(7)-(9) 8(11) 8 (11) 7(a)-(c) 1977, c. 73 removed objectes rel a t e d to non- a g r i c u l t u r a l land. 9(1) 9(2) 9(4)-(6) 10(1) 10(2) Contents S.B.C. 1973, c. 46 R.S.B.C, c. 9 Notes 1973 A f t e r 1977 Amendments Inclusion Before 1977, a l l i n c l u s i o n s were c a r r i e d out under B.C. -block l o c a l government a p p l i c a t i o n — 8 (12) 10(3) Reg. 494/74. -hearing — 8(13) 10(4) -private a p p l i c a t i o n — 8(14) 10(5) Block l o c a l government exclusion 9(1) 9(1) (a) 11(1) Block a p p l i c a t i o n for non-farm use or s u b d i v i s i o n — 9(1)(b) 11(2) Before 1977, l o c a l governments applied under B.C. Reg. 93/75 or section 11 of the Act. -publi c hearing held by l o c a l govern-ment applicant — 9(1) 11(3) Applies to exclusion and use Private a p p l i c a t i o n for exclusion by a p p l i c a t i o n s . owner 9(2) 9(2) 12(1) -hearing by Commission 9(3),(4) 9(3) 12(2) -Commission decides 9(3) , (4) 9(3)(a),(b) 12(2) -Commission may grant non-farm use — 9(4) 9(3) or subdivision -land previously zoned a g r i c u l t u r a l 9(5) 9(5) 9(4) requires l o c a l government consent -decision i n w r i t i n g and relevant 9(6) 9(6) 9(5) documents a v a i l a b l e to owner Private appeal to ELUC* 9(7) 9(7) 13(1) -subject to a u t h o r i z a t i o n of l o c a l 9(7) (a) government -subject to leave granted by 2 Commission 9(7)(b) 9(7) 13(1) members •Environment & Land Use Committee of cabinet. S.B.C. 1973, c. 46 Contents 1973 After 1977 Amendments R.S.B.C, c. 9 Notes -may apply to Minister f or leave to appeal i f Commission refuses to grant -ELUC may receive any evidence provided i t i s a v a i l a b l e to applicant -ELUC decis i o n , award of costs -Commission may be party 9(8) 9(9) 9(10) 9(8) 9(9) 9(10) 13(2) 13(3) 9(4) Amending A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve Plan following exclusion and n o t i f i c a t i o n of l o c a l government 9(11) 9(11) 14 A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves i n farm use and occupancy only, unless permitted by Act, regulations, Commission and subject to conditions 10(1) 10(1) 15(1),(2) -endorsement on c e r t i f i c a t e of t i t l e -covenant i n favour of Commission -caveat reg i s t e r e d 10(2) 10(2) 15(3),(4) P r o h i b i t i o n of authorization of non-farm use or subdivision r e g i s t r a t i o n of ALR land except as permitted by Act, regulations or Commission order 10(4) 10(4) 16, 18 Does not apply to e x i s t i n g parcels under 2 acres 11(1) 11(1) 19(1) E x i s t i n g non-farm uses may continue u n t i l changed or land transferred 11(2), (3) 11(2) 19(2) After 1977, non-farm use permitted to continue a f t e r transfer of land S.B.C. 1973, c. 46 Contents 1973 A f t e r 1977 Amendments R.S.B.C, c. 9 Notes Ap p l i c a t i o n for non-farm use or subdivi s i o n , no appeal 11(4) 11(4) 20(1) -where previously zoned for farm use by l o c a l government, a u t h o r i z a t i o n required before a p p l i c a t i o n -appeal to Supreme Court on law or l l ( 4 a ) 11(5) l l ( 4 a ) 11(5) 20 (2) 21 j u r i s d i c t i o n 196 APPENDIX 2 PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT: CONTENT Regulation No. Repealed by: Content 445/73 60/74 313/78 494/74 313/78 93/75 A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve Plan procedures. Application procedures, i n -cluding forms, n o t i f i c a t i o n s , r e f e r r a l s ; inclusions not covered u n t i l amendment by 494/74; block exclusion pro-cedures do not specify Commission processing. Amendment to 60/74 to cover inclusions. Subdivision permitted under certai n conditions; outright uses permitted; conditional uses not reducing a g r i c u l t u r a l potential or i n the public i n t e r e s t . 313/78 Application procedures, including forms, n o t i f i c a t i o n s , r e f e r r a l s . 197 APPENDIX 3 POLICY CIRCULARS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS The B r i t i s h Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet (ELUC), the B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission (BCPALC) and the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s have issued a series of pol i c y memoranda to l o c a l governments. Topics have included the preparation of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Re-serve plans by regional d i s t r i c t s , exclusion application pro-cedures, and community and settlement plan p o l i c i e s regarding Reserve lands. (The B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission i s abbreviated variously i n thi s Appendix as "BCLC," "BCPLC," and "BCPALC" according to the style of the documents cited.) Issuing Agency Date ELUC & BCLC 29 May 1973 BCLC 11 July 1973 BCLC BCPLC 21 Mar. 1974 6 Sept. 1974 BCPALC Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s BCPALC Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s 14 July 1978 28 Mar. 1979 11 Apr. 1979 14 Aug. 1979 Subject Matter Transition procedures, from "land freeze" to Reserve designation, including land freeze appeals by l o c a l governments and l o c a l government input to Reserve designation plans. Procedures and p o l i c i e s regarding preparation of Reserve plans by regional d i s t r i c t s , and municipal input. Commission p o l i c i e s and l o c a l government exclusion applications. Procedures for l o c a l government exclusion applications under section 9(1) of the Land Commission Act. Community and Settlement plans and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Local government o f f i c i a l plans and bylaws and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. C o n f l i c t between Reserves and l o c a l land use l e g i s l a t i o n and proper l o c a l l e g i s l a t i o n . C o n f l i c t between community plans and Commission p o l i c i e s and proper plan p o l i c i e s . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078418/manifest

Comment

Related Items