Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The municipal subdivision approval process in metropolitan Vancouver Young, Gary Arthur 1974

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A4_6 Y69.pdf [ 7.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093122.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093122-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093122-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093122-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093122-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093122-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093122-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093122-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093122.ris

Full Text

THE MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS IN METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER  by GARY ARTHUR YOUNG B.A.  (Economics) U n i v e r s i t y  pf B . C . , 1971  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUSINESS  ADMINISTRATION  i n the Department •f Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  Lie accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforminq to require[j_P»st^dard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL, 191k  the  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s requirements f o r Columbia,  thesis in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of  I agree that the l i b r a r y  s h a l l make i t  f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y .  I further  extensive  thesis for scholarly  copying of t h i s  i s understood that  freely  British available  agree that p e r m i s s i o n  granted by the head of my department or by h i s It  of the  for  purposes may be representatives.  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 u i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada.  Date  (i)  ABSTRACT  The supply of s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g  lots  in  Metropolitan  Vancouver i s f a l l i n g short of the demand f o r s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g l o t s f o r the purpose of r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n .  The amount of  time r e q u i r e d f o r the process of approval of a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n s of rau land i n t o  serviced r e s i d e n t i a l building  an important f a c t o r uhich a f f e c t s the r a t e of supply of building  lots uithin  a municipality.  It  major  lots  is  serviced  i s the purpose of  this  paper to examine the m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n approval process i n a sample of m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to determine whether the time r e q u i r e d f o r  approval of a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n  raw land i n t o s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g  lots  i s i n c r e a s i n g i n these  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s hence c r e a t i n g a delay i n the supply of building  of  residential  lots. T h i s problem was analyzed by c o l l e c t i n g  the market c o n d i t i o n s of supply and demand f o r  data to  residential  u n i t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver by assembling a v a i l a b l e regarding dwelling u n i t s t a r t s , Major d e v e l o p e r s ,  dwelling  information  p o p u l a t i o n growth and income l e v e l s .  c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s , m u n i c i p a l planners and  m u n i c i p a l engineers were interviewed t a b l e s were drawn up where p o s s i b l e (1)  identify  the time r e q u i r e d f o r  and p r o c e s s e s , c h a r t s and indicating:  the p r o c e s s i n g of  applications  i n four M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n 1971, 1972 and 1973, (2)  the a c t u a l s u b d i v i s i o n approval process i n these municipalities,  (ii)  (3)  significant  A l l of the s i g n i f i c a n t  c o n s t r a i n t s r e l a t i n g to each p r o c e d u r e .  components of the procedures of the four  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s uere assembled i n t o three b a s i c p r o c e d u r e s : s u b d i v i s i o n approval procedure,  a procedure i n v o l v i n g  amendment, and a procedure i n v o l v i n g  a general  a zoning  land use c o n t r a c t s .  These  procedures uere c l o s e l y analyzed and recommendations uere made regarding s o l u t i o n s It  to problems found.  was found that the time r e q u i r e d f o r  approval Df a p p l i c -  a t i o n s had i n c r e a s e d i n some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s betueen 1971 and 1973 resulting  i n a delay i n the supply of b u i l d i n g  these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . constraint used.  l o t s produced i n  Land Use Contracts uere found to be a major  o p e r a t i n g u i t h i n the approval process uherever  The f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and the  making process of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are c i t e d as p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s uhich could operate as a c o n s t r a i n t  they uere  decision external  on the o p e r a t i o n of  the  m u n i c i p a l approval process and are suggested areas of f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .  (iii)  TABLE OF CONTENTS  CHAPTER I  PAGE INTRODUCTION  1  The Problem The S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Problem Hypotheses L i m i t a t i o n s of Study Procedure i n Development of T h e s i s II  SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR HOUSING ANALYSIS Summary of Supply E f f e c t of Surplus E f f e c t of Surplus Housing U n i t s  III  1 1 2 3 k  THEORETICAL 7  and Demand Demand on Land P r i c i n g . . . . Demand on the Supply of to the Market  SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN VANCOUVER  10 12 16  METROPOLITAN 20  Demand f o r Housing as a Function o f Income.. Demand f o r Housing as a Function of Population The Supply of Housing i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver IV  THE SUPPLY OF SERVICED RESIDENTIAL DUELLING SITES - AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTORS DETERMINING QUANTITATIVE EXPECTATIONS OF INCREMENTS TO EXISTING HOUSING STOCK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICED RESIDENTIAL DUELLING SITES S t a t i c A n a l y s i s of the R e s i d e n t i a l Unit Supply Process  TIME REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL S e l e c t i o n of M u n i c i p a l i t i e s P i t t Meadows Richmond D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam Surrey  25 28  ,  38  Duelling  Dynamic A n a l y s i s of the R e s i d e n t i a l Unit Supply Process V  21  38  k5 52 52 52 53 5k 5<+  (iv)  CHAPTER  PAGE  Analysis division  of Time Required f o r SubApproval i n Each M u n i c i p a l i t y  Richmond P i t t Meadows D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam Surrey VI  55 60 65 68  THE MUNICIPAL APPROVAL PROCESS General S u b d i v i s i o n  55  78  Procedure  82  Stage I Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage  Stage Stage Stage Stage  - P r e p a r a t i o n f o r an Informal Meeting II - The Informal Meeting III - Preliminary Application IV - Processing of P r e l i m i n a r y Application V - Application for F i n a l Approval. VI - M u n i c i p a l Review of the Application for F i n a l Approval VII - The Development or ( s e r v i c i n g ) Agreement V I I I - Approval of F i n a l Plan IX - R e g i s t r a t i o n of S u b d i v i s i o n . . X - F i l i n g f o r Prospectus  Subdivision Amendment Stage IV  Analysis  83 B<+  85 86 87 87 88  Approval Procedure With a Zoning 89 - M u n i c i p a l P r o c e s s i n g of Preliminary Application  S u b d i v i s i o n Approval Process I n v o l v i n g a Land Use Contract Stage IV  82 82 83  - Municipal Processing Application  89  90  of  of General Procedure  92 Sk  Stage IV of General Procedure Stage V of General Procedure Stage VI of General Procedure  95 96 100  A n a l y s i s of Zoning By-law Amendments Procedure  102  Analysis  10k  of Land Use Contract  Procedure....  (v)  CHAPTER VII  PAGE THE MUNICIPAL PROBLEM The F i n a n c i a l Position of M u n i c i p a l i t i e s . .  112  Policy Considerations For the P r o v i n c i a l Government  119  Development of Municipal Planning P o l i c i e s  120  The P o l i t i c a l Decision Making Process VIII  I l l  CONCLUSIONS  ' 123 128  Areas f o r Future Research  129  APPENDICES Appendix A - l  Appendix B - l  Appendix B-2  Appendix C - l  Appendix C-2  - General Subdivision Approval Procedure for P i t t Meadows Including a Zoning Amendment..  131  - General Subdivision Approval Procedure f a r the Corporation of the Township of Richmond...  136  - Subdivision Approval Procedure for Richmond when an Amendment to a Zoning By-law i s Required  1U1  - General Subdivision Approval Procedure for the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam  Ikk  - Subdivision Approval Procedure for the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam with a Zoning By-law Amendment  Appendix D-l - General Subdivision Approval Procedure for the D i s t r i c t of Surrey Appendix D-2  Appendix E BIBLIOGRAPHY  - Subdivision Approval Procedure Involving a Change i n Land Use i n Surrey - Administrative Check L i s t f o r Hypothetical Municipality  l<+8  151  158 163 167  (vi)  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE 1  2  PAGE Existing Time  D u e l l i n g Stock P r i c e Rises  Throughout 13  E f f e c t of Leverage on R e s i d e n t i a l D u e l l i n g Site Prices  Ik  3  E f f e c t of Leverage on Rau Land P r i c e s  15  k  Negative  5  The P r i c e s of Homes i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver R e l a t i v e to the Average Incomes of I n d u s t r i a l Workers i n B . C . 1963-1973  22  Household Formation and D u e l l i n g Unit betueen 1961 and 1976  28  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  lk  Leverage  IS  Starts  Residential Building Activity - Duelling S t a r t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver 1967-1973  29  R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g A c t i v i t y - S i n g l e Family D u e l l i n g S t a r t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver 1967 to 1973  30  Residential Building Activity - Multiple D u e l l i n g S t a r t s M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver 1967-1973  31  Cost of C o n s t r u c t i o n of S i n g l e Family D u e l l i n g s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver 1960-1973  3k  Average p r i c e of a t y p i c a l i n the GVRD 196-4-1973  35  serviced  lot  The cost of housing i n the GVRD i n terms of b u i l d i n g c o s t s and s e r v i c e d land p r i c e s 196*4-1973  36  Major S u b d i v i s i o n Under C o n s t r u c t i o n Richmond August 1973  56  A sample of s m a l l s u b d i v i s i o n s before September 1973  in  approved 56  A p p l i c a t i o n s and approvals f o r s e r v i c e d l o t s i n the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam 1970-1973 A p p l i c a t i o n s and approvals l o t s i n Surrey 1965-1973  for  serviced  P o p u l a t i o n and Household C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Idoodbridge Community on the LUoodbridge Subdivision... Property  Tax Base f o r UJoodbridge  1965-1966  (viii)  LIST OF FIGURES  FIGURE 1  PAGE I n t e r a c t i o n s o f Supply and Demand f o r t h e Housing Stock  11  2  F e r t i l i t y Rates  25  3  Diagram o f the S t a t i c A n a l y s i s o f t h e R e s i d e n t i a l D u e l l i n g U n i t Supply P r o c e s s . . . P i c t o r i a l R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the Dynamic Analysis of Residential Duelling Unit Supply P r o c e s s  <+6  5  G e n e r a l A p p r o v a l Procedure  79  6  A p p r o v a l Procedure u i t h a Zoning Change....  8D  7  A p p r o v a l Procedure u i t h Land Use C o n t r a c t . .  81  k  39  (ix)  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The engineers, who  w r i t e r w i s h e s t o thank a l l m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s and p r i v a t e developers  and p r i v a t e c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s ,  provided the i n f o r m a t i o n necessary  dissertation.  h i s wife Lark,  for their  her h e l p i n e d i t i n g , final  this  He i s e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l t o P r o f e s s o r S t a n l e y  H a m i l t o n f o r h i s a d v i c e and d i r e c t i o n , and  t o complete  draft of this  to his fellow  assistance, to Eleni  students  Gardiner f o r  a n d t o M r s . M. Brown r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t y p i n g t h e thesis.  CHAPTER I  INTRODUCTION  The Problem T h i s study  is  an attempt to determine t h a t a shortage  supply of s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g duellings lots  lots  for  development Df s i n g l e  i n the louer mainland of B. C. r e l a t i v e  exists  and to i d e n t i f y  of  family  to demand f o r  the m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n  approval  cedure i n the louer mainland of B. C. as one of the causes of shortage of  such pro-  the  supply.  The S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Problem The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s problem i s that available for for  housing c o n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t i v e  housing the r e s u l t  added to the e x i s t i n g  i s a reduction stock.  that determines the p r i c e if  i n the number Df d u e l l i n g  i s the standing stock of  levels  levels  f o r housing u i l l  relative  thus,  of standing  in stock.  cause an i n c r e a s e  i n the p r i c e of rau and s e r v i c e d land as vendors of rau or land are i n a p o s i t i o n uhere there  serviced  i s a shortage of s e r v i c e d  land  to the demand f o r s e r v i c e d land and purchasers of t h i s  can a f f o r d to pay more money f o r  this  units  housing  stock are inadequate an i n c r e a s e  cause an i n c r e a s e i n the p r i c e  The i n c r e a s e d market p r i c e  to the i n c r e a s i n g demand  l e v e l s of housing i n the market,  increments to the e x i s t i n g  demand u i l l  It  as l e s s land i s made  land  land as the i n c r e a s e i n the  -2-  market p r i c e D f housing u i l l serviced land.  permit an i n c r e a s e i n the p r i c e  In e f f e c t the shortage of supply of s e r v i c e d land  places i n c r e a s i n g pressure on the p r i c e of land f o r ment.  A further  immediate d e v e l o p -  e f f e c t may be that the b u i l d e r of a home Dn the  more expensive s e r v i c e d land may b u i l d the most expensive u n i t p o s s i b l e to take f u l l  duelling  advantage of the h i g h e s t market p r i c e as  determined by the market of e x i s t i n g profit.  of  s t o c k , maximizing h i s  builder's  Thus the supply of louer p r i c e d homes may be reduced u n t i l  the supply of expensive homes s a t i s f i e s the demand. Hypotheses The hypotheses that are i n v e s t i g a t e d focus on the problem of a shortage of supply of r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g l o t s  in Metropolitan  Vancouver u i t h r e f e r e n c e to the amount of time r e q u i r e d f o r  the  m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n approval procedure i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to complete one of i t s major f u n c t i o n s uhich i s p r o c e s s i n g of a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n of rau land i n t o building  l o t s f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of s i n g l e f a m i l y  serviced  duellings.  The f i r s t hypothesis to be analyzed asks the q u e s t i o n : there a shortage of r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g l o t s r e l a t i v e for r e s i d e n t i a l building lots  the  Is  to the demand  i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver?  The second hypothesis concerns uhether the m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n approval process i n c e r t a i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver m u n i c i p a l ities  i s becoming l e s s e f f i c i e n t r e q u i r i n g more time to complete i t s  f u n c t i o n than i t  r e q u i r e d i n previous y e a r s .  The s i g n i f i c a n c e of  t h i s p o s t u l a t i o n i s that the production of s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g  lots  i s being delayed i n these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s thus reducing the supply  of  -3-  building  l o t s produced i n c e r t a i n time p e r i o d s . A t h i r d and f i n a l hypothesis asks i f  the use of Land Use  Contracts i n c e r t a i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the process of approval of s u b d i v i s i o n s of rau land i n t o s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g family duellings r e s t r i c t s  lots  for  single  the o p e r a t i o n of the approval procedure  i n these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s hence i n c r e a s i n g the time r e q u i r e d f o r division  sub-  approval.  L i m i t a t i o n s of Study The f i r s t not provide  l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s  study i s the f a c t that i t  does  an e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s of the production of s e r v i c e d  by M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  The number of  f o r s u b d i v i s i o n of rau land i n terms of b u i l d i n g  lots  lots  applications  are  identified  i n a feu m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , houever the a c t u a l performance of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n terms of the number of l o t s versus the l o t s  actually  initially  processed  approved f o r each year betueen 1970 and  1973 are not s u f f i c i e n t l y  documented.  A second l i m i t a t i o n i s that there are many c o n s t r a i n t s operate u i t h i n  and e x t e r n a l to the s u b d i v i s i o n approval procedure  that are not researched i n t h i s external  constraint  municipality,  uhich  dissertation.  A very  significant  i s the planning and f i n a n c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of the  particularly  the impact of m u n i c i p a l f i n a n c e problems  or m u n i c i p a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l problems upon the o p e r a t i o n of the municipal subdivision  approval p r o c e s s .  Other c o n s t r a i n t s  not researched are the s i g n i f i c a n c e of p r o v i n c i a l  authority  procedures and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , u i t h to the o p e r a t i o n of approval procedures i n M e t r o p o l i t a n  that  are  approval  reference Vancouver  -k-  municipalities. Procedure i n Development of Chapter II  Thesis  introduces  and demand p r o v i d i n g  a t h e o r e t i c a l market a n a l y s i s of  a frameuork f o r examination of e m p i r i c a l  r e l a t e d to the supply  and demand f o r  housing u n i t s  in  supply findings  Metropolitan  Vancouver. In Chapter III  the demand and supply f o r  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and supply of s i n g l e  are analyzed s e p a r a t e l y  family d u e l l i n g s .  starts  for  stock f i g u r e s  in  i n terms of demand  P o p u l a t i o n and income  are used to e s t a b l i s h a l e v e l of demand. ing to e x i s t i n g  duelling units  figures  Supply i s determined a c c o r d -  based on census data and d u e l l i n g  a l l c a t e g o r i e s of d u e l l i n g u n i t s  in Metropolitan  unit  Vancouver  betueen 1967 and 1973 as compiled by C e n t r a l Mortage and Housing Corporation.  Single family duelling unit s t a r t s  of a m a j o r i t y  of the supply of s e r v i c e d r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g  This  i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e l a t e d to the h i s t o r i c a l  are assumed i n d i c a t i v e  t r e n d of average house  p r i c e s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver betueen 1967 and 1973 to the present market c o n d i t i o n s  of supply  determine  and demand.  Chapter IV r e l a t e s the supply of housing to a s t a t i c dynamic a n a l y s i s i n order be a t t r i b u t e d critical  to determine the r e l e v a n t  factors  to reducing the supply production p r o c e s s .  areas are i d e n t i f i e d  lots.  i n the dynamic process of  1)  The assembly of rau land  2)  The m u n i c i p a l approval process  3)  The c o n s t r u c t i o n process u i t h regard to the of d u e l l i n g s i t e s .  The m u n i c i p a l approval process i s s e l e c t e d f o r  intensive  and that may  Three supply.  servicing  analysis.  -5-  ChaptEr V i n v o l v e s subdivision  approval  the a n a l y s i s D f the time r e q u i r e d  i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  municipalities.  Four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were s e l e c t e d as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e uas  c o l l e c t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g  i n each m u n i c i p a l i t y ,  sample.  developers andil-consulting  uho uere i n v o l v e d u i t h the production of a m a j o r i t y lots  of the  number of s e r v i c e d l o t s municipality. It  approval of a major  municipality  These f i g u r e s  produced by major s u b d i v i s i o n s  In some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the r e l e v a n t  uas necessary to i d e n t i f y  to assemble s i g n i f i c a n t  ity  to  the  i n each  data uas not  avail-  the major developments i n these It  uas only  possible  evidence r e g a r d i n g the time r e q u i r e d f i f o r = s u b -  approval and not the l e v e l of p r o d u c t i v i t y of each m u n i c i p a l -  r e g a r d i n g the a c t u a l number of b u i l d i n g  to a p p l i c a t i o n s made.  It  and 1973 and that  contributing  lots  produced  uas p o s s i b l e to conclude that  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the time r e q u i r e d f o r 1971  relative  approvals  uere a l s o r e l a t e d to the  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and analyze them i n d i v i d u a l l y .  division  deriving  i n 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973 and. the number of  granted each year by the p a r t i c u l a r  able.  serviced  m u n i c i p a l planners and m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r s .  i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the time r e q u i r e d f o r  number of a p p l i c a t i o n s .  Data  engineers  Interviews uere based on a format of questions r e l a t e d to  subdivision  for  in  relative certain  approval had i n c r e a s e d between  Land Use C o n t r a c t s  could be i d e n t i f i e d as a  factor.  •Subdivision Approval r e f e r s to the approval of- s u b d i v i s i o n land i n t o s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g l o t s by an approving o f f i c e r . i n t e r p r e t a t i o n u i l l be used throughout the d i s s e r t a t i o n .  of rau This  **A major s u b d i v i s i o n i s one uhich n e c e s s i t a t e s c o n s t r u c t i o n of neu roads or s e r v i c e s to or beyond any of the l o t s being c r e a t e d .  -6-  In Chapter VI  the a c t u a l process of approval f o r each  m u n i c i p a l i t y uas prepared f o r s u b d i v i s i o n s uhichJdo not r e q u i r e a zoning change, those uhich r e q u i r e ' ' a zoning change and those uhich r e q u i r e d Land Use C o n t r a c t s . uas based on i n t e r v i e u s  The p r e p a r a t i o n of these procedures  uith municipal planners, municipal engineers,  p r i v a t e developers and c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s .  A standard procedure  uhich i n c l u d e d a l l of the components of the i n d i v i d u a l m u n i c i p a l p r o cedures uas prepared f o r approval. ations for  .Constraints  each of the three types of  subdivision  i n each procedure uere i n d i c a t e d and recommend-  s o l u t i o n s uere made.  Chapter V/II  identifies  the m u n i c i p a l problem r e g a r d i n g  operation of s u b d i v i s i o n approval procedures and i n d i c a t e s responsibilities  of the p r o v i n c i a l  Chapter VIII l i s t s  the  certain  government.  g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s summarizing the  r e l a t e d to the hypotheses and i n d i c a t e s t o p i c s f o r  future  findings  study.  -7-  CHAPTER  II  SUPPLY AND DEMAND FDR HOUSING THEORETICAL ANALYSIS  A n a l y s i s of the supply of r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g u n i t s must y  begin u i t h an a n a l y s i s of the supply and demand f o r the housing stock as a u h o l e .  In c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n  to many other consumer goods, c o n -  sumers of housing can choose betueen buying e x i s t i n g uhich are up f o r r e s a l e , r e n t i n g  duelling units,  duelling  units  or buying a neu  unit. At any given t i m e , the uhole of the e x i s t i n g latently  housing stock  up f o r s a l e or rent as u e l l as the t o t a l i t y of neu a d d i t i o n s  to the housing s t o c k .  If  price  g o r i e s of h o u s i n g , s u f f i c i e n t  levels  differ  betueen the tuD c a t e -  holders of e x i s t i n g  stock u i l l be  induced i n t o the market to buy neu homes and s e l l t h e i r as to e q u a l i z e p r i c e s . direction  a sufficient  If  the p r i c e  o l d homes so  d i f f e r e n c e i s i n the  number of neu home buyers u i l l  pass up neu homes i n favour of o l d e r ones, u n t i l , price  is  other  be induced to  once again the  l e v e l s are approaching e q u a l i z a t i o n . At any one t i m e , the e x i s t i n g  g r e a t e s t bulk of the housing market.  housing stock makes up the Increments to the housing stock  normally range from tuo to four per cent per annum.  Therefore,  p o t e n t i a l s e l l e r s of e x i s t i n g  six  housing make up n i n e t y  eight per cent of the p o t e n t i a l market at any one t i m e .  to  ninety  Neu housing  *It may be argued that only a s m a l l percentage of the e x i s t i n g stock may be up f o r s a l e at any one given t i m e . T h i s does not take i n t o account that i f there uere major p r i c e d i f f e r e n c e s , more e x i s t i n g housing uould come onto the market.  -8makes up only sellers existing  two t D four  per c e n t .  is considerable. housing.  The number of a c t u a l and p o t e n t i a l  In most c a s e s ,  Each f a m i l y s e l l s  individual  its  oun u n i t at the p r i c e  can o b t a i n without r e f e r e n c e t D any p r i c e sellers. builders  f a m i l i e s own  fixing  it  agreements between  Edmund P r i c e p o i n t s out that there are approximately 650 i n the Greater Vancouver  area.'''  Each b u i l d e r  independent agent i n s e l l i n g h i s p r o d u c t . s i x t y three  developers  and/or r e s i d e n t i a l  supplying  dwellings  the economists' d e f i n i t i o n  R i c h a r d Moore  residential  to the r e g i o n a l market.  of pure c o m p e t i t i o n  market f o r . t h e  housing s t o c k ,  if  dwellings  residential  either  a c t s as an  as a whole,  , it  interviewed  building In  terms of  appears that  approaches pure  can be c o n s i d e r e d as l i v i n g  sites  space  the  competition purely  and s i m p l y . The housing s t o c k and the i n t e r a c t i o n s for  the housing stock can be diagrammed roughly as i n d i c a t e d  Occupants of e x i s t i n g stock  Existing If  of supply and demand  +  Net immigration/ emmigration + net household formation  housing s t o c k 100%  the index number i s  +  ^  Number of p a r t i c i p a n t s who can f i n a n c e p u r chase of r e n t a l or r e s i d e n t i a l dwelling units  Net a d d i t i o n s to housing stock (2% to <4%)  1 - residential  below.  =  index number  unit prices w i l l s t a b i l i z e .  If  " P e r f e c t competition i s d e f i n e d by the economist as a t e c h n i c a l term: •perfect c o m p e t i t i o n ' e x i s t s only i n the case where no farmer, b u s i n e s s man or l a b o r e r i s a b i g enough p a r t of the t o t a l market to have any p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e on market p r i c e . " 3 The p o i n t should be made, however, that d w e l l i n g u n i t s are not normally c o n s i d e r e d as p u r e l y and simply l i v i n g s p a c e . Each d w e l l i n g u n i t has a c e r t a i n l o c a t i o n with l i n k s to or p r o x i m i t y to p l a c e s of employment, shopping, s c h o o l s , r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s and d e s i r a b l e neighborhoods. Such s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s d i f f e r e n t i a t e to some degree the r e s i d e n t i a l d w e l l i n g u n i t market.  -9the index number i s g r e a t e r than 1 p r i c e s r i s e  If  until  either  i)  net immigraticn/emmigraticn balance changes,  ii)  r a t e of net houshold formation d e c l i n e s through doubling up of households,  iii)  number of p a r t i c i p a n t s able to f i n a n c e entry i n t o the market d e c l i n e s e i t h e r through the e s c a l a t i o n of the r e n t a l p r i c e index or the e s c a l a t i o n of the p r i c e s of homes (neu and e x i s t i n g ) ,  iv)  s u f f i c i e n t number of neu housing u n i t s enter market through i n c r e a s e d pace of  v)  any combination of the above e i t h e r or i n c r e a s e s s u p p l y .  the index number i s  l e s s than 1, then p r i c e  usually  ( r e n t a l or s a l e ) construction,  decreases demand  levels u i l l  fall  such time as some combination of the above o u t l i n e d f a c t o r s i n c r e a s e s demand or reduces Filtering existing  to r e n t a l accomodation. existing  homes.  the housing s t o c k . '  ability  patterns normally,  although not  aluays,  of the i n d i v i d u a l  participants  to  to other p a r t i c i p a n t ( s )  h i s housing accomodation.  It  participant(s)  the p a r t i c i p a n t  The income e l a s t i c i t y by Reid (1958)  to suggest that  uill  increases normally  upgrade  should be noted houever that as  i d u a l incomes i n c r e a s e a smaller p r o p o r t i o n  as 1.5 to 2  finance  As t o t a l net d i s p o s a b l e income  a l l o c a t e d to housing of the i n d i v i d u a l  housing.  of  homes and buy neu or used housing or move  the a c q u i s i t i o n of a d u e l l i n g u n i t .  relative  Ouners  Occupiers of r e n t a l accomodation buy neu or  Filtering  f o l l o u the r e l a t i v e  either  supply.  occurs throughout  housing s e l l t h e i r  until  for  of income i s spent on  demand has been measured as high  houever there  income e l a s t i c i t y  indiv-  i s more c o n c l u s i v e  i s c l o s e r to a range of  Oksanen (1966) has found that housing stock e l a s t i c i t i e s  evidence  . 5 to 1. f o r income  5 range from . 3 to  . 5 and f l o u e l a s t i c i t i e s  a l s o supports t h i s  are belou 1.  Uhler  a n a l y s i s as he has found income e l a s t i c i t i e s  (1968) range  -10betiueen  .34 and .57.^  Lee (136k) supports these findings  concluding  that income e l a s t i c i t y i s less than unity hence the proportion of 7 income spent'on housing f a l l s as income r i s e s . The uillingness and/or a b i l i t y of participants to " f i l t e r " up or doun through the accomodation spectrum i s often influenced by aspirations and needs, such as, size of family and need for space; family and neighborhood associations and t i e s ; psychological importance of status to the i n d i v i d u a l ; expectations income levels; pursuit of l i f e  as to future  styles uhich lead to allocating funds g  to other consumer goods and a c t i v i t i e s .  One important determinant  of the individual's u i l l i n g n e s s to participate i n this f i l t e r i n g process i s his expectations  as to future housing prices.  If the  participant i s convinced that the price of housing u i l l continue to escalate, he u i l l l i k e l y use any means at his disposal to purchase a r e s i d e n t i a l duelling unit "nou" rather than u a i t .  The net effect  of this phenomenon i s the transfer of future demand to the present. Summary of Supply and Demand The overvieu of the supply and demand for housing stock given i n the previous sections, uhile lacking i n some details and in refinement, does present  a uorking model of the factors that are i n -  strumental to analysis.  These factors are depicted i n Figure 1.  In Figure 1, current supply i s depicted by S^S^ and current demand by D^D^.  P^.  At one point i n time, the prevailing price uould be  If there i s a small increase i n the supply to S^S^ that i s quite  small r e l a t i v e to the number of existing units i n stock, and no change in demand, prices uould f a l l to P^, a small decrease.  If, on the  other hand, demand increased to D„D„ uhile supply increases to S„S„,  -11Figure  1  I n t e r a c t i o n s of Supply and Demand f o r Housing  S  Source:  l  S  2  Hamilton, S . U . , P u b l i c Land Banking - Real or I l l u s i o n a r y Benefits? Report f o r the Urban Development I n s t i t u t e of Ontario , 137k, p. 10.  -12-  prices u i l l rise  t D P-^-^  As there are p h y s i c a l l i m i t s to i n c r e a s e s i n supply as u e l l as l i m i t s to the number as r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g s i t e s the planning process u i l l  approve,  the i n c r e a s e s i n supply f o r  Canadian urban  centres has been l e s s than the i n c r e a s e s i n demand. Dr. Hamilton p o i n t s out,"''  0  has been the case,  it  If  this,  as  uould account f o r a  major p o r t i o n of the p r i c e r i s e s i n Canadian housing i n the past decade. "The problems of supply of housing and b u i l d i n g l o t s , as s e r i o u s as they may be, are not as c r i t i c a l as the changes i n demand. Grouing p o p u l a t i o n , r a p i d l y r i s i n g incomes, demand f o r b e t t e r housing, and i n c r e a s e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n a feu urban areas are c r e a t i n g i n s a t i a b l e demand f o r housing and l a n d . Over the past ten y e a r s , incomes and d i s p o s a b l e incomes have r i s e n more r a p i d l y than housing e x p e n d i t u r e s , and the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of p o p u l a t i o n i n t o urban areas has c o n t i n u e d . In a d d i t i o n , important neu i n c e n t i v e s , i n the form of s p e c i a l income tax s t a t u s f o r p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e s , has b o l s t e r e d the a l r e a d y e x t e n s i v e demands f o r h o u s i n g , e s p e c i a l l y ounership. S i m i l a r i l y , improved mortgage terms and p r o v i n c i a l f i n a n c i n g f o r second mortgages have a l l c o n t r i b u t e d to the i n c r e a s e d demands. " H E f f e c t of Surplus Demand on Land P r i c i n g Given that an excess of demand v i s - a - v i s stock as a uhole u i l l  supply f o r the housing  r a i s e p r i c e l e v e l s f o r the neu housing s t o c k ,  coming on stream, dramatic changes u i l l occur i n the p r i c e s f o r s e r v i c e d d u e l l i n g s i t e s through the a c t i o n of l e v e r a g e . more dramatic p r i c e  paid Even  changes u i l l take place f o r rau land due to the  e f f e c t of compounded l e v e r a g e . Table 1 s e t s out some assumptions about the average l e v e l s of e x i s t i n g  price  housing as these p r i c e changes occur through t i m e .  The b u i l d e r u i l l take h i s p r i c i n g clue from the average  price  of comparable houses i n comparable l o c a t i o n s to the one he i s going to b u i l d .  Instinctively,  he knous that he cannot i n f l u e n c e  the  -13-  Table 1.  Existing  Year 1  D u e l l i n g Stock P r i c e Rises Through  Year 2  Percentage Change Year 1 to 2  Year 3  Average Price L e v e l of Existing Comparable Houses i n Comparable| $ $ Locations 26,COO 30,DOC 38,000  overall  Time.  Percentage Change Year 2 to 3  + 15%  + 27%  stock.  if  He knous that existing  his price  if  his price  l e v e l i s too h i g h ,  housing and h i s u n i t u i l l  level  i s too l o u ,  a crafty  not s e l l .  product  the s p e c u l a t o r .  also i n s t i n c t i v e l y  The b u i l d e r  on average,  stock  existing  the buyer  uill  He a l s o knous that  speculator u i l l  housing to buy the b u i l d e r ' s  uill,  + 46%  p r i c e of housing f o r the aggregate increment to housing  i n any one year i s only tuo to four per cent D f the t o t a l  prefer  Percentage change Year 1 to 3  sell  existing  at an immediate ' p r o f i t ' knous that  to  buyers  pay a premium f o r neu housing due to such i n f l u e n c e  as improved d e s i g n ,  l o u e r maintenance and r e p a i r  costs, better  fin-  ancing terms and the i n c r e a s e d s t a t u s of auning a neu home. The e f f e c t of the b u i l d e r ' s on the maximum p r i c e s that he u i l l duelling sites  p r i c i n g of h i s house f o r pay f o r  i s demonstrated i n Table 2 .  more f o r h i s house from year to year, the l o t . house,  residential  Clearly,  if  he r e c e i v e s  he can a f f o r d to pay more f o r  The a c t u a l p r i c e he pays u i l l  l e s s the c o s t s of c o n s t r u c t i o n  serviced  sale  be the end p r i c e f o r  and p r o f i t .  r i s e more on a percentage b a s i s than c o n s t r u c t i o n  If  his  house p r i c e s  costs r i s e  Dn a  -14percentage b a s i s , then p o s i t i v e as Table 2 demonstrates, i f costs go up by 20%, l o t  leverage u i l l  result.  house p r i c e s r i s e by 27% u h i l e  prices u i l l  possibility.  that house p r i c e s remained constant at $30,000 u h i l e costs rose by 20%, from $20,000 to $23,000, l o t  Table 2.  Assume  construction  p r i c e s uould drop  a 23% d e c r e a s e .  E f f e c t of Leverage on R e s i d e n t i a l D u e l l i n g S i t e P r i c e s .  Year 1 P r i c e of home b u i l t by builder  Year 2  Year 3  $30,000 $34,500 $43,800  Building costs & Profit Maximum Residential Duelling S i t e Price  process.  Percentage change Year 1 to 2  Percentage change Year 2 to 3  + 15%  + 27%  + 46%  23,000  27,600  + 10%  + 20%  + 33%  9,200  11,500  16,200  + 25%  + 41%  + 76%  The b u i l d e r  p u b l i c or p r i v a t e , takes h i s p r i c i n g  comparable h o u s i n g .  i s part of the  pricing  clue from the p r i c e l e v e l  The developer takes h i s p r i c i n g  from the maximum r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g s i t e p r i c e  the p r i c e paid f o r  clue  leveraged  i n the same uay as the p r i c e that b u i l d e r s pay f o r s e r v i c e d If  for  level.  The p r i c e that the developer pays f o r rau land i s  sites.  Percentage change Year 1 to 3  20,800  The developer,  existing  building  e s c a l a t e by 41%.  Negative leverage i s a l s o a d i s t i n c t  from $9,200 to $7,000 -  For i n s t a n c e ,  duelling  a s e r v i c e d s i t e * i n c r e a s e s more D n a  -15percentage b a s i s than the s e r v i c i n g c o s t s the e f f e c t u i l l be upuard l e v e r a g i n g on the p r i c e p a i d f o r r a u l a n d .  I f the s e r v i c i n g c o s t s  e s c a l a t e more r a p i d l y than the percentage p r i c e i n c r e a s e f o r s e r v i c e d s i t e s , the e f f e c t u i l l be dounuard  l e v e r a g i n g on the p r i c e s  paid f o r rau land.' E f f e c t o f Leverage on Rau Land P r i c e s .  Table 3.  Year 1 Price paid by b u i l d e r for serviced building site 1i 9,200 Servicing costs + municipal imposts + profits Maximum rau land p r i c e per site  Year 2  Year 3  11,500  16,200  6,300  9,100  5,200  4,000  5,200  7,100  Percentage change Year 1 t o 2  Percentage change Year 2 t o 3  Percentage change year 1 to 3  76%  + 25%  4- - 4 1 %  4-  21%  4- - 4 5 %  + 75%  37%  + 78%  4-  + 30%  4-  Note t h a t Table 3 a l s o demonstrates n e g a t i v e l e v e r a g e i n the t r a n s i t i o n i n r a u l a n d p r i c e s from year 2 t o year 3.  Servicing  c o s t s i n the h y p o t h e t i c a l example have r i s e n from $6,300 i n year 2 to $9,100 i n year 3.  I n the same year, the p r i c e p a i d by t h e b u i l d e r  f o r s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g s i t e s i n c r e a s e d by a l e s s e r percentage o f 4 1 % from $11,500 t o $16,200.  The e f f e c t on the maximum r a u l a n d p r i c e  per s i t e i s n e g a t i v e l e v e r a g e .  The p r i c e p a i d f o r a r a u l o t i n c r e a s e d  only 37% from $5,200 t o $7,100 u h i l e the p r i c e p a i d f o r a s e r v i c e d  -16lot  i n c r e a s e d by 41%. Consider  the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the p r i c e  p a i d f o r r a u l o t s i f t h e p r i c e p a i d by the b u i l d e r had o n l y r i s e n by a much l o u e r p e r c e n t a g e . Table 4.  Negative  Table 4 p o i n t s out n e g a t i v e  leverage.  Leverage.  Year 2 P r i c e p a i d by b u i l d e r for s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g site  Year 3  $11,5DD  Percentage change  13,225  + 15%  Servicing costs + m u n i c i p a l imposts + profits  6,3DD  9,ICQ  + 45%  Maximum r a u l a n d p r i c e per s i t e  5,2DD  4,125  - 21%  E f f e c t o f S u r p l u s Demand on the Supply o f Housing U n i t s t o the Market If  the p r i c e o f e x i s t i n g housing  u n u s u a l l y r a p i d r a t e , the b u i l d e r u i l l  s t o c k i s c l i m b i n g a t an  develop ' e x p e c t a t i o n s ' as t o  the p r i c e t h a t he may be able t o o b t a i n f o r h i s product If  i f he u a i t s .  the expected increment i n p r i c e i s c o n s i d e r a b l y more than h i s  h o l d i n g c o s t s f o r t h e f i n i s h e d house, he u i l l from t h e market.  supply  He u i t h h o l d s supply i n a very s i m p l e f a s h i o n .  simply p r i c e s the house a t uhat he expects thereby  tend t o u i t h o l d  t r a n s f e r r i n g present  He  f u t u r e p r i c e l e v e l s t o be,  supply a t present market p r i c e s i n t o  f u t u r e supply a t expected f u t u r e market p r i c e s . The  b u i l d e r u i l l not o f t e n u i t h h o l d supply f o r any c o n s i d e r a b l e  period of time.  F i r s t l y , t h e h o l d i n g c o s t s a r e t o o onerous.  In  e f f e c t , t h e b u i l d e r has t o f i n a n c e t h e e n t i r e c o s t o f t h e l o t p l u s  -17t h e cost o f c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f the house a t c u r r e n t  interest rates.  Secondly, the b u i l d e r needs h i s c a p i t a l to buy another l o t and s t a r t the c o n s t r u c t i o n  p r o c e s s s over a g a i n .  P r i c e (1972) p o i n t e d  out t h a t  12 b u i l d e r s are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y under c a p i t a l i z e d .  Thirdly,  the b u i l d e r i s a l u a y s concerned about temporary s e t b a c k s i n the market even though the g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n i s upwards.  The b u i l d e r  knows t h a t temporary -setbacks i n p r i c e add to h i s c a r r y i n g c o s t s i n r e d u c i n g the p r o f i t l e v e l t h a t he u i l l r e c e i v e from the e v e n t u a l s a l e of the house.  Fourthly,  the b u i l d e r i s u s u a l l y auare t h a t he u i l l  earn a h i g h e r r e t u r n on h i s c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d  i f he i s t o s e l l the  house and r e i n v e s t the proceeds i n p u r c h a s i n g more s e r v i c e d p a r t i c u l a r i l y i f he p e r c e i v e s  lots,  the l e v e r a g e a c t i o n on the p r i c e o f  s e r v i c e d l o t s t o be p o s i t i v e i n d i r e c t i o n . In summary, i t i s not t o be expected t h a t the b u i l d e r  uill  u i t h h o l d h i s product from the market f o r long p e r i o d s o f time but he u i l l tend t o u i t h h o l d i f the s h o r t term p r i c e l e v e l s are i n c r e a s i n g dramatically. the s u p p l y i n g  On the o t h e r hand, the b u i l d e r u i l l tend to a c c e l e r a t e o f houses t o the market i f he p e r c e i v e s  ueakness i n p r i c i n g f o r e x i s t i n g housing s t o c k .  short  time  The b u i l d e r knous  t h a t h i s c a r r y i n g c o s t s are too heavy. The  developer u i l l a l s o tend to u i t h h o l d supply o f s e r v i c e d  l o t s from the market i f he p e r c e i v e s for  t h a t the s h o r t term p r i c e r i s e s  e x i s t i n g s t o c k a r e e f f e c t i n g p o s i t i v e l e v e r a g e on the p r i c e  structure f o r serviced  duelling sites.  Normally, the developer  uill  not u i t h h o l d l o t s from the market f o r long as he i s f a c e d u i t h the same problems as the b u i l d e r . is  required  Carrying  c o s t s are too high and c a p i t a l  f o r the purchase o f r a u l a n d .  The developer u i l l  tend t o u i t h h o l d i f the s h o r t term p r i c e r i s e s are d r a m a t i c .  only  -18The  holder  of rau l a n d a l s o has e x p e c t a t i o n s  f u t u r e p r i c e l e v e l s f o r rau l a n d .  These e x p e c t a t i o n s  as to uill  the be  p a r t i c u l a r i l y f u e l e d uhen the e f f e c t of compounded l e v e r a g e i s uorking  p o s i t i v e l y both on the p r i c e of s e r v i c e d l o t s and  land p r i c e s . uill  The  landholder  i n these p e r i o d s  double i n value next y e a r .  to s e l l .  The  Furthermore, the l a n d h o l d e r  a l s o on  rau  'knous' t h a t h i s  landouner i s q u i t e  land  reluctant  i s in-an e x c e l l e n t p o s i t i o n to  u a i t f o r f u r t h e r abnormal p r i c e i n c r e a s e s .  The  landouner knous  t h a t h i s c a r r y i n g c o s t s are very l o u , p a r t i c u l a r i l y i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the amounts t h a t he expects to r e c e i v e from f u r t h e r u i n d f a l l The periods  landholder  gains.  tends to u i t h h o l d rau land from the market i n  of abnormal p r i c e i n c r e a s e s .  Such u i t h h o l d i n g makes the  assembly o f rau l a n d more d i f f i c u l t and more time consuming.  Delays  in  feed  l a n d assembly reduce the q u a n t i t y of rau l a n d u h i c h may  i n t o the supply process f o r e v e n t u a l  conversion  C o l l e c t i v e l y , landouners are u o r k i n g  i n t h e i r oun  u i t h h o l d i n g l a n d from the market.  be  into duelling units. best i n t e r e s t by  -19-  Footnotes  Edmund V. P r i c e . "The House B u i l d i n g Industry i n Vancouver", Unpublished M a s t e r ' s of Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h e s i s , the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1970. 2  Richard A. Moore. "Development P o t e n t i a l Model f o r the Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a " , Unpublished M a s t e r ' s of Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h e s i s , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1972. ^ P . A. Samuelson, Economics: An I n t r o d u c t o r y A n a l y s i s . T o r o n t o : M c G r a u - H i l l Company of Canada L t d . , 1966, p. 46. M. G. R'eid, " C a p i t a l Formation i n R e s i d e n t i a l Real E s t a t e " , J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Economy 6 6 : 1 3 1 - 1 5 3 , 1958. 5 E. Dksanen, "Housing Demand i n Canada, 1947-1962: Some P r e l i m i n a r y E x p e r i m e n t a t i o n " , Canadian J o u r n a l of Economics and P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 32: p.312, 1966. ^R. A. U h l e r , "The Demand f o r Housing and Inverse P r o b a b i l i t y Approach", The Revieu of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s 5D: p.133, 1968. 7 T . H. Lee, "The Stock Demand E l a s t i c i t i e s of IMon Farm Housing", The Revieu of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s 46: p . 8 8 , 1964. Q Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , "The Housing Issue" A D i s c u s s i o n Paper f o r the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , prepared by the GVRD Planning Department (Vancouver: The Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Feb. 13, 1974), p. 4. g S . LU. Hamilton, P u b l i c Land Banking - Real or I l l u s i o n a r y Benefits, Report of the Urban Development I n s t i t u t e of O n t a r i o , 1974, p. 9 . Ibid.,  p.  9.  ^Ibid.,  p.  9.  1 D  12  E. P r i c e , Op.  cit.  -20-  CHAPTER I I I  SUPPLY AND DEMAND FDR HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER  Chapter I I d e a l t u i t h the supply t h e o r e t i c a l terms. contention  and demand 'fiorhhousi-ngiin  A n a l y s i s o f the GVRD housing market v e r i f i e s the  t h a t the demand f o r r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g u n i t s i n t h i s  r e g i o n exceeds the s u p p l y . Demand f o r housing may be measured as a f u n c t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n and  income.  "Growing p o p u l a t i o n s ,  r a p i d l y r i s i n g incomes, demand  f o r b e t t e r housing and i n c r e a s e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  i n a f e u l a r g e urban  areas are c r e a t i n g i n s a t i a b l e demands f o r housing and land""'' Greater  Vancouver R e g i o n a l  In the  D i s t r i c t the p r i c e s o f h o u s i n g , p a r t i c -  u l a r l y s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s , have b e e n : i n c r e a s i n g  rapidly  (Refer  to column 5, Table 1 ) . I t may be argued t h a t the p r i c e o f housing i s reaching  a p o i n t uhere the t y p i c a l consumer o f housing cannot  purchase the same house he bought tuo years ago i n today's market, as the i n c r e a s e s i n c o s t s o f housing have exceeded the i n c r e a s e i n h i s gross income r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y the c o n v e n t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r mortgage f i n a n c i n g . clusion.  The f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s s u p p o r t s t h i s con-  Houever, t h i s may not be i n t e r p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n  t h a t the demand f o r housing s h o u l d  decrease.  A b r i e f a n a l y s i s D f the  b a s i c economics o f the housing market and the f u n c t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n grouth as a cause o f demand u i l l c l a r i f y the argument t h a t i s a s t r o n g demand i n the housing market i n the G.V.R.D.  there  -21Demand f a r Housing as a F u n c t i o n o f Income The i n d u s t r i a l workers o f B r i t i s h Columbia composed 42% o f 2 the t o t a l l a b o u r f o r c e o f 1,00D,D45 i n J u l y 1971.  Table 5 i n d i c a t e s  the gross monthly income o f the average i n d u s t r i a l worker  between  1963 and 1973 and r e l a t e s these f i g u r e s t o the average p r i c e s o f e x i s t i n g and new homes i n the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t and the d o l l a r i n c r e a s e i n t h e p r i c e s o f these homes between 1963 and 1973. These f i g u r e s are r e l a t e d t o the i n c r e a s e i n the amount o f the monthly payments r e q u i r e d t o a m o r t i z e a mortgage  at the average  annual i n t e r e s t r a t e over a p e r i o d o f t w e n t y - f i v e years w i t h a 5% and 25% down payment.  Column 9 i n d i c a t e s t h a t i f the average worker  purchased the average p r i c e d home i n the GVRD i n 1973 w i t h a 25% down payment h i s monthly p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t payments would be $56.84 h i g h e r than they would have been f o r a home i n 1972 and t h i s i s $21.8-4 g r e a t e r than the i n c r e a s e i n h i s g r o s s monthly f o r the same p e r i o d .  increase  income  P r i o r t o 1973 the monthly i n c r e a s e s i n g r o s s  income have been g r e a t e r than the i n c r e a s e i n monthly i n t e r e s t and p r i n c i p a l payments r e q u i r e d t o f i n a n c e the purchase o f a new home even i n the case where t h e r e was a 5% down payment.  I f an i n d u s t r i a l  worker i n B.C. purchased an average p r i c e d home i n t h e GVRD i n 1971 f o r $26,471 (column 5, Table 5) w i t h a down payment o f $6,617 ( 2 5 % ) the monthly mortgage  payments a t t h e p r e v a i l i n g r a t e o f 10% i n 1971  on a debt o f $19,853 would be $177.59 o f p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t a m o r t i z e d over 25 y e a r s .  The maximum debt p e r m i t t e d w i t h a 30% debt  s e r v i c e r a t i o would have been $198.24 (column 4, Table 5 ) . s e r v i c e i s below t h e r e q u i r e d  The debt  income.  I f one c o n s i d e r s the purchase o f an average e x i s t i n g home i n the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t i n 1973 a c c o r d i n g t o the  Table 5  Year  1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 196a 1969 1970. 1971 1972 1973 Source:  The P r i c e o f Homes i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver R e l a t i v e to Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average % change Maximum Average D o l l a r D o l l a r Monthly annual change change i n income amount o f p r i c e Gross interest monthly o f i n i n income rates income single price o f aver- income to s e r family age vice a dwellworker mortgage ings i n i n B.C. debt Metro based on Vancouver 30% debt service ratio $390.43 £+07.81 436.41 465.49 496.17 523.29 560.52 597.87 660.83 713.72 748.92  -  $17.38 28.60 29.08 30.68 27.12 32.23 33.35 62.96 53.09 35.00  4.5% 7.0 6.7 6.6 5.5 7.1 6.7 10.5 8.0 4.9  $117.13 122.34 130.92 139.65 148.85 156.99 168.16 179.36 198.24 214.18 224.68  $12,637 13,203 13,965 15,200 17,836 20,595 23,939 24,239 26,471 29,714 38.561  -  $566 762 1335 2636 2759 3344 1300 2232 3243 8847  7% 7 7/8 3/8 7/8 7/8: 1/4 3/8.  6 7 7 8 9 10 10 9 1/8 9 1/2  Incomes o f I n d u s t r i a l Workers i n B.C. 1963-1973 _8 9 10 11 The monthly i n The a n n u a l The monthly The a n n u a l c r e a s e i n mortgage increase i n increase i n increase i n payments o f mortgage i n mortmortgage p r i n c i p a l and gage debt payments o f debt w i t h a i n t e r e s t w i t h a 5% 5% down with a principal down payment payment 25% down and i n payment terest with a 25% down payment  $424 511 1001 1917 2069 2508 915 1614 1432 6635  $ 2.99 3.47 7.24 14.36 16.81 21.11 8.28 14.32 20.08 56.84  $ 537 723 ' 1268 2504 2621 3116 1235 2120 3080 8404  & 3.78 4.85 9.06 18.89 21.32 26.19 11.04 18.79 25.93 72.34  (5)  Based an S t a t i s t i c s Canada, C a n a d i a n S t a t i s t i c a l Review, H i s t o r i c a l Summary, Aug. 1970, p. 58, Aug. 1973, p. 5 3 . Based on t h e average p r i c e s o f s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i n t h e GVRD d e r i v e d from R e a l E s t a t e Trends i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver. P u b l i s h e d by t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Survey committee o f t h e G r e a t e r Vancouver R e a l E s t a t e B o a r d A s s o c i a t i o n 1963 t o 1973.  (7)  R e a l E s t a t e Trends i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  (8)  The a n n u a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e r e q u i r e d l o a n t o purchase a home i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver w i t h a 25% down payment.  (9)  The monthly i n c r e a s e i n mortgage  (10)  The a n n u a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e r e q u i r e d mortgage  (11)  The monthly i n c r e a s e i n t h e mortgage payment o f 5%.  (1)  1963-1973.  payments o f p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t a m o r t i z e d  over 25 y e a r s w i t h a down payment o f 25%.  l o a n t o purchase a home i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver w i t h a 5% down payment.  payments o f p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t a m o r t i z e d  o v e r 25 y e a r s w i t h a down  -23-  criterian  USECJ  i n Table  5  uith a  25%  doun payment o f  $9,6-40  the  monthly payments o f p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t on the remainder o f $28,920  u o u l d be a p p r o x i m a t e l y  $2-41.30.  R e f e r r i n g back t o Table  5,  column 4 , i f t h e average uorker u i s h e d t o o b t a i n a mortgage from a c o n v e n t i o n a l l e n d e r uho used a 3 0 % debt s e r v i c e r a t i o , t h e monthly payments g r e a t l y exceed  those p e r m i t t e d , $ 2 2 - 4 . 6 8 ) .  T h i s very  element-  ary a n a l y s i s e x c l u d e s t h e monthly c a l c u l a t i o n Df p r o p e r t y t a x u h i c h u o u l d be added t o the p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t payments uhen c a l c u l a t i n g the minimum r e q u i r e d 3 0 % o f gross income t o s a t i s f y t h e debt. Houever, i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e average i n d u s t r i a l u o r k e r i s n o t capable o f p u r c h a s i n g the average p r i c e d home i n t h e G r e a t e r Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . One may argue t h a t the purchaser may t u r n t o a l t e r n a t i v e sources o f f i n a n c e u h i c h da not c o n s i d e r the debt s e r v i c e r a t i o as a major f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g the amount o f the mortgage t h a t c o u l d be C r e d i t Unions u i l l p r e s e n t l y l e n d a t 7 5 % o f t h e market  granted.  value o f a home c h a r g i n g a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r i n t e r e s t r a t e p e r m i t t i n g a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r debt t o s e r v i c e r a t i o .  In 1 9 7 3 t h e c o s t o f an  average p r i c e d home i n t h e GVRD i n c r e a s e d by requires  $2,211  in 1 9 7 2 . additional  $8,8-47.  A  25%  doun payment  cash i n a d d i t i o n tD the amount r e q u i r e d f o r a home  The average i n d u s t r i a l uorker uould have t o generate an $2,211  i n s a v i n g s o r uould have t o save a p p r o x i m a t e l y Zk%  of h i s gross income f o r 1 9 7 3 .  I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t the p r e c e d i n g  a n a l y s i s merely g i v e s an i n d i c a t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p betueen the incomes o f a l a r g e p o r t i o n o f t h e labour f o r c e and t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o f i n a n c e homes purchased  in1973.  t h a t have n o t been c o n s i d e r e d .  There are many i m p o r t a n t  variables  A most i m p o r t a n t c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t  even i f t h i s argument i s accepted, t h e r e i s s t i l l a s t r o n g demand  -2kf o r housing u h i c h u i l l keep p r i c e s h i g h . An economic a n a l y s i s of the housing market r e q u i r e s r e c o g n i t i o n of a very important economic c o n d i t i o n t h a t puts housing market i n a unique a n a l y t i c a l s i t u a t i o n . supply of housing supply.  The  The  a d d i t i o n t o the  i n the form of s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s uas  5,67-4 or a p p r o x i m a t e l y  2% of the net s t o c k .  i m a t e l y 6,726 u n i t s uere added i n 1972  and 5,525 i n 1973,  a s t o c k of 227,698 s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s . housing  total  t o t a l s t o c k of s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s i n the GVRD i s  s t o c k i n 1971  approximately  A d d i t i o n s to the  account f a r a very s m a l l p o r t i o n of the  e s t i m a t e d to be 215,<4<45 f o r the year of 1971.^ housing  the  Approxyielding  Uhen c o n s i d e r i n g  demand, t h i s aspect of the market i s c r i t i c a l . Since t h e r e are so f e u housing u n i t s c r e a t e d i n r e l a t i o n to  the t o t a l housing  s t o c k , the amount of demand r e q u i r e d to absorb the  a d d i t i o n s t o the s t o c k are not t h a t g r e a t .  The  average i n d u s t r i a l  uorker uho purchased a home i n the GVRD at the average p r i c e of $26,471 a c c o r d i n g , t o Table 5. u i t h a mortgage of $20,000 can s e l l h i s house f o r $38,561 i n 1973. approximately  A f t e r paying h i s mortgage o f f , he  $18,000 cash u h i c h he uould use as a doun payment  touards the purchase of another may  home.  I t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t he  have saved funds to buy a more expensive  home and t h a t he c o u l d  s e r v i c e the debt g i v e n h i s i n c r e a s e d e q u i t y p o s i t i o n . a c t i v i t i e s of home ouners uho and those uho  Combining the  have r e a l i z e d a tremendous e q u i t y g a i n  are e n t e r i n g the market today, the p r o c e s s o f f i l t e r i n g  takes p l a c e and the a d d i t i o n s to the s t o c k of housing absorbed.  has  are q u i c k l y  -25Demand f o r Housing as a F u n c t i o n of P o p u l a t i o n S i n c e the a d d i t i o n s to the housing are not t h a t great demand f o r housing does not r e q u i r e purchasers to g i v e i t s t r e n g t h .  the  a s i g n i f i c a n t number of  A demographic a n a l y s i s w i l l  reveal  t h a t i n c r e a s e s i n p o p u l a t i o n and p r o s p e c t i v e home buyers i n the GI/RD has c r e a t e d a s u f f i c i e n t demand i n the housing market to keep prices  high. A n a l y s i s of b i r t h r a t e s , m o r t a l i t y r a t e s and m i g r a t i o n r a t e s  i n d i c a t e s a steady p o p u l a t i o n growth i n the GVRD betueen 1966 and 1971 and produces a b a s i s f o r f o r e c a s t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s p o p u l a t i o n i n the f u t u r e . of grouth p r o v i d e s  A brief  in  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of each component  a good i n d i c a t i o n of the impact t h i s grouth u i l l  have on the housing demand. S t a t i s t i c s Canada i n d i c a t e t h a t the f e r t i l i t y  rate uhich i s  taken to be the number of c h i l d r e n born to a female d u r i n g her reproductive  l i f e span i s l e v e l l i n g o f f .  entire  In r e l a t i o n to F i g u r e 2  the f o l l o u i n g comments may be made r e g a r d i n g f e r t i l i t y  rates  according  to S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Figure 2 Fertility  Rates  •4.2  High  2  Source:  I960  1965  Population projections Canada 1970.  1970  1975  1980  - - Lou 1985  f o r Canada 1969-198-4,  Statistics  -26- There e x i s t s a marked d e c l i n e i n t o t a l f e r t i l i t y  from 3.9  to a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2.k i n the 196D's but an a c h i e v e d l e v e l l i n g o u t ' around 1969. - Considering  t h e p r o j e c t e d ranges t o  198-4,  the most p r a c t i c a l  r a t e i s the medium and u i l l be used as no evidence i s a v a i l a b l e t o the  contrary. - The a r r i v a l o f a t h i r d c h i l d does n o t g e n e r a l l y a l t e r a  f a m i l y ' s need f o r f a m i l y housing as does t h e a r r i v a l o f the f i r s t and second c h i l d ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e p r o j e c t i o n s t o 198k have l i t t l e e f f e c t ; the move from an apartment t o a s i n g l e f a m i l y o r a row d u e l l i n g i s u s u a l l y i n i t i a t e d by the f i r s t o r second c h i l d . - I f a high f e r t i l i t y be s i g n i f i c a n t p o p u l a t i o n  r a t e p r e v a i l s say t o 2.8, then there  uill  e f f e c t s but i n terms o f t h e household these  u i l l not be a f f e c t e d u n t i l the l a t e 19BD's. A r e v i e u o f an a n a l y s i s by the Greater D i s t r i c t on p o p u l a t i o n  Vancouver  grouth c o n f i r m s these c o n c l u s i o n s  Regional by b a s i n g i t s  f o r e c a s t on the f a c t t h a t the number o f b i r t h s i n the GVRD uas 10% l o u e r than t h e expected number o f b i r t h s u s i n g the knoun r a t e s f o r a l l o f 5 B.C.  Thus, the t r e n d o f p o p u l a t i o n  grouth i n t h i s area should be r e -  duced. Death r a t e s a c c o r d i n g people per 1DDC o f p o p u l a t i o n . tD be f a i r l y  tD S t a t i s t i c s Canada approximate 7.k The GVRD a n a l y s i s has found t h i s r a t e  constant.  M i g r a t i o n r a t e s a r e t h e most i m p o r t a n t i n an a n a l y s i s o f the GVRD. M i g r a t i o n r a t e s a r e most important i n a p o p u l a t i o n the GVRD.  A p p r o x i m a t e l y 76.5%  o f the p a p u l a t i o n  and 1971 i s accounted f o r by m i g r a t i o n . ^ 1  analysis of  i n c r e a s e betueen 1966  66% o f the t o t a l number o f  -27migrants  (103,592) uere betueen the ages o f 20 and 29 and 28% uere 7  betueen the age o f 30 and 39.  I f one assumes a. m i g r a t i o n o f approx-  i m a t e l y 20,000 per year and t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 60% o f these are i n the age b r a c k e t o f 20 t o 28 t h i s aspect o f p o p u l a t i o n grouth have an e f f e c t on demand f o r h o u s i n g .  I t i s not knoun uhat  should percentage  o f these people u o u l d q u a l i f y f o r f i n a n c i n g o f the homes i n the p r e s e n t market, houever, s i n c e t h i s age group i s one u i t h the h i g h e s t rate.  fertility  One c o u l d argue t h a t these people uould a f f e c t the demand f o r  single family duellings.  I t i s important t o note t h a t they may purchase  homes at v a r i o u s p r i c e l e v e l s i n the housing market a b s o r b i n g the homes vacated by those moving i n t o more or l e s s expensive homes. The f o r e c a s t f o r f u t u r e grouth i n the GVRD i n d i c a t e s t h a t popu l a t i o n s h o u l d i n c r e a s e by 1<+1,678 from 1,028,3-45 i n 1971 t o 1,169,923 in  1976. The p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e f o r e c a s t f o r those aged betueen 20  and 29 s h o u l d be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7,3-47 per annum o f 25.8% o f the average t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e o f 28,335.  The age group betueen 30 and 39  u i l l have a p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6,202 per annum u h i c h 8 is  2 1 % o f the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e per annum. The  p o p u l a t i o n s t a t i s t i c s c o n f i r m the f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s a  s i g n i f i c a n t expected  grouth r a t e i n p o p u l a t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the age  b r a c k e t most l i k e l y t o e n t e r the housing market.  The e n t i r e demand  a n a l y s i s o f t h i s chapter has c o n c e n t r a t e d on s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s in  order t o i n t e r p r e t t h e demand s i t u a t i o n o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e c t o r  of the market.  There- i s s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o suggest  t h a t the demand f o r d u e l l i n g u n i t s as a uhole i s very s t r o n g and u i l l m a i n t a i n i t s high l e v e l i n the f u t u r e .  A revieu of s t a t i s t i c s  provided  by C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n and the Economics and S t a t i s t i c s D i v i s i o n o f Canada c o n f i r m t h i s  fact.  -28Table 6 r e l a t e s household f o r m a t i o n t o t h e t o t a l number o f d u e l l i n g s t a r t s betueen 1961 and 1976. Table 6.  Household Formation and D u e l l i n g U n i t S t a r t s i n Metrop o l i t a n Vancouver 1961 - 1976. Household Formation Family  Non Family  Duelling Unit Starts  Total  1961 - 1966  23,900  19,700  43,600  46,391  1966 - 1971  42,100  22,400  64,500  69,851  1971 - 1976  55,400  35,600  91,000  98,280  Source :  CMHC, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s y e a r l y a d d i t i o n s and K i r k l a n d , J.S., Demographic Aspects o f Housing Demand t o 1986 CMHC, Economics and S t a t i s t i c s D i v i s i o n , 1971.  The Supply o f Housing i n M e t r o p o l i t a n  Vancouver  Household f o r m a t i o n s averaged 8,720 a n n u a l l y f o r t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e 1960's.  Housing s t a r t s uere 9,278 a n n u a l l y .  and 1971 t h e annual average o f d u e l l i n g u n i t s uas 13,970.  Betueen 1966 The average  number o f household f o r m a t i o n s uere 12,900 f o r t h e same p e r i o d .  The  e s t i m a t e d household f o r m a t i o n based on census data betueen 1971 and 1976 i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 18,200 per y e a r .  A p p r o x i m a t e l y 20,000 d u e l l i n g  u n i t s per year u i l l be r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e e s t i m a t e d r a t e o f housing formation.  S i n c e 1971 d u e l l i n g u n i t s t a r t s have been f a l l i n g s h o r t o f  the p r o j e c t e d demand.  In 1971 t h e r e uere 15,553 s t a r t s , i n 1972 t h e r e  uere 14,126 and i n 1973 t h e r e uere 14,953 ( r e f e r e n c e t o T a b l e s 7,8, and 9 pro'vi'de a d e t a i l e d breakdoun o f s t a r t s ) .  T h i s f i g u r e i s 4,703 u n i t s  s h o r t o f the p r o j e c t e d d u e l l i n g u n i t s t a r t s o f 1971-1976 per annum r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y housing f o r m a t i o n .  Thus g i v e n t h e p r o j e c t e d popu-  l a t i o n g r o u t h and housing f o r m a t i o n and t h e t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n o f d u e l l i n g  Table 7.  Single  Residential Building A c t i v i t y - Duelling Starts i n Metropolitan  detached  Semi Detached and Duplex  Rau Apartments  T o t a l Annual Starts  Vancouver 1967-1973  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  Total  1972  1972*  1973  5,980  5,146  4,763  4,482  5,283  25,654  5,625  7,300  6,726  348  512  402  350  391  2,003  368  368  362  6,328  5,658  5,165  4,832  5,674  5,993  7,668  7,088  2D8  311  580  839  1,057  2,995  1,635  945  7,085  9,721  11,945  7.762  8,822  - 45,335  6,896  6,920  7,293  10,032  12,525  8,601  9,879  A2.48,330  8,103  8,531  7,865  13,621  15,690  17,690  13,433  15,553  75,987  14,096  16,199  14,953  A l . 27,657  I n c l u d e s L a n g l e y , Maple Ridge and P i t t Meadous Source:  CMHC  Table 8.  R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g A c t i v i t y - S i n g l e Family D u e l l i n g S t a r t s 1967 - 1973  Vancouver Burnaby New Westminster North Vancouver West Vancouver  Coquitlam Port C o q u i t l a m Port Moody  Richmond Surrey White Rock Delta  Miscellaneous T o t a l Metro-Vancouver  i n Metropolitan  Vancouver  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  Total  1972  1973  595 523  528  393 498  595 596  6  531 268  15 514 242  601 496 21  699 544  42  405 330 a  2,516  558  454 155  412 118  539 114  959  1,857  1,506  1,273  1,866  8,461  1,695  2,131  819 599 168  428 341  231 413  206 310  63  42  1,932 1,968 432  350 289 23  52 28  113  248 305 46  1,586  882  707  558  599  4,332  662  83  512  516  2,735  718  729 117  590 738 115  610  829 119  507 870 120  859 157  4,025 628  1,070 108  1,267  1,389  1,570  1,551  1,583  7,360  1,729  1,529 1,158 77 1,502  2,727  2,886  2,932  2,994  3,207  14,748  3,625  7,020  56  33  20  7  116  11  39  6,328  5,658  5,165  4,832  27,657  5,993  Langley - C i t y Langley - M u n i c i p a l i t y L i o n s Bay Maple Ridge P i t t Meadows ^Includes duplexes Source:  CMHC  22  5,674  2,505 93 2,450 897  438 139  114 1,174 19 290 38 1,635  19 524 165  3  173 1,197 29 483 153 2,011  Table 9 .  Residential Building Activity - Multiple Duelling Starts 1967  Vancouver Burnaby IMeu Ldestminister North Vancouver Uest Vancouver  3,649  1,310 914 713 217 6,803  Coquitlam P o r t Coquitlam Port Moody  Richmond Surrrey LUhite Rock Delta  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 7 3  1969  1970  1971  Total  1972  1973  626 628 106 170 133  6,106 1,320  163  1,290 2,116 344 884 340  2,716 2,124 133 868 197  18,387 8,498 3,170 5,084 1,050  1,936 1,119 149 943 183  2,610 1,027 742 675 707  a, 663  9,711  4,974  6,038  36,189  4,330 '  5,761  2,579 986 839  1968  <*, 1, 1, 1,  673 1,449  241 59 102  503' 130 158  837 231 134  516 140 370  482 426 75  402  791  1,202  1,026  983  10 72 6  69 379 26 104  696 595 189 131  1,424 469 159 549  845 1,575 95 343  88  578  1,612  2,601  7,293  10,,032  12,525  8,601  555 64  188 64 78  619  330  3,034 ' 3,029 541 1,133  996 1,420 347 96  336 989 492 21  2,858  7,737  2,859  9,879  48,330  7,808  .  4,404  295 354 8 66  Miscellaneous Langley - C i t y Langley - M u n i c i p a l i t y L i o n s Bay Maple Ridge P i t t Meadous  "  1,838 7,865  264  106 723  Source:  CMHC  370  -32u n i t s the supply i s f a l l i n g behind  the demand.  A b r i e f a n a l y s i s of the tuo major components of s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g c o s t s , the l a n d and the c o s t of l a b o u r and m a t e r i a l s , u i l l put the case of the cause of i n c r e a s e d c o s t s of housing  i n perspective  and u i l l i n d i c a t e areas of i n t e r e s t r e g a r d i n g p o l i c y to reduce costs.  Tables  ID and 11 p r o v i d e a l i s t  housing  of p r i c e s of s e r v i c e d l o t s  and the c o s t s of c o n s t r u c t i o n based on m a t e r i a l and l a b o u r f o r the p e r i o d of 1964-1973.  These f i g u r e s are assembled i n Table 12 u h i c h  p r o v i d e s a breakdoun of the r e l a t i o n s h i p betueen the cost of l a n d the c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i o n d e r i v i n g an e s t i m a t e d 1964  and 1973  c o s t of a home.  and  Betueen  the percentage of t o t a l c o s t of a s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g  r e l a t e d to the c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i o n s t e a d i l y d e c l i n e d from 71% i n to  49% i n 1973.  c o s t of housing  The  p r i c e of s e r v i c e d l a n d as a percent of the  has i n c r e a s e d from 29% i n 1964  to 51% i n 1973.  total The  most s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the c o s t of a home uas betueen 1972 1973.  The  amount of the i n c r e a s e i s $12,965.  197D  and  71% of t h i s i n c r e a s e i s  a t t r i b u t a b l e t o l a n d u h i l e o n l y 29% of t h i s i n c r e a s e i s a t t r i b u t a b l e tD the i n c r e a s e d cost of l a b o u r and m a t e r i a l s .  I t i s most  important  t h a t one note these f i g u r e s have no r e l a t i o n s h i p tD the market value c o s t of a s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g .  These f i g u r e s merely i n d i c a t e an  e f f e c t of the market and not a cause. T h i s c o n f i r m s the t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s t h a t the c o s t s of l a n d are a f u n c t i o n of neu house v a l u e s u h i c h , i n t u r n , are determined m a i n l y , by the p r i c e of e x i s t i n g h o u s i n g .  Construction costs, either  b u i l d i n g c o s t s or l a n d c o s t s , cannot m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t the g e n e r a l l e v e l of market p r i c e s . to  the f a c t t h a t the housing  to  housing.  current  This l o g i c a l conclusion i s r e l a t e d  s t o c k i s much l a r g e r than the increment  R e l a t i n g t h i s important  r e a l i z a t i o n to the cost f i g u r e s  determined i n Table 12 the supply problem i s put i n t o a t o t a l l y neu  perspective.  -34-  Table ID.  Year  Cost of Construction of Single Family Duellings i n Metropolitan Vancouver 1964-1973, Cost/sq. f t . std1200 f t . bungalou  Material Annual and Dollar labor cost Change  1964  10 .60  12, 720  1966  11 .67  004  1967  12 .49  1968  -  Annual % Change  Cost Index  1%  104 .3  1 ,284  1%  113 .2  988  984  13 .55  1969  1%  116 .8  16, 260  ;  1 , 272  8%  128 .1  14 .64  17, 568  1 ,308  B%  141 .0  1970  14 .37  17, 224  1971  14 .45  17, 340  116  1972  16 .02  1  224  1 ,884  11%  153 .3  1973  19 .22  23, 064  3 ,840  20%  183 .0  Source:  9  . »  -  334  -2% 1%  137 .5 138 .2  Real Estate Trends in Metropolitan Vancouver by the S t a t i s t i c a l Survey Committee of the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board Association 1961 - 1973.  -35-  Table 11.  Average Cast o f a T y p i c a l S e r v i c e d L e t i n GVRD 1964-,973  Price of Serviced Lot  Annual D o l l a r Change  Annual % Change  1964  5,D61  1966  5,810  1967  7,710  1,900  32%  1968  9,600  1,890  24%  1969  11,500  1,900  19%  197D  11,520  20  0%  1971  13,200  1,680  14%  1972  14,708  1,508  11%  1973  23,833  9,125  62%  Source:  +  411  -8%  749  14%  Determined from Table IX *' The. Housing I s s u e " prepared by the P l a n n i n g Department o f the GVRD 1973.  Table 12. Year  The Cost o f Housing i n GV/RD i n T;erms o f B u i l d i n g Costs and S e r v i c e d T o t a l Cost serviced l a n d atn.J labor + materials  Material & Labour as a % of T o t a l Cost  Land as a % of Total Cost  Annual Percent change in t o t a l cost  1964  17,760  . 71%  29%  1966  19,814  70%  30%  11%  1967  22,698  66%  34%  1968  25,860  62%  1969  29,068  197C  Annual Dollar Change in Total Cost  Land P r i c e s 1964-1973  Change due to mat. & l a b o r cost  %  Change due to l a n d c o s t  Dollars %  Dollars  66%  1355 .,64  34%  2,054  66%  1355.64  34%  698.36  14%  2,884  34%  980.56  66%  1,903.44  38%  13%  3,162  40%  1264.80  60%  1,897.20  60%  40%  12%  3,208  40%  1283.20  60%  1,924.80  28,744  59%  41%  - 1%  324  100%  1971  30,540  56%  44%  6%  1,796  6%  107.76  94%  1,688.24  1972  33,932  56%  : 44%  11%  3,392  55%  1865.60  45%  1,526.40  1973  46,897  49%  51%  38%  12,965  29%  3755.65  71%  9209.35  Source:  T a b l e s 10 and 11.  -  - 324  -  -  -37-  Footnotes  """S. bJ. H a m i l t o n , Op. c i t , p. 9. 2 The Canadian S t a t i s t i c a l Review, August 1971 and August 1973, S e r i a l #11-003. Employment E a r n i n g s and Hours, August 1971 and August 1973 S e r i a l #72002. ^The G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , The Housing Issue Vancouver: A Report by the S t a f f o f the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t P l a n n i n g Committee, p. 12. C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n S i n g l e Family D u e l l i n g S t a t i s t i c s 1971, 1972, 1973. 5 The G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , P o p u l a t i o n F o r e c a s t Vancouver GVRD P l a n n i n g Department 1973. P a p u l a t i o n F o r e c a s t , Op. C i t P o p u l a t i o n F o r e c a s t , Bp. C i t 'population F o r e c a s t , Op. C i t  -38-  i  CHAPTER J1\J  THE SUPPLY OF SERVICED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING SITES - AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTORS DETERMINING QUANTITATIVE EXPECTATIONS OF INCREMENTS TO EXISTING HOUSING STOCK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICED RESIDENTIAL DUELLING SITES  Shortcomings of the supply o f r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g been documented c l e a r l y .  s i t e s have  The i n c r e a s e s i n the s i z e of the e x i s t i n g  housing s t o c k have not been s u f f i c i e n t to meet the demand e x p e c t a t i o n s generated by net f a m i l y f o r m a t i o n s and net m i g r a t i o n i n t o the region.  I t i s i n s t r u c t i v e nou to look at the supply s i d e of the  supply/demand e q u a t i o n i n order t o g a i n some i n s i g h t s of the s u p p l i e r s the  (private  d e v e l o p e r s and/or p u b l i c  demands f o r r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g  i n t o the a b i l i t y  a g e n c i e s ) to meet  units u i t h i n specified  time  horizons.* S t a t i c A n a l y s i s of the R e s i d e n t i a l  Duelling  U n i t Supply Process  Vieued as a s t a t i c program f r o z e n a t any g i v e n p o i n t i n t i m e , the  potential  supply o f r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g  units  i n the r e g i o n may  be compared to mathematical s e t s (see F i g u r e 3 ) . These s e t s on l i m i t a t i o n s are p e c u l i a r  to the r e g i o n under c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  l i m i t a t i o n s may o r may not occur i n o t h e r r e g i o n s .  Such  Perhaps a s t r i k i n g  *These e x p e c t a t i o n s do not take i n t o account the l i m i t e d expansion p o s s i b l e o f the p r o c e s s of c o n v e r s i o n o f r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g s i t e s to actual r e s i d e n t i a l duellings. Even i n an u n l i m i t e d number o f r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g s i t e s a v a i l a b l e , there i s a f i n i t e capacity of the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y t o b u i l d homes due t o i n c i p i e n t shortage of m a t e r i a l s , l a b o r management and c a p i t a l .  -39-  FIGURE 3 Diagram of S t a t i c A n a l y s i s of R e s i d e n t i a l D u e l l i n g U n i t Supply Process  Urban Designated Land U i t h i n Region  -H-rj-  example of such d i f f e r e n c e s would be Houston, Texas, where the use  non-  of zoning by-laws' p r e c l u d e s the c r e a t i o n of development a r e a s . The  major s e t i s the supply of urban d e s i g n a t e d l a n d w i t h i n  the r e g i o n at any  given t i m e .  T h i s would be the acreage of  e i t h e r zoned f o r urban r e s i d e n t i a l usage or l a n d which the or p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i l l permit e v e n t u a l l y urban r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d .  land municipal  to be rezoned i n t o  A s p e c i f i c example, of the l a n d w i t h i n  this  major s e t would be the acreage d e s i g n a t e d as n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l  frozen  l a n d d e s i g n a t e d by the i n d i v i d u a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s as s u f f i c i e n t f o r each m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s urban needs f o r the f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d from to 1978.  These a r e a s , as approved by the Land Commission  the Act on b e h a l f of the P r o v i n c e  1973  administering  of B r i t i s h Columbia, s e t s the  limits  beyond which development cannot proceed w i t h i n the f i v e - y e a r time horizon, unless  leakages occur i n the c o n v e r s i o n  of " f r o z e n " farm  land i n t o urban l a n d . The  l a r g e s t subset would be t h a t acreage of urban l a n d which i s  s u f f i c i e n t l y c l o s e to trunk e c o n o m i c a l l y sound b a s i s .  sewers so as to permit development on Someone, e i t h e r the p r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r s  and/or the m u n i c i p a l i t y concerned must u n d e r w r i t e the c o s t s in providing  involved  l a t e r a l sewer l i n k s , water l i n e s and roads to the  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  an  Although c o n s i d e r e d  a s t a t i c supply f o r  land the  sake of t h i s a n a l y s i s , the number of acres v a r i e s as a d i r e c t r e s u l t of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l o t p r i c e s , s e r v i c i n g c o s t s and raw costs.  As l o t p r i c e s r i s e , i t may  become more f e a s i b l e to buy  land less  expensive l a n d f u r t h e r away from the e x i s t i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and i n c u r t h e - h i g h e r c o s t s of p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s to t h a t l a n d .  to  Within  t h i s s e t , the supply of e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e l a n d w i l l vary w i t h the p r i c e of l o t s which w i l l , i n t u r n , be a f u n c t i o n of the r e l a t i v e  -41shortage of supply i n the e x i s t i n g and i n c r e m e n t a l housing s t o c k s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to e f f e c t i v e demand.  Thus, u i t h i n t h i s s e t , the  economic f o r c e s of the market c o u l d be at uork:- the supply of s e r v i c e able l a n d u i l l i n c r e a s e i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the p r i c e s p a i d f o r the product, s e r v i c e d l a n d .  T h i s a n a l y s i s does not take i n t o  the e x t e r n a l i t i e s u h i c h may  account  accompany t h i s development of l a n d f u r t h e r  auay from t h i s e x i s t i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e .  Examples of such e x t e r n a l -  i t i e s uould be the p r o v i s i o n of s c h o o l s , longer a r t e r i a l roads  and  i n c r e a s e d community s e r v i c e s . The s e t of l a n d , u h i c h i s e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e to s e r v i c e , i s f u r t h e r l i m i t e d through the c r e a t i o n of a f u r t h e r subset or of l a n d u i t h i n the s e t of l a n d u h i c h i s e c o n o m i c a l l y M u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the r e g i o n d e s i g n a t e  subsets  feasible.  "development a r e a s " i n u h i c h the  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s u i l l permit development to take p l a c e n o r m a l l y .  These  are c i r c u m s c r i b e d areas s e t out by the m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s i n cons u l t a t i o n u i t h the m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l . areas may cerned.  Furthermore such development  be g i v e n time h o r i z o n p r i o r i t i e s by the m u n i c i p a l i t y conFor example, a m u n i c i p a l i t y u i l l  d e s i g n a t e an area as Develop-  ment Area 1 i n u h i c h a c e r t a i n l e v e l of i n f i l l i n g and development must be a c h i e v e d b e f o r e a p p l i c a t i o n s u i l l be c o n s i d e r e d f o r Development Area 2.  Such Development Areas u s u a l l y , but not a l u a y s , c o i n c i d e  u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s scheme f o r p r o v i d i n g the necessary s t r u c t u r e to t h a t area - p a r t i c u l a r l y seuage treatment The boundaries  of these development areas may  or may  infra-  facilities.  not be  In some i n s t a n c e s , c e r t a i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the r e g i o n may  finite. consider  and approve a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r development from h o l d e r s of p a r c e l s adjacent to or c o m p l e t e l y o u t s i d e these development a r e a s . and/or landouners  may  Developers  be able to convince c o u n c i l t h a t the advantages  -42to t h i s municipality of tying the non-designated parcel under consideration to the infrastructure could outweigh the disadvantages to the municipality.  The incidences of such leakage are reduced i n the  region, however, due to the s p l i n t e r i n g of land ownership patterns uhich make assembly of a s u f f i c i e n t large parcel to j u s t i f y the additional o f f - s i t e costs which would be incurred by the developer in tying the parcel outside the designated  area into the existing  infrastructure. It i s important to point out that the number of acres within the subset of designated  included  urban areas i s not the sole deter-  minant of the number of r e s i d e n t i a l duelling units which may be supplied from the land i n this subset. ment permitted be supplied.  The o v e r a l l density of develop-  w i l l a f f e c t the number of r e s i d e n t i a l units that could Such o v e r a l l densities are the subject of an interaction  betueen developers proposing projects and the municipality approving developments.  Some municipalities u i l l rely  zoning changes through land use contracts. single family density uere permitted  solely upon existing For instance, i f only  by the municipality concerned,  then the number of r e s i d e n t i a l duelling units p o t e n t i a l l y supplied would be considerably  louer than i f multiple family or mixed density  were permitted.  .. • Supply of Land  Assumed Density  Factor  Potential number of r e s i d e n t i a l units  . Single Family  1000 acres  X  4/acres  =  4000 units  Mixed density  10QD acres  X  8/acres  =  8DDD units  Multiple family  1000 acres  X  12/acres  = 120D0 units  -1*3-  Given the s e t of acreage i n c l u d e d u i t h i n t h i s  designated  development a r e a ( s ) times the average o v e r a l l expected d e n s i t y to be permitted  i n t h a t a r e a , c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be g i v e n to the  limit-  a t i o n s of the p o t e n t i a l number of r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g u n i t s to be supplied.  Due  to l i m i t a t i o n s of l a n d assembly u i t h i n the s p e c i f i e d  area there i s a subset of l a n d u i t h i n the s e t of development  area(s)  u h i c h i s the l a n d u h i c h can be assembled by p r i v a t e developers p u b l i c agencies. developable  T h i s subset of assembled l a n d may  and/or  be as l a r g e as  the  a r e a s , but i n most i n s t a n c e s i t i s much s m a l l e r . P a r c e l s  u i t h i n an assembly area are o f t e n i n t e r r e l a t e d to some degree. p a r c e l s are "key"  Many  i n t h a t the road p a t t e r n s , s a n i t a r y and storm  s a n i t a r y seuer pumpting s t a t i o n s , m u s t e f f i c i e n t l y s e r v i c e the  seuers,  be l o c a t e d on these p a r c e l s to  area.  F r i c t i o n s i n the assembly process a r i s e from a number of different factors. 1.  Instrumental  amongst these f a c t o r s uould  Landouners' u n u i l l i n g n e s s to s e l l due  t h a t l a n d may ignated.  to m i s p l a c e d  expectations  be e l i g i b l e f o r a h i g h e r and b e t t e r use than t h a t des-  For i n s t a n c e , ouners o f t e n f e e l t h a t t h e i r l a n d i s s u t i a b l e  f o r m u l t i p l e f a m i l y use r a t h e r than s i n g l e f a m i l y . o f t e n may  have been generated from o b s e r v a t i o n s  zoning category the approving 2.  be:  Such  expectations  of "leakages"  to another as promoted by developers  from  one  and f o s t e r e d by  municipality.  Landouner r e l u c t a n c e to s e l l out to t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e  tD con-  t i n u e e n j o y i n g the use to u h i c h the l a n d i s p r e s e n t l y put i n s p i t e of the l u r e of monetary r e u a r d s . are h e l d by o l d e r people uho Many farmers u i s h to continue their control.  For i n s t a n c e , many s m a l l e r acreages uant to " l a s t out t h e i r days on -the l a n d " . farming  on the l a n d p r e s e n t l y under  -kk-  3.  P r e s e n t l y , use o f a p a r t i c u l a r p a r c e l may be h i g h e r and b e t t e r  than the use t o u h i c h the developer parcels.  c o u l d b r i n g t o the s u r r o u n d i n g  For i n s t a n c e , a c h i c k e n farm on motel o r , most commonly,  an expensive  or s e r i e s o f expensive  homes may p r e c l u d e assembly o f  an e n t i r e t r a c t a t an o v e r a l l p r i c e p e r m i t t i n g economic development, •ne p a r t i c u l a r l y v e x i n g problem i n the Greater V/ancouver and Louer F r a s e r V a l l e y r e g i o n i s the predominance o f expensive and tuo acre <+.  sites.  Landouners i n f l a t i o n a r y e x p e c t a t i o n s have been .'fiiiel>eidbby the  r a p i d p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n the r e g i o n . at a l l ,  homes an one  landouners  Reluctant to s e l l t h e i r land  o f t e n p r i c e the l a n d at l e v e l s u h i c h d i s c o u n t  i n f l a t i o n a r y e x p e c t a t i o n s f a r i n t o the f u t u r e . 5.  Landouners o f t e n d i s t r u s t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the r e a l e s t a t e  industry.  These landouners  adapt the a t t i t u d e o f "burying t h e i r head  i<m t h e sarad" and r e f u s e t o even d i s c u s s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s a l e . The  c o i n c i d e n c e a f these p a r c e l s u i t h h e l d r i s e s almost  m e t r i c a l l y u i t h the number Df landouners i n a given area.  geo-  uhose l a n d uas tD be assembled  In p r a c t i c a l terms, the assembler knous t h a t he u i l l  run i n t o a g r e a t e r r e s i s t e n c e i n g a t h e r i n g t o g e t h e r t h i r t y acres from t e n s e p a r a t e l a n d h o l d e r s than i n p u t t i n g t o g e t h e r a comparable t h i r t y - a c r e p a r c e l h e l d by t h r e e The  ouners.  value o f e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s u s u a l l y r i s e s  significantly  uhen a g r e a t e r number o f l a n d h o l d e r s h o l d a g i v e n acreage.  In the  p r e v i o u s example, i t may be t h a t t h e r e are t e n or more homes p l a c e d on the t h i r t y p a r c e l h e l d by t e n landouners may be on the comparable t h i r t y - a c r e In aggregate,  u h i l e o n l y three homes  parcel.  the combined e f f e c t o f s p l i n t e r e d  landholdings  and/or h o l d o u t s are c o n s i d e r a b l y important uhen c o n s i d e r i n g the  -45potential supply of r e s i d e n t i a l duelling units u i t h i n the region. It may  be passible u i t h i n a limited time horizon to assemble a l l or even  a s i g n i f i c a n t portion u i t h i n a designated urban development area, but, i f such i s not the case, the r e s i d e n t i a l duelling supply pipeline becomes' constricted at the outset.  The effect i s most pronounced i f  the municipality holds the boundaries of the development area constant and does not permit s i g n i f i c a n t "leakages" of potential developments from outside the development areas. Dynamic Analysis of the Residential Unit Supply  Process  Given the pool of potential r e s i d e n t i a l duelling s i t e s as indicated by s t a t i c analysis, i t i s nou necessary to turn to a dynamic analyses, of the production process aver time to determine the r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y or i n e f f i c i e n c y of t h i s production process.  Fore-  most amongst the c r i t e r i a uith uhich to judge the process u i l l be the time required to bring r e s i d e n t i a l duelling units to market and the a t t r i t i o n i n numbers of duelling unit s i t e s uhich never can come to market or uhose production u i l l be delayed beyond normal expected time horizons. to  It i s one thing far developers and/ar public agencies  have rau land i n inventory and quite another for these rau  acreages  to be transformed into serviced building s i t e s ready for r e s i d e n t i a l construction.  Figure 4 sets out the dynamic process i n s i m p l i f i e d  diagramatic form. The time taken for the conversion of rau land into serviced r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e s can vary considerably from municipality to municipality  i n the region.  The time taken to bring serviced r e s i d e n t i a l  building s i t e s to market can also vary considerably u i t h i n a municipality  from decade to decade.  Time taken can be broadly broken doun  into time spent on three functions:-  -46FIGURE 4 P i c t o r i a l R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Dynamic A n a l y s i s of R e s i d e n t i a l D u e l l i n g U n i t Supply P r o c e s s  Duelling unit construction  A  S u b d i v i s i o n c o n s t r u c t i o n and/or site servicing  A  c  •  Q •H  •iH -P  •  -P • C  U-  cn c  •H  tn co cu  (H G CU  •a  cn cn .cu -p cn •H to c -P n cn cnx: c .cn  rH rH  OJ  3  attrition i n numbers  u l+-  cn to  •H  •a  (H CU XI  cn  CO OJ (H •  c  D•  cn cu cn > • . cu TJ  x: E cu cn cn co  c •  -H  -p •  TJ C  (H -P  rH  a  to cn  •  1=  G  C  -p  •H  C  G C  «(H rH  a  time  Guiding the development through the m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l process  •H  -p 3 D- cn cu c  -P  cn cu cn cn co a.  rH  ^7  c  •H  x:  •H  _l  ai  • Fn  E -P u c c cu E C  A  A  OJ  E 3 a Tl FH  Q-  H-  a x: ->z cn C CU  CO •H  -p c  •rH  U-  a -p  Assembly o f r a u l a n d  -47-  1.  The  assembly of r a u l a n d  2.  The m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l process  3.  The c o n s t r u c t i o n process u i t h r e g a r d to s e r v i c i n g the d u e l l i n g s i t e .  Rau l a n d assembly i s a process t h a t may or i t may  happen q u i t e q u i c k l y  be draun out over a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d of t i m e .  I t may  be t h a t t h e developer and/or p u b l i c agency has s u f f i c i e n t l a n d i n i n v e n t o r y uhen the c r e a t i o n of a development area i s announced by the municipality.  I t may  be t h a t an e x p e r i e n c e d assembler  can put t o g e t h e r  a p a r c e l s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e f o r development u i t h i n a matter of ueeks. In most i n s t a n c e s houever, l a n d assembly i n the the r e g i o n i s a s l o u , f r u s t r a t i n g t a s k u h i c h t a k e s at l e a s t s e v e r a l months and even may  last  for years. C o m p e t i t i o n betueen the d e v e l o p e r s i s i n t e n s e . d e v e l o p e r s may  be u o r k i n g on an area s i m u l t a n e o u s l y .  A number of  Each may  acquire  c r u c i a l "key" p a r c e l s , f r u s t r a t i n g the attempts of the o t h e r s .  Often,  long p e r i o d s of i n t e n s i v e n e g o t i a t i o n betueen the d e v e l o p e r s u i l l  de-  termine u h i c h d e v e l o p e r ( s ) end up u i t h the d e v e l o p a b l e package. A l l a s s e m b l i e s are s u b j e c t to the time consuming problem "holdouts".  I t may  of d e a l i n g u i t h  be i n the end, t h a t t h e i r e f f o r t s come tD naught.  C o m p e t i t i o n amongst the d e v e l o p e r s i s not of i n t e r e s t f o r the c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n i s the number of r a u s i t e s u h i c h may gether i n aggregate t h a t t h e r e may  by a l l the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  be gathered t o -  The p o i n t tD note i s  be c o n s i d e r a b l e d e l a y s encountered  by the p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n assembling the l a n d due to c o m p e t i t i o n among themselves. The time taken to guide s u b d i v i s i o n s and/or m u l t i - f a m i l y b u i l d i n g s i t e s through the m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s i s the  critical  element i n the time taken to convert r a u l a n d i n t o s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g  -48-  sites.  The number of i n t e r a c t i o n s between the developer and the  m u n i c i p a l i t y are s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s i n g and the i s s u e s are becoming more complex as urban areas expand and encounter problems i n h e r e n t growth.  The s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l process of the Borough of  with  Scarborough  as o u t l i n e d by Andre Derkowski"'' i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e are 30 agencies t h a t may have a v o i c e i n the process of development a p p r o v a l .  The  process of a p p r o v a l i s being c o n s t r a i n e d by the m u l t i t u d e of i s s u e s which a r i s e i n the cases of e q u a t i n g s o c i a l c o s t s w i t h p r i v a t e It  costs.  i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t w i t h i n the c o m p l e x i t y of the process i t i s  only  the developer who r e p r e s e n t s the consumer of housing as v a r i o u s agencies i n v o l v e d are g e n e r a l l y those concerned w i t h the impact Df a d d i t i o n s tD housing s t a c k i n the e x i s t i n g housing s t a c k and the  trade-  o f f of the i n c r e a s e d c o s t s of development imposed upon the m u n i c i p a l i t y vs the b e n e f i t o f m u n i c i p a l p o p u l a t i o n  growth.  The f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and the r o l e of the p r o v i n c i a l government has an important impact upon the time r e q u i r e d process of a p p r o v a l .  in  In cases where m u n i c i p a l budgets are not capable  of i n c u r r i n g a d d i t i o n a l development, the i n c e n t i v e of the m u n i c i p a l i t y t o reduce the time r e q u i r e d for a p p r o v a l does not e x i s t .  In some  cases the time c r e a t e d by a slow a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s i s an a s s e t to the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n the r e s p e c t t h a t i t may r e q u i r e the a d d i t i o n a l time to determine the o p t i m a l type Df development g i v e n i t s  financial  p o s i t i o n or succeed i n i m p r e s s i n g the p r o v i n c i a l government t h a t a serious municipal finance s i t u a t i o n  exists.  The p l a n n e r a l s o has an important r o l e r e g a r d i n g the of the dynamics of the a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s .  efficiency  A comprehensive p l a n r e l a t e d  to the f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n of the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the o p t i m a l d e v e l o p ment s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r e d i n order to s a t i s f y the m u n i c i p a l budget  p r o v i d e s the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e i n u h i c h the planner may  introduce h i s  concepts r e g a r d i n g the s e r v i c e s t h a t are r e q u i r e d i n the development of a m u n i c i p a l i t y . The  a p p r o v a l process must f u n c t i o n u i t h i n  g e n e r a l frameuork o u t l i n e d by the p l a n n e r .  the  I f the o b j e c t i v e s and  g o a l s of the m u n i c i p a l i t y are not u e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n a comprehensive p l a n the micro economics of the a p p r o v a l process cannot f u n c t i o n properly.  I f the engineer or s c h o o l board or o t h e r v a r i o u s a u t h o r i t i e s  i n v o l v e d i n the a p p r o v a l process are not c o g n i z a n t of an o v e r a l l m u n i c i p a l p l a n n i n g p o l i c y u i t h s p e c i f i e d o b j e c t i v e s , the process i s burdened as v a r i o u s a u t h o r i t i e s attempt  approval  to r e l a t e  their  f u n c t i o n of a p p r o v a l to the undetermined p o l i c y . The  l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n a l s o has an important f u n c t i o n r e g a r d i n g  the time r e q u i r e d f o r a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s .  There i s a very  t r a d e - o f f betueen the t e c h n i c a l a s s e t s or disadvantages ment and i t s impact  important of a develop-  i n the p o l i t i c a l environment i n the community.  The primary concern of the l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n i s to observe  t h a t the  r a t e p a y e r i s not being harmed by a development i n r e s p e c t t h a t p u b l i c and s o c i a l c o s t s c r e a t e d by a development do not exceed the b e n e f i t to the community as a u h o l e .  Some of the c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t the  p o l i t i c i a n u o u l d take i n t o account  are:  1.  Tax burden of e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s  2.  R e s i s t e n c e of r e s i d e n t s t o grouth i n p o p u l a t i o n  3.  Environmental  k.  D e s i r e o f - r e s i d e n t s to upgrade the q u a l i t y of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s by encouraging consumers of a h i g h income s c a l e  5.  R e s i s t e n c e to i n c r e a s e d d e n s i t y ( m u l t i - f a m i l y p r o j e c t s )  costs  These are a f e u of the c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t can be imposed on the s u p p l y of housing u n i t s i n the dynamic process of s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l .  The  -5D-  d i r e c t r e s u l t s uould be a decrease i n the number c f r e s i d e n t i a l  units  brought on the market and i n c r e a s e s i n the time taken to o b t a i n approval. The s u b d i v i s i o n c o n s t r u c t i o n stage of the dynamic p r o c e s s not unduly c o n s t r i c t i n g i n terms of t i m e .  is  S e r v i c i n g of l a n d can  u s u a l l y be accomplished i n three to s i x months g i v e n normal c o n d i t i o n s . M a t e r i a l s h o r t a g e s are houever, attritions this  a problem at c e r t a i n t i m e s .  Mo  i n supply occur i n t h a t no d u e l l i n g s i t e s uould be l o s t  at  stage. D u e l l i n g u n i t c o n s t r u c t i o n time l a g s do occur but are not  critical.  unduly  R e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g s u s u a l l y take from t h r e e to nine months  to c o m p l e t e .  Completion p e r i o d s can be lengthened through  of l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s .  IMo a t t r i t i o n i n the number of  d u e l l i n g u n i t s o c c u r s at t h i s  shortages  residential  stage.  The m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l process i s the most c r i t i c a l on the proper f u n c t i o n i n g of the dynamic p r o c e s s .  The  constraint  follouing  c h a p t e r s p r o v i d e evidence of the i n e f f i c i e n c y of the m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l process- i n the l o u e r mainland of B . C . and p o s s i b l e  solutions.  indicating c r i t i c a l  constraints  -51-  Footnotes  Andre D e r k o u s k i , R e s i d e n t i a l Land Development i n O n t a r i o . A Report prepared by the Urban Development I n s t i t u t e of O n t a r i o , November, 1972.  -52-  0 CHAPTER  TIME REQUIRED FDR  The  \V  SUBDIVISION APPROVAL  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of P i t t Meadows, Richmond, the  of Coquitlam and Surrey uere s e l e c t e d as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  District  of a  s e c t i o n of l o u e r mainland m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t h a t u o u l d p r o v i d e ation regarding  cross inform-  the time r e q u i r e d f o r a p p r o v a l of major s u b d i v i s i o n s .  An i n t r o d u c t i o n to the c r i t e r i o n o f s e l e c t i o n of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and  the f e a t u r e s of each u i l l be f o l l o u e d by evidence i n d i c a t i n g  t h e i r s p e c i f i c performance i n the area of s u b d i v i s i o n  approvals.  S e l e c t i o n of M u n i c i p a l i t i e s A l l of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s e l e c t e d generate s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s as a l a r g e p o r t i o n of t h e i r a d d i t i o n a l housing s t o c k year yet d i f f e r i n r e s p e c t  to p o p u l a t i o n ,  l a n d area s i z e , p o t e n t i a l  areas of l a n d f o r s u b d i v i s i o n , the p r i c e s of s e r v i c e d land and methods of s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l . base f o r d e t e r m i n i n g a g e n e r a l  The  each  general  sample s e l e c t e d p r o v i d e s a good  s u b d i v i s i o n procedure (uhich i s the  of c h a p t e r VI) as u e l l as a r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the  topic  louer  mainland s i t u a t i o n . P i t t Meadous P i t t Meadous uas u i t h a population  s e l e c t e d as i t i s a very s m a l l m u n i c i p a l i t y  of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3,000 people"'" c o v e r i n g  a l a n d area  2 of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11,575 a c r e s . u i t h most of i t s p o p u l a t i o n  P i t t Meadous i s s u b d i v i s i o n  c o n c e n t r a t e d i n one  general  area.  oriented It is  -53expected t h a t o f a maximum p a p u l a t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y  11,000 people,  the m a j o r i t y o f these people, 9,500, u i l l be c o n c e n t r a t e d i n t h e Highlands area u h i c h i n c l u d e s 790 a c r e s . T h e major f a c t o r  limiting  the f u t u r e development o f the m a j o r i t y o f the l a n d i n P i t t Meadous i s the f a c t t h a t t h i s l a n d i s i n the F l o o d P l a i n area u h i c h  dis-  q u a l i f i e s i t f o r r e s i d e n t i a l use. The g o a l s a f the m u n i c i p a l i t y in  terms o f grouth and development are o u t l i n e d i n a comprehensive  p l a n u h i c h uas based on a study conducted  i n 1967.  The s u b d i v i s i o n  a p p r o v a l process i s very u e l l o r g a n i z e d as i t r e l a t e d to the community plan.  A f u r t h e r a s s e t i s t h a t t h e procedure  i s very s i m p l e p r o v i d i n g  an e x c e l l e n t base f o r c o n s i d e r i n g the more complex procedures in  used  some o f the l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Richmond Richmond b e i n g the a n t i t h e s i s o f P i t t Meadous i s a much l a r g e r  m u n i c i p a l i t y u i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f over 62,000 p e o p l e ^ on a l a n d area o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 9,708 a c r e s . ^  P r e s e n t l y 2,499 a c r e s o f t h i s l a n d 7  are vacant and 3,292 a c r e s are used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes. tueen 1966 and 1971 4,002  Be-  a d d i t i o n a l housing u n i t s uere c r e a t e d u h i l e  s e r v i c e d l a n d i n c r e a s e d i n p r i c e from $8,000 per l o t i n 1969 t o $12,000 g in  1972.  Reference  to increases i n costs of s e r v i c e d land i n other  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s does i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e may be a r e l a t i o n s h i p betueen the c o s t o f s e r v i c e d - l o t s and the e f f i c i e n c y o f the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l processes used i n v a r i o u s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  The m u n i c i p a l i t y o f Surrey  may be c o n s i d e r e d i n these terms as t h e c a s t a f s e r v i c e d l a n d has i n c r e a s e d a t a g r e a t e r r a t e than t h a t f o r Richmond u h i l e the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l process has tended t o r e q u i r e more time than t h a t r e q u i r e d in  Richmond.  Evidence  of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  o f t h i s f a c t u i l l be p r o v i d e d i n the a n a l y s i s  -54D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam The D i s t r i c t  o f Coquitlam i s a medium s i z e d m u n i c i p a l i t y  u i t h a p a p u l a t i o n Df 53,230 '"' people c o v e r i n g an area of 6 , 2 4 1 a c r e s 1  of u h i c h 2,378 acres are i n r e s i d e n t i a l use and 1,998 are  vacant.  1 1  12 Betueen 1966 and 1971 4,033  housing u n i t s uere c r e a t e d .  The  price  •f s e r v i c e d l a n d has r i s e n from $8,000' per l o t i n 1969 to $12,000 in 1972.^  The a p p r o v a l process i n Coquitlam i s much l e s s  than t h a t used i n Richmond.  sophisticated  One major d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h a t Richmond has  the c a p a c i t y to a n a l y z e s u b d i v i s i o n p r o p o s a l s a c c o r d i n g to demands of the procedure u h i l e the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam must employ c o n s u l t i n g f i r m s i n same c a s e s .  An obvious v a r i a t i o n i s the f a c t t h a t i n the  D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam the M u n i c i p a l Engineer i s the approving uhereas i n Richmond the p l a n n e r i s the approving Surrey  officer  officer.  Surrey being one o f the l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n Canada . 14 cavers a l a n d area of 74,124 a c r e s acres u i t h a 15 R p a p u l a t i o n of 9 8 , 0 0 0 . i n . •Np^ibfox S&E'frie.yy 5,455 a c r e s are vacant and geographically,  3,740 are used f a r r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s . ^ 1  Betueen 1966 and 1971,  17 5,133  housing u n i t s uere c o n s t r u c t e d u h i l e the c o s t of s e r v i c e d  i n c r e a s e d from $6,500 per l o t i n 1969 to $11,500 i n 1 9 7 2 .  1 8  land  The s u b -  d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s has been changing u i t h the r a p i d grouth of housing development.  As a consequence Surrey has adapted same  p o l i c i e s t h a t vary from those of the o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s e l e c t e d . Surrey i s one of the f e u m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the l o u e r mainland t h a t maximizes the use a f l a n d use c o n t r a c t s i n cases a f s u b d i v i s i o n s q u i r i n g l a n d use changes.  re-  -55-  A n a l y s i s of the Time Required f a r S u b d i v i s i o n A p p r o v a l i n Each Municipality Consulting municipal  engineers,  developers,  municipal  planners  and  e n g i n e e r s working i n each of the f o u r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s e l e c t e d  were c o n s u l t e d r e g a r d i n g  the l e n g t h of time r e q u i r e d f o r a p p r o v a l  a major s u b d i v i s i o n from the date of p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n to  of the  date of the s i g n i n g of the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n by the approving o f f i c e r . The  information obtained  from the survey g i v e s a r e a s o n a b l e i n d i c a t i o n  o f the p r e s e n t t r e n d s r e g a r d i n g  the amount of time r e q u i r e d to approve  a major s u b d i v i s i o n i n each m u n i c i p a l i t y . Richmond Richmond, one  of the more e x p e r i e n c e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the  area of s u b d i v i s i o n development, has the most c o n s i s t e n t r e c o r d approval  times f o r s u b d i v i s i o n s over the past k y e a r s .  the major developers i n t e r v i e w e d one  approval  According  to  r e q u i r e s from 6 months to  year depending on the s i z e of the p r o j e c t and  approval  of  the n e c e s s i t y  of  from other government b o d i e s a s i d e from the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  Large p r o j e c t s such as Maple Grove by Grosvenor I n t e r n a t i o n a l and Ldestwind i n v o l v i n g 200  u n i t s or more (see Table 13) r e q u i r e d approx-  i m a t e l y 12 months f o r a p p r o v a l  of the f i r s t phase, however, the second  and t h i r d phases as r e q u i r e d were approved i n a s h o r t e r p e r i o d time.  Table 13 l i s t s the major s u b d i v i s i o n s which were under con-  s t r u c t i o n i n 1973 cases a p p r o v a l  and the dates of o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n .  r e q u i r e d l e s s than 1 y e a r .  producing l e s s than 100 for  of  approval  (Table  Ik  Smaller  In most  subdivisions  b u i l d i n g l o t s g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e 3 to 6 months g i v e s a few  examples).  -56-  Table 13.  Major S u b d i v i s i o n s August 1973.  Under C o n s t r u c t i o n  i n Richmond  Date of P r e l i m i n a r y Application Q u i l c h e n a Park  313  single family duellings  Sept. 5,  1972  U e s t u i n d IV & VII  147  single family  duellings  Nov.  and March 1973  Maple Breve I I I & IV 110  single family  duellings  June  3 &.B  105  single family  duellings  Bet. 31,  1972  250  single family  duellings  Nov.  1972  Const.  Dausan R e a l t y  Table 14.  A Sample of Smarlil S u b d i v i s i o n s September 1973  1972 1973 27,  Approved Before  A p p l i c a t i o n Date A. S c h i e l Teved Ind. J . K. Zee  The  36 s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g building lots  May  61 s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g building lots  March 14,  65 s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g building lots  March  t r e n d s of a p p l i c a t i o n s u h i c h are s t i l l  29,  i n the  1973 1973  1973  approval  process i n d i c a t e t h a t sloudouns are encountered uhen s u b d i v i s i o n s are composed of a m i x t u r e of s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s and family duellings.  The  municipal  multiple  s u b d i v i s i o n b y - l a u #143D D f Richmond  p e r m i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n of m u l t i p l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s cn 10% of the i n p r o j e c t s uhich  i n c l u d e 50 Dr more a c r e s .  The  combination af  land  -57m u l t i p l e and s i n g l e f a m i l y developments o f t e n i n t r o d u c e s zoning amendments and has r e q u i r e d the employment o f Land Use C o n t r a c t s in certain  situations.  One o f the f i r s t p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g a Land Use C o n t r a c t i s one t h a t uas i n i t i a t e d by D u n h i l l Developments J u l y 13, 1972. p r o j e c t a c t u a l l y commenced i n January  of 1972.  In August o f 1972 i t  uas recommended t o c o u n c i l t h a t a Land Use C o n t r a c t be On February  prepared.  20, 1973 the Land Use C o n t r a c t uas supposed to be  houever i t uas not ready.  The  executed,  In August o f 1973 a vague p r o p o s a l i n the  form o f a Land Use C o n t r a c t uas r e l e a s e d .  In February o f 1974 the  f i n a l s t e p s i n the a p p r o v a l process a r e . b e i n g completed.  Although  t h i s case i n v o l v e d a p p r o v a l by o t h e r government b o d i e s the major s l o u doun may be a t t r i b u t e d to the p e r i o d s o f n e g o t i a t i o n betueen the developer and the m u n i c i p a l i t y uhen the c o n t r a c t uas being  settled.  Richmond o n l y uses Land Use C o n t r a c t s uhere i t deems n e c e s s a r y . In most cases the development agreement i s used.  The  distinction  betueen the tuo i s t h a t under a Land Use C o n t r a c t the m u n i c i p a l i t y can c r e a t e a zoning change i n a very s p e c i f i c area and e s s e n t i a l l y s e l l zoning by e n t e r i n g i n t o a c o n t r a c t u i t h a developer t o change 19 zoning f o r h i s p r o j e c t . for  a zoning change.  The development agreement i s not a c o n t r a c t  Although  i n the process o f d r a f t i n g a development  agreement, a zoning change may occur i n an area the tuo are not directly related.  The zoning change uould not be f o r the s p e c i f i c  development but f o r the e n t i r e area covered by the e x i s t i n g b y - l a u and i t u o u l d not be a c o n d i t i o n i n the c o n t r a c t .  zoning  The l a u i s very  c l e a r on t h i s p o i n t r e g a r d i n g the independence o f zoning from development agreements.  In the case of the C i t y o f Vancouver•vs R e g i s t r a r 20 of Vancouver Land R e g i s t r a t i o n D i s t r i c t , 15 U.U.R. 351 i t uas h e l d  • t h a t a promise t o rezone a p a r c e l D f s u b j e c t of a c o n t r a c t . Contracts  The  l a n d cannot o r d i n a r i l y be  the  important d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h a t Land  Use  are enabled by l e g i s l a t i o n to permit c o n t r a c t i n g  -58-  for  zoning w h i l e development agreements come under housekeeping powers of the m u n i c i p a l i t y which permit the m u n i c i p a l i t y to g i v e a r i g h t to use p u b l i c r i g h t s of way to m u n i c i p a l  s t a n d a r d s so t h a t h i s p r o j e c t may  p r i v a t e owner of p r o p e r t y any  to i n s t a l l s e r v i c e s  developers according  be completed.  has not the r i g h t to c o n s t r u c t  "A  works of  d e s c r i p t i o n on a p u b l i c road even i f he proposes to b u i l d i t to 21  municipal  s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and pay  the whole c o s t h i m s e l f . "  The  m u n i c i p a l i t y g i v e s the developer the r i g h t to d i g up i t s reads or p u b l i c r i g h t s of way  sc t h a t he can f u l f i l h i s r e q u i r e m e n t s to a t t a i n  a p p r o v a l of h i s p r o j e c t . Richmond g e n e r a l l y f a v o u r s the use of the development agreement as i t r a r e l y f i n d s i t necessary to a l l o c a t e "spot z o n i n g " a l l the power necessary t c r e g u l a t e  i t has  the development of a p a r t i c u l a r  p r o j e c t through a Development Agreement. C o n t r a c t may  and  (IMate the term Development  be used a l t e r n a t i v e l y to the term Development Agreement.)  However, i n cases such as the D u n h i l l p r o j e c t and o t h e r s where m u l t i p l e family dwellings  are mixed w i t h s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s  necessary to spot zone as mentioned e a r l i e r .  i t has  been  S i n c e t h i s paper i s  concerned w i t h major s u b d i v i s i o n development t h a t i n v o l v e s  subdivision  of land i n t D s e r v i c e d l o t s f o r s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s o n l y , the of Land Use  Contracts  i n the Richmond a p p r o v a l process does not  There are no cases of a Land Use  use apply.  Contract being involved i n a s i n g l e  f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s u b d i v i s i o n i n Richmond. There i s one  c o n t r o v e r s i a l c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r tD slow-downs  w i t h i n the Richmond p r o c e s s .  A c c o r d i n g tD d e v e l o p e r s and  consulting  -59-  engineers i n t e r v i e u e d the m u n i c i p a l p o l i c y uhich recommends that m u n i c i p a l engineer prepares the f i n a l drauings f o r a p r o j e c t than a d e v e l o p e r ' s c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r ,  rather  i s a burden to the p r o c e s s .  At peak load i n terms of volume a p p l i c a t i o n s , the consensus i s the m u n i c i p a l engineer does not operate as e f f i c i e n t l y s u l t i n g engineer of the d e v e l o p e r .  It  the  as the  that con-  should be noted that at times  uhen the m u n i c i p a l engineer i s overburdened he does recommend to the developer that he should employ h i s oun c o n s u l t i n g engineer to the d r a u i n g s .  Eventually  the m u n i c i p a l engineer i s going to be  i n v o l v e d u i t h the c a r e f u l examination of the d r a f t d e v e l o p e r ' s c o n s u l t i n g engineer presents them f o r it  prepare  plans as the inspection.  Thus  does not appear that the developer can gain that much time i n these  circumstances.  T h i s argument u i l l  the approval process i t s e l f  be mentioned i n Chapter 5 r e g a r d i n g  and a l t e r n a t i v e s  to e x i s t i n g  systems.  In c o n c l u s i o n , Richmond does not stand as a m u n i c i p a l i t y i s s u f f e r i n g from a lengthening approval p r o c e s s .  uhich  Table lk i n d i c a t e d  that medium s i z e d developments can be approved i n l e s s than 3 months. The survey r e v e a l e d cases uhere approval uas obtained i n three u e e k s . The f a c t that cases c i t e d are a t y p i c a l of the Richmond s i t u a t i o n according to those i n t e r v i e u e d , subdivisions  is a different  issue.  Western Realty i s an e x c e l l e n t process.  The p r o j e c t  is sufficient  proof.  The case of major  The London Park development of  h i s t o r i c a l example of an e f f i c i e n t  uas i n i t i a t e d i n J u l y of 1971 and approval of  1 the f i r s t  phase uas given i n February of 1971.'  phased developments r e q u i r e more time i n i t i a l l y definitely  reasonable f o r a 300 l o t  Unfortunately,  As noted  earlier,  but 8 months i s  division.  there i s nothing comparable at the present  time to the major s u b d i v i s i o n of 2 years ago.  T h e r e . a r e only a feu  -6CJmajor s u b d i v i s i o n s i n the u o r k s today i n Richmond and i n v o l v e mixed l a n d use family duelling.  betueen s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g and  There are d e l a y s c r e a t e d  A l t h o u g h the m u n i c i p a l i t y o f Richmond has i n areas uhere t h e r e  multiple  i n t h e s e developments. d r a f t e d neu  zoning by-laus  are major developments as i n the case of some o f  the p r o j e c t s developed by Dausan R e a l t y and Agreements, hence a v o i d i n g delay  a l l o f them  has  the use o f Land Use  used Development Contracts,  there  is a  c r e a t e d by the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s r e q u i r e d f o r the z o n i n g change.  As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h i s paper i s concerned u i t h d e l a y s i n d e v e l o p ments u h i c h  are not mixed but composed o f o n l y s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s .  A v i t a l assumption u h i c h  appears v a l i d must be made.  Since  the  medium s i z e d p r o j e c t s are p r o c e s s e d i n the same p e r i o d of time as a f e u y e a r s ago,  an h y p o t h e t i c a l major s u b d i v i s i o n s h o u l d a l s o  be  consistent. The  mixed developments are b e i n g d e l a y e d because o f p u b l i c  i n p u t i n p u b l i c h e a r i n g s c o n c e r n i n g z o n i n g changes and o f Land Use  Contracts.  the d r a f t i n g  A n a l y s i s of these f a c t s u i l l be conducted uhen  r e v i e u i n g the case o f S u r r e y u h i c h  uses Land Use  subdivisions uhich  S o l u t i o n s t o these problems  be c o n s i d e r e d  are not mixed.  i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n  of a general  Contracts  f o r major uill  procedure f o r sub-  d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l i n Chapter V I . P i t t Meadous The  m u n i c i p a l i t y o f P i t t Meadous, b e i n g a very s m a l l  has  a very e f f i c i e n t system o f a p p r o v a l .  hub  o f the p r o c e s s .  f i r m to c a r r y out planning  The  The  municipal  c l e r k i s the  m u n i c i p a l i t y employs a c o n s u l t i n g  i t s engineering  considerations.  s e r v i c e a s s i s t s i n the p l a n n i n g  The  municipality,  engineering  regional  s i d e o f the p r o c e s s .  A major  -61s u b d i v i s i o n s h o u l d not r e q u i r e mure than 6 months f o r a p p r o v a l , houever t h e r e are a number of c o m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t a r i s e .  The  major  t h r e a t to an e f f i c i e n t system of a p p r o v a l i s the requirement  of  p r o v i n c i a l a p p r o v a l i f the p r o j e c t i n v o l v e s the f l o o d p l a i n ,  agricul-  t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e or highuays  department.  In the case of P i t t  Meadous, most s u b d i v i s i o n s t h e r e i n v o l v e at l e a s t one of these  ;  authorities. 22 An example i s a case  u h i c h o c c u r r e d i n 1972,  seven months from the time proceedings  1973  and i n v o l v e d  began f o r p r o v i n c i a l a p p r o v a l  of the use of l a n d i n the f l o o d p l a i n u n t i l the date of a p p r o v a l . major reason f o r the amount of time r e q u i r e d may  be r e l a t e d to the  l a c k of f a m i l i a r i t y o f the p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s u i t h a procedure a p p r o v a l at t h e i r l e v e l .  A  for  The f a c t t h a t the f l o o d p l a i n l a n d i n t h i s  case came under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Land Commission seemed to p r o v i d e the r e q u i r e d imbalance  to s t i m u l a t e c o n f u s i o n .  I t uas a l s o  necessary f o r the m u n i c i p a l i t y t o c r e a t e a Land Use C o n t r a c t .  Although  t h i s case d i d not i n v o l v e a s u b d i v i s i o n i t o u t l i n e s the a l l o c a t i o n of time uhen p r o v i n c i a l bodies are i n v o l v e d i n the a p p r o v a l system. The  c h i e f f a c t o r u h i c h may  be blamed f o r the l o s s o f time  uas  the s t a t e of i n d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g u h i c h department of the p r o v i n c i a l government should be the f i r s t to c o n s i d e r the a p p l i c a t i o n and u h i c h department o f the government has the v o i c e of f i n a l a p p r o v a l i n cons i d e r a t i o n of recommendations of o t h e r departments i n v o l v e d .  (Since  both the Land Commission and the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s uere i n v o l v e d the s i t u a t i o n became very complex.)  A procedure  policy for  a p p r o v a l of a l a n d use change i n a f l o o d p l a i n area u h i c h i s a l s o p a r t of the a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e , i s s t i l l not d e f i n i t e . The s t e p s o u t l i n e the p r o c e s s :  follauing  -62-  1.  A p p l i c a t i o n must be made t o t h e Land Commission f o r r e l e a s e  of t h e r e s e r v e considers  lands.  The Environment and Land Use Committee  the a p p l i c a t i o n and c o n s u l t s u i t h o t h e r p r o v i n c i a l government  departments such as p l a n n i n g  uater resources,  highuays, e t c . uhere  necessary. 2.  In t h e case o f p l a c i n g development i n the Flood P l a i n t h e r e  are a s e r i e s o f a p p l i c a t i o n s t h a t may be made s i m u l t a n e o u s l y  uith  the a p p l i c a t i o n t o the Land Commission uhere a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e r v e is  involved.  land  ( T h i s procedure u o u l d a l s o s t a n d i f the l a n d uas not i n  a g r i c u l t u r a l reserve.) a)  Reference must be made t o the r e g i o n a l p l a n .  I f an  amendment i s r e q u i r e d a p p l i c a t i o n must be made t o t h e r e g i o n a l (i)  The r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t u i l l  district.  foruard t h i s application  to t h e Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s .  (The Depart-  ment o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s p r o c e s s e s the a p p l i c a t i o n through v a r i o u s departments t o assemble s u f f i c i e n t information b)  i n o r d e r t o make a d e c i s i o n . )  The m u n i c i p a l i t y must a l s o send i t s oun a p p l i c a t i o n t o  the Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s r e g a r d i n g make i n the r e g i o n a l p l a n . 3.  the change i t u i s h e s t o  (Same process as i n step 2 ( a ) ( i ) . )  When i t i s knoun t h a t the Land Commission i s going t o r e l e a s e  the necessary l a n d from t h e r e s e r v e a development area b y - l a u  the m u n i c i p a l i t y may then prepare  i f a Land Use C o n t r a c t i s going t o be used.  (Since a zoning change i s i n v o l v e d the m u n i c i p a l i t y u i l l g e n e r a l l y use the Land Use C o n t r a c t - p a r t i c u l a r l y / i n a s i t u a t i o n such as t h i s  uhich  involves the f l o o d p l a i n . ) a)  The development area must be e s t a b l i s h e d by b y - l a u . (i)  The development area b y - l a u  i s submitted to the  -63-  r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t f o r a p p r o v a l u i t h r e g a r d to the r e g i o n a l p l a n .  The  regional district  f o r u a r d s the b y - l a u to the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s uhich analyzes i t . (ii)  The m u n i c i p a l i t y must send the development area b y - l a u to the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s f o r approval.  4.  The  Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s u i l l not g i v e m i n i s t e r i a l  a p p r o v a l r e g a r d i n g f l o o d p l a i n l a n d u n t i l a r e g i s t e r e d survey  shous  t h a t the l a n d i n q u e s t i o n meets the r e q u i r e d g e o d e t i c r a t i n g u h i c h p r e s e n t l y i s determined line. 5.  The  as tuo f e e t above the h i s t o r i c a l h i g h u a t e r  a c t u a l p h y s i c a l uork must be done.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y may a)  The  nou prepare  i t s Land Use  Land Use C o n t r a c t once executed  by  Contract.  the developer must  be sent to:. (i)  The  R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t u h i c h f o r u a r d s i t on to  the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s u h i c h i n v o l v e s v a r i o u s departments of the  then  provincial  government f o r a p p r o v a l or recommendations. (ii)  The m u n i c i p a l i t y must send the Land Use  Contract  t o the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s (same procedure 6.  Nothing can be  as  4(a)(i).  done u n t i l the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s  g i v e s m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l a c c o r d i n g to Sec. 187 of the E n a b l i n g and I n v a l i d a t i n g Note:  Municipalities  Act.  I f t h i s development d i d not r e q u i r e a change i n the grade  l e v e l of the l a n d t o meet the requirements  of f l o o d p l a i n l a n d use  and the proposed development area c o i n c i d e d u i t h the proposed  develop-  -foment a c c o r d i n g to the r e g i o n a l p l a n the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s u o u l d not be  involved.  The major sloudouns i n t h i s process i n v o l v e breakdouns r e g a r d i n g p r o v i n c i a l government p o l i c y .  communication The  procedure  is not u r i t t e n doun and the requirements tend to v a r y .  A tremendous  amount of time i s l o s t u h i l e the v a r i o u s departments r e p o r t i n g the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s determine p o l i c y . the procedure i s d u p l i c a t e d i n s t e p s 2(a) and 2 ( b ) , and 5(a)  i)  and i i )  The f a c t  3(a) i )  a l s o burdens the process as a s i n g l e  i s u n n e c e s s a r i l y s h u f f l e d through v a r i o u s  to that  and  ii)  application  departments.  S i n c e P i t t Meadous i s such a s m a l l m u n i c i p a l i t y each major s u b d i v i s i o n i s t r e a t e d on a very p e r s o n a l b a s i s .  The m u n i c i p a l c l e r k  i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m a n i p u l a t i n g the p r o p o s a l through the municipal process.  entire  As each p r o p o s a l i s processed i n t h i s unique manner  and as each p r o p o s a l i s s u b j e c t to v a r i a b l e exposure to the  various  a u t h o r i t i e s of the p r o v i n c i a l government u h i c h l i e o u t s i d e the m u n i c i p a l i t y the a n a l y s i s of the amount of time r e q u i r e d f o r a p p r o v a l cannot be g e n e r a l i z e d .  subdivision  The o n l y c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r of  Meadous i n c o n t e x t of t h i s chapter i s the f a c t t h a t a p p r o v a l  outside  of the m u n i c i p a l i t y can generate e x c e s s i v e sloudouns u h i c h are to each p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t provincial authorities.  and the degree of involvement u i t h  Pitt  inherent the  The major a s s e t of c o n s i d e r i n g P i t t Meadous  i s the s i m p l i c i t y of the system of a p p r o v a l u h i c h p r o v i d e d a b a s i s f o r the p r e p a r a t i o n of a g e n e r a l s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l procedure i s the t e x t of Chapter  VI.  uhich  -65The  D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam  The  D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam p r o c e s s e s o n l y a f e u major sub-  d i v i s i o n s every y e a r .  A m a j o r i t y o f the a p p l i c a t i o n s are f o r one  and tuo l o t s u b d i v i s i o n s . uith  Table 15 compares t h e number o f a p p l i c a t i o n s  the number o f l o t a p p r o v a l s made betueen 1970 and 1973.  Table 15.  A p p l i c a t i o n s and A p p r o v a l s f a r S e r v i c e d D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam 1970-1973  Year  Lots Approved  :  Lots i n the  Number o f A p p l i c a t i o n s  1970  158  120  1971  176  120  1972  435  147  1973  556  150  In 1973,  325 o f the 556 l o t s approved uere produced by t h r e e major  subdivisions.  BACM i s r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r 136, Nu west c r e a t e d 149 and  A u s t i n Developments 40. A n a l y s i s o f t h e A u s t i n development and the Nu West Development revealed the f o l l o u i n g  information regarding 23  r e q u i r e d tD complete the a p p r o v a l  process.  t h e amount D f time The A u s t i n development uas  i n i t i a t e d i n September 1972 u i t h p r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n s .  A conssulting  engineer uas not employed by the developer u n t i l May 22, 1973. On June 18, 1973 a rough p l a n and design uas s u b m i t t e d t o the D i s t r i c t for approval.  On J u l y 12, 1973 t h e D i s t r i c t r e p l i e d t o t h e c o n s u l t i n g  engineer g i v i n g him p e r m i s s i o n  t o prepare a mare d e t a i l e d p l a n  uhich  i n v o l v e d a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f road c e n t r e l i n e s a n d road grades i n the f i e l d .  The c o n s u l t i n g engineer spent one month p r e p a r i n g  this  f o r m a l p l a n and s u b m i t t e d i t t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y on August 14, 1973.  -66On October 17, 1973 f i n a l approval uas given.  In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r  project the developer did not pursue h i s project after preliminary discussions i n September of 1972. under uay u n t i l May of 1973. months.  The project did not r e a l l y get  The time required for approval uas 6  This uas not a t y p i c a l 40 l o t subdivision as i t involved  rugged t e r r a i n and more f i e l d uork by the consulting engineer than usual. The IMu Uest Development being three times the size of the Austin Development required more time. November 17, 1971. 1971.  Preliminary discussions began  Consulting engineers uere contacted December 6,  Betueen January 18, 1972 and September 1972 there uere a  series of meetings betueen the consulting engineer of the developer and the municipal engineer.  On March 9, 1972 approval uas given i n  p r i n c i p l e to the preliminary plans.  On March 29 more detailed plans  uere submitted tD the municipal engineer.  A month l a t e r the municipal  engineer made a reply to the March 29th submission uith recommendations. On May 1, 1972 the developer's consulting engineer re-submitted plans.  During May and June there uere a series of meetings betueen  the consulting engineer and the municipal engineer regarding road grades and other requirements.  In September the detailed drauings  uere completed by the consulting engineer of the developer but not approved by the municipal engineer.  In November 1972 approval uas  expected but i n t e r n a l problems developed regarding land ouned by a private c i t i z e n . re-submitted. approval.  The. plan of the subdivision had to be modified and  In January 1973 the approving o f f i c e r gave f i n a l  In this case the process required 13 months uith a portion  of the delay attributable to the developer regarding the i n t e r n a l problems created i n November of 1973.  -67The D i s t r i c t cf CDquitlam  does not use land use contracts in  cases of zoning changes except i n unusual developments such as a zero lot line project. process may engineer.  The most c r i t i c a l delay i n the municipal approval  be linked to the process of approval by the municipal Improvements i n t h i s area uould d e f i n i t e l y reduce the  length of time for approval as i n both cases i l l u s t r a t e d there uere lengthy breakdouns i n communication betueen the developer's consulting engineer and the municipal engineer i n various stages of the process. The case of the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam may  be considered to be  functioning at a reasonable rate considering that i t processes r e l a t i v e l y feu major subdivisions and that the trend i s touards development of small subdivisions as there are only a feu areas of land that are feasible for major subdivision development.  The e f f i c i e n c y of pro-  cessing major subdivisions i s not a matter of p r i n c i p l e concern. Regardless of. the municipal situation the evidence i s conclusive  that major subdivisions are restrained by Coquitlam approval  system.  The municipality revealed that a small subdivision of one or  tuo lots can be processed i n approximately six to eight ueeks.  In a  standard case D f a major subdivision uhich does not involve complicated zoning changes one uould expect that the process uould not require a lengthy period of time.  In both cases cited there uere  unnecessary  delays. It uas not possible to obtain h i s t o r i c a l data regarding the amount of time required for subdivision approval today as compared uith the past 3 years.  Since the number of major subdivisions produced i n  the municipality are so feu the v a l i d i t y of such data uould be questionable.  The c r i t i c a l factor i s that imperfections exist and  there i s potential for improvement.  -68-  Surrey ThE m u n i c i p a l i t y c f Surrey has one of the l o n g e s t s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l procedures  of the f o u r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s c o n s i d e r e d .  This fact  i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by a survey u h i c h r e v i e u e d a s e r i e s of a p p l i c a t i o n s f i l e d f o r s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l betueen 1971 and  1973.  The minutes of the D i s t r i c t of Surrey c o u n c i l meeting of December 3, 1973,  i n c l u d e d a r e p o r t of the c h i e f planner  concerning  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Land Use C o n t r a c t and r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s u h i c h had been r e c e i v e d by the D i s t r i c t p r i o r to November 1, 1973 s t i l l i n the a p p r o v a l process at the date of the c o u n c i l  and uere  meeting.  The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n problem uas one of d e t e r m i n i n g u h i c h a p p l i c a t i o n s uould be processed under the o l d p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g a l l o c a t i o n of imposts and u h i c h ones uould be processed under the neu p o l i c y of imposts u h i c h uas i n t r o d u c e d i n June of In January  1974  1973.  a l l 65 of the a p p l i c a t i o n s i n c l u d e d i n the  p l a n n e r ' s r e p o r t uere r e s e a r c h e d r e g a r d i n g the nature of the a p p l i c a t i o n , the number of b u i l d i n g l o t s i n v o l v e d i n a s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n and the approximate l e n g t h of time t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n s had been i n the a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s .  I t uas d i s c o v e r e d t h a t 34 of the  a p p l i c a t i o n s i n v o l v e d s u b d i v i s i o n development amounting to building lots.  The  65  1365  aggregate  numbers of b u i l d i n g l o t s t h a t uere not  approved by December 31, 1973  are l i s t e d as f o l l o u s a c c o r d i n g to the  date of a p p l i c a t i o n :  1971  - 145 l o t s ; 1972  - 1097  l o t s ; 1973  -123  lots.  I t i s important to note t h a t the survey i s based on developments u h i c h uere caught i n the t r a n s i t i o n of S u r r e y ' s p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g  imposts.  Very f e u p r o j e c t s f i l e d i n 1973 uere on the p l a n n e r ' s l i s t as most of these p r o j e c t s had been c o n s i d e r e d i n terms of the proposed arrangements r a t h e r than a c c o r d i n g to the o l d impost  impost  changes of the  -69amended s u b d i v i s i o n b y - l a u .  On these grounds one may i g n o r e t h e  f i g u r e s f o r 1973 and c o n c e n t r a t e on a p p l i c a t i o n s made i n 1971 and 1972.  Most o f the a p p l i c a t i o n s i n v o l v e d l e s s than 100 s e r v i c e d  l o t s , houever t h e r e are t h r e e p r o j e c t s u h i c h may be c l a s s i f i e d as major s u b d i v i s i o n s producing more than 100 l o t s . Western R e a l t y , Rothnie R e a l t y and Sur D e l uere r e s p o n s i b l e f a r t h e s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s producing the l a r g e s t i n d i v i d u a l number o f s e r v i c e d l o t s , the t o t a l o f u h i c h i s 600. A l l t h r e e p r o j e c t s had been i n the process f o r a p e r i o d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y  18 months on  December 31, 1973. A b r i e f summary o f the process o f a p p r o v a l f o r Sur D e l i l l u s t r a t e s t h e t y p i c a l problems encountered by t h e major sub. 2k d i v i d e r s and many o f those encountered by the s m a l l e r  developer.  Sur D e l commenced a p p l i c a t i o n f o r s u b d i v i s i o n development i n August o f 1972.  A problem c o n c e r n i n g the c r e a t i o n o f s m a l l park  s i t e s i n v o l v e d n e g o t i a t i o n s betueen Sur D e l and the p r o p e r t y ment o f Surrey and t h e e n g i n e e r i n g department.  depart-  The n e g o t i a t i o n s con-  t i n u e d from the end o f August u n t i l the end o f October when an agreement uas reached.  Sur D e l submitted  s u b d i v i s i o n i n November o f 1972. g i v e n i n January  o f 1973.  i t s preliminary application f o r  T e n t a t i v e a p p r o v a l o f the p l a n uas  I n February  o f 1973 a l e t t e r s t a t i n g t h a t a  p o r t i o n o f t h e development uas p a r t o f the a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e r v e uas sent t o Sur D e l .  A p p l i c a t i o n uas made immediately  t o V i c t o r i a t D the  chairman o f the Environment and Land Use Committee r e q u e s t i n g a release of t h i s land.  W r i t t e n c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t the l a n d uas removed  from t h e f r e e z e uas r e c e i v e d A p r i l 16, 1973. F i n a l e n g i n e e r i n g  plans  uere submitted by t h e end of A p r i l 1973 by Sur D e l t c the m u n i c i p a l engineer.  They uere r e t u r n e d f o r r e v i s i o n i n l a t e June and r e s u b m i t t e d  in early July.  The m u n i c i p a l engineer  r e t u r n e d the "plans t o Sur D e l  -70-  in late August and preparation of a Land Use Contract uas commenced by the municipality.  On November 27 the Land Use Contract uas  submitted by the municipality to the municipal s o l i c i t o r for drafting approval.  On January 13 the Land Use Contract uas returned to Sur Del  and executed by Sur Del subject to certain amendments made by Surrey on January 21, 1974. The contract uas presented to council . for f i r s t and second reading.  A public hearing uas scheduled f o r  February 4th and the project uas approved by the public at t h i s hearing.  Third and fourth readings uere given on February 18th and  f i n a l approval followed. Major consulting engineers and developers i n Surrey consulted with reference to the amount of time required f o r subdivision approval indicated a number of causes of delay.  Some developers  attributed  the problem of delays i n 1972 to the introduction of the land freeze and the a d d i t i o n a l bureaucracy  created by the necessity of obtaining  approval from the Land Commission i n cases where land was frozen subject to the completion of an o f f i c i a l a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve. The case of Sur Del indicates a delay of approximately should note that the delay did not completely process.  3 months. One  impede the approval  While Sur Del was awaiting confirmation from V i c t o r i a i t s  consulting engineers were busy preparing a f i n a l draft plan.  It seems  reasonable to assume that the approval of the Land Commission did not constitute a major cause of delay i n the approval process.  A review  of the land area presently dedicated as a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve and developments i n the v i c i n i t y of t h i s area, also indicates that there were very few cases where development of subdivisions was r e structed by the land freeze.  The c r i t i c a l period of delay for Sur Del  was between A p r i l 1973 and November 1973 and November 27, 1973 and  -71January 13, 1974.  The former period of delay may be attributed to  delays caused by the processing of the project through the engineering department, the l a t t e r delay uas attributable to Land Use Contract processing problems. A revieu of s t a t i s t i c s provided by Surrey regarding the number of building lots approved betueen 1965 and 1973 combined uith the information obtained i n the independent survey of the minutes of the December 3, 1973 council meeting provides evidence that Sur Del encountered  the same sloudouns that uere experienced by many other  projects at that time. Table 16 provides building l o t s t a t i s t i c s for the D i s t r i c t of Surrey betueen 1965 and 1973.  Although there are variations the  number of building l o t s given preliminary approval betueen 1965 and 1968 increased at a r e l a t i v e l y steady rate of approximately per year from a base of 495 i n 1966 to 1041 i n 1968.  270 lots  The number of  serviced l o t s given f i n a l approval also increased at a steady rate. Betueen 1965 and 1969 the rate of increase i s averaged per year from a base of 3,07 i n 1965 to 675 i n 1969.  to be 92 lots  Betueen 1968 and  1969 the rate of increase of preliminary building l o t approvals decreased to a negative figure uhile the number of serviced lots given f i n a l approval increased by 98 l o t s . One could assume that the number, of building lots being processed through the system betueen 1965 and 1969 uere being processed at a steady pace and that given that a certain number of building lots never go beyond the stage of preliminary approval for reasons such as bankruptcy  of development firms, etc., i t appears  that one could state that the average time required for building l o t approval uas i n fact less than 1 year.  The statements  of a l l consulting engineers and developers uorking i n Surrey  -72prior to 1971 confirmed this fact i n interviews. If one assumes that the majority of the building lots were being processed i n less than 1 year prior to 1970 the changes i n the numbers df building l o t approvals r e l a t i v e to the number of preliminary approvals becomes very s i g n i f i c a n t .  Referring back to  Table 16 the number of lots given preliminary approval increased from 699 i n 1970 to 1219 i n 1971.  In 1972 the number of lots given  preliminary approval increased fram the 1971 figure to 2191 and tapered o f f to a t o t a l of 2462 i n 1973.  The number, of building l o t s  given f i n a l approval were not so consistent. Between 1969 and 1970 the lots given f i n a l approval dropped from 675 to 471 then increased to 884 i n 1971; 903 i n 1972 and decreased to 757 i n 1973.  The c r i t i c a l  point to notice i s not only the fact that an increase and decrease occurred but that between 1970 and 1973 the number of l o t s given preliminary approval increased by over 300% from 699 to 2462 while lots given f i n a l approval increased by 60% between 1970 and 1973 or i f one calculates the percentage  increase based on the average number of  l o t s produced over the same time periods there was a 0% increase far f i n a l approved building l o t s and a 66% increase i n l o t s given preliminary approval. approval.  There was an obvious breakdown i n the system of  A l l applications far f i n a l approval made between 1971 and  1973 could not possibly be s a t i s f i e d i n the period of one year given these proportions of f i n a l approvals to preliminary approvals. This information may be t i e d into the information  determined  by the survey of applications involving Land Use Contracts and zoning amendments.  1097 building lots are known to be plugged into the  system in 1972.  They were accounted  f o r as s t i l l i n the system as  -73of December 31, 1973. figure of 2191  Most of them are included i n the  building lots given preliminary approval.  1972 Thus  almost 50% of the t o t a l number of lots in the system involved land use contracts in 1972.  It must be pointed out that there i s a  certain percentage of l o t s given preliminary approval reach the f i n a l approval stage. classification.  In 1973  None of the 1097  not  are in this  there uere 2462 preliminary approvals  which e s s e n t i a l l y complement the knoun 1097 According  that u i l l  l o t s i n the system.  to the municipality the number of applications involving  land use contracts are increasing. Three very important conclusions may 1) 1973.  be draun.  The approval procedure uas longer than 1 year i n 1972  and  This confirms the statement by consulting engineers and  developers that the process e n t a i l s at least 18 months for a large subdivision.  Note that only 3 of the 34 applications involved major  subdivisions.  Most of the applications uere for subdivisions  betueen 15 and 80 l o t s .  ranging  These smaller subdivisions should be approved  in a shorter period of time but uere not. 2)  Land Use Contracts may  be i d e n t i f i e d as one of the causes  of the sloudoun i n the approval process.  Prior to 1971  Land Use  Contracts uere not used in the subdivision approval process.  In  1972  they uere introduced to the procedure on a reasonable scale and i n 1973  the municipal  council passed a by-lau that a l l land use changes  should be dealt uith through Land Use 3) during May  Contracts.  The fact that the municipality froze development approvals 1973  and introduced  imposts in June 1973  may  a neu development policy regarding  also be indicated as a possible cause of  Table 16.  A p p l i c a t i o n and A p p r o v a l f o r S e r v i c e d L o t s i n Surrey 1965 - 1973 1972  1973  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  Preliminary Applica t i o n s Received  250  290  461  380  354  300  411  ' 429  359  Preliminary Applica t i o n s Reconsidered  36  16  23  17  28  20  /,31  41  44  Preliminary Applica t i o n s Approved  172  •184  217  234  194  180  267  321  241  L o t s Given P r e l i m inary Approval  506  495  787  1041  888  699  1219  2191  2462  94  125  168  183  221  142  216  236  174  307  370  480  577  675  471  884  903  757  7200 s q . f t . t o 21,780 s q . f t . (/z a c r e )  125 (40.7%)  15.8 (42.7%)  201 (41.8%)  249 (43.1%:)  221 (32.7%)  170 (36.1%)  465 (52.6%)  489 (54.2%)  Yz acre t o .99 acre  38 (12.4%)  39 (15.5%)  55 (11.5%)  30 (5.2%)  94 (13.9%)  26 (5.5%)  41 (4.6%)  34 (3.8%)  .107 (34.8%)  129 (34.9%)  192 (40.0%)  233 (40.4%:)  282 (41.8%)  231 (49.1%)  296 (33.5%)  303 (33.6%)  37 (12.1%)  44 (11.9%)  21 (6.7%)  65 (11.3%)  78 (11.6%)  44 (9.3%) ,  82 (9.3%)  77 (6.4%)  Applications f o r subdivision after preliminary approval L o t s Given Approval  Final  '  1  1 acre t o 4.99 5 acres +  Source:  Surrey P l a n n i n g Department  :  -75t h e slowdown which o c c u r r e d i n 1973. The s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l procedure  i s f a r more complex than  the p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s i s l e a d s one to b e l i e v e .  The f a c t t h a t i n the  m u n i c i p a l i t y o f Surrey and o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l process has become l o n g e r and more c o m p l i c a t e d i n t r o d u c e s the n e c e s s i t y  o f a n a l y s i s o f the a p p r o v a l procedure  w e l l as those o f the o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s d i s c u s s e d . chapter i n t r o d u c e s a g e n e r a l a p p r o v a l procedure of the a p p r o v a l procedures  o f Surrey as The next  based on a n a l y s i s  used i n each o f the f o u r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  -76-  Footnotes  ^ P o p u l a t i o n Trends i n the Louer M a i n l a n d , IMeu LUestminister, Louer M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g Board, 1968, Table 9. 2 P i t t Meadous Study, IMeu Ldestminister, M u n i c i p a l P l a n n i n g S e r v i c e o f L.M.R.P.B. 1967, p. 4. ^•p. C i t . , P i t t Meadous Study, p. 4. 4 Loc. C i t . 5  •p. C i t . P a p u l a t i o n Trends i n Louer M a i n l a n d , Table 9.  ^The Housing I s s u e , Vancouver G.V.R.D. 1973, Table ID. 7 Loc. C i t . ^Loc. C i t . •p C i t . , 11. Loc . C i t i 2  i  Loc . C i t LDC  . Cit  •14 •p. C i t . , R e a l E s t a t e Trends i n Vancouver, Vancouver . S t a t i s t i c a l and Survey Committee o f the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e a l E s t a t e Board A s s o c i a t i o n 1973-74. 15  16'Dp. C i t . 17 Loc. C i t 18  Loc. C i t  -77-  19  K. C. ldaodswarth, Land Use C o n t r o l , U n i v e r s i t y o f Centre f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , 1972, p. 15.  B.C.,  20 C i t y of Vancouver v. R e g i s t r a r of Vancouver Land R e g i s t r a t i o n D i s t r i c t , 15 Id.lil.R. 351. 21 Hi. C. liloodsuorth, Op. C i t . , p. 9. 22 Confidential. 23 Based on i n t e r v i e w s . ^ B a s e d on i n t e r v i e w s .  -78-  CHAPTER  V1  THE MUNICIPAL APPROVAL PROCESS  The m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l process v a r i e s i n each m u n i c i p a l i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  There i s , houever, a common frame-  uork from u h i c h the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s o f the p r o v i n c e d e r i v e t h e i r system.  P a r t XXI, Community P l a n n i n g , D i v i s i o n k, S u b d i v i s i o n o f Land  of the M u n i c i p a l Act R.S.B.C. I960 C.255 and P a r t IV, D e s c r i p t i o n s and Plans o f the Land R e g i s t r y Act R.S.B.C. 1960 C.208 c o n t a i n the e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e s u h i c h s e t the r u l e s f o r requirements  i n s u b d i v i s i o n s and the  procedure and c o n d i t i o n s f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n o f s u b d i v i s i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y . A n a l y s i s o f f o u r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter I V I combined u i t h a r e v i e u o f e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n has made i t p o s s i b l e t o produce three g e n e r a l o u t l i n e s o f the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s :  one f o r  a s u b d i v i s i o n u h i c h conforms t o e x i s t i n g m u n i c i p a l zoning r e g u l a t i o n s (see F i g u r e 5 ) , a second f o r s u b d i v i s i o n u h i c h r e q u i r e s a non-conforming use o f l a n d a c c o r d i n g t o m u n i c i p a l r e g u l a t i o n s (see F i g u r e 6 ) , and a t h i r d u h i c h uses Land Use C o n t r a c t s (see F i g u r e 7 ) . cedures i n v o l v e zoning changes i n t h i s a n a l y s i s .  The l a t t e r 2 p r o -  (Appendices A, B, C, and  D, o u t l i n e the procedures o f each m u n i c i p a l i t y s t u d i e d . )  Fallowing  then p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the g e n e r a l procedures the c r i t i c a l components of each process u h i c h tend t o cause d e l a y s i n these processes u i l l be d i s c u s s e d and s o l u t i o n s u i l l be c o n s i d e r e d . The  g e n e r a l procedures o u t l i n e d are designed  f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n  of a major s u b d i v i s i o n u h i c h may be d e f i n e d as "one u h i c h n e c e s s i t a t e s  Figure 5  Municipal Treasurer  ri  Hi  Provincial Authorities  General Approval Procedure Board o f School Trustees Municipal Building Department  Preliminary Discussions  Formulation of draft plan  Utility Companies  [_^|  Municipal Engineer  Municipal Engineer  LA ^  Planning Department  J  Advisory Planning Commission Provincial Authorities  1  Consulting Engineer o f Developer Preparation of F i n a l P l a n by Developer '  Planning Department  Land R e g i s t r y Office  J J ^  Approving Officer  j-*  Developer  Filing for Prospectus  Preparation of Development flrjpppmpn-h  Public U t i l i t y Companies  Municipal Solicitor  Municipal Council  Municipal C o u n c i l ..  i UD I  Public Authorities  Figure 6  Advisory Planning Commission  Approval Procedure With a Zoning Change  Municipal Engineer  Board of  H4ISchool Trustees Application for Rezoning  Planning Department  Council Reads Amending By-Law  Public Hearing  Council Gives 3 F i n a l Reading*  Developer Prepares F i n a l Plan  Committees Composed of Council Members Zoning 'and jPlanning  Water Sewage  Parks and Recreation  Health and Welfare  •e •Council may wait u n t i l developer completes plan before g i v i n g f i n a l reading.  final  i  CD •  Figure Approval  Procedure u i t h  7 Land Use  Contract  Municipal Council Adopts L . U . C . Developer Prepares Final Plan  i  J  Advisory Planning Commission  Consulting Engineer >  Planning —5  Department  Plan ning Depart nent >K  Municipal Council  Application for Rezoning  Engineering Department  Engineering Department  Planning Pre'1 p a r e s L a n d Use Contract Municipal Solicitor  Developer pays imposts, bonding! e t c . Public Hearing Muni : i p a l Council reads L . U . C . 3y-Lau y  Planning Department  Developer S i g n s L a n d Use Contract •  >  Final  Approval  -82c o n s t r u c t i o n of neu roads or s e r v i c e s t o o r beyond any o f the l o t s being created."''"  A minor s u b d i v i s i o n u h i c h i s one t h a t i s "adequately 2  s e r v i c e d by e x i s t i n g roads or u t i l i t i e s "  i n v o l v e s the same procedure  u i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f c e r t a i n s t e p s such as those i n v o l v e d i n a p p r o v a l f o r road c o n s t r u c t i o n . The  a n a l y s i s o f a p p r o v a l procedures i s p r e s e n t e d  the major stages t h a t the developer  according to  and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s must complete  i n order t o s a t i s f y the demands o f the m u n i c i p a l r e g u l a t i o n s u h i c h f o r our purposes are s t a n d a r d i z e d .  The o u t l i n e i s a s i m p l i s t i c approach  as the a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r e s many more i n t e r a c t i o n s and f r e q u e n t i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s t o the order o f sequence s p e c i f i e d . General S u b d i v i s i o n Procedure Stage I - P r e p a r a t i o n f o r an I n f o r m a l  Meeting  P r e p a r a t i o n f o r an i n f o r m a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a s u b d i v i s i o n concept to a m u n i c i p a l h a l l i n v o l v e s the f o l l o u i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . 1.  The s u b d i v i d e r s h o u l d be auare D f any m u n i c i p a l b y - l a u s  uhich  may p r o h i b i t the i n t e n d e d use o f the l a n d proposed t o be s u b d i v i d e d . 2.  The s u b d i v i d e r must note uhether  h i s concept i s c o n s i s t e n t  u i t h the comprehensive p l a n o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y i f such a. p l a n e x i s t s . 3.  The,subdivider  s h o u l d be f a m i l i a r u i t h a l l m u n i c i p a l  by-laus  regulating subdivision. k.  The s u b d i v i d e r s h o u l d be auare o f seuerage and u a t e r main  c a p a c i t i e s and r e g u l a t o r y b y - l a u s . Stage I I - The I n f o r m a l The  Meeting  i n f o r m a l meeting u i t h the m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s i n v o l v e s a  f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n on the p a r t o f the developer  t o determine  uhether  -83-  the l o c a t i o n , l a n d use and t i m i n g o f the development i s a c c e p t a b l e in principle. Stage I I I - P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n I f t h e developer i s c o n f i d e n t t h a t the p r i n c i p l e o f the p r o j e c t i s f e a s i b l e i n terms o f the plans o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y he may make a preliminary a p p l i c a t i o n far subdivision approval.  The b a s i c  steps  include: The developer g e n e r a l l y employs a c o n s u l t i n g engineer t D draw  1.  up a d r a f t p l a n u h i c h i n c l u d e s the f o l l o u i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : (a)  The l a y o u t o f a l l proposed s t r e e t s and l o t s ;  (b)  Spot l e v e l s i n the approximate c e n t r e o f each l o t o r p a r c e l , a t the i n t e r s e c t i o n s o f any proposed roads u i t h e x i s t i n g roads and a t c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d i n t e r v a l s along each proposed rDad i n the s u b d i v i s i o n ;  (c)  The l o c a t i o n , d i m e n s i o n and uses o f any s t r u c t u r e s e x i s t i n g on the l a n d being proposed f o r s u b d i v i s i o n must be g i v e n .  2.  The d e v e l o p e r s must i d e n t i f y t h e ouner D f t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n .  3.  A c e r t i f i c a t e o f encumbrances must be p r o v i d e d .  The  p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n u s u a l l y complies u i t h a s t a n d a r d  provided  by the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  planning  office. Stage IU - P r o c e s s i n g The  form  The form i s f i l e d i n the m u n i c i p a l  of the P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n  m u n i c i p a l i t y p r o c e s s e s the. a p p l i c a t i o n i n the f o l l o u i n g  manner: 1.  T e c h n i c a l p l a n n e r s a s s i g n a f i l e number t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n  and c o n f i r m  the v a l i d i t y o f the i n f o r m a t i o n s u b m i t t e d i n the a p p l i c a t i o n  regarding  o u n e r s h i p and encumbrances.  Reference-is  made t o any  municipal  zoning b y - l a u s t h a t are r e l a t e d t o the a p p l i c a t i o n .  A record  sheet i s d r a f t e d u i t h a l l r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l and c o p i e s may benforuarded  -8kto the f o l l o u i n g departments f o r comments. (a)  The Board o f S c h o o l T r u s t e e s  (b)  Engineering  (c)  M u n i c i p a l B u i l d i n g Department  (d)  P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Company  (e)  Municipal Treasurer  (f)  C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing  (g)  Municipal Council  (h)  Any o t h e r departments t h a t may be i n v o l v e d ( i n t e r n a l e x t e r n a l of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ) e . g .  Department  Corporation  i)_ . Highuays Department . ii) Fisheries i i i ) Department of T r a n s p o r t iv) Regional D i s t r i c t v) G r e a t e r Vancouver Seuerage and Drainage vi) G r e a t e r Vancouver Water Boars!. 2.  or  District  The comments of a l l departments are r e v i e u e d by the p l a n n i n g  department and i f the p r o j e c t  i s s t i l l in a favorable position a  f i e l d i n s p e c t i o n i s conducted. (a)  3.  The t e c h n i c a l p l a n n e r i n s p e c t s the s i t e of the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n n o t i n g the l o c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g - s e r v i c e s , buildings, etc.  A l e t t e r i s d r a f t e d n o t i n g the r e q u i r e m e n t s of the s u b d i v i s i o n  or c o n d i t i o n s necessary f o r a p p r o v a l of the d e v e l o p e r ' s ' a p p l i c a t i o n . (In some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the l e t t e r i n c l u d e s a l l charges to be l e v i e d on the developer as p r e s c r i b e d by i t s s e r v i c i n g agreement b y - l a u . ) Stage V - A p p l i c a t i o n f o r F i n a l A p p r o v a l If  the -.developer r e c e i v e s p r e l i m i n a r y a p p r o v a l h i s d e c i s i o n t o  apply f o r f i n a l a p p r o v a l r e q u i r e s the f o l l o u i n g : 1.  In most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the developer must commence a c t i o n  towards o b t a i n i n g f i n a l a p p r o v a l u i t h i n a p r e s c r i b e d time p e r i o d p e r i o d or the p r e l i m i n a r y a p p r o v a l u i l l be v o i d ( u s u a l l y 90 d a y s ) .  :  ;  -852.  The d e v e l o p e r ' s c o n s u l t i n g engineer must prepare d e t a i l e d  drawings based on the recommendations c f the e n g i n e e r i n g of the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  department  A s e r i e s o f r e v i s i o n s are u s u a l l y r e q u i r e d as  the c o n s u l t i n g engineer p r e s e n t s h i s p l a n s t o the m u n i c i p a l  engineer.  (Note t h a t i n some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s such as Richmond the m u n i c i p a l engineer g e n e r a l l y prepares the d e t a i l e d f i n a l 3.  A l e g a l survey D f the proposed s i t e c f the s u b d i v i s i o n must be  completed.  T h i s i n c l u d e s a ground survey as w e l l as a d e s c r i p t i o n o f  easements, r i g h t s o f way and r e s t r i c t i v e „. Stage UI - M u n i c i p a l Approval 1.  drawings.)  covenants.  Review o f the A p p l i c a t i o n f o r F i n a l  The m u n i c i p a l i t y must r e c e i v e a u t h o r i z a t i o n from any d e p a r t -  ments which d e r i v e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y over the a p p r o v a l o f the f i n a l plan.  The C o n t r o l l e d Access Highways Act r e q u i r e s t h a t any l a n d use  which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p l a n s approved by the Highways Department must be approved by the Highways Department i f the l a n d i n q u e s t i o n i s w i t h i n o n e - h a l f m i l e o f a c o n t r o l l e d access highway."^ 2.  The m u n i c i p a l  engineering  department i n i t i a t e s !  preparation  of a s e r v i c i n g agreement w h i l e d i r e c t i n g the c o n s u l t i n g engineer o f the developer w i t h r e g a r d  t o s e r v i c i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . ' The c o m p l e x i t y o f  s e r v i c i n g agreements v a r i e s i n each m u n i c i p a l i t y .  The s e r v i c i n g  agreement i s the b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the monies r e q u i r e d o f the developer i f he wishes t o post a guarantee t h a t he w i l l complete the services.  The agreement i s based cn t h e f i n a l d r a f t p l a n which  lists  a l l the s e r v i c e s and expenses r e q u i r e d o f the d e v e l o p e r . 3.  The m u n i c i p a l  solicitor  r e l a t e s the s e r v i c i n g agreement t o  the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f monies i f the developer wishes t o post a guarantee. In some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the s e r v i c i n g agreement i s t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a  -86-  development agreement u h i c h i n t r o d u c e s developer r e g a r d i n g  c e r t a i n c o n s t r a i n t s on the  c o n d i t i o n s t h a t must be s a t i s f i e d i n f u l f i l l i n g  the s e r v i c i n g agreement.  In some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t h i s  i s i n c l u d e d i n the b a s i c s e r v i c i n g agreement. municipal  lauyer provides  information  In e i t h e r case the  the l e g a l s k i l l s f o r d r a f t s m a n s h i p and  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the agreement t o favour the m u n i c i p a l i t y . Stage U I I - The Development or ( S e r v i c i n g ) Agreement 1.  The developer must decide uhether he u i l l post bonding, cash,  a l e t t e r of c r e d i t (according  t o the requirements o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y )  as a guarantee t h a t he u i l l c a r r y out the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the s e r v i c i n g agreement (the s e c u r i t y must e q u a l the e s t i m a t e d  cost of the i n s t a l l -  a t i o n o f t h e s e r v i c e s ) or a c t u a l l y i n s t a l l the s e r v i c e s .  By p a s t i n g a  s e c u r i t y the developer can move on t o Stage M i l l and r e g i s t e r h i s subdivision.  I f he chooses t o not p l a c e s e c u r i t y but t o i n s t a l l  s e r v i c e s before r e g i s t r a t i o n o f h i s s u b d i v i s i o n , he must have a l l h i s uork complete and approved by a m u n i c i p a l register his subdivision.  i n s p e c t o r before  he can  The d i s a d v a n t a g e o f t h i s second a l t e r n a t i v e  i s t h a t the developer l o s e s a great d e a l o f time by u a i t i n g u n t i l ' . all  s e r v i c e s are approved before  he r e g i s t e r e s h i s s u b d i v i s i o n .  I f he  s e l e c t s the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e the process o f r e g i s t r a t i o n goes on simultaneously 2.  u i t h t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n and i n s p e c t i o n o f services-.  I n most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , p r o v i s i o n s are made f o r t h e r e f u n d i n g  of monies as phases o f t h e s e r v i c i n g are completed and i n s p e c t e d s a t i s f y i n g municipal  standards.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y g e n e r a l l y  requires  t h a t a maintenance band o f 50% o f t h e c o s t o f i n s t a l l a t i o n be h e l d for  1 year a f t e r the c o m p l e t i o n o f s e r v i c e s .  r e q u i r e t h a t 5% o f t h e c o s t s must be d e p o s i t e d for  1 year.  Same m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n cash as s e c u r i t y  -873.  The develaper r e v i e w s t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f the s e r v i c i n g agree-  ment o r t h e development agreement and d e c i d e s u h i c h a l t e r n a t i v e i s most f a v o r a b l e f a r him. I f he agrees u i t h the c o n d i t i o n s o f the s e r v i c i n g agreement and s i g n s i t , he must c a r r y out the funding o f s e c u r i t i e s as a guarantee.  I f the developer does not choose t o  commit h i m s e l f t o the s e r v i c i n g agreement, he may i n s t a l l the s e r v i c e s according  t o the s t a n d a r d s p r e s c r i b e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y pending  inspection. k.  The m u n i c i p a l  engineer r e v i e u s the agreement and notes t h a t a l l  r i g h t s o f uays and encumbrances are l i s t e d .  Assuming t h a t the developer  chooses t o s i g n the s e r v i c i n g agreement, ue move t o Stage V/III. Stage W i l l - A p p r o v a l o f F i n a l P l a n The  developer t e n d e r s the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n t o the c l e r k o f  m u n i c i p a l i t y f o r e x a m i n a t i o n and a p p r o v a l  by t h e approving o f f i c e r  accompanied by: 1.  An examination f e e ( u s u a l l y $2.00).  2.  A c e r t i f i c a t e t h a t a l l t a x e s u h i c h have been assessed on the  land subdivided  have been p a i d and i n t h e case uhere l o c a l improvement  t a x e s , r a t e s or assessments are payable i n annual i n s t a l l m e n t s t h a t a l l i n s t a l l m e n t s ouing a t the date o f the c e r t i f i c a t e have, been p a i d (Land R e g i s t r y A c t S.B9). 3.  When the p l a n i s approved the approving o f f i c e r u r i t e s  "Approved under t h e Land R e g i s t r y A c t " and s i g n s h i s name and o f f i c i a l designation  (Sec. 97 Land R e g i s t r y A c t ) .  Stage IX - R e g i s t r a t i o n o f S u b d i v i s i o n The  s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n must be tendered f o r d e p o s i t u i t h t h e  r e g i s t r a r u i t h i n 6u days a f t e r i t has been- approved by the approving  o f f i c e r according to the Land Registry Act, Sec. 79.  The following  requirements must be upheld: 1.  A form to be 'feigned by the owner of the land subdivided or  his agent, and the duplicate c e r t i f i c a t e of t i t l e covering the land subdivided s h a l l be produced for cancallation or endorsement " (Sec. 101 Land Registry Act). 2.  A l l land must be registered an the r e g i s t e r .  3.  The plan s h a l l be signed by each owner of lands  subdivided  or his agent (Sec. 103 Land Registry A c t ) . k.  •"The.Registrar  s h a l l examine the application and the instruments  and plan produced in support  thereof and i f s a t i s f i e d that they are  in order and i n compliance with a l l the requirements of the Land Registry Act s h a l l assign to the plan a s e r i a l deposit number and issue such new  c e r t i f i c a t e s of t i t l e for the parcels shown upon the 5  plan as may 5.  "No  be necessary." c e r t i f i c a t e of t i t l e s h a l l contain more than five parcels.' ^ 1  Stage X - F i l i n g for Prospectus  .  The f i n a l step in the process i s the f i l i n g of a prospectus with the Superintendent of Insurance.  Sec. 51(1) of the Real Estate  Act RSBC I960, Chapter 330,states that "no promoter and no person on behalf of the promoter s h a l l s e l l or lease or offer for E a l e or lease or knowingly a s s i s t in the sale or lease or offering for sale or lease of any l o t or parcel of land in a subdivision unless: (a) The subdivision plan has been f i l e d in-the Land Registry Office for the d i s t r i c t in which the subdivision i s situate or- i f the subdivision i s in a place outside the province where the subdivision plan can be registered i t i s so registered, and (b)  there has been delivered to and accepted and f i l e d by the Superintendent a prospectus in the form and with the content required by Section 52.  -891.  The p r o s p e c t u s must be accompanied by a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a  s o l i c i t o r who i s a member o f the Law S o c i e t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, the s t a t u t o r y d e c l a r a t i o n o f e i t h e r a promoter or d i r e c t o r and a t r u e copy o f the plan o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n . 2.  A f t e r f i l i n g and acceptance c f a p r o s p e c t u s a t r u e copy  must be d e l i v e r e d t o the p r o s p e c t i v e  purchaser o r agent b e f o r e any  s a l e s o r l e a s e s may be completed, ^Real E s t a t e The s u b d i v i d e d  A c t , Sec. 51(2)(a)„  l o t i s now ready f o r s a l e and the i s s u a n c e o f  building permits. Subdivision  A p p r o v a l Procedure w i t h a Zoning Amendment  The s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s v a r i e s i n the event t h a t a zoning change i s r e q u i r e d  i n order f o r the p r o j e c t t o be approved.  Stages I , I I and I I I are conducted i n the same manner as i n the g e n e r a l a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s p r o c e d u r e . d i v i s i o n approval subject  t o a zoning change i s f i l e d i n Stage" IV a  new s e r i e s o f steps' are i n t r o d u c e d . procedure i n t r o d u c i n g  When the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r sub-  The developer f o l l o w s the same  a r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n as w e l l as a s u b d i v i s i o n  a p p l i c a t i o n but the m u n i c i p a l i t y daes n o t . Stage I\l - M u n i c i p a l  Processing  of Preliminary  Application  The m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r must submit the d e v e l o p e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a zoning by-law amendment t o the m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l . 1.  The m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l may e l e c t t o r e f e r the a p p l i c a t i o n t c  the A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission which may be e s t a b l i s h e d by the m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l under the a u t h o r i t y o f S e c t i o n  701 o f the M u n i c i p a l  Act. 2.  The a d v i s o r y  p l a n n i n g commission f u n c t i o n s  as an a d v i s o r t o  the c o u n c i l on matters earning w i t h i n the scope o f Community P l a n n i n g  -90P a r t XXI o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t .  T h i s i n c l u d e s o f f i c i a l community p l a n s ,  z o n i n g , s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d , and b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . 3.  The A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission u i l l r e s e a r c h any comments  of the P l a n n i n g Department, E n g i n e e r i n g Department, Board o f S c h o o l T r u s t e e s , or any o t h e r departments t h a t may be a f f e c t e d .  This inform-  a t i o n i s then p r e s e n t e d t o c o u n c i l . k.  I f c o u n c i l decides t h a t the zoning amendment i s f e a s i b l e i t may  a u t h o r i z e p r e p a r a t i o n o f an amending b y - l a u . 5.  V a r i o u s committees may be appointed by c o u n c i l t o c o n s i d e r  important a s p e c t s o f the proposed amendment. 6.  The c o u n c i l s h a l l not amend a zoning b y - l a u u n t i l a p u b l i c  h e a r i n g i s h e l d subject; t o Sec. 703 o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t . 7.  Subsequent t o the p u b l i c h e a r i n g the c o u n c i l may amend the b y - l a u  upon an a f f i r m a t i v e vote o f 2/3 o f a l l members o f c o u n c i l . council's pDuer i s l i m i t e d t o the e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e s .  (Note t h a t  In cases uhere  c e r t a i n b o d i e s must g i v e a p p r o v a l t o amendments the c o u n c i l u i l l be u l t r a v i r e s i f such a p p r o v a l i s not r e c e i v e d . )  An example uould be  an amendment u i t h o u t a p p r o v a l o f the Highuays Department i n a case uhere the C o n t r o l l e d Access Highuays Act takes precedence or a case uhere the a p p r o v a l o f the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l i s r e q u i r e d i n , o r d e r t o amend an O f f i c i a l Community p l a n pursuant  t o Sec. 187 o f  the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s E n a b l i n g and V a l i d a t i n g A c t . The  developer may nou move on t o Stage V o f the g e n e r a l p r o c e s s .  S u b d i v i s i o n A p p r o v a l Process I n v o l v i n g a Land Use C o n t r a c t In the event t h a t a m u n i c i p a l i t y decides t o employ a Land Use C o n t r a c t i n the procedure u i l l vary.  o f amending a zoning b y - l a u the procedure  Sec. 702A o f the M u n i c i p a l Act i s the e n a b l i n g s e c t i o n f o r  -91the procedure by u h i c h a m u n i c i p a l i t y may  e n t e r i n t o a Land  Use  Contract. 702A. (1) In e x e r c i s i n g the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n , the C o u n c i l s h a l l have due r e g a r d to the f c l l c u i n g cons i d e r a t i o n s i n a d d i t i o n to those r e f e r r e d to i n s u b s e c t i o n (2) c f s e c t i o n 702:(a) The development of areas to promote g r e a t e r e f f i c i e n c y and q u a l i t y : (b) The betterment of the environment: ( c ) The f u l f i l m e n t of community g o a l s : and (e) The p r o v i s i o n of necessary p u b l i c space. (2) The C o u n c i l may, by b y - l a u , amend the zoning b y - l a u to designate areas of l a n d u i t h i n a zone as development a r e a s , but a p u b l i c h e a r i n g under s e c t i o n s 703 and 704 i s not required. (3) Upon the a p p l i c a t i o n of an ouner of l a n d u i t h i n the development a r e a , or h i s agent, the C o u n c i l may, by b y - l a u , n o t u i t h s t a n d i n g any b y - l a u of the m u n i c i p a l i t y , or s e c t i o n 712 or 713, e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n i n g such terms and c o n d i t i o n s f o r the use and development of the l a n d as may be m u t u a l l y agreed upon, and t h e r e a f t e r the use and development of the l a n d s h a l l , n o t u i t h s t a n d i n g any b y - l a u of the m u n i c i p a l i t y , or s e c t i o n 712 c r 713, be i n accordance u i t h the l a n d use c o n t r a c t . (4) A c o n t r a c t entered i n t o under s u b s e c t i o n (3) s h a l l have • the f o r c e and e f f e c t of a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant running u i t h the l a n d and s h a l l be r e g i s t e r e d i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e by the m u n i c i p a l i t y . (5) The C o u n c i l may, by b y - l a u , p r e s c r i b e the procedure by u h i c h the m u n i c i p a l i t y may e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t and the form and c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the c o n t r a c t . (6) The C o u n c i l s h a l l not enter i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t u n t i l i t has h e l d a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , n o t i c e of u h i c h has been p u b l i s h e d i n the manner p r e s c r i b e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (1) • f s e c t i o n 703, and except upon the a f f i r m a t i v e vote of at l e a s t tuo t h i r d s c f a l l the members of the C o u n c i l . (7) . The p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 703 a p p l y , u i t h the necessary changes and so f a r as are a p p l i c a b l e , to a h e a r i n g under this section. (8) Nothing i n t h i s s e c t i o n r e s t r i c t s the r i g h t of an ouner to develop h i s l a n d i n accordance u i t h the r e g u l a t i o n s c f the m u n i c i p a l i t y a p p l y i n g to the zone i n u h i c h the l a n d i s s i t u a t e uho does not e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t u i t h the Council.  -92(9) A l a n d use c o n t r a c t i s deemed t c be a zoning b y - l a u f o r the purposes D f the C o n t r o l l e d Access Highuays A c t . 1971, c.3B,s.52; 1972,c.36, a.28. The m u n i c i p a l i t y must a l s o s a t i s f y the g e n e r a l  requirements  of s e c . 7D2 o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t . The a p p l i c a t i o n i s processed a c c o r d i n g t D the procedure s p e c i f i e d i n the l a n d use c o n t r a c t p r o c e d u r a l b y - l a u enabled by s e c . 7D2A(5).  The developer  same p a t t e r n as o u t l i n e d i n the General Procedures  f o l l o u s the  up to an i n c l u d i n g  the P r e p a r a t i o n o f a P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n i n stage I I I . Stage IW - M u n i c i p a l P r o c e s s i n g o f A p p l i c a t i o n The m u n i c i p a l planner submits the developer's  proposal to  council. 1.  C o u n c i l may r e f e r the a p p l i c a t i o n to the A d v i s o r y  Planning  Commission or' g i v e the a p p l i c a t i o n a p p r o v a l t D proceed a c c o r d i n g t o the r u l e s o f p r e p a r a t i o n o f l a n d use c o n t r a c t .  ( I f the A d v i s o r y  Planning  Commission i s used f o r a d v i c e and the c o u n c i l l a t e r approves the a p p l i c a t i o n , the process c o n t i n u e s i n the same manner.) 2.  The developer  must i n d i c a t e t h a t he agrees t o proceed under  a l a n d use c o n t r a c t . 3.  The t e c h n i c a l p l a n n e r d r a f t s up the l a n d use c o n t r a c t a c c o r d i n g  to the m u n i c i p a l p r o c e d u r a l b y - l a u . The developer  g e n e r a l l y has tuo c h o i c e s o f a c t i o n uhen under-  t a k i n g a l a n d use c o n t r a c t . 1.  The developer may s t a y at stage I\7 o f the g e n e r a l process and  enter a l a n d use c o n t r a c t t h a t i s based on e s t i m a t e d c o s t s o f e n g i n e e r i n g f o r the p r o v i s i o n o f r e q u i r e d s e r v i c e s . (a)  The developer must s i g n the l a n d use c o n t r a c t .  (b)  The l a n d use c o n t r a c t i s presented f i r s t and second r e a d i n g .  to c o u n c i l f o r a  -93(c)  Sec. 702A (6) M u n i c i p a l Act r e q u i r e s t h a t c o u n c i l s h a l l not e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t u n t i l i t has h e l d a p u b l i c h e a r i n g a c c o r d i n g to the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c . 703 of the M u n i c i p a l A c t .  (d)  I f the p u b l i c h e a r i n g approves, the c o u n c i l may g i v e a t h i r d r e a d i n g to the l a n d use c o n t r a c t s u b j e c t to the a p p r o v a l of the e n g i n e e r i n g department t h a t must s t a t e t h a t the s e r v i c i n g agreement i s complete.  Thus, the developer must f o l l o u - s t a g e s 5, 6 and 7 before a c t u a l l a n d use c o n t r a c t i s apprcved by the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  the  Houever,  by u a i t i n g u n t i l the p u b l i c h e a r i n g he has the s e c u r i t y t h a t h i s p r o j e c t u i l l be accepted s u b j e c t to meeting the c o n d i t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  The  disadvantage of t h i s o p t i o n i s t h a t  developer w a i t s u n t i l the p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s complete before up h i s f i n a l e n g i n e e r i n g The  the  drauing  plans and e s t a b l i s h i n g a s e r v i c i n g agreement.  advantage i s t h a t he reduces h i s f i n a n c i a l l o s s i n the event t h a t  the l a n d use c o n t r a c t u i l l be r e j e c t e d by the p u b l i c h e a r i n g . 2.  The  developer may  move on to stages  a l a n d use c o n t r a c t u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  IV, V, V I , VII as he The  l a n d use  contract  u i l l not be drawn up u n t i l the developer completes h i s f i n a l drauings The  signs  engineering  and e s t a b l i s h e s a s e r v i c i n g agreement w i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  procedure of a p p r o v a l  involves,  (a)  The m u n i c i p a l i t y w i l l i n c o r p o r a t e the f i n a l c o n d i t i o n s of the s e r v i c i n g agreement i n t o the l a n d use c o n t r a c t .  (b)  The d e v e l o p e r must s i g n the l a n d use c o n t r a c t which i s presented to c o u n c i l and p u b l i c h e a r i n g i n the same manner as d e s c r i b e d i n Option 1.  (c)  The m u n i c i p a l engineer u i l l review the f i n a l d r a f t of the l a n d use c o n t r a c t to a s c e r t a i n t h a t a l l c o n d i t i o n s l a i d out i n the s e r v i c i n g agreement are i n c l u d e d i n the l a n d use c o n t r a c t .  (d)  S u b j e c t to the a p p r o v a l of the e n g i n e e r i n g department the c o u n c i l may then approve the l a n d use c o n t r a c t .  (e)  The  developer i s now  at stage V I I " of the process as  -91*uhen the s e r v i c i n g agreement uas draun up the monies, bonding or c e r t i f i c a t e of c r e d i t r e q u i r e d , uere stipulated. (f)  (g)  The  The developer f o l l o u s the g e n e r a l procedure p l a c i n g , h i s monies as s e c u r i t y . The l a n d use c o n t r a c t u i l l be s i g n e d by the mayor and c l e r k . The s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n may nou be approved and r e g i s t e r e d a c c o r d i n g to stage VII of the g e n e r a l process u h i c h c o n t i n u e s as o u t l i n e d i n the g e n e r a l procedure. developer  uho  uses method 2 has the advantage of r e g i s t e r i n g  h i s s u b d i v i s i o n a f t e r the a p p r o v a l of the l a n d use c o n t r a c t .  He  took  the r i s k t h a t a l l h i s expenses on f i n a l drauings c o u l d be l o s t i f the p u b l i c h e a r i n g r e j e c t e d h i s p r o j e c t . approach saves time as the developer  In most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ,  this  i s not h e l d up by the p u b l i c  h e a r i n g as i s the case i n method 1 but uorks along u h i l e the p r o j e c t i s being prepared  for public hearing.  A n a l y s i s of the G e n e r a l The procedure.  Procedure  s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l process i s becoming a very complex During the past t h r e e y e a r s , the amount of time r e q u i r e d to  approve a major s u b d i v i s i o n of the type o u t l i n e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s has i n c r e a s e d i n most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  Intervieus u i t h developers,  con-  s u l t i n g engineers' and p l a n n e r s i n each m u n i c i p a l i t y r e v e a l e d t h a t the process i s becoming l o n g e r . one of the most important not being s e r v i c e d . i n v e n t o r y survey  Developers  c i t e m u n i c i p a l p o l i c y as being  s i n g l e reasons uhy t h e i r l a n d h o l d i n g s are  S i x t y - s i x percent of the responses to a l a n d  conducted i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, i n d i c a t e t h a t  m u n i c i p a l p o l i c y i s s l o u i n g doun t h e i r development p r o c e s s .  The  In c o n j u n c t i o n u i t h r e s e a r c h of the m u n i c i p a l process an u n p u b l i s h e d survey uas conducted to determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e of l a n d h o l d i n g s of major developers i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  -95a n a l y s i s of the f o u r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n Chapter  III identified a  number o f s p e c i f i c components of the procedure  process t h a t are p o s s i b l y  responsible for delays.  An a n a l y s i s of the g e n e r a l framework of  a p p r o v a l stage by stage i n d i c a t e s these c r i t i c a l areas and r e l a t i o n s h i p to the procedure  itself.  The  f i r s t t h r e e stages of the  process are b a s i c a l l y the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the d e v e l o p e r . e n t r e p r e n e u r a l c a p a c i t y w i l l determine  their  His  the rate, a f a p p r o v a l of t h i s  p o r t i o n of the p r o c e s s . Stage IV of G e n e r a l  Procedure  Numerous developers surveyed at  the p r e l i m i n a r y a p p r o v a l stage was  i n d i c a t e d t h a t the major impediment the bureacracy  c r e a t e d i n the  p r o c e s s i n g and a p p r o v a l of the p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n s .  The  pre-  v a i l i n g c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n s tend to s i t on the desks of the v a r i o u s departments i n v o l v e d w i t h the a p p l i c a t i o n .  The time p e r i o d  i n v o l v e d i n these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s surveyed i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y for  the c o m p l e t i o n of t h i s s t a g e .  3 t c 5 weeks  Richmond r e q u i r e s 3 to k wee'ks (see  Appendix B - l ) , the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam 3 to 5 weeks (see Appendix C - l ) , and Surrey r e q u i r e s 3 to 5 weeks (see Appendix D-l) a c c o r d i n g to municipal planners. The most s i g n i f i c a n t hold-ups  i n stage IV are encountered  when  a p p r o v a l of a department of a h i g h e r l e v e l of government i f r e q u i r e d . A prime example i s the case where a p p r o v a l of the Department of Highways is required.  I f road exchanges or c l o s u r e s are r e q u i r e d a by-law  may  have"to be drawn up r e q u i r i n g r e a d i n g s by c o u n c i l s u b j e c t to d i v i s i o n 1 of p a r t V of the M u n i c i p a l A c t . process.  T h i s process may  add k weeks to the  I f the a p p r o v a l of the highways department i s r e q u i r e d the  s i t u a t i o n i s worsened c o n s i d e r a b l y .  I f , f o r example, the C o n t r o l l e d  Access Highways Act p r e v a i l s and a p p r o v a l i s r e q u i r e d by the p r o v i n c i a l  -96-  highuays depattment the f o l l o u i n g procedure i s f o l l o w e d . The m u n i c i p a l i t y must n o t i f y the D i s t r i c t Highuays Department p r o v i d i n g d e t a i l s of the proposed changes.  This information i s f o r -  uarded to the o f f i c e of the R e g i o n a l Highuays Department u h i c h  foruards  the i n f o r m a t i o n to the o f f i c e s of the P r o v i n c i a l Highuays Department in V i c t o r i a .  V i c t o r i a then r e t u r n s the approved a p p l i c a t i o n to the  R e g i o n a l Highuays Department u h i c h f o r u a r d s the i n f o r m a t i o n to the D i s t r i c t o f f i c e u h i c h f o r u a r d s the i n f o r m a t i o n to the m u n i c i p a l i t y u h i c h may months.  adapt i ^ y G b y - l a u . Although  T h i s process alone can take up to t h r e e  t h i s process i s not f o l l o u e d by a l l cases of road  changes-or c l o s u r e s i t does occur i n some. A f u r t h e r example of the bureacracy  i n t r o d u c e d by the i n v o l v e -  ment of h i g h e r l e v e l s of government i s e x e m p l i f i e d i n the case of lau  amendments i n the f l o o d p l a i n a r e a s .  the ' a n a l y s i s of zoning change Stage V of General  T h i s u i l l be r e f e r r e d to i n  procedure.  Procedure  T h i s i s one of the most c o m p l i c a t e d stages i n the The  by-  procedure.  d r a f t i n g of a f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n by t h e . c o n s u l t i n g engineer  the d e v e l o p e r ' i s the f i r s t example of a source of I f the developer's  c o n s u l t i n g engineer  of  hold-ups.  i s not f a m i l i a r  uith  the e n g i n e e r i n g p o l i c i e s of a p a r t i c u l a r m u n i c i p a l i t y , the time i n v o l v e d i n p r e p a r a t i o n of the f i n a l p l a n c o u l d be i n c r e a s e d up to month.  Uhen t h e - c o n s u l t i n g engineer  of the developer  one  i s preparing his  f i n a l d r a f t p l a n , he must be i n communication u i t h the m u n i c i p a l engineers.  A major s u b d i v i s i o n r e q u i r e s numerous i n t e r a c t i o n s betueen  the tuo bodies as d e t a i l s and requirements s i t u a t i o n or c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  are r e f i n e d f o r  unique to a p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t .  meeting betueen the m u n i c i p a l engineer.and  unusual Every  the c o n s u l t i n g engineer  -97• f the developer i n v o l v e s t i m e .  I f the c o n s u l t i n g engineer of the  developer i s not f a m i l i a r u i t h the s t a n d a r d requirements  of the  m u n i c i p a l engineer the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r and, hence more  meetings,  increases. The p o t e n t i a l f o r hold-ups engineering s i d e .  i s a l s o p r e v a l e n t on the m u n i c i p a l  In some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , the p o l i c y of the e n g i n e e r i n g  department i s to r e v i e u a l l f i n a l d r a f t p l a n s u i t h the g r e a t e s t of care to ensure t h a t t h e r e are no e r r o r s .  In many cases, t h i s i n v o l v e s  hours of c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s and f r e q u e n t l y uncovers numerous e r r o r s .  It  i s the consensus of most c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s i n t e r v i e u e d t h a t t h i s c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s at t h i s stage of the process i s someuhat redundant. The system u o u l d be c o n s i d e r a b l y more e f f i c i e n t i f the m u n i c i p a l i t y approved the f i n a l p l a n s of the c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s s u b j e c t t o c o r r e c t i o n of any e r r o r s i n the p l a n at the time of e x e c u t i o n of the p l a n . I t appears t h a t t h i s phase of the process does produce an delay. to  unnecessary  The p l a n s s h o u l d be r e v i e u e d but an e f f o r t s h o u l d not be made  i d e n t i f y problems u h i c h are of a very minor s t a t u s and are s u b j e c t  to change u i t h the a c t u a l e x e c u t i o n of the p l a n s .  I t should be  t h a t t h e r e are some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s c o n s i d e r i n g the more l i b e r a l  noted approach,  e.g. Richmond. Another very s i g n i f i c a n t problem u h i c h tends to l i m i t  the  e f f i c i e n c y of the e n g i n e e r ' s p r e p a r a t i o n of f i n a l p l a n s f o r a subd i v i s i o n i s the present system of r e g i s t r a t i o n of a s - c o n s t r u c t e d p l a n s i n the m u n i c i p a l h a l l .  The a s - c o n s t r u c t e d p l a n s are the  p l a n s of s e r v i c e s l o c a t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r a r e a .  detailed  In many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  the p l a n s u h i c h i n d i c a t e the l o c a t i o n of s e r v i c e s on p u b l i c and p r i v a t e l a n d are i n c o r r e c t . .  The  consequence of t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s t h a t i f a  f i n a l p l a n u h i c h i n d i c a t e s the l o c a t i o n of s e r v i c e s i s based on  an  -98i n c o r r e c t p l a n of e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s , the f i n a l p l a n can become i n o p e r able.  The  c o n s u l t i n g engineer must draw up an a s - b u i l t p l a n l o c a t i n g  a l l of the e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s and then r e d r a f t h i s f i n a l p l a n u h i c h must be approved by the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r . to t h i s problem uould be a manditory  An e x c e l l e n t s o l u t i o n  check of v a l i d i t y of l o c a t i o n of  e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s i n each s u b d i v i s i o n development. c o u l d e s t a b l i s h a manditory cf a l l services.  Municipalities  impost of $30u touards the c o r r e c t mapping  L e g i s l a t i o n s h o u l d a l s o p r o v i d e f o r a b e t t e r system  of e n f o r c i n g the r e g i s t r a t i o n of c o r r e c t a s - b u i l t drauings u h i c h are p r e s e n t l y r e q u i r e d uhen the d e v e l o p e r ' s c o n s u l t i n g engineer i n s p e c t s the c o n t r a c t o r ' s . i n s t a l l a t i o n of s e r v i c e s .  Although t h i s problem dees  not evolve at t h i s p a r t i c u l a r stage c f the process i t does o r i g i n a t e at t h i s p o i n t and i s a v a l i d cause of d e l a y s i n the p r o d u c t i o n of serviced  lots. A f i n a l p o i n t r e g a r d i n g the d r a f t i n g c f the f i n a l p l a n i s t h a t  each m u n i c i p a l i t y s e t s i t s cun system complete u i t h i t s oun  imper-  f e c t i o n s . . Seme c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s suggest t h a t the process of p r e p a r i n g a f i n a l d r a f t p l a n i s hampered by the changing municipal engineers.  demands of the  A s t a n d a r d i z e d process of d r a f t i n g f i n a l  c o u l d a l l e v i a t e many problems.  I f a comprehensive procedure  plans  t h a t uas'  based on recommendations d e r i v e d from a n a l y s i s of a l l the m u n i c i p a l systems uas employed, t h e r e u o u l d be a case of e x p e r t i s e t r i u m p h i n g over i m p e r f e c t i o n s .  An important drauback i s t h a t most m u n i c i p a l area  p r o j e c t s vary a c c o r d i n g to topography and i n some cases c l i m a t e . R e g u l a t i o n s f o r the depth c f u a t e r mains i n Vancouver u h i c h i s noted far  i t s m i l d u e a t h e r , u o u l d d e f i n i t e l y net apply i n the subzero  of n o r t h e r n B.C.  I f a more c o n s i s t e n t procedure  climate  uas d e r i v e d , even  though i t p e r m i t t e d v a r i a t i o n s i n s t a n d a r d s , i t u o u l d be an a s s e t .  -99-  A must important aspect o f the p r e p a r a t i o n i s t h a t i t i s the b a s i s f o r the p r e p a r a t i o n by the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r . the developer provide  o f the f i n a l  plan  o f the s e r v i c i n g agreement  The s e r v i c i n g agreement can r e q u i r e  that  a l l o f the s e r v i c e s as p r e s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 711  to 713A o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t . Sec. 711 (4) s t a t e s t h a t "The a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r may r e f u s e to approve a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n i f he i s o f the o p i n i o n t h a t the c o s t t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y o f p r o v i d i n g p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s or other m u n i c i p a l works or s e r v i c e s u o u l d be e x c e s s i v e . " oper i s thus f o r c e d i n t o a p o s i t i o n uhere t h e a p p r o v a l :  depends upon h i s a b s o r p t i o n The m u n i c i p a l  The d e v e l -  of h i s p r o j e c t  o f o f f - s i t e as u e l l as o n - s i t e c o s t s .  engineer u i l l attempt t o maximize the e x p e n d i t u r e o f  the developer f o r o f f - s i t e r e q u i r e m e n t s i f they do not e x i s t .  Off-site  requirements i n c l u d e p r o v i s i o n o f trunk l i n e s u h i c h uould connect u i t h e x i s t i n g trunk l i n e s i f the e x i s t i n g trunk l i n e s do not extend to the p r o j e c t , c o n s t r u c t i o n o f u a t e r mains, storm seuers betueen the s i t e and e x i s t i n g systems.  One must note t h a t e x i s t i n g systems must be able to  handle the a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y .  I f they do n o t , the developer may be  r e q u i r e d t o i n c r e a s e the c a p a c i t y . introduces  The i s s u e o f o f f - s i t e requirements  a very i n t e n s i v e b a r g a i n i n g  Once b a r g a i n i n g have entered  situation.  commences the developer and the m u n i c i p a l i t y  a p o s s i b l e time-consuming s t r u g g l e .  In some cases the  demands o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y are put t o the t e s t i n c o u r t . feu r e c e n t  cases u h i c h i l l u s t r a t e the c o m p l e x i t y  procedure and the time t h a t can be l o s t .  There are a  o f t h i s aspect D f the  In the case o f P i c c a d i l l y  & E s t a t e s v s . the C o r p o r a t i o n  of the D i s t r i c t o f D e l t a  J u s t i c e Munro  s t a t e d t h a t s e c . 12 o f the D e l t a M u n i c i p a l S u b d i v i s i o n b y - l a u no. 1925 uhich p u r p o r t s  t o r e q u i r e a proposed s u b d i v i d e r to c o n s t r u c t a l l uork  and i n s t a l l a l l s e r v i c e s a t h i s oun expense p r i o r t o the a p p r o v a l o f  -100his  s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n i s not  Registry Act.  Enabled  by the M u n i c i p a l Act or the Land  J u s t i c e Munro s t r e s s e d t h a t s e c t i o n s 711 and 711A  of the  M u n i c i p a l Act make i t c l e a r t h a t i t i s the p l a n and not the uork t h a t r e q u i r e s a p p r o v a l by the approving  officer.  Justice,Munrc  held sec.  12 u l t r a v i r e s of the m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l s t a t i n g t h a t "A m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l has o n l y the pouers v e s t e d i n i t by s t a t u t e and  especially  uhere pouer i s c o n f e r r e d to enact b y - l a u s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the common lau  r i g h t s of an ouner to use and dispose c f h i s l a n d as he p l e a s e s :  the m u n i c i p a l i t y must keep s t r i c t l y u i t h i n the pouers c o n f e r r e d . Vic  Restaurant  Re Surrey  I n c . v C i t y of M o n t r e a l (1959) 17 D.L.R. (2d) -10  (1960) 20 D.L.R. (2d) 174."'  c o n s i d e r i t s pouers u h i l e the developer resolve l i t i g a t i o n pretations.  81;  Thus the m u n i c i p a l i t y must his rights.  regarding t h i s issue.  T h i s case does not  There have been many i n t e r -  I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t amendments t o s e c t i o n 911 of the  M u n i c i p a l Act i n t r o d u c e s e c t i o n 911 S t a t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973  (9) (b) by s e c . 18 of chapter  59  ( f i r s t session) uhich gives m u n i c i p a l -  i t i e s the pouer to e n f o r c e c o n d i t i o n s such as those s t i p u l a t e d i n b y - l a u 1925  sec.  12.  Stage 6 of, the General  Procedure  EBIhegactual p r o v i s i o n of funds by the developer  as s e c u r i t y  t h a t s e r v i c e s u i l l be i n s t a l l e d a c c o r d i n g t D the s e r v i c i n g agreement can i n t r o d u c e delays i n the I f a developer  procedure.  i s nat f i n a n c i a l l y secure to the e x t e n t t h a t he  can p r o v i d e funds t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y and at the same time  provide  funds t o a c t u a l l y i n s t a l l the s e r v i c e s , he must complete a l l s e r v i c e s before making an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n .  I f the developer  i s in  a p o s i t i o n uhere he can a f f o r d temporary double f u n d i n g , he moves through  the process at a f a s t e r r a t e as h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n  -101i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e can a c t u a l l y be processed u h i l e the s e r v i c e s are being i n s t a l l e d . of s u r v i v a l - o f - t h e - f i t t e s t .  In most cases, t h i s i s a s i t u a t i o n The  developer uho  cannot a f f o r d  double  f u n d i n g u i l l s u f f e r the consequences - d e l a y s i n the p r o c e s s .  I f he  i s not f i n a n c i a l l y s t a b l e to u i t h s t a n d the a d d i t i o n a l time r e q u i r e d to achieve h i s g o a l of r e g i s t e r e d l o t s u i t h a p r o s p e c t u s he must s u f f e r the consequences - p o s s i b l e bankruptcy. A case u h i c h i l l u s t r a t e s the c o m p l i c a t i o n s u h i c h a r r i v e i n the event of poor d r a f t s m a n s h i p of the s e r v i c i n g agreement i s t h a t of H.  Cam-Kerr Developments v. the D i s t r i c t of A b b o t s f o r d .  Justice  Hutcheon h e l d t h a t the approving o f f i c e r had a c t e d beyond h i s pouers by r e f u s i n g t o approve the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n of Cam-Kerr Developments on the grounds t h a t Cam-Kerr had f a i l e d s a t i s f y s e c . 711  (9) of the  M u n i c i p a l Act u h i c h s t a t e s : Sec. 711 (9) A l l u o r k s and s e r v i c e s r e q u i r e d to.be c o n s t r u c t e d and i n s t a l l e d at the expense o f the ouner of l a n d proposed to be s u b d i v i d e d pursuant to the p r o v i s i o n s of a b y - l a u under t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be c o n s t r u c t e d and i n s t a l l e d to the standards p r e s c r i b e d i n the b y - l a u p r i o r to the a p p r o v a l of the s u b d i v i s i o n by the approving o f f i c e r u n l e s s (a)  the ouner of the l a n d d e p o s i t s u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y a bond i n the form and i n the amount p r e s c r i b e d i n the b y - l a u o r , i f not so p r e s c r i b e d , i n a form and f o r the amount s a t i s f a c t o r y to the approving o f f i c e r having r e g a r d to' the c o s t of i n s t a l l i n g and paying f o r a l l u o r k s and s e r v i c e s r e q u i r e d pursuant to the b y - l a u , and  (b)  the ouner of the l a n d e n t e r s i n t o an agreement u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t and i n s t a l l the p r e s c r i b e d uorks and s e r v i c e s by a s p e c i f i e d date or f o r f e i t the amount secured by the bond to the municipality.  The approving o f f i c e r u s i n g h i s pDuer under t h i s s e c t i o n r e f u s e d to approve the p r o j e c t as Cam-Kerr had not completed c o n s t r u c t i o n of s e r v i c e s a c c o r d i n g 'to the s p e c i f i e d d a t e .  J u s t i c e Hutcheon h e l d t h a t  "the problem i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h i s case by an examination  of the  -102d r a f t agreements u h i c h each p a r t y prepared f o r the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of 12 the o t h e r p a r t y . "  He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t "many c f the c l a u s e s i n each  d r a f t seemed reasonable the l a n d may  and proper as f o r example t h a t the ouner of  be given an e x t e n s i o n of time of the s p e c i f i e d date i f  there i s a delay u h i c h occurs u i t h c u t h i s f a u l t . " ^  Under the pouer  of s e c . 98 (4) of the Land R e g i s t r y Act the j u s t i c e ordered p l a n be d e p o s i t e d .  T h i s case i s not completely  that  the  i l l u s t r a t i v e of the  b a r g a i n i n g process but i t does i n d i c a t e t h a t the c o n d i t i o n s agreed upon are s u b j e c t to v a r i a t i o n s i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I f the agreement s p e c i f i e s every d e t a i l , i t r e q u i r e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e  amount of time i n - o r d e r to  meet the demands of the b a r g a i n i n g p a r t i e s .  I f ' t h e agreement i s  vague, time can be l a s t i n f u t u r e c o u r t a c t i o n s u h i c h t u r n pn pretation.  inter-  The most severe hcld-ups i n the process c f e s t a b l i s h i n g  s e r v i c i n g agreements u i l l be r e v e a l e d i n the a n a l y s i s of l a n d c o n t r a c t s i n the r e v i e u of zoning  use  change'procedures.  Stages U I I , U I I I and IX do not tend to impede the l a r g e r developers  uho  are t y p i c a l l y i n v o l v e d - i n t h i s case of a major sub-  d i v i s i o n . I f the d e v e l o p e r has made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n u h i l e a c t u a l l y i n s t a l l i n g h i s s e r v i c e s , the time r e q u i r e d f o r completion g e n e r a l l y c o i n c i d e u i t h the time r e q u i r e d f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n and of a p r o s p e c t u s .  uill  issuance  I f the case i s one uhere the developer does not make  an a p p l i c a t i o n to r e g i s t e r h i s s u b d i v i s i o n i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e , he might u e l l be c o n s t r a i n e d by the procedure. A n a l y s i s of Zoning By-Lau Amendments Procedure The  procedure f o r s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l u h i c h i n v o l v e s an  amendment to a zoning b y - l a u i n t r o d u c e s a number of a d d i t i o n a l h o l d - u p s . Stage IU c f the process r e q u i r e s a p u b l i c h e a r i n g i n order  that  -103a zoning b y - l a u may be amended. ; or  stimulate  P u b l i c h e a r i n g s can d e s t r o y a p r o j e c t  c o u n c i l t o r e s e a r c h a p a r t i c u l a r aspect o f t h e p r o j e c t ,  hence i n c r e a s i n g the d e l a y or a p p r o v a l o f the p r o j e c t .  The method of  c o n d u c t i n g the h e a r i n g i s perhaps t h e s i n g l e most important v a r i a b l e . The  m u n i c i p a l i t y o f Richmond has one o f t h e best p o l i c i e s (see App.endix  B-2). • The h e a r i n g i s h e l d as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e t o a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n of the area a f f e c t e d .  A member o f t h e p l a n n i n g committee a c t s as  chairman u h i l e a member o f t h e p l a n n i n g s t a f f o u t l i n e s the area a f f e c t e d by the p r o p o s a l and i s a v a i l a b l e t o ansuer t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n s or those of a n o n - p o l i c y n a t u r e .  The.developer i s r e s p o n s i b l e  i n t r o d u c t i o n o f h i s p r o p o s a l t o the p u b l i c . the developer i s not g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y  f o r the  In some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o speak and a l s o , i n many,  the h e a r i n g s are h e l d p r i o r t o c o u n c i l meetings i n c o u n c i l chambers. A major problem u i t h p u b l i c h e a r i n g s i s t h a t p u b l i c  partici-  p a t i o n g e n e r a l l y provokes an adverse r e a c t i o n i n i t i a l l y . P o l i t i c i a n s are v e r y - s e n s i t i v e t o demands o f the r e s i d e n t s o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y even i f they are r e p r e s e n t e d by a s m a l l group.  In many cases t h e r e i s the  s i t u a t i o n of e x p e r t i s e vs a b s o l u t e i n e x p e r i e n c e .  A major q u e s t i o n i s  uhat r i g h t does an i n d i v i d u a l u i t h poor u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e complexi t i e s o f a- p r o j e c t , have t o r e j e c t a p r o j e c t u s i n g The  his limited s k i l l s .  major problem o f t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s t h e banduagon approach.  C i t i z e n s may have d i s t i n c t o b j e c t i o n s  t o a p r o j e c t but may r e j e c t i t  by c o n c e n t r a t i n g  In many cases they are s u c c e s s f u l .  The  on one minor p o i n t .  combination o f inadequate e x p e r t i s e u i t h p o l i t i c a l p r e s s u r e has  had numberous severe consequences f o r t h e d e v e l o p e r . The  developer must a l s o assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f being  auare o f the g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s o f the p e o p l e . ignorant  I f he i s c o m p l e t e l y  o f the g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s o f the p e o p l e , he can be f o r c e d  I  i n t o a very time consuming p o s i t i o n uhere slcudouns are i n e v i t a b l e . A n a l y s i s o f Land Use C o n t r a c t s  Procedure  The i n t r o d u c t i o n c f l a n d use c o n t r a c t s i n 1971 through s e c . 702A o f the M u n i c i p a l Act has i n c r e a s e d the time r e q u i r e d t o approve a s u b d i v i s i o n as e x e m p l i f i e d i n the case o f Surrey The e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n has tended t o c o m p l i c a t e s i t u a t i o n betueen the developer  i n chapter  .'J/,.  the b a r g a i n i n g  and the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  I t a l s o tends  to i n c r e a s e the b u r e a u c r a t i c problems c r e a t e d by a d d i t i o n a l t r a n s f e r of i n f o r m a t i o n betueen the v a r i o u s departments i n v o l v e d .  The oppor-  t u n i t y c a s t i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d u i t h r e s p e c t t o the advantages t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y and not u i t h r e g a r d t o the impact o f d e l a y s  created  by the system. Sec. 702A (5) o f . t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t s t a t e s t h a t "the c o u n c i l may, through b y - l a u , p r e s c r i b e the procedure by u h i c h the m u n i c i p a l i t y may e n t e r i n t o a Land Use C o n t r a c t and the form on c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the c o n t r a c t . "  T h i s e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n puts the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n  the a t t r a c t i v e p o s i t i o n o f being one o f tuo independent e n t i t i e s u h i c h are f r e e t o c o n t r a c t as they choose.  T h i s i s a very  important  f a c t o r i n the eyes o f the l a u . A m u n i c i p a l i t y must aluays be c a r e f u l o f the f u n c t i o n i t c a r r i e s out i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n .  The t h r e e main f u n c t i o n s o f  the m u n i c i p a l i t y a c c o r d i n g t a W i l l i a m Lane, P r o f e s s o r .of P l a n n i n g i n the School c f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, are the r e g u l a t o r y b y - l a u s making f u n c t i o n , the q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n and the housekeeping f u n c t i o n .  The v a r i o u s  forms o f l e g i s l a t i o n u h i c h delegate pouers t c m u n i c i p a l i t i e s delegate these pouers such t h a t the m u n i c i p a l i t y imust e x h i b i t a s p e c i f i c  -1D5f u n c t i o n ;. uhen  , u s i n g the pouer.  From a l e g a l p o i n t o f view, the  m u n i c i p a l i t y must be c o n s i s t e n t i n p e r f o r m i n g these f u n c t i o n s i n the r e s p e c t  t h a t uhen p l a y i n g one r o l e , i t must not attempt t o p l a y  another u h i c h u o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d as a d i f f e r e n t i s enabling  l e g i s l a t i o n uhich creates  Sec.  7D2A (5) o f the M u n i c i p a l  function unless  such a s i t u a t i o n . Act g i v e s the m u n i c i p a l i t y  housekeeping pouer as u e l l as l e g i s l a t i v e pouer.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y i s  a l l o u e d t o use i t s l e g i s l a t i v e pouer t o amend a zoning b y - l a u c o n d i t i o n upon u h i c h i t may e n t e r  there  as a  a c o n t r a c t u i t h another e n t i t y .  If  the c o u r t s .uere concerned t h a t a m u n i c i p a l i t y uas a c t i n g beyond i t s pouers ( u l t r a v i r e s ) they u o u l d r e v i e u .the e n a b l i n g t h i s case, the e n a b l i n g  l e g i s l a t i o n introduces  legislation.  the magic uord  "contract"  u h i c h i m p l i e s t h a t a l t h o u g h the m u n i c i p a l i t y has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i t exhibits i t s regulatory  In  uhen  pouer t o make r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t are a s c e r -  t a i n a b l e , i t a l s o i s found i n the p o s i t i o n uhere i t i s u s i n g i t s housekeeping pouer t o make a c o n t r a c t t h a t i s f a v o r a b l e ipality.  t o the munic-  I f the m u n i c i p a l i t y draus up a land use c o n t r a c t and s t a t e s  t h a t a developer had no choice contract s i t u a t i o n not p e r m i t t e d conclusion  but t o s i g n i t , t h i s u o u l d remove the  and c r e a t e an e n t i r e l y  regulatory  under the u o r d i n g o f t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n .  system u h i c h i s The i m p o r t a n t  t h a t must be draun i s t h a t the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s given a  tremendous amount d f freedom t o s e t up r e q u i r e m e n t s i n the b a r g a i n i n g situation. situation  When the e o u r t s see the uord " c o n t r a c t " , . t h e y o f independent e n t i t i e s b a r g a i n i n g  a m u n i c i p a l i t y p o s s i b l y standing  see a  and not a s i t u a t i o n o f  on the limb o f i t s r e g u l a t o r y  pouer.  Sec. 7D2A (1) s t a t e s the m u n i c i p a l i t y s h a l l have due r e g a r d f o r a number o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , of the M u n i c i p a l A c t .  i n c l u d i n g those o u t l i n e d i n sec.702 (2)  Sec. 7D2A ( l ) ( b ) u h i c h s t a t e s the m u n i c i p a l i t y  -106s h a l l consider "the impact of development on present 15 public costs"  i s an example.  and  future  The enabling l e g i s l a t i o n permits  contracts uhich can include very general considerations, as u e l l as very s p e c i f i c ones, permitting an open i n v i t a t i o n for m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to maximize the use of their housekeeping pouers.  The r e s u l t i s a  more complex time consuming bargaining s i t u a t i o n than that  described  uith reference to the development agreements in the case of Richmond in Chapter  V."  The use of land use contracts i s a discretionary policy D n the part of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . only for zoning  Many municipalities use land use  contracts  changes uhich involve a very unique s i t u a t i o n such as  a z e r o - l o t - l i n e concept.  Other municipalities employ land use  contracts uherever possible. S t a t i s t i c s obtained  An example of the l a t t e r i s Surrey.  from the municipality of Surrey confirmed the  present use of contracts by this municipality. During the year of there uere approximately land use contracts. in t o t a l .  1973  75 development applications processed through  Approximately 359 applications uere received  Almost 20% of the major applications have been processed  through land use contracts.  I t i s the opinion of consulting engineers  and developers in t h i s area that the approval process has been lengthened by an additional three months. A solution to the time increases caused by the use of land use contracts could be found in a more s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y uhich uould give more d e f i n i t e direction regarding the use of land use contracts.  A further suggestion  uould be the introduction of standard-  ized contracts uhich uould specify the obligations of both parties to the contract hence reducing achieve an optimum s i t u a t i o n .  the loss D f time uhen attempting to  -107Presently, municipalities generally require that the developer completes his s e r v i c i n g agreement u i t h the municipality p r i o r to council's revieu of the land use contract and recommendation for a public hearing.  The problem uith this system i s that i n certain  cases the developer i s r i s k i n g considerable  expenditures i n vieu of  the fact that a public hearing on a land use contract uould prevent a project from r e a l i z i n g completion. be one uhich provides  A more equitable system uould  for a public hearing regarding the land use  contract to be folloued by negotiations regarding r i g h t s of uay then by a servicing agreement.  and  The major consideration i s time.  In  the municipalities that offer options to the developer, the consensus i s that the. municipality i s structuring the procedure such that a great deal of time i s l o s t i f the developer does not undertake the r i s k to carry through uith a s e r v i c i n g agreement prior to public hearing the land use contract.  of  If the municipality conducted public hearings  at a less elaborate stage of the process both sides uould be better o f f . The public hearing could take place uith less preparation required by the municipal  and the developer's engineers.  The actual drafting of  the f i n a l plans and agreements established by the engineers of the municipality uould be f i n a l steps and not redundant. system the municipal  lilith the  engineer must revieu a l l of the plans before  present the  council gives i t s f i n a l reading for the land use contract f o l l o u i n g the public hearing.  If the alternative approach uere used the  municipal  engineer uould consider the plans only i n preparation of the s e r v i c i n g agreement uhich uhen completed uould be adapted to the land use contract and submitted for approval by c o u n c i l .  An e a r l i e r stage of  public hearing reduces the double steps and hence the paper uork uhich > amounts to unnecessary time.  -108The r o l e o f the m u n i c i p a l s o l i c i t o r i n p r e p a r a t i o n o f l a n d use c o n t r a c t s i s a l s o very i m p o r t a n t . t h a t i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s such as Surrey  The survey r e s u l t s suggested the m u n i c i p a l s o l i c i t o r i s  overworked and cannot process the c o n t r a c t s u i t h i n the r e q u i r e d p e r i o d of time.  I f l a n d use c o n t r a c t s uere s t a n d a r d i z e d  i t uould not be  necessary t o i n c o r p o r a t e the time consuming d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f the s o l i c i t o r r e q u i r e d f o r a p p r o v a l o f each c o n t r a c t .  In the i d e a l  s i t u a t i o n the l a u y e r should be capable o f q u i c k l y r e v i e w i n g a standard format and f o r u a r d i t on. i S l . i n d i c a t e s the present  The case o f Sur D e l i l l u s t r a t e d i n Chapter problem q u i t e c l e a r l y .  The p r o j e c t uas t i e d  up by t h e ' a c t i v i t i e s o f the m u n i c i p a l s o l i c i t o r from the end o f November u n t i l the end o f January.  One must account f o r the h o l i d a y season,  houever a f e u days s h o u l d be the maximum time r e q u i r e d a t t h i s stage of the procedure. In c o n c l u s i o n l a n d use c o n t r a c t s s h o u l d hot be r u l e o \ out e n t i r e l y but improved p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e s p e c t D f c o n t r o l . r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the p r o v i n c i a l government.  This i s a  The c o n t r a c t s should be  f l e x i b l e but at the same time they should be a s c e r t a i n a b l e by s p e c i f y i n g c e r t a i n g e n e r a l l i m i t s u h i c h uould pervent the e f f o r t s o f m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o . i n c o r p o r a t e the r i d i c u l o u s . be l i m i t e d i s t h a t o f cash imposts.  One aspect t h a t should  definitely  These should be s t a n d a r d i z e d  r e g a r d i n g the amount and the purpose o f the impost.  The p r e p a r a t i o n  of the improved l a n d use c o n t r a c t s should c o n s i d e r both p a r t i e s very c a r e f u l l y so as not t o j e o p a r d i z e t h e i r f u t u r e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s by the c o n t r a c t . The problems o f m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l e n t i r e l y o r i e n t e d around the p l a n n e r s  delays are not  o f f i c e , the s o l i c i t o r ' s  office,  -109-  or the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r ' s o f f i c e .  Chapter \lII i n t r o d u c e s a number  of e x t e r n a l i t i e s u h i c h have an important r o l e i n the o p e r a t i o n of s u b d i v i s i o n  approval  procedures.  -110-  Footnotes  Ldiesman, B. A Course i n C i t y P l a n n i n g , Zoning and S u b d i v i s i o n . Vancouver, U n i v e r s i t y D f B r i t i s h Columbia, F a c u l t y o f Commerce & B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1972, p. 100. 2 Ldiesman, op. c i t . , p. IDC. ^ C o n t r o l l e d Access Highways A c t , Sec. 4 ( 2 ) . ^Iland R e g i s t r y A c t , RSBC C.208, Sec. 101. 5  6  L a n d R e g i s t r y A c t , RSBC C.208, Sec. 105(1) L_and R e g i s t r y A c t , RSBC , C.208, Sec.  105(2)  7 C. M c C a l l i s t e r , Development i n Unorganized T e r r i t o r i e s , Submitted t o E. C. E. Todd, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, F a c u l t y of Law, May 1971. M u n i c i p a l A c t , RSBC 1960, c h a p t . 255, s e c . 7 1 1 ( 4 ) . P i c c a d i l y E s t a t e s vs The C o r p o r a t i o n IMo. X3889, I n Supreme Court o f B.C. " ^ P i c c a d i l y E s t a t e s vs The C o r p o r a t i o n  o f the D i s t r i c t o f D e l t a .  o f the D i s t r i c t o f D e l t a ,  op'.cit. "^Cam-Kerr Developments v The D i s t r i c t o f A b b o t s f c r d , In Supreme Court o f B.C. October 9, 1973, January 29, 1973.  IMc. X4681,  12 Cam-Hierr- Developments vs The D i s t r i c t o f A b b o t s f o r d ,  Op. c i t .  "^Cam-Kerr Developments vs The D i s t r i c t o f A b b p t s f o r d ,  Op. c i t .  " ^ M u n i c i p a l A c t , RSBC 1960 C255, sec.7D2A(5). .  1 5  M u n i c i p a l A c t , RSBC 1960, C255 s e c . 702A ( 1 K b ) .  -111-  CHAPTER V I I  THE MUNICIPAL PROBLEM  The  a n a l y s i s o f the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l process i n Chapter  VI/ d e f i n i t e l y s u p p o r t s the argument t h a t the p r o d u c t i o n o f s e r v i c e d l o t s i s r e t a r d e d by the present systems o f a p p r o v a l i n many o f the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s o f m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  T h i s c o n c l u s i o n may be  r e l a t e d t o the argument r e v e a l e d i n Chapter IJIil t h a t supply o f b u i l d i n g l o t s i s approaching  a r e l a t i v e l y i n e l a s t i c p o s i t i o n as the number o f  b u i l d i n g l o t s produced each year i s d e c r e a s i n g r e l a t i v e t o the i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r b u i l d i n g l o t s . one o f an i m p e r f e c t machet.  The s i t u a t i o n c r e a t e d i s d e f i n i t e l y  The demand f o r b u i l d i n g l o t s i s r i s i n g  u h i l e the supply i s being c o n s t r a i n e d by government c o n t r o l s , one o f u h i c h i s the a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s .  The problem houever, i s not one t h a t  can be s o l v e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y alone nor i s i t one c r e a t e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y alone.  The scope D f the a n a l y s i s i n Chapters  uas very n a r r o u c o n c e n t r a t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y on the a p p r o v a l u i t h i n given m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  TV' and VI process  In order t o comprehend the c o m p l e x i t y  o f the s i t u a t i o n i t i s necessary t o c o n s i d e r a number o f e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s u h i c h have-tended t o c r e a t e the present The  tuo broad areas concerned  situation.  are the f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n o f  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and the d e c i s i o n making process D f the m u n i c i p a l i t y . Many o f the d e l a y s c i t e d i n the a p p r o v a l procedures  d i s c u s s e d are  o r i e n t e d around the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s concern f o r r e d u c i n g the c o s t o f development r e l a t i v e t o the m u n i c i p a l budget u h i l e o t h e r d e l a y s uere  -112-  created by the problem of bureaucracy and the decision making policy of the municipality. The F i n a n c i a l Position of Municipalities The production  of serviced lots for the construction of single  family duellings i s not an asset to the budget of most municipali t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  This fact has been confirmed p a r t i c u l a r l y  in the case of Richmond, B.C.  A study conducted there found that "every  single family house uas a $250 .•• a year d e f i c i t operation from a tax dollar point of v i e u . "  The cost of each additional single family  1  duelling in terms of additional costs such as school costs, seuage, hospital, transportation, recreation, environment, administration, a l l of uhich are generally derived by maintenance or addition of services required, are generally in excess of the revenues generated by the municipality.  A b r i e f revieu of several case studies conducted in  the United States, gives additional evidence of t h i s problem. A study conducted by Louis Loeuenstein on the Brookvale subd i v i s i o n in Fremont, C a l i f o r n i a , concluded that for every d o l l a r paid by a resident i n the form of tax the municipality paid $1.01 2 him.  This.study  to service  involved a mixture of housing units, houever, i t  uas also found that single family duellings produced half the revenues yet incurred 80% of the cost. uas generated by property  In t h i s county 72% of i t s t o t a l revenue  taxation.  It i s possible to r e l a t e t h i s  case to that of municipalities i n B r i t i s h Columbia generally speaking as approximately 66% of the revenue generated by B. C. municipalities came from r e a l property  taxation in 1968.^  The conclusions  of  this study cannot be applied d i r e c t l y to the case of B r i t i s h Columbia  -113-  but do provide a good indication of the revenue generated by taxation of single family duellings r e l a t i v e to the costs single family duellings  create.  A study conducted by Ruth Mace i n three U.S. counties, IMorth Carolina's Guilford, C a l i f o r n i a ' s San Joaquin, and Middlesex, IMeu Jersey, provides an example of a case uhich i s quite  representative 4  of the position of many B r i t i s h Columbia m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  The r e s u l t s  of a study uhich created a. hypothetical subdivision i n the Ldoodbridge Tounship i n Middlesex County i s quite applicable to the s i t u a t i o n of subdivision i n many B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  In Uoodbridge the developers  uere required to pay a l l servicing costs including street improvement, uater supply, seuage disposal and land dedication. Eighty-five percent of the 5 t o t a l per capita school expenditures uere financed 17 and 18 give information  locally.  Tables  on the community and the subdivision  involved. . fable 17. Population and Household Characteristics of Ldoodbridge Community on the Ldoodbridge Subdivision.^  Population Occupied Duelling  Units  Household Size  Ldoodbridge community  Ldoodbridge subdivision  95,530  281  25,654  76  3.7  3.7  Grade and High School Population Total Per Duelling  Unit  20,542  61  .8  .8  -114-  Table 18.  P r o p e r t y Tax Base f o r Uoodbridge 1965-1966  7  Actual Assessed  V a l u a t i o n ( m i l l i o n s o f $)  T o t a l , r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y Assessment r a t i o  $  232.4 37%  .. R e s i d e n t i a l as a % o f t o t a l  67.2%  Per c a p i t a assessed v a l u a t i o n  2,432  Per student assessed v a l u a t i o n  11,313  Tax Rates County  .611  Municipality  1,759  School D i s t r i c t  .233  Fire District  .69  Total  5.39  Equalized T o t a l Assessed  Value  ( m i l l i o n s o f $)  Per c a p i t a assessed value  628.1 6,573  Tax r a t e s County  .226  Municipal  .651  School D i s t r i c t  .862  A l l other  .255  Total Hypothetical  1.994  subdivisions  Assessed v a l u a t i o n ( p e r d u e l l i n g u n i t ) Real property Total  7,400 7,400  Per d u e l l i n g u n i t p r o p e r t y Tax y i e l d  371.73  I t uas found t h a t f o r c o n t i n u i n g o p e r a t i n g and c a p i t a l annual  costs  and revenues per d u e l l i n g u n i t f o r o t h e r than e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s , revenues exceeded c o s t s by $26 per d u e l l i n g u n i t .  Per d u e l l i n g u n i t  revenues f o r s c h o o l purposes i n the Ldoodbridge s u b d i v i s i o n uere s h o r t by $78 per u n i t on t o t a l c o s t s of $246.  The  c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s  study r e l a t e the dilemma of the e x c e s s i v e c o s t o f s c h o o l s e r v i c e s versus the revenue generated  by the s u b d i v i s i o n to the problem c r e a t e d  uhen most of the p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n support i s d e r i v e d from the p r o p e r t y taxes.''"  0  The  local  i n t e n t i o n of i n t r o d u c i n g these s t u d i e s i s not  to prove t h a t such a s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s i n B.C.  but to demonstrate the  problem encountered by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s u h i c h have to generate  a majority  of t h e i r revenue from r e a l p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n . In B r i t i s h Columbia the r e a l p r o p e r t y t a x p r o v i d e d approxi m a t e l y 66.9%"'""'" of the revenue f o r B.C.  municipalities in  A c c o r d i n g to the r e p o r t to the Union o f B.C.  1968.  Municipalities,  the  p r o p o r t i o n of m u n i c i p a l e x p e n d i t u r e s used for. s o c i a l u e l f a r e and e d u c a t i o n purposes i s i n c r e a s i n g r e l a t i v e to o t h e r Betueen 1961  and 1969  expenditures.  e x p e n d i t u r e s on s o c i a l u e l f a r e i n c r e a s e d by  12%  12 u h i l e government g r a n t s to s o c i a l u e l f a r e decreased municipal expenditure  The  f o r e d u c a t i o n as a percentage D f p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n  f o r the same p e r i o d i n c r e a s e d from 38.2% The  by 12%.  i n 1961  c o n c l u s i o n of the Report to the Union of B.C.  t o 48.0%  i n 1969. ' 1  3  Municipalities i s  t h a t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l source of revenue.  "As  they  d i d a c e n t u r y ago, m u n i c i p a l governments s t i l l r e l y on the y i e l d from 14 r e a l p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n as the p r i n c i p l e source of revenue."  The  most c r i t i c a l aspect of the problem i s not o n l y the f a c t t h a t revenue i s l i m i t e d but t h a t the m u n i c i p a l t a x a t i o n system i s being i n c r e a s i n g l y eroded to f i n a n c e . t h e expanding needs of e d u c a t i o n and s o c i a l u e l f a r e  -11615 services over uhich the municipal governments have no c o n t r o l . Education and welfare costs should be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the p r o v i n c i a l government and should not be recovered through municipal revenues.  The provision of the necessary infrastructure required for  municipal growth should become the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of each municipality which should provide the necessary portions of municipal revenue to absorb these costs.  This type of policy would create a more equit-  able s i t u a t i o n by r e l a t i n g expenditures of municipal revenue to services over which the municipalities would have direct control. • • *  It would also reduce the cost of urban growth. j  The pressures of  f i n a n c i a l problems have forced municipalities ta undertake a number of measures to reduce the burden of r e s i d e n t i a l development as p r o v i n c i a l government policy regarding t h i s problem has not been determined  to date.  The present system D f subdivision approval i n mast municipali t i e s involves the use of imposts which are charges levied on the developer to pay for the increased public costs derived from the execution of a development.  The effect upon the municipalities i s  that some of the additional costs created by a development are directed to the purchaser or tenant of the development rather than to the municipality and i t s taxpayers.  Problems are created when the  benefits do not bear a direct relationship ta the casts exacted. may  "It  be argued that while streets, sewers, gutters, sidewalks, street  l i g h t i n g and hydro e l e c t r i c services should be financed on a direct cost-benefit basis, those services which the community as a whole *  The Budget speech by the Honourable Dave Barrett February 11, 1974 indicates that the P r o v i n c i a l Government i s going ta reduce the burden of the cast af education an municipalities.  -117-  demands, regardless of the benefit enuring to a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l , aught to be financed  differently.""^  The use of imposts may o f f s e t short run costs but they u i l l not solve the long run f i n a n c i a l problem of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  A l l of  the services that are established by the developer are eventually going to require repairs or even replacement.  Thus, i f a municipal-  i t y can determine that a development i s favorable i n terms of cost vs benefits i n r e l a t i o n to municipal  finances by using imposts, i t i s  only deceiving i t s e l f i n the long run. A more equitable s i t u a t i o n i s created i f the municipality forces the developer to the greatest extent possible to include 17 servicing i n his subdivision,  but d i s t r i b u t e s the .casts af develop-  ment uhich are of benefit to the uhole municipality among a l l taxpayers.  Many people believe that uhen a developer pays additional  impost charges he merely passes these costs an to the purchaser of a home by s e l l i n g the house for a higher price and that as a r e s u l t the home buyer "may pay more for his home both i n the doun payment 18 and i n his mortgage redemption installment" and "may conclude that 19 he cannot afford a neu house at a l l . "  This argument i s f a l s e .  Chapter tuo introduced the concept of positive and negative  leverage.  I f the price of servicing a l o t increases by more than the increase in the market value of a serviced l o t the r e s u l t u i l l be negative leverage on the price of rau land.  I f the cost of servicing increases  by more than the market value of serviced land the developer u i l l pay less far rau land.  Thus the impact of imposts f a l l s an the vendor  of rau land and not on the purchaser of the serviced l o t uho u i l l pay .» the market value for serviced land as determined by the market value  -118for duelling as explained i n Chapter tua.  I f the developer can't  buy land at the louer price he uon't develop i t unless the s e l l i n g price of serviced land increases by a greater amount than the servi c i n g costs thus enabling him to pay more for rau land. There are many methods of reducing the servicing costs of development.  Marian Clausen provides an excellent example of achieve-  ments that can be made i n reducing public and private costs for land servicing and development by clustering housing rather than permitting 20 spraul.  He c i t e s the case of the Columbia planned toun development  in Houard County, Maryland. f u l l y open settlement  "Contrasting the f u l l y clustered uith  patterns the per family saving i s $600 far land 21  and over $2,H-DQ. for investment i n public services."  In the case  of B.C. municipalities methods such as these do not a l l e v i a t e the r e a l problem. The solution to the f i n a n c i a l problems of.B.'C. municipalities l i e s i n the introduction of a neu policy regarding municipal  finance.  A balance must be struck betueen the cast af serviced land and the ensuing development uhich increases municipal casts and desire of the p r o v i n c i a l government to reduce the rate of increase i n the cast af housing.  This i s not the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y af the municipalities but  that of the p r o v i n c i a l government. The present s i t u a t i o n of a lengthening  subdivision approval  process i s d i r e c t l y related to this s i t u a t i o n .  M u n i c i p a l i t i e s such,  as Surrey caught by the r i s i n g costs of expanding r e s i d e n t i a l development, have had to introduce imposts to temporarily salve the problem. The evidence af sloudauns i n the Surrey process indicated that there uas an additional cost to the introduction of such policy; projects uere held up as the municipality determined i t s l e g i s l a t i v e and regulatory rights uith regard to the introduction of the imposts  -119and drafting of land use contracts to add further assistance i n achieving a goal of reducing municipal costs uhile permitting expansion of r e s i d e n t i a l development. A very important assumption must be made before suggesting p o l i c i e s for the p r o v i n c i a l government.  B r i t i s h Columbia must be  u i l l i n g to accept a policy uhich does not r e s t r i c t demand, but resigns i t s e l f to the fact that many neu a r r i v a l s u i l l come to the province for  residence and they u i l l be accepted.  into perspective.  The problem must be put  If the government i s not going to regulate demand  by r e s t r i c t i n g the entry of neu residents i t must concentrate on increasing the supply of housing. Policy Considerations for the Provincial Government A number of p o l i c i e s uhich may  be adapted by the p r o v i n c i a l  government and directed by the p r o v i n c i a l government or delegated to 1. of  regional boards are: The p r o v i n c i a l government must increase the f i n a n c i a l capacity a l l municipalities.  The present r e a l property taxation system i n  B r i t i s h Columbia i s due for r e v i s i o n .  Recommendations for a neu  property taxation system should focus on creating a supply of revenue that u i l l enable the municipalities to f u l f i l their task of meeting the costs of grouth. 2.  The p r o v i n c i a l government must determine the relationship be-  tueen the developer and the municipality and the housing market, p a r t i c u l a r l y uith regard to a l l o c a t i o n of costs for servicing rau land and the use of imposts. 3. to  The p r o v i n c i a l government must supply funds to municipalities increase the capacity of existing trunk uater and seuer lines as  -120well as sewage treatment plants and water r e s e r v o i r s . k.  The p r o v i n c i a l government must also improve the approval  process of authorities which have powers over municipalities regarding those certain land areas within m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . a new  An example would be  policy regarding the approval of land use changes i n the flood  plain areas of the province. A l l of these p o l i c i e s , d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , assist the subdivision approval procedure.  If the p r o v i n c i a l government f u l f i l s  i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a s s i s t i n g the municipalities with their aforementioned problems, there are s t i l l a number of considerations that must be made regarding the municipality before the problem of an impaired subdivision approval process i s resolved. must operate a r a t i o n a l decision-making  process.  A municipality  There are two  s p e c i f i c areas of concern when effecting this goal:  development of  planning policy and the role of the municipal p o l i t i c i a n . Development of Municipal Planning P o l i c i e s Development of planning policy may levels:  be interpreted on two  macro planning and micro planning.  defined as "budgetary  control by way  Macro planning may  be  of a long term f i n a n c i a l plan  against which the timing of development may  be measured but has not 22  been employed as an i n t e g r a l part of the t o t a l planning process." Many municipalities have neglected to adopt or to maintain macro plans by s a t i s f y i n g short run demands without consideration for the long run. An excellent example i s the case of Surrey and i t s introduction of imposts mentioned in the preceding analysis. to the municipality may  The short run advantage  very well be a long run burden i n respect of  maintenance of the services given the municipalities present f i n a n c i a l  -121p o s i t i o n and p r o j e c t e d l o n g run p o s i t i o n .  In many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ,  t h e macro p l a n n i n g i s a c t u a l l y e f f e c t e d a t the m i c r o  level.  M i c r o p l a n n i n g r e f e r s to f u n c t i o n i n g o f r e g u l a t i o n s p o l i c i e s as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s .  and  The  approval  p r o c e s s f u n c t i o n s as p a r t of the micro p l a n n i n g s y s t e m .  A project  may be stopped because i t  requirements.  does not f i t  the z o n i n g b y - l a u  A p u b l i c h e a r i n g may be h e l d and the p r o j e c t may be r e j e c t e d as the people vote a g a i n s t i t .  Houever i t  i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the m u n i c -  i p a l i t y may r e q u i r e the p r o j e c t to i n c r e a s e i t s t a x base as the proposed development u i l l p r o v i d e a b e t t e r use f o r the l a n d . p r o j e c t may be r e j e c t e d on a micro l e v e l because i t  The  i s g o i n g to change  the use o f the l a n d u h i c h on a macro l e v e l i s a burden to the m u n i c i p a l i t y in- r e s p e c t t h a t i t  i s a c t u a l l y imposing the f i n a n c i a l s t r a i n 23  on the m u n i c i p a l i t y u h i c h the h i g h e r d e n s i t y p r o j e c t c o u l d a l l e v i a t e . The same s i t u a t i o n may be a p p l i e d to the p r o c e s s of s u b d i v i d i n g  land.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y must observe t h a t micro p l a n n i n g p o l i c i e s do not i n t e r f e r e u i t h macro p l a n n i n g p o l i c i e s .  If  a m u n i c i p a l i t y has  e s t a b l i s h e d i t s g o a l s i n t h i s r e s p e c t then the s u b d i v i s i o n p o l i c y s h o u l d f u n c t i o n much more e f f i c i e n t l y .  approval  The m u n i c i p a l i t y can  r e l a t e the impact of a development to i t s f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n as u e l l as t o i t s micro p l a n n i n g p o l i c y u i t h o u t  the h e s i t a t i o n t h a t  is  e v i d e n c e d i n the m u n i c i p a l d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s uhen the e f f e c t s o f a development are u n c e r t a i n i n the p l a n n e r ' s mind and hence the o f a p p r o v i n g the p r o j e c t becomes too h i g h and, t h u s ,  it  is  risk  delayed.  The p o l i c y r o l e o f the p l a n n e r i s very i m p o r t a n t uhen c o n s i d e r i n g the p r o c e s s o f s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l .  The p l a n n e r ' s  role  s h o u l d be t o reduce the r i g h t s o f c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s i n terms of use o f t h e i r  l a n d f o r the b e n e f i t of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s .  the  The p l a n n e r must  -122have a comprehensive understanding Df the r e s i d e n t i a l development process i n order to achieve such a goal.  An understanding o f the  actions, the attitudes of the ouners, producers and consumers of r e s i d e n t i a l land should be the basis for creating l o c a l public p o l i c i e s and implementing 4.1, grouth.  z l  p o l i c i e s to influence urban r e s i d e n t i a l  +  The planner plays an important role regarding the d i s t r i b u t i o n aspect of the competitive market system.  In order for housing units  to be allocated equitably the forces of supply and demand should operate as f r e e l y as passible.  The planner introduces certain r e -  s t r i c t i o n s to the supply function as he determines uhich public services are being ignored by the a c t i v i t y of the market. uould be inadequate roads.  An example  As the planner participates i n the sub-  d i v i s i o n approval process he must contr ibute his expertise uith regard to the role of the project in th e existing stock of development in the municipality and the costs and b enefits created.  If the planner  does not have an adequate understanding of the development process and the market a c t i v i t y and i t s demands , he acts as a burden to the system.  In the case of B. C. municipal i t i e s the lack of comprehensive  planning goals and understanding of the market tends to impede the process hence r e s t r i c t i n g the supply of housing as projects are delayed because of a lack of caardinati an Df a l l the sources of information required by the planner to reach a decision regarding a project proposal. The coordination of a l l sources of information i s important in order to ensure the e f f i c i e n t operat ion of the approval procedure, The administrative check l i s t i n Append ix E i s an example of one of the instruments uhich the planner may u se to ensure that the approval  -123process i s functioning as i t should.  I t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of  the planner to observe that a project i s taken through the approval process i n as short a time as possible.  The l i s t i s based on a  procedure used by Brian Porter, the Assistant Municipal Planner of the D i s t r i c t of Surrey and procedures i l l u s t r a t e d i n a number of 25 studies made i n the United States.  The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the planner  to relate p a r t i c u l a r projects to the grouth of the municipality as u e l l as his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to assist i n the operation of the approval process are not the sole determinants of the e f f i c i e n t operation of the approval  process.  The policy of the planner i s not the determining factor r e garding a project, i t i s merely a r e q u i s i t e of technical expertise to assist i n the democratic process established to confirm the fact that the bundle of rights uhich are reduced or increased i n the case of one land use are considered  i n r e l a t i o n to the bundle of r i g h t s  of society i n general. "The municipality i s a corporation, a legal entity uith a chairman, the mayor and a board Df directors, the municipal council uhich functions not tD make a p r o f i t but to provide services. The successful operation of a municipality depends upon e f f i c i e n t communication plus a c l e a r l y delineated chain of command evolving around 26 f u l l y documented council p o l i c y . " clear regarding  The role of the planner i s quite  the approval process, houever, his interaction u i t h  the council providing the technical expertise required as a base for p o l i t i c a l decisions as u e l l as the p o l i t i c a l decision making process i t s e l f , are even more important.  -124-  The P o l i t i c a l Decision Making Process The success of the p o l i t i c a l decision making process depends upon the relationship established betueen the council and i t s technical advisors.  The case of P i t t Meadous i s an example of a municipality  uhich has a council that places f u l l confidence i n the expertise of i t s municipal clerk and the technical recommendations he assembles from the regional planner and others.  The result i s an e f f i c i e n t  decision making process uhich produces r e s u l t s favorable far the council i n respect of s a t i s f y i n g the service requirement  to the  community and also provides an e f f i c i e n t approval process uhich i s not restrained by imperfections i n the decision making process. "Unlike the technologist uho uses his expertise to define and reach s p e c i f i c technological objectives the p o l i t i c i a n seeks to establish a consensus i n the context of a large number of often c o n f l i c t i n g 27 pressures."  In some communities, the pressures have induced  the p o l i t i c i a n to actually adopt the rale af technical advisor as he makes decisions based on his oun expertise rather than that provided by those employed to provide such expertise.  In situations such as  t h i s i n t e r n a l complications grow u i t h i n the system.  The  planners  resent the a c t i v i t i e s of the p o l i t i c i a n s and the council members mistrust the planners.  Such an unstable environment also makes the  advocation of micro and macro planning policy very d i f f i c u l t as the p o l i t i c i a n has a strong voice regarding t h i s p o l i c y . The e f f i c i e n c y of the approval process depends very much on a project's degree of involvement  uith municipal councils regarding  zoning amendments, land; use contracts and development agreements and the l e v e l of communication uhich exists betueen the planners and  -125-  the c o u n c i l members. providing  "The r o l e  of the p o l i t i c i a n  a r a t i o n a l environment u i t h  the p o l i t i c i a n each o t h e r ' s  full  should be one o f  p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e in uhich  and p r o f e s s i o n a l can f u n c t i o n as a team r e s p e c t i n g  views and judgements."  "Unfortunately  operate on a rough and ready k i n d o f r a t i o n a l i t y  many  legislators  that deals u i t h a  28 tremendous number of v a r i a b l e s . " betueen the p l a n n e r ,  Thus the l e v e l of communication  developer and the p o l i t i c i a n  reduced a c c o r d i n g to a given s i t u a t i o n . council policy its  political  be f u l l y  Thus,  it  can be s t r a i n e d and is  a s c e r t a i n a b l e and that as c o u n c i l  function uithin  the system i t  takes f u l l  of the planner and h i s f u n c t i o n as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e micro p o l i c y  imperative  fulfils  consideration  of macro and  and a chairman of the a p p r o v a l process and the  as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  of the p o t e n t i a l r e s i d e n t s f o r  the  that  developer  particular  community. In c o n c l u s i o n the delays c r e a t e d i n m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l cesses c o u l d d e f i n i t e l y  be reduced i f  m u n i c i p a l and p r o v i n c i a l  ments adopted p o l i c i e s u h i c h c o n s i d e r e d the impact of the mentioned e x t e r n a l i t i e s  progovern-  afore-  on the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s .  -126-  Footnotes  ^rS. C. LUoodsuarth. Land Use C o n t r o l . Vancouver, The Centre f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972, p. 7. 2 Louis Loeuenstein. M u n i c i p a l Cost Revenue A n a l y s i s f o r Planned U n i t Developments, B e r k e l y I n s t i t u t e o f Urban and R e g i o n a l Development, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1973. T . J . P l u n k e t t . A Report t o the Union o f B.C. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s . T. S. P l u n k e t t A s s o c i a t e s L t d . 1971, p. 82. 3  1+  Ruth Mace. Do S i n g l e Family Homes Pay T h e i r way. D.C. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e Research Monograph IMo. 15, 1968. 5  R . Mace, •p. C i t . p. 32.  6  R . Mace, •p. c i t . Table h,  7  R . Mace, •p. c i t . Table 6.  8  R . Mace, Op. c i t . p. 31.  9  R . Mace, Op. c i t . p. 32.  1 D  R . Mace.  1:L  1 2  Washington,  Op. c i t . p. 32.  T . 0. P l u n k e t t , Op. c i t . P. 82.  T . J . P l u n k e t t , Op. c i t . p. 36.  T . J . P l u n k e t t . The F i n a n c i a l S t r u c t u r e and the D e c i s i o n Making Process o f Canadian M u n i c i p a l Government, Ottawa: C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , 1972, p. hi, Table 5. 1 3  J . P l u n k e t t , Loc. c i t . p. 69. 1 5  T . 0. P l u n k e t t , Loc c i t . p. 69.  G e r a l d Ldadler. Land P l a n n i n g by A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e g u l a t i o n : P o l i c i e s o f the O n t a r i o M u n i c i p a l Board, Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto P r e s s , 1971, p. 185. 1 6  -127-  17  S. Ld. H a m i l t o n ; R. R a t c l i f f . Suburban Land Development. Vancouver: F a c u l t y o f Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972, P X i i . IB C i t i z e n s Research I n s t i t u t e o f Canada. S t o r y , p. 4.  Subdivisions  19 •p. C i t .  C i t i z e n s Research I n s t i t u t e c f Canada, p. 4.  2D Marion C l a u s e n . Suburban Land C o n v e r s i o n i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , B a l t i m o r e and London: John Hopkins P r e s s , 1971, p. 155. 21 Dp. c i t . M. C l a u s o n , p. 154. 22 Dp. c i t . G e r a l d Ldadler, p. 19D. 23 Dp. c i t . G e r a l d Ldadler, p. 191. S h i r l e y Ldeiss. P u b l i c P o l i c y and the R e s i d e n t i a l Development American I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s J o u r n a l , V o l . 36, 1970, p. 31.  Process. 25  C h a r l e s T. T a n i g a n . C o n t r o l o f Land S u b d i v i s i o n . O f f i c e o f P l a n n i n g C o - o r d i n a t i o n , 1968.  IMeu York:  26 Ldilliam Hooson. "Urban Government and Management i n the Canadian F e d e r a l System" Urban Focus, V o l . 1, IMo. 5, 1973. 27 'Dorothy I M e i l k i n . The P o l i t i c s o f Housing I n n o v a t i o n . and London: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971, p. 90. 2 8  D p . c i t . D. N e i l k i n , p. 90.  Ithaca  -128-  CHAPTER V I I I  CONCLUSIONS  The h y p o t h e s i s o f the t h e s i s uas d i v i d e d i n t o tuo major areas and one secondary  area.  The tuo major h y p o t h e s i s uere:  I s the demand  f o r r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g u n i t s i n excess o f the s u p p l y i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver?  I s the time r e q u i r e d f o r m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l  i n c e r t a i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n c r e a s i n g hence d e l a y i n g the supply o f r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g l o t s i n these m u n i c i p a l ities?  The a n a l y s i s o f the supply and demand and p r i c e s o f d u e l l i n g  u n i t s p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g u n i t s proved t h a t demand i s i n excess o f s u p p l y .  The a n a l y s i s o f f o u r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n Metro-  p o l i t a n Vancouver proved t h a t the time r e q u i r e d f o r a p p r o v a l o f s u b d i v i s i o n s has i n c r e a s e d i n c e r t a i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and t h a t t h i s f a c t has a l s o caused a delay i n the supply o f r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g l o t s i n these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . A secondary  h y p o t h e s i s uas: Are Land Use C o n t r a c t s a con-  s t r a i n t i n the m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l procedure  c a u s i n g a delay u h i c h  i n c r e a s e s the time r e q u i r e d f o r m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l ?  The  a n a l y s i s o f Surrey m u n i c i p a l i t y proved t h a t the use o f l a n d use c o n t r a c t s may be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to d e l a y s c r e a t e d i n the m u n i c i p a l approval process. T h i s t h e s i s has c o n c e n t r a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y on the time r e q u i r e d f o r m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l and the r e l e v a n c e o f t h i s to the supply o f s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g l o t s .  situation  Suggestions have been made  -129-  uhich uould  improve t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e process  a r e h o u e v e r a number o f i m p o r t a n t before  undertaking  the task of improving  of the m u n i c i p a l approval Areas f o r Future  questions  internally.  There  t h a t s h o u l d be a n s u e r e d  the i n t e r n a l  operation  process.  Research  A m a j o r l i m i t a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s as p o i n t e d o u t e a r l i e r , uas  that i t d i d not i d e n t i f y  ities  the a c t u a l p r o d u c t i v i t y o f m u n i c i p a l -  i n terms o f the a p p r o v a l o f b u i l d i n g  a t i o n s made.  The t h e s i s a l s o f a i l s  demand f o r r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g building  lots relative  necessary  lots relative  to s p e c i f i c a l l y  determine the  l o t s and t h e i m p a c t o f s u p p l y o f  t o demand i n s p e c i f i c m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  t o assume t h a t a s t r o n g demand f o r r e s i d e n t i a l  u n i t s versus  an i n a d e q u a t e  d i c a t i v e of a shortage  to applic-  supply  of single  involve research  production of serviced building  duelling  family duellings i s i n -  of residential building  area f o r f u t u r e research uould  I ti s  lots.  A very  regarding  lots i n Metropolitan  important  the a c t u a l  Vancouver  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e l a t i v e t o t h e demand f o r r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g Chapter'VII  identified  t h e m u n i c i p a l f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m and  the c o - o r d i n a t i o n o f t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t i e s u i t h p o l i t i c a l as b e i n g  c r i t i c a l uith  regard  to e x t e r n a l i t i e s uhich  upon t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l uhich  macro f i n a n c i a l p l a n and m i c r o uould  be u s e f u l .  t e c h n i c a l planning  activities  c r e a t e a burden  process.  i d e n t i f i e d the impact of comprehensive p l a n n i n g  of the process  lots.  Research  i n terms o f a  upon t h e o p e r a t i o n  I f i t c o u l d be p r o v e d t h a t t h e  f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m s i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and p o o r m e t h o d s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n u i t h r e s p e c t t o f u t u r e g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s a r e a c a u s e D f  delays  -130i n the p r o d u c t i o n c f s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g l o t s the p r e s e n t problems uould be i n a much b e t t e r p e r s p e c t i v e .  I f i t uas proved t h a t t h i s  problem e x i s t s i t u o u l d have t c be s o l v e d b e f o r e improvements c o u l d be made t o the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s . The  cases c i t e d u h i c h i n d i c a t e the problems o f a p p r o v a l by  p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the p r o v i n c i a l government has a r a l e u i t h r e s p e c t t o the more f a v o r a b l e o p e r a t i o n c f the a p p r o v a l process.  Research  icculd t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s :  Does the procedure c f  a p p r o v a l by p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s delay the supply o f b u i l d i n g produced by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ?  lots  I t i s passible that p r o v i n c i a l authorities  are a s i g n i f i c a n t cause c f the delay o f s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l s . cases c i t e d i n the t h e s i s tend t o suggest  The  t h a t such an h y p o t h e s i s  is true. The m u n i c i p a l s u b d i v i s i o n procedure d e l a y s i n supply c f s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g l o t s .  i s net the o n l y cause o f Tuo other  aspects of the dynamics o f the supply p r o d u c t i o n process  important deserve  future research: (1)  The assembly o f r a u l a n d by the p r i v a t e developer or p u b l i c d e v e l o p e r ,  (2)  The c o n s t r u c t i o n process u i t h r e g a r d t c the s e r v i c i n g •f duelling sites.  The assembly'of  r a u l a n d i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o the c a p a c i t y of supply  t c meet demand and i s j u s t as s i g n i f i c a n t as d e l a y s i n the m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l process r e g a r d i n g c o n s t r a i n t s on s u p p l y .  -131-  APPEIMDIX A - l  GENERAL SUBDIV/ISIDN APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR PITT MEADOWS INCLUDING A ZONING AMENDMENT * Stage I - P r e p a r a t i o n f a r P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n The prehensive  developer  must c o n s i d e r h i s p r o j e c t i n terms of the com-  p l a n p r o v i d e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The  plan designates a l l  areas of p o t e n t i a l development and those uhere r e s i d e n t i a l development i s not p e r m i t t e d . developed The  A m a j o r i t y of the l a n d i s not p e r m i t t e d t o be  i n t o s u b d i v i s i o n s as these areas are i n the f l o o d  plain.  developer must a l s o note t h a t he u i l l p r o b a b l y have to make an  a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a zoning change as most of the p o t e n t i a l areas f o r s u b d i v i s i o n development are zoned f o r suburban development u h i c h m i t s s u b d i v i s i o n i n t o o n e - h a l f acre p a r c e l s .  Urban zoning  per-  permits  s u b d i v i s i o n i n t o l o t s c o n t a i n i n g 7200 square f e e t u h i c h are much s m a l l e r p e r m i t t i n g a l a r g e r number of l o t s per acre and hence more money i n the developer's  pocket.  The  s u b d i v i d e r prepares  a t e n t a t i v e sub-  d i v i s i o n p l a n based on these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Stage I I - A p p l i c a t i o n f o r P r e l i m i n a r y A p p r o v a l 1.  The  s u b d i v i d e r submits h i s t e n t a t i v e p l a n t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  The m u n i c i p a l i t y f o r u a r d s the p l a n to the Deudney A l o u e t t R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t planning s e r v i c e uhich provides a r e g i o n a l planning s e r v i c e f o r the s m a l l e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s u i t h i n i t s r e g i o n .  The  p l a n may  spend  tuo to t h r e e ueeks u i t h the p l a n n i n g s e r v i c e as recommendations and comments are made. 2.  The  p l a n i s r e t u r n e d to P i t t Meadous and goes before a p l a n n i n g  committee u h i c h i s composed of tuo aldermen and the m u n i c i p a l c l e r k . *Based on i n t e r v i e u s u i t h m u n i c i p a l c l e r k and c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s . .•'  -1323.  Recommendations of the p l a n n i n g committee and those of the  r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g s e r v i c e are a t t a c h e d to the t e n t a t i v e p l a n submitted k.  and  to m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l .  I f the p l a n i s approved i n p r i n c i p l e i t i s processed  for re-  zoning from sub-urban to urban a c c o r d i n g to the m u n i c i p a l b y - l a u enabled by Sec. 703 of the M u n i c i p a l A c t , u h i c h r e q u i r e s tuo by c o u n c i l , a p u b l i c . h e a r i n g ( a d v e r t i s e d t u i c e i n the l o c a l  readings paper),  and a t h i r d r e a d i n g by c o u n c i l at i t s next s e s s i o n , f o l l o u i n g public hearing.  the  In the case of P i t t Meadous the t h i r d r e a d i n g i s not  g i v e n u n t i l f i n a l e n g i n e e r i n g drauings are complete. 5.  I f the t e n t a t i v e p l a n r e q u i r e s a p p r o v a l from a h i g h e r  level  of government as uould be the case i f the p r o j e c t i n v o l v e d the  flood  p l a i n the highuays department, or lands i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e r v e , the c o u n c i l u o u l d o b t a i n a u t h o r i z a t i o n from the p a r t i c u l a r a u t h o r i t y before p a s s i n g a neu zoning b y - l a u . S.  The  c o u n c i l g e n e r a l l y phases major s u b d i v i s i o n s i n v o l v i n g kO  a c r e s or more by p e r m i t t i n g the s u b d i v i d e r to develop the l a n d i n one stage and upon c o m p l e t i o n must make a p p l i c a t i o n to develop t h r e e or f o u r stages may  a p o r t i o n of  and a p p r o v a l of t h a t stage  the f o l l o u i n g s t a g e .  he  In some cases  be e s t a b l i s h e d .  T h e . t o t a l time t h a t e l a p s e s on the average f o r Stage I I i s 6 to 8 ueeks depending upon the nature of the development and/or the number of c o u n c i l meetings r e q u i r e d to c o n s i d e r r e l e v a n t f a c t s . Stage I I I - P r e p a r a t i o n of F i n a l P l a n Assuming t h a t the c o u n c i l approves of the zoning change and the p r i n c i p l e of the s u b d i v i d e r s p r e l i m i n a r y p l a n the s u b d i v i d e r !  can commence p r e p a r a t i o n of a f i n a l p l a n . 1.  A l e g a l survey of the s u b d i v i s i o n i s conducted by a r e g i s t e r e d  -133B. C. s u r v e y o r . 2.  The d e v e l o p e r ' s c o n s u l t i n g engineer prepares h i s f i n a l d r a u i n g s  u i t h l o t l i n e s , r o a d s , grades, e t c . i n c o n j u n c t i o n  u i t h the l e g a l  survey. 3.  I f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n i n v o l v e s the f l o o d p l a i n and r e q u i r e s  to r a i s e the g e o d e t i c  fill  r a t i n g to the s t a n d a r d p r e s c r i b e d by the p r o -  v i n c i a l government the a c t u a l p h y s i c a l uork must be done b e f o r e the subdivider  can go any f u r t h e r .  A l e g a l l y documented survey shouing  the neu e l e v a t i o n must be approved by the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t u h i c h i n t u r n u i l l amend the f l o o d p l a i n p l a n r e l i e v i n g the s u b d i v i s i o n from this  classification.  k.  The c o n s u l t i n g engineer o f the developer must apply t o the  P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Board o f the p r o v i n c i a l government f o r a s u b d i v i s i o n approval c e r t i f i c a t e . , creek o r r i v e r .  i f the s u b d i v i s i o n d i r e c t s storm sewers t o a  The c e r t i f i c a t e o u t l i n e s the p o r t i o n o f the sub-  d i v i s i o n ' s c o l l e c t i o n system u h i c h f a l l point.  contributes  to a p a r t i c u l a r out-  I f the c a p a c i t y o f an o u t f a l l p o i n t cannot handle the  s u b d i v i s i o n the developer must improve the c a p a c i t y a c c o r d i n g  t o the  demands o f the p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l branch b e f o r e the permit u i l l be issued. 5.  The .consulting engineer o f the developer must a l s o send spec-  i f i c a t i o n s o f the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n t o , i.  The B.C. Hydro  ii.  B. C. Telephone (and c a b l e v i s i o n )  6.  The developer must a l s o o b t a i n easements from a d j o i n i n g  holders  ( i f n e c e s s a r y ) on b e h a l f o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  of The M u n i c i p a l  property  Sec. 7 1 1 ( 3 ) ( c )  Act r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e s u b d i v i s i o n not make imprac-  t i c a b l e future s u b d i v i s i o n of adjacent  lands.  -1347.  The b y - l a u i s g e n e r a l l y g i v e n t h i r d r e a d i n g once the  sub-  d i v i d e r has completed h i s f i n a l e n g i n e e r i n g p l a n s a c c o r d i n g to the requirements  of the m u n i c i p a l engineer  and o t h e r bodies of a u t h o r i t y  such as the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t i n the case of the f l o o d  plain.  Stage IV - P r e p a r a t i o n of Development Agreement 1.  P i t t Meadous uses a s t a n d a r d form of development agreement.  The m u n i c i p a l engineer  e n t e r s the a p p r o p r i a t e f i g u r e s s p e c i f y i n g i n  d e t a i l the reasons f o r r e q u i r e d d e p o s i t s of the s u b d i v i d e r .  The  development agreement i s based on the e n g i n e e r i n g d r a u i n g and r e f e r s to them by number. A l l of the monies r e q u i r e d of the developer  are l i s t e d i n the  agreement. 2.  The m u n i c i p a l l a u y e r r e v i e u s the agreement. Stage V - F i n a l The  1.  Approval  s u b d i v i d e r has tuc c h o i c e s .  He can accept a development agreement and p r o v i d e the r e q u i r e d  monies as s e c u r i t y to the m u n i c i p a l i t y a g a i n s t h i s commitment to i n s t a l l a l l of the s p e c i f i e d s e r v i c e s . 2.  He can i n s t a l l a l l of the r e q u i r e d s e r v i c e s u h i c h must be  i n s p e c t e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y uhen completed so t h a t he can have h i s s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n approved a c c o r d i n g to Sec. 88 c f the Land R e g i s t r y Act making i t e l i g i b l e f o r d e p o s i t i n the Land R e g i s t r y o f f i c e . T h i s approach i n v o l v e s the l o s s of time i n the r e s p e c t t h a t the developer  cannot r e g i s t e r h i s s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n u n t i l a l l s e r v i c e s are  completed and meet m u n i c i p a l The  standards.  f i r s t c h o i c e i s most common and i s o u t l i n e d as  (1) municipality.  The  developer  fallous:  submits h i s f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n to the  -135(2)  The  d e v e l o p e r b r i n g s a c e r t i f i e d cheque f o r the  cost  of s e r v i c e s f o r the f i r s t stage of the p r o j e c t ( i f the p r o j e c t been staged i n the r e s p e c t developed).  The  of the number of l o t s p e r m i t t e d  to  has be  cheque must a l s o i n c l u d e payment to cover the  costs  of the m u n i c i p a l i t y both l e g a l and o t h e r , t h a t have been absorbed by the m u n i c i p a l i t y and  are nou  i n d i c a t e d to the  developer.  T h e e m m n i c i p a l i t y g e n e r a l l y r e l e a s e s the money p l a c e d  as a  guarantee f o r s e r v i c e s as the s e r v i c e s are completed ( u s u a l l y 2 months a f t e r completion).  The  m u n i c i p a l i t y r e t a i n s 5% of the c o s t  s e r v i c i n g as a s e c u r i t y a g a i n s t a f t e r completion uhich  year of maintenance of the  i s t a be p r o v i d e d  by the  services  developer.  (3)  The  development agreement i s  (4)  The  suburban zoning i s f o r m a l l y rezoned urban r e s i d e n t i a l .  Stage \JI 1.  one  of  The  signed.  - A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e g i s t r a t i o n and  Prospectus  developer can nou make an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n  of h i s s u b d i v i s i o n i n the Land R e g i s t r y • f f i c e . vantage of the f i r s t choice  T h i s i s the main  as the developer i s i n s t a l l i n g  ad-  services  u h i l e the r e g i s t r a t i o n i s being p r o c e s s e d . 2.  The  are being  developer can a l s o f i l e f o r p r o s p e c t u s u h i l e the installed.  services  -136-  APPENDIX B - l  GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RICHMOND*  Stage I - P r e l i m i n a r y D i s c u s s i o n u i t h the P l a n n i n g 1.  T h i s i n f o r m a l meeting p r o v i d e s  formation  regarding  the m u n i c i p a l  Department  the d e v e l o p e r u i t h b a s i c i n -  a t t i t u d e touards h i s p r o j e c t  and  the procedure r e q u i r e d f o r the f o r m u l a t i o n of a p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t plan. 2. zoning 3.  The  p l a n must be c o n s i s t e n t u i t h e x i s t i n g zoning  amendment a p p l i c a t i o n must be The  services.  ( i f not  filed).  p l a n must be c o n s i s t e n t u i t h the c a p a c i t y of e x i s t i n g ( I f they are not capable Df h a n d l i n g  developer should  the p r o j e c t  The  the  determine the expense i n v o l v e d i n i n c r e a s i n g  c a p a c i t y as t h i s u i l l probably became an o f f s i t e c o s t to the k.  a  the developer.)  p l a n must be c o n s i s t e n t u i t h the o f f i c i a l community p l a n  or r e g i o n a l p l a n s i f they e x i s t , or amendments u i l l have to be made. . Stage I I - Submission of the P r e l i m i n a r y D r a f t P l a n f a r the Proposed S u b d i v i s i o n 1.  The  d r a f t p l a n must be s u b m i t t e d i n the form o f :  (i) (ii) 2.  The  15 u h i t e or blue paper p r i n t s 1 t r a c i n g p l u s a fee of $10.00. d r a f t p l a n should  (i) (ii)  (iii)  shou:  Layout and alignment of a l l proposed s t r e e t s and l o t s Spot l e v e l s i n approximate c e n t r e of each l o t or p a r c e l at the i n t e r s e c t i o n s o f any proposed roads u i t h e x i s t i n g roads and at 50 f o o t i n t e r v a l s along each proposed road i n the s u b d i v i s i o n . An i n d i c a t i o n of e x t e n t and boundaries of any l a n d ouned by the same ouner adjacent to lands being proposed f o r s u b d i v i s i o n .  *Based on i n t e r v i e u s and m a t e r i a l s s u p p l i e d by Richmond Department.  Planning  -137iv. 3.  Submission must be accompanied by: (i) (ii)  k.  L o c a t i o n , dimension and uses of any s t r u c t u r e s e x i s t i n g D n the l a n d b e i n g proposed f o r s u b d i v i s i o n .  A c e r t i f i c a t e of encumbrance. A completed form e n t i t l e d " A p p l i c a t i o n f c r A p p r o v a l • f a Plan of S u b d i v i s i o n " .  P l a n i s amended uhere necessary by the P l a n n i n g Department  and c i r c u l a t e d to the f o l l o u i n g departments  f o r recommendations.  (The date o f m a i l i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r department i s r e c o r d e d and the date c f r e c e i v i n g of the recommendations from department i s r e c o r d e d . )  Only departments  each  t h a t u o u l d be a f f e c t e d by  the p r o p o s a l are n o t i f i e d . (i) The A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission ( i i ) The M u n i c i p a l T r e a s u r e r ( i i i ) Board of S c h o o l T r u s t e e s (iv) M u n i c i p a l B u i l d i n g Department (v) M u n i c i p a l E n g i n e e r i n g Department (vi) P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Companies ( v i i ) C.M.H.C. ( v i i i ) Municipal Council 5.  The a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r determines uhether or not the p l a n can  proceed and n o t i f i e s the d e v e l o p e r . S.  I f the p r o j e c t i s approved  i n t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y stage the  m u n i c i p a l engineer must p r o v i d e a p r e l i m i n a r y e s t i m a t e o f the c o s t of s e r v i c i n g the s u b d i v i s i o n .  The s u b d i v i d e r must pay a fee of 6% of  t h i s e s t i m a t e to cover the c o s t D f the p r e p a r a t i o n of a f i n a l p l a n by the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r . The p r o c e s s o f Stage I I r e q u i r e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 to k ueeks i n an average  project.  Stage I I I - P r e p a r a t i o n of F i n a l P l a n 1.  The developer may  h i r e h i s oun c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r o r l e t  the m u n i c i p a l engineer prepare designs i n accordance u i t h s p e c i f i e d by the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r .  standards  The m u n i c i p a l i t y p r e f e r s the  -138l a t t e r approach. 2. or  The  developer must E n c l o s E the 6% a d m i n i s t r a t i o n fee i n cash  c e r t i f i e d chEques.  3.  A l e g a l ground survey as u e l l as a d e s c r i p t i o n of e a s E m E n t s ,  r i g h t s of way, B. C. k.  and r e s t r i c t i v e covenants i s prepared by a r e g i s t e r e d  surveyor. Designs are sent to B. C. Hydro and B. C. Telephone  regarding  types of w i r i n g and method of s e r v i c i n g l o t s . 5.  A f i n a l d e t a i l e d estimate  6.  The  of the c o s t s of .the works i s p r e p a r e d .  m u n i c i p a l i t y r e q u i r e s a s u r e t y guarantee i n r e s p e c t  the s e r v i c e s being (1) a.  of  installed.  I f c o s t of work i s $10,000.00 or  less:  A c e r t i f i e d cheque i n the amount of 5Q% Engineer's f i n a l e s t a t e i s r e q u i r e d .  T h i s may  days a f t e r the l a s t c e r t i f i c a t e r e g a r d i n g  of the  Municipal  be r e t a i n e d u n t i l  the s t a t e o f the work  60 has  been i s s u e d by the M u n i c i p a l Engineer or h e l d u n t i l a l l o u t s t a n d i n g accounts w i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y are b.  Uhere the c o s t of the work exceeds i)  of the e s t i m a t e d  paid.  A c e r t i f i e d cheque f o r the f i r s t $5,000 of  c o s t , u h i c h may  l a s t c e r t i f i c a t e regarding  with:  50%  be r e t a i n e d u n t i l 60 days a f t e r the  the s t a t e of the work pending  of the M u n i c i p a l Engineer and p a s s i n g outstanding  $10,  approval  by c o u n c i l , Dr h e l d u n t i l a l l  accounts u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y have been p a i d ,  together  A Performance Bond, L e t t e r of C r e d i t , or Bank Deposit r e c e i p t  ( u s u a l l y c o s t i n g 1%)  i n the amount of 50% of the f i n a l e s t i m a t e d  l e s s the $5,000 p a i d i n c a s h . of the bond c o v e r i n g  Upon c o m p l e t i o n of the uork a p o r t i o n  15% of a l l c o s t s of the uork u i l l be  retained  f o r 1 year from the date of the E n g i n e e r ' s f i n a l C e r t i f i c a t e Approval.  cost  of  -139ii)  By Cash I f developer wishes he may  draw cheques i n the  f o l l o w i n g manner to f a c i l i t a t e r e f u n d i n g as the engineer  certifies  c o m p l e t i o n o f each p a r t of the work: 35% of f i n a l e s t i m a t e d c o s t of s a n i t a r y sewer 35% " " " " " storm sewer curb 35% " " " " s i d e w a l k s road 35% " " " paving roads 35% " " " " completing sidewalks 35% " " " " street lighting 11  11  11  11 11  (2) I f developer does not wish to do above he may guarantee.  not post  He must however, i n s t a l l s e r v i c e s t o the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s  of the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r .  The f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n cannot  r e g i s t e r e d u n t i l the m u n i c i p a l engineer c e r t i f i e s of the s e r v i c e s i s completed. u n t i l t h i s plan i s r e g i s t e r e d .  t h a t the  be  installation  A developer cannot f i l e a p r o s p e c t u s The i s s u a n c e of b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s which  cannot be i s s u e d u n t i l s u b d i v i s i o n i s r e g i s t e r e d would be d e l a y e d . 7.  The s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r a c t i s d i s c u s s e d w i t h the m u n i c i p a l  solicitor. The process of Stage I I I r e q u i r e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 to 9 weeks. Stage IV - P r e p a r a t i o n o f Development Agreement T h i s i s the b a r g a i n i n g stage between the developer and the m u n i c i p a l i t y r e g a r d i n g s e r v i c e s and f r i n g e b e n e f i t s r e q u i r e d i n the development agreement. 1.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y d r a f t s the development agreement and p r e s e n t s  i t to the d e v e l o p e r . 2.  The developer r e t u r n s t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y the duly executed  development agreement which i s then p r e s e n t e d t o c o u n c i l and then executed on b e h a l f of the c o r p o r a t i o n i f approved.  -140Stage \l - F i n a l The developer  Approval  submits f i n a l l i n e n t r a n s p a r e n c i e s and p r i n t s  of the survey p l a n t o the m u n i c i p a l h a l l .  These s h o u l d be  accom-  panied by 6 paper p r i n t c o p i e s and the f o l l o u i n g : a)  C e r t i f i e d cheques and/or bonds, l e t t e r o f c r e d i t o r bank d e p o s i t r e c e i p t s as s e c u r i t y f o r s e r v i c i n g i f t h i s method used.  b)  A r e c e i p t from the m u n i c i p a l t r e a s u r e r and c o l l e c t o r c e r t i f y i n g t h a t c u r r e n t taxes have been p a i d i n r e s p e c t of the p r o p e r t y being s u b d i v i d e d . •  c)  A r e c e i p t from m u n i c i p a l t r e a s u r e r c e r t i f y i n g payment of any e t h e r charges n o t i f i e d to the d e v e l o p e r .  d)  A p l a n s a p p r o v a l f e e o f $2.00 accompanied by one paper p r i n t stamped " r e t u r n t o Richmond P l a n n i n g Department". ( T h i s p l a n u i l l be d e p o s i t e d i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e and r e t u r n e d t o Richmond so t h a t b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s can be i s s u e d . )  Stage VI - R e g i s t r a t i o n i n Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e and F i l i n g f o r Prospectus Same procedure f o r a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . of the Land R e g i s t r y A c t .  Refer t o Sec. 88  -141-  APPENDIX B-2 SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR RICHMOND LUHEN AN AMENDMENT TO A ZONING BY-LAU IS REQUIRED  Stage I - Preliminary Discussion uith the Planning Department The process i s the same as that outlined in the general procedure for Richmond. Stage II - Preparation of the Preliminary Draft Plan for the Proposed Subdivision Submission of the preliminary draft plan must be accompanied by an application for rezoning uith the follouing supportive material in 1.  triplicate. A drauing or sketch draun to scale based on a B. C. Land  Surveyor's  survey, shouing the true shape and dimensions of the  property, together uith the location, type and dimensions of a l l buildings and structures on the property and also shouing the approximate location and usage of the nearest buildings or adjacent lands. 2.  If the application i s made on behalf of a number of ouners  the application forms should be accompanied by a petition (in t r i p l i c a t e ) signed by each ouner and shouing the legal description of each property. 3.  If plans af any proposed development of the property are already  prepared these should also be submitted  (e.g. architect's preliminary  sketches, proposed subdivision plans, etc.) Stage III - Submission of the Preliminary Draft Plan 1.  When the municipal clerk has received the application he f o r -  uards i t on to the Planning Department and the Advisory Planning Commission.  -142-  2-  The recommendations of these bodies are a t t a c h e d to the  a p p l i c a t i o n and p r e s e n t e d to c o u n c i l . 3.  I f c o u n c i l approves of the a p p l i c a t i o n i n p r i n c i p l e i t may  a u t h o r i z e p r e p a r a t i o n of an amending b y - l a u . 4.  The  amending b y - l a u i s g i v e n tuo r e a d i n g s and the date f o r a  p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s s e t a c c o r d i n g t o Sec. 703 of the M u n i c i p a l A c t . 5.  6.  The  p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s i n f o r m a l and o r g a n i z e d as f o l l o u s :  a)  The l i m i t s of the area " a f f e c t e d " by the p r o p o s a l u i l l be determined by the P l a n n i n g Committee, and the . r e s i d e n t s u i t h i n the d e f i n e d area u i l l be n o t i f i e d by the P l a n n i n g Department;  b)  Held i n c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n i n area a f f e c t e d ;  c)  P l a n n i n g committee chairman or member of the committee u i l l a c t as chairman and conduct the h e a r i n g . No dec i s i o n u i l l be made u n t i l a f t e r the h e a r i n g ;  d)  A member of the P l a n n i n g Department <s s t a f f u i l l a t t e n d , o u t l i n e the area a f f e c t e d by the p r o p o s a l , and on r e q u e s t , c l a r i f y any matters of a t e c h n i c a l , n o n - p o l i c y n a t u r e ;  e)  The p r o p o s a l u i l l be e x p l a i n e d to the neighbourhood r e s i d e n t s by the d e v e l o p e r ;  f)  I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t i n f o r m a l p u b l i c h e a r i n g s u i l l be reduced as the m u n i c i p a l i t y determines i t s development g o a l s (3 h e a r i n g s on one p r o j e c t are not uncommon).  !  I f the zoning amendment i n v o l v e s l a n d use t h a t i s under the  a u t h o r i t y of a government body o t h e r than the m u n i c i p a l i t y a p p r o v a l from t h i s body must be 7.  obtained.  During the process of p u b l i c h e a r i n g s the s u b d i v i d e r must  b a r g a i n u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y r e g a r d i n g c o n d i t i o n s he must meet to achieve a r e z o n i n g . agreement.  These c o n d i t i o n s are draun up i n the development  In the case of a zoning amendment i n v o l v i n g a complex  p r o j e c t the m u n i c i p a l i t y g e n e r a l l y demands f o r m a l e n g i n e e r i n g p r i o r to p u b l i c h e a r i n g .  drauings  I f the zoning amendment does not i n v o l v e  a complex s i t u a t i o n the developer may  not have t o go to a g r e a t d e a l  -143-  • f expense r e g a r d i n g a public hearing.  preparation  of f i n a l engineering  drawings b e f o r e  The a t t i t u d e D f the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s t D minimize  the r i s k to the d e v e l o p e r .  Depending an the s i t u a t i o n the s u b d i v i d e r  may f i n d t h a t he i s a t any one o f a number o f p o s i t i o n s i n the process f o l l o w i n g the p u b l i c h e a r i n g .  In a complex p r o j e c t he w i l l p r o b a b l y  be at the stage o f f i n a l a p p r o v a l as o u t l i n e d i n the g e n e r a l cedure.  A rezoning  pro-  amendment can r e q u i r e 8 weeks up t o 2 years de-  pending on the c i r c u m s t a n c e s . IM.B.  Richmond very r a r e l y uses l a n d use c o n t r a c t s i n zoning  by-law amendments.  A major s u b d i v i s i o n would never i n v o l v e a l a n d  use  the p r o j e c t i n v o l v e s 'a combination o f s i n g l e f a m i l y  contract unless  dwellings  and m u l t i - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s .  The s u b d i v i s i o n by-law o f  Richmond p e r m i t s 10% o f l a n d which i s i n excess c f 50 acres t c be used f a r m u l t i - f a m i l y development i n the cases o f s i n g l e f a m i l y subdivisions.  dwelling  In cases where d e v e l o p e r s wish t o b u i l d mere m u l t i p l e  f a m i l y u n i t s o r vary the zoning r e g u l a t i o n s l a n d use c o n t r a c t s may be employed. Stage UI - R e g i s t r a t i o n and P r o s p e c t u s Same procedure f o r a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  -Ikk-  APPENDIX C - l  GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COQUITLAM *  Stage I - P r e l i m i n a r y P r e p a r a t i o n s 1.  The d e v e l o p e r must c o n s i d e r h i s p r o j e c t i n terms o f t h e  comprehensive p l a n p r o v i d e d by t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o q u i t l a m . 2.  P r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n s u i t h the P l a n n i n g Department  should  be h e l d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f the p r o j e c t . 3.  A - d r a f t p l a n must be p r e p a r e d i n d i c a t i n g l a y o u t o f proposed  s t r e e t s and l o t s i n c l u d i n g spot l e v e l s i n the approximate c e n t r e o f each i n t e r s e c t i o n o f proposed r o a d s . k.  A c e r t i f i c a t e o f encumbrances must be p r o v i d e d .  5.  The ouner o f t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n must be i d e n t i f i e d . Stage I I - Submission o f P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n A p p l i c a t i o n f o r p r e l i m i n a r y a p p r o v a l i s made t o t h e P l a n n i n g  Department. 1.  The s u b d i v i s i o n committee r e v i e u s the a p p l i c a t i o n .  2.  The major departments i n v o l v e d u i t h the p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n  are the E n g i n e e r i n g , H e a l t h , B u i l d i n g Departments and P l a n n i n g Department. 3.  The E n g i n e e r i n g Department r e q u i r e s p r e l i m i n a r y e n g i n e e r i n g  designs based on the P l a n n i n g Department s k e t c h l a i d out i n the master p l a n but p r o v i d i n g more d e t a i l such as r o a d s , c e n t r e l i n e s and g r a d e s . k.  The s u b d i v i s i o n committee approves the p r e l i m i n a r y p l a n  s u b j e c t t o recommendations made by t h e v a r i o u s departments and s u b j e c t to the S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l B y - l a u 1930, as u e l l as any o t h e r r e q u i r e *Based on i n t e r v i e u s u i t h the E n g i n e e r i n g Department and t h e P l a n n i n g Department.  -laments such as easements, e t c . T o t a l time f o r Stage I I i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 ueeks. Stage I I I - P r e p a r a t i o n c f a F i n a l P l a n 1.  The d e v e l o p e r ' s c o n s u l t i n g engineer prepares the f o r m a l  e n g i n e e r i n g p l a n s s u b j e c t tD recommendations o f the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r . 2.  The l e g a l survey o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n i s conducted by a  r e g i s t e r e d B. C. s u r v e y o r . 3.  I f the s u b d i v i s i o n r e q u i r e s the use o f c e r t a i n streams or  r i v e r s f a r storm seuer drainage the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Beard o f B r i t i s h Columbia must be n o t i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o the same procedure as o u t l i n e d i n the P i t t Meadous p r o c e s s . k.  The G r e a t e r Vancouver Seuerage and Drainage D i s t r i c t and the  G r e a t e r Vancouver Water Board must be c o n s u l t e d r e g a r d i n g the subd i v i s i o n ' s involvement u i t h t r u n k l i n e s o f s a n i t a r y seuers and u a t e r mains.  These boards must a u t h o r i z e the s u b d i v i d e r t o c a r r y out any  o f f - s i t e s e r v i c i n g i n v o l v i n g these s e r v i c e s . 5.  I f the s u b d i v i s i o n i s i n the f l o o d p l a i n the procedure  out-  l i n e d i n the P i t t Meadous process must be f c l l o u e d . 6.  The developer must pay an i n s p e c t i o n f e e o f k% o f e s t i m a t e d  c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t as c a l c u l a t e d by the c o n s u l t i n g engineer o f the developer and approved 7.  by the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r .  The developer must arrange f o r an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y f o r a l l  s e r v i c i n g t h a t he u i l l undertake.  (The p o l i c y i s r e v i e u e d by a  p r i v a t e f i r m employed by the D i s t r i c t . ) 8.  S p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n must be sent to the  B. C. Hydro, B. C. Telephone and c a b l e v i s i o n . 9.  The developer must a l s o o b t a i n a l l n e c e s s a r y easements from  a d j o i n i n g p r o p e r t y h o l d e r s on b e h a l f c f the m u n i c i p a l i t y o r h i s  -146subdivision. T o t a l time f o r Stage I I I i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 weeks. Stage IV - P r e p a r a t i o n of Performance  Bonds  The c u r r e n t p l a n n e r prepares a d r a f t agreement d e s c r i b i n g a l l of the requirements t h a t the developer must f o l l o w . of  the developer on a performance  bond p r o v i d e s the s e c u r i t y to the  m u n i c i p a l i t y t h a t the s e r v i c e s w i l l be i n s t a l l e d . as f o l l o w s .  Note:  The procedure i s  The developer has the same c h o i c e s of a c t i o n as  e x i s t i n P i t t Meadows.  For t h i s example we w i l l assume t h a t the  developer i s w i l l i n g to post s e c u r i t y as a guarantee r a t h e r than complete 1.  The s i g n a t u r e  for services  s e r v i c e s before g e t t i n g approval.  The developer must p r o v i d e funds i n the form of bonding  which  must be cash i f the amount of the r e q u i r e d s e c u r i t y i s l e s s than $100,000.  The amount i s determined a c c o r d i n g t o the c o s t of s e r v i c i n g  as e s t i m a t e d by the d e v e l o p e r ' s c o n s u l t i n g engineer and confirmed by the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r . 2.  In l i e u of cash the developer may  g i v e the m u n i c i p a l i t y a  bank c e r t i f i c a t e o f d e p o s i t of the monies i n a p a r t i c u l a r  account  or  p a r i t y bonds but the amount o f these monies must be based on  of  the e s t i m a t e d c o s t of the works r a t h e r than  3.  110%  100%.  I f the amount i s g r e a t e r than $100,000 the m u n i c i p a l i t y  will  accept an i r r e v o c a b l e l e t t e r of c r e d i t . 4.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y w i l l r e f u n d these monies upon c o m p l e t i o n of  the s e r v i c e s s u b j e c t to i n s p e c t i o n .  However 50% of the bonding i s  r e t a i n e d f o r 1 year to guarantee maintenance of the s e r v i c e s f o r 1 year by the d e v e l o p e r . 5.  A l l monies go to the m u n i c i p a l t r e a s u r e r .  The agreement i s  s i g n e d and s e a l e d i n the name of the developer on the same day  as  -147presentation  Df bonds.  Stage \J - F i n a l A p p r o v a l The b a s i c r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the s u b d i v i s i o n b y - l a u  1930 must  be met b e f o r e f i n a l a p p r o v a l i s g i v e n . 1.  The developer must s i g n a d e c l a r a t i o n form a s s i g n i n g a l l  s e r v i c e s to the d i s t r i c t . 2. his 3.  The developer must p r o v i d e  funds to cover i n s p e c t i o n fees a f  completed s e r v i c e s . The D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam i n s t a l l s  a l l u a t e r mains.  The  developer must pay a f l a t r a t e f o r such i n s t a l l a t i o n s . 4.  I f t h e r e are any s e r v i c e s t h a t uere not f e a s i b l e t c i n s t a l l a t  p r e s e n t but u i l l be r e q u i r e d i n the f u t u r e the developer must pay a f l a t r a t e f o r these s e r v i c e s u h i c h the d i s t r i c t u i l l i n s t a l l a t the proper t i m e . 5. be 6.  The agreement betueen the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the developer must signed. A l l c o n d i t i o n s o f Sec. 88 o f the Land R e g i s t r y Act must be met  i n order t h a t the approving o f f i c e r may f u l f i l h i s d u t i e s . 7.  S u b j e c t t o the a p p r o v a l o f a l l departments and a r e v i e u o f  the f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n by the E n g i n e e r i n g o f f i c e r uho i s the m u n i c i p a l subdivision  Department the approving  engineer i n t h i s m u n i c i p a l i t y s i g n s the  plan.  Stage UI - R e g i s t r a t i o n and P r o s p e c t u s Developer may r e g i s t e r the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n and f i l e f o r prospectus.  The procedure i s the same f o r a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  -148-  APPENDIX C-2  SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURE FDR THE DISTRICT OF COQUITLAM WITH A ZClMING BY-LAW AMENDMENT  Stage I - P r e l i m i n a r y D i s c u s s i o n w i t h t h E P l a n n i n g Department The  procedure f o r Stage I i s the same as t h a t o u t l i n e d f o r  the g e n e r a l procedure f o r the D i s t r i c t o f C o q u i t l a m .  The developer  must o b t a i n an a p p l i c a t i o n form f o r a zoning by-lau' -amendment from the P l a n n i n g Department and submit i t u i t h a non-refundable  applic-  a t i o n f e e o f $35 uhen he makes h i s p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n f o r subdivision  approval. Stage I I - Process o f Revieu o f the P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n  1.  The p l a n n i n g d i r e c t o r r e v i e u s the a p p l i c a t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f  the community p l a n and f o r u a r d s the a p p l i c a t i o n t o the A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission. 2.  The A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission c o n s i d e r s the a p p l i c a t i o n  and r e f e r s i t t o i t s v a r i o u s committees f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s i f necessary.  The A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission meets i n the c o u n c i l  chamber o f the m u n i c i p a l h a l l a t 7.30 P.M. on the f i r s t and t h i r d Wednesday o f each month.  The developer  i s n o t i f i e d o f the date uhen  the s u b d i v i s i o n u i l l be r e v i e u e d by the A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission and i s a d v i s e d t o appear b e f o r e the Commission t o present any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t may h e l p advance the a p p l i c a t i o n . 3.  The A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission a t the completion  of i t s  r e v i e u makes recommendations t o c o u n c i l . 4.  The c o u n c i l r e v i e u s the advice and recommendations o f the  A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission and the P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r s Report and  -149-  decides t o : a)  I n d i c a t e agreement i n p r i n c i p l e u i t h the a p p l i c a t i o n s u b j e c t t c the a p p l i c a n t s u p p l y i n g a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m ation;  b)  D e c l i n e the a p p l i c a t i o n ;  c)  Refer the a p p l i c a t i o n back t o the P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r and/or the A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission f o r f u r t h e r study.  Stage I I I - The Amendment d f the Zoning The  By-Lau  developer may assemble a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r t o  achieve acceptance c f the a p p l i c a t i o n by the c o u n c i l .  In many  cases  the c o u n c i l u i l l permit d r a f t i n g of an amending b y - l a u u h i c h i n due course i s r e f e r r e d t o a p u b l i c h e a r i n g as the developer moves i n t o the stages o f p r e p a r a t i o n o f f i n a l p l a n s .  For purposes o f t h i s example  assume t h a t the. c o u n c i l approves i n p r i n c i p l e u i t h the zoning amendment and has g i v e n d i r e c t i o n t o have an amending b y - l a u d r a f t e d . A p u b l i c h e a r i n g date i s e s t a b l i s h e d a c c o r d i n g t o the r u l e s of Sec. 703 c f the M u n i c i p a l A c t . council u i l l  F o l l o u i n g the p u b l i c h e a r i n g the  either,  a)  Give f u r t h e r p r e l i m i n a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n . t h r e e r e a d i n g s t o the amendment b y - l a u .  b)  Decline to give f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  This requires  Assuming t h a t c o u n c i l g i v e s t h r e e r e a d i n g s t o the b y - l a u amendment the developer  nou moves i n t o the f o u r t h stage o f the g e n e r a l  process  p r e v i o u s l y o u t l i n e d p r o v i d i n g he has met a l l the requirements  o f the  t h i r d stage u h i c h i n v o l v e s p r e p a r a t i o n c f a f i n a l p l a n . Stage IV/ - P r e p a r a t i o n o f Performance Bonds When the developer  p r o v i d e s the necessary  funds f o r bonding  and the m u n i c i p a l t r e a s u r e r has r e c e i v e d these funds and the agreement betueen the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the developer i n the name o f the developer  i s s i g n e d and s e a l e d  the p l a n n i n g d i r e c t o r r e p o r t s t o c o u n c i l  -150t h a t t h E b y - l a u can be recommended f o r f i n a l ' S t a g E \l - F i n a l 1.  adoption.  Approval  The planner rEcommends  t h a t the agreement be approved by  c o u n c i l once he i s a s s u r e d t h a t a l l p r o v i s i o n s a r e a c c e p t a b l e . The E n g i n e e r i n g Department must r e v i e u the f i n a l p l a n t o c o n f i r m t h a t a l l r i g h t o f uays, easements and o t h e r requirements  are p r o v i d e d  a c c o r d i n g . t o demands. 2.  The c o u n c i l then approves the agreement and adopts the amended  by-lau a f t e r considering a l l relevant matters. Stage U l - R e g i s t r a t i o n and Prospectus The developer can nou commence s e r v i c i n g and make a p p l i c a t i o n s for  r e g i s t r a t i o n o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n a t t h e Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e and  apply f o r a p r o s p e c t u s .  -151-  APPEIMDIX D - l  GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SURREY''*  Stage I - I n f o r m a l 1.  Meeting  I n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n s betueen developer  and t e c h n i c a l and  p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f o f p l a n n i n g o f f i c e r e g a r d i n g f e a s i b i l i t y o f the p r o j e c t and e x i s t i n g p l a n n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . Stage I I - P r e p a r a t i o n o f P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n 1.  F o r m u l a t i o n o f Rough D r a f t p l a n . The developer  f i l l s i n a s t a n d a r d one page a p p l i c a t i o n form  i n d u p l i c a t e p r o v i d i n g the f o l l o u i n g i n f o r m a t i o n :  2.  a)  Draws p r o p o s a l to s c a l e o f 1" = 200' n o t i n g the e x i s t i n g and proposed p r o p e r t y dimensions.  b)  Gives d i s t a n c e s o f a l l p r i n c i p a l b u i l d i n g s from e x i s t i n g property boundaries.  c)  Shows a l l a d j a c e n t roads and p r o p e r t i e s .  d)  Shows any e x i s t i n g house numbers.  e)  C o l o u r s roads and l a n e s t o be b u i l t i n r e d or orange.  f)  O u t l i n e s the p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d i n the s u b d i v i s i o n i n blue or green.  A ncn-refundable  s e r v i c e charge o f $5 per l o t being a p p l i e d  f o r or a minimum o f $10 whichever i s g r e a t e r i s p r e s e n t e d  upon  application. Stage I I I - P r o c e s s i n g o f P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n by the Municipality The developer ment.  f i l e s the a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h the P l a n n i n g Depart-  The a p p l i c a t i o n i s r e c e i v e d by the t e c h n i c a l p e r s o n n e l o f  the P l a n n i n g Department and a l l i n f o r m a t i o n from the a p p l i c a t i o n i s *Based on i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the P l a n n i n g Department and C o n s u l t i n g Engineers.  -152-  r e c o r d e d on a s u b d i v i s i o n r e c o r d s h e e t .  ThE a p p l i c a t i o n rECEivEs a  f i l E numbsr and a s u b d i v i s i o n r e c o r d sheet i s completed as f o l l o u s : 1.  The ounership  o f the p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n i s confirmed  through  the Assessment Department o r the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e . I f  the ouner l i s t e d i n the a p p l i c a t i o n i s not i n these f i l e s the developer  i s n o t i f i e d and r e q u i r e d t o submit p r o o f o f o u n e r s h i p .  (Mote t h a t cases e x i s t uhere h o l d i n g companies do not u i s h t o r e v e a l the ounership  o f the l a n d .  I n o r d e r t o proceed the P l a n n i n g Depart-  ment r e q u i r e s a b s o l u t e • p r o o f , a deed i f n e c e s s a r y . ) 2.  The proposed development i s checked r e g a r d i n g :  a) the a g r i -  c u l t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e , b) i n t e n d e d use r e l a t e d t o z o n i n g , c ) seuage d i s p o s a l ( s a n i t a r y seuer o r on s i t e ) , d) easements o r r i g h t s o f uay e x i s t i n g o r r e q u i r e d , e) s e c t i o n 712 o f the M u n i c i p a l Act r e g a r d i n g f r o n t a g e r e l a x a t i o n ( i f non-conforming i t r e q u i r e s a p p r o v a l o f c o u n c i l ) . 3.  Comments are made by the P l a n n i n g Department - these are  r e l a t e d t o the Surrey Development by-lau and the s u b d i v i s i o n by-lau. 4.  Comments are a l s o o b t a i n e d from o t h e r departments and  d i v i s i o n s uhere r e l e v a n t . Parks - P l a n n i n g Department and i t s comments r e g a r d i n g priority - Parks and r e c r e a t i o n d i v i s i o n and i t s comments Schools - P l a n n i n g Department - P r o p e r t y Department - School Board Land/Road C l o s u r e s o r Exchanges - P l a n n i n g Department - E n g i n e e r i n g Department - Memo t o the m u n i c i p a l manager c o u n c i l r e g a r d i n g approval - Memo t o the P r o p e r t y Department - Highuays Department 5.  A s p e c i a l form (P.S.27) i s dated and sent t o the E n g i n e e r i n g  Department.  T h i s form notes p l a n n i n g comments and e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s .  -153-  The Engineering Department confirms existing services and  lists  required services regarding water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, i n t e r n a l roads and external roads. comments are noted.  Other services or additional  This sheet also bears a l l impost  are multiplied by the number of l o t s .  charges which  The general areas are  non-  a r t e r i a l roads, a r t e r i a l roads, drainage, water, public land, sanitary sewer i n s t a l l a t i o n and other.  cost, sanitary sewer connection fee, water rates,  Engineering dates the form when completed and returns i t  to Planning Department. 6.  Uhere applicable other agencies are sent a l e t t e r providing  relevant information regarding the project: Department of Highways B. C. Hydro Fisheries Others 7. ducted.  If the application appears feasible a f i e l d inspection i s conThe technical planner notes location of the existing services,  checks for gravel sidewalks, location of buildings, etc. 8.  A l e t t e r i s then drafted noting the requirements  upon the  developer or conditions necessary for approval of the developer's application form (PS-32).  This l e t t e r includes requirements  by the Engineering Department.  l a i d out  The l e t t e r goes to the supervisor of  the Technical Planning Department for approval.  After the typing  of the l e t t e r i t i s sent to the supervisor once again with an attached copy of the application.  The l e t t e r i s then forwarded  of planning for a signature.  to the director  The director of planning w i l l make any  changes he feels are necessary.  Once signed the l e t t e r i s sent to  the developer. 9.  The l e t t e r notifying the developer of preliminary approval of  -154his  s u b d i v i s i o n i n c l u d e s impost charges. 1)  The s t a n d a r d ones a r e : *  Non a r t e r i a l road impost,$550 per l o t , a b u t t i n g an  e x i s t i n g roaduay "uhich i s not c o n s t r u c t e d t o p r e s e n t  municipal  s t a n d a r d s , and u h i c h i s n o t r e q u i r e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y t o be upgraded by the developer  as p a r t o f the s u b d i v i s i o n or development  uorks." 2)  M u n i c i p a l a r t e r i a l roaduay impost, $200 per l o t , f o r the  purpose o f d e f r a y i n g the e x c e s s i v e c o s t s t o the M u n i c i p a l i t y r e q u i r e d " f o r the upgrading  and improvement o f highuays i n the  m u n i c i p a l i t y made necessary  by the i n c r e a s e d p o p u l a t i o n and t r a f f i c  d e n s i t y c r e a t e d by s u b d i v i s i o n s and developments." 3)  Doun stream drainage f a c i l i t i e s ,  $300 p e r l o t , " f o r the  purpose Df d e f r a y i n g t h e e x c e s s i v e c o s t tD the m u n i c i p a l i t y o f p r o v i d i n g funds r e q u i r e d f o r t h e upgrading f a c i l i t i e s made necessary and developments.  and improvement o f drainage  by the i n c r e a s e d f l o u c r e a t e d by s u b d i v i s i o n s  I n the event t h a t t h e s u b d i v i d e r o r developer  e l e c t s t o upgrade the m u n i c i p a l drainage system dounstream from t h e development (no developer  s h a l l d i s c h a r g e any drainage u a t e r i n t o any  m u n i c i p a l drainage system uhere such d i s c h a r g e u i l l o v e r l o a d t h e c a p a c i t y o f any p a r t o f the m u n i c i p a l drainage system) the m u n i c i p a l i t y uill  c o n t r i b u t e t o the c o s t o f the excess  c a p a c i t y , an amount not  i n excess o f the drainage impost r e c e i v e d from t h e d e v e l o p e r . " 4)  Trunk and supply u a t e r main f a c i l i t i e s  impost,  $150.00  per l o t , f o r the purposes o f d e f r a y i n g e x c e s s i v e c o s t s t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y o f p r o v i d i n g funds r e q u i r e d f o r the upgrading  and improvements o f  M u n i c i p a l Development P o l i c y as amended t o December 10, 1973.  -155main t r u n k s and supply f a c i l i t i e s c f the u a t e r u c r k s system. 5)  P u b l i c l a n d impost f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n c f p u b l i c lands  u i l l be $905.00. per u n i t or a d d i t i o n a l l e t c r e a t e d Thus a developer i s r e q u i r e d to pay a minimum of $1,555 per u n i t or a d d i t i o n a l l o t c r e a t e d p l u s a d d i t i o n a l o f f - s i t e c o s t s c r e a t e d by a p a r t i c u l a r T o t a l Time.  case.  I f the p r o j e c t conforms i n every uay to the  c o n t r o l p l a n and t h e r e are f e u problems t h i s p o r t i o n of the u i l l take 3 months.  process  I f the a p p l i c a t i o n i n v o l v e s c o m p l e x i t i e s i t may  r e q u i r e k or 5 months. Stage IV - P r e p a r a t i o n of the F i n a l P l a n S u b j e c t to the requirements  l i s t e d on the a p p r o v a l c f the  p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n the developer has 90 days t c proceed u i t h application for f i n a l approval.  I f he f a i l s to meet t h i s 90  an  day  requirement  he must s t a r t a l l over a g a i n .  1.  developer g i v e s the l e t t e r he r e c e i v e d from the P l a n n i n g  The  Department t o h i s c o n s u l t i n g engineer f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y c o s t a n a l y s i s . 2.  I f t h e . p r o j e c t s t i l l appears f e a s i b l e the c o n s u l t i n g engineer  of the developer prepares requirements  d e t a i l e d drauings on the b a s i s of the  l a i d out by the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r .  T h i s process  take tuo to t h r e e months depending on the f a m i l i a r i t y c f the  con-  s u l t i n g engineer u i t h the e n g i n e e r i n g system and requirements municipality.  The p r o c e s s , i s  lengthened  can  of the  a c c o r d i n g to the number of  meetings h e l d betueen the c o n s u l t i n g engineer of the developer  and  the m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r . 3. B. C. 4.  A l e g a l s u b d i v i s i o n survey must be conducted  by a r e g i s t e r e d  surveyor. The  f i n a l p l a n s of the c o n s u l t i n g engineer are s u b m i t t e d to  -156the m u n i c i p a l engineer f o r r e v i s i o n s .  T h i s s t e p may r e - o c c u r s e v e r a l  times. 5.  A f t e r f i n a l r e v i s i o n and a p p r o v a l o f the p l a n s by the m u n i c i p a l  e n g i n e e r i n g department the s e r v i c i n g agreement i s prepared.  (The  s e r v i c i n g agreement c o n t a i n s a l l of t h e d e t a i l e d e n g i n e e r i n g p l a n s approved by the m u n i c i p a l engineer and a l s o i n d i c a t e s the c o s t s o f installation 6.  o f s e r v i c e s and s t i p u l a t e s a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s . )  The developer must request the s e r v i c i n g agreement which i s  p a r t i a l l y c r e a t e d d u r i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n s o f the developer's  engineer  and the m u n i c i p a l engineer i n p r e p a r a t i o n o f the f i n a l p l a n .  (The  P l a n n i n g Department i s not i n v o l v e d i n the d r a f t i n g o f the s e r v i c i n g agreement.) 7.  P r o v i d i n g t h a t a l l a p p r o v a l s r e g a r d i n g m a t t e r s beyond t h e  a u t h o r i t y o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y ( f l o o d p l a i n a p p r o v a l , department of highuays,  e t c . ) are o b t a i n e d uhere r e q u i r e d the developer can e n t e r  the stage of f i n a l  approval.  Stage \J - F i n a l 1.  Approval  The developer must s i g n the s e r v i c i n g agreement and p r o v i d e  a l l monies ( c a s h , c e r t i f i e d cheque or l e t t e r o f c r e d i t ) r e q u i r e d i n the agreement (note banding i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t a f C o q u i t l a m ) . 2.  A l l r i g h t s o f uays, documents and easements must be noted.  3.  The developer must pay o u t s t a n d i n g p r o p e r t y t a x e s and make a  d e p o s i t f o r those p r o p e r t y taxes o f the succeeding  year i f a p p l i c a t i o n  f o r a p p r o v a l i s s i g n e d betueen September 3D and December 31. h.  An i n s p e c t i o n f e e o f 1% o f assessed l a n d v a l u e . o f t h e p r o p e r t y  must be p a i d i n f u l l . 5.  A s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l f e e o f $1D.DD' must be p a i d .  6.  The m u n i c i p a l engineer must r e v i e u the s u r v e y . p l a n s and note  -157uhether they agree i n l a y o u t u i t h those approved i n p r e l i m i n a r y a p p r o v a l p l u s amendment l e t t e r s . 7.  C o u n c i l g i v e s f i n a l r e a d i n g t o the agreement s u b j e c t t o any  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i t may u i s h t o t a k e . 8.  The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r f i n a l a p p r o v a l i s executed by the c l e r k  and the mayor. 9.  The approving  o f f i c e r s i g n s the p l a n s u b j e c t t o the c o n d i t i o n s  r e q u i r e d by S e c t i o n 88 o f the Land R e g i s t r y A c t . Stage U l - R e g i s t r a t i o n and Prospectus Developer may now make an a p p l i c a t i o n t o r e g i s t e r h i s subd i v i s i o n and f i l e f o r a p r o s p e c t u s .  -158-  APPENDIX D-2  SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURE INVOLVING A CHANGE IN LAND USE IN SURREY '  Sec. 702A o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t i s the e n a b l i n g uhich gives the municipal  legislation  c o u n c i l the r i g h t t o e n t e r i n t o a c o n t r a c t  u i t h the ouner c f a p a r c e l c f l a n d c o n c e r n i n g the use o f t h a t p a r c e l of land i f i t i s l o c a t e d i n a "development a r e a " . must designate  The m u n i c i p a l i t y  areas o f l a n d u i t h i n a zone as "development  Surrey has proclaimed  area".  development areas i n f o u r urban grouth  areas.  Since major s u b d i v i s i o n s g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e changes i n land use almost a l l c f them are processed through l a n d use c o n t r a c t s . A'ctch s t a t e s t h a t "nothing  Sec. 702A(8)of the  i n Sec. 702A r e s t r i c t s t h e r i g h t o f an  cuner t o develop h i s l a n d i n accordance u i t h the r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y a p p l y i n g t o the zone i n u h i c h the l a n d i s s i t u a t e d uho does not enter i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t u i t h the c o u n c i l . "  The  p o t e n t i a l areas f o r s u b d i v i s i o n development are g e n e r a l l y governed i n a suburban c l a s s i f i c a t i o n u h i c h dees not p e r m i t the r e q u i r e d number o f d i v i s i o n s o f an acre o f land t o make a p r o j e c t  financially  f e a s i b l e f o r t h e developer g i v e n p r e s e n t market c o n d i t i o n s . The  procedure f o l l c u e d i s the same as the g e n e r a l  procedure  o u t l i n e d f o r Surrey up t o t h e stage c f p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n (Stage I I I ) . Stage I I I - Process o f Revieu o f the P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n by the P l a n n i n g Department 1.  The P l a n n i n g  Department conducts a p r e l i m i n a r y r e v i e u s i m i l a r  to the procedure i n the. g e n e r a l procedure o u t l i n e d . 2.  The P l a n n i n g  Department r e f e r s the a p p l i c a t i o n t o the A d v i s o r y  -159-  P l a n n i n g Commission u h i c h i s composed o f 16 Surrey r e s i d e n t s appointed by c o u n c i l from l o c a l areas t o make recommendations on a l l change of use a p p l i c a t i o n s . 3.  The a p p l i c a n t may be c a l l e d before the A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g  Commission t o d e s c r i b e h i s p r o p o s a l . k.  Recommendations  o f the A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission and those  of the P l a n n i n g Department are a t t a c h e d t o the a p p l i c a t i o n and p r e s e n t e d t o c o u n c i l uho by a t u o t h i r d s vote e i t h e r approve the a p p l i c a t i o n t o proceed,  t a b l e or r e j e c t i t .  T h i s i s not an a p p r o v a l  i n p r i n c i p l e but merely an a p p r o v a l t o permit the f u r t h e r p r o c e s s i n g of the a p p l i c a t i o n . 5.  The s u b d i v i d e r must p r o v i d e s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n s t o t h e A d v i s o r y  Design P a n e l u h i c h i s composed o f ID members a p p o i n t e d by c o u n c i l t o make recommendations on design o f commercial, applications.  (The P a n e l does not g e n e r a l l y make recommendations  regarding s u b d i v i s i o n layout lot 6.  but does g i v e t e n t a t i v e a p p r o v a l o f  layout.) The s u b d i v i d e r must i n q u i r e o f the E n g i n e e r i n g Department  u i t h r e g a r d t o the e n g i n e e r i n g 7.  i n d u s t r i a l and apartment  requirements.  Once t e n t a t i v e a p p r o v a l o f l o t l a y o u t i s g i v e n , the Land Use  C o n t r a c t can be prepared by t h e p l a n n e r , development engineer and municipal s o l i c i t o r .  The form o f the c o n t r a c t depends on t h e developer's  choice o f the f o l l o u i n g 2 o p t i o n s . • p t i o n 1.  I f t h e developer f e e l s r e l a t i v e l y secure t h a t h i s  p r o p o s a l u i l l be accepted a t a p u b l i c h e a r i n g and approved by c o u n c i l he may move i n t o Stage IV by having h i s c o n s u l t i n g engineer the f i n a l d r a f t o f the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n .  prepare  The Land Use C o n t r a c t  be draun up i n c o n j u n c t i o n u i t h the e n g i n e e r i n g agreement u h i c h  uill  -160-  c o n t a i n s f u l l e n g i n e e r i n g requirements bonding amounts, f e e s and i m p o s t s . the p u b l i c h e a r i n g the developer  together u i t h a l l s e c u r i t y  I f the p r o j e c t i s r e j e c t e d due t o  l o s e s a l l the money he has spent  thus f a r i n c l u d i n g the f e e s of the c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r .  Although  the a c t u a l d r a f t i n g o f the Land Use C o n t r a c t u i l l take a l i t t l e longer because o f t h e time needed t o prepare  the e n g i n e e r i n g  agree-  ment t h i s o p t i o n i s t h e f a s t e r one. Option 2.  I f the developer  f e e l s t h a t h i s p r o j e c t i s con-  t e n t i o u s and t h a t he can a f f o r d t o spend more time i n the process o f a p p r o v a l he can r e q u e s t a c o n t r a c t based on g e n e r a l e n g i n e e r i n g r e quirements and impost charges.  The advantage o f t h i s step i s t h a t  the e n g i n e e r ' s p l a n s do not have t o be prepared The  developer  i n a f i n a l p l a n form.  can u a i t u n t i l the p u b l i c h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g the Land Use  Contract, i s held.  The c o n t r a c t draun up u i l l make r e f e r e n c e t o a  subsequent agreement d e a l i n g u i t h s p e c i f i c e n g i n e e r i n g fees and e n g i n e e r i n g s e c u r i t y bonding amounts.  requirements,  The developer  cannot  move on t D Stage \l u h i c h i s f i n a l a p p r o v a l , u n t i l t h i s agreement i s executed.  The major disadvantage  o f t h i s o p t i o n i s t h a t the time  spent u a i t i n g f o r the p u b l i c h e a r i n g c o u l d be used t o d r a f t the f i n a l e n g i n e e r i n g p l a n s and the e n g i n e e r i n g agreement.  This step r e q u i r e s  at l e a s t 30 t o 60 days depending upon the c o n s u l t i n g engineer o f the developer  and h i s e x p e r i e n c e  i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y and depending  upon the e f f i c i e n c y D f the m u n i c i p a l engineer e n g i n e e r i n g agreement.  i n d r a u i n g up the  The time i n v o l v e d i n p r e p a r a t i o n o f a p u b l i c  h e a r i n g a c c o r d i n g t o S e c . 703 a f the M u n i c i p a l A c t u i l l i n v o l v e at l e a s t 3 ueeks t o a month. We u i l l assume t h a t Option 1 i s c a r r i e d o u t .  -161-  Stage IV - P r e p a r a t i o n a f F i n a l P l a n The f i n a l p l a n i s prepared and the e n g i n e e r i n g agreement executed 1.  a c c o r d i n g to the procedure i n the g e n e r a l p r o c e s s . The Land Use C o n t r a c t p r o p o s a l i s s u b m i t t e d t o the a p p l i c a n t  f o r s i g n a t u r e and r e t u r n .  Consent i s r e q u i r e d from a l l p a r t i e s u i t h  a r e g i s t e r e d i n t e r e s t i n the p r o p e r t y . 2.  The  Land Use C o n t r a c t i s f o r u a r d e d to the c l e r k and an  author-  i z i n g b y - l a u i s i n t r o d u c e d and g i v e n f i r s t and second r e a d i n g by council.  The  date f o r p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s s e t a c c o r d i n g to the p r o -  cedure r e q u i r e d by Sec. 7D3 of the M u n i c i p a l A c t .  (An  advertisement  i s p l a c e d i n the p u b l i c p r e s s and n o t i c e s are u s u a l l y sent t o s u r rounding p r o p e r t y ouners.) 3.  F o l l o u i n g the p u b l i c h e a r i n g c o u n c i l can on a 2/3  vote approve  i n p r i n c i p l e , r e j e c t or t a b l e the a p p l i c a t i o n . k.  I f Option 1 i s used and the c o u n c i l approves i n p r i n c i p l e of  the p r o j e c t and a l l imposts, s e c u r i t y amounts and f e e s are  submitted  and the e n g i n e e r i n g department i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t a l l r i g h t s of  uay,  easements, and covenants are l i s t e d , the f i n a l a d o p t i o n of the  author-  i z i n g b y - l a u may  take p l a c e .  by the mayor and the 5.  The  Land Use C o n t r a c t i s then s i g n e d  clerk.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y r e g i s t e r s the Land Use C o n t r a c t i n the Land  Registry Office.  I f Option 2 uere used the e n g i n e e r i n g p l a n s of  the s u b d i v i d e r uould have to be submitted to the development engineer f o r a p p r o v a l and the development or e n g i n e e r i n g agreement u o u l d have to be executed by the a p p l i c a n t and the m u n i c i p a l i t y , a l l r e q u i s i t e s e c u r i t y amounts and f e e s s u b m i t t e d before f i n a l adoption of the authorizing by-lau.  ( T h i r d r e a d i n g can be g i v e n i f imposts have  been submitted.) The project may nou move on to Stages \J and VI according to the general procedure.  -163-  APPEIMDIX E ADMINISTRATIV/E CHECK LIST:  FOR HYPOTHETICAL MUNICIPALITY  A p p l i c a t i o n Number  Date o f A p p l i c a t i o n  Name & A d d r e s s , Ouner  T e l . No,  Name & Address, S u b d i v i d e r  T e l . No,  Name & Address, Engineer  T e l . No,  Development Area By-Law No  Zoning F i l e No  ..,  Rezoning By-Law No  S u b d i v i s i o n F i l e No..., Land Use C o n t r a c t No.., Date completed:  Sketch P l a n Informal Discussion Preliminary Application D i s t r i b u t i o n by P l a n n i n g Department: Date Sent  Date Received  Comments  S c h o o l Board H e a l t h Department Department o f Highways E n g i n e e r i n g Department G r e a t e r V/ancouver R e g i o n a l District Flood P l a i n :  L e t t e r t o the M i n i s t e r o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s Date Sent  Land Commission Amendment • Required:  Approved Yes  No  Applied  Completed  Yes  No  Applied  Completed..  Yes  No  O f f i c i a l Community P l a n Category: Amendment R e q u i r e d : Development Area:  -164Field Inspection: P l a n n i n g Department R e p o r t : A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission  Considerations: Recommendations  Comments o f o t h e r b o d i e s p o s s i b l y i n v o l v e d : C.M.H.C.: Department of Lands & F o r e s t s : P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Commission: P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch: M i n i s t e r o f Lands, F o r e s t s and Uater Resources: Environmental  Engineering:  I n s p e c t o r o f Dykes: Uater R i g h t s Branch: Deputy M i n i s t e r o f Commercial T r a n s p o r t : N a t i o n a l Energy Board: Railways: Utility  Companies:  Canadian Department o f P u b l i c Uorks: Indian A f f a i r s : •ther  Agencies:  Council Decision:  (Note i f a Land Use C o n t r a c t r e q u i r e d c o u n c i l may g i v e a p p r o v a l t o i n i t i a t e p r o c e d u r e )  Request of T e c h n i c a l Requirements from E n g i n e e r i n g Dept. Date.... ( I f a Land Use C o n t r a c t r e q u i r e d e n g i n e e r i n g should not request d e t a i l e d plans u n t i l a f t e r p u b l i c hearing) T e c h n i c a l Requirements completed by E n g i n e e r i n g Dept.  Date  N o t i f i c a t i o n g i v e n t o a p p l i c a n t r e g a r d i n g p r e l i m i n a r y a p p r o v a l and requirements.  Date  D e t a i l e d P l a n s r e c e i v e d from the a p p l i c a n t .  Date  -165Distribution of Plans:  Date Sent  Received  Comments  Planning Department Advisory Design Panel Engineering Department If a Land Use Contract required:  Preparation of preliminary Land  Use Contract based an standardized contract.  ( I f a Land Use Contract  i s not used then commence preparation of preliminary Development Agreement based on standardized agreement.) Revieu of Preliminary Land Use Contract, by: Revieu of Development Agreement by:  Date sent  Received  Comments  Planning Department Engineering Department Solicitor Mote:  Preceding process should be very fast as Land Use Contract or  Development Agreement should be standardized. Presentation of Land Use Contract or (Development Agreement) to the Developer:  Date  Presentation of Land Use Contract to council i f executed by the developer:  Date  Presentation of zoning by-lau amendment to council ( i f Land Use Contract not used)  Date  F i r s t and Second Reading Public Hearing  Date Set  Date Held  Comments Decision of Council Preparation of f i n a l draft plans by developer's Date commenced  engineer  Date completed  -  -166-  L e g a l survey p r o v i d i n g ground survey and a l l easements, r i g h t s o f way, and r e s t r i c t i v e covenants e x i s t i n g and r e q u i r e d . Date completed Meetings betueen c o n s u l t i n g engineer o f developer and m u n i c i p a l engineer:  Dates  '  I M o t i f i c a t i o n o f s e c u r i t i e s r e q u i r e d by the s u b d i v i d e r .  Amount o f  the bonding s e t i n the Development Agreement or Land Use C o n t r a c t :  F i n a l Land Use C o n t r a c t o r Development Agreement. Date R e c e i v e d  Date Returned  Checked by  Comments  Planning E n g i n e e r i n g (checks t o see t h a t F i n a l Survey P l a n meets a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s ) Solicitor:  Date sent  S u b d i v i d e r makes a p p l i c a t i o n  ...Received  Comments  f o r F i n a l Approval.  Date  F i n a l P l a n s Received Securities  Received  Amount  Delivered to Treasurer... Receipt  F i n a l Reading o f Land Use C o n t r a c t o r Development Adaption o f Land Use C o n t r a c t o r Development  Agreement.  Agreement.  Land Use C o n t r a c t f i l e d i n Land R e g i s t r y  Copy r e t u r n e d  S u b d i v i s i o n P l a n s approved S c h o o l Board P r o p e r t y Department T r e a s u r e r and B u i l d i n g informed o f F i n a l Adoption As b u i l t drawing r e c e i v e d by m u n i c i p a l e n g i n e e r .  Date  I f a Land Use C o n t r a c t the new zoning is.:;mapped.  Date  Department  -167-  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A.  Books  Clauson, M a r i o n . C o n v e r t i n g Land Use from R u r a l t o Urban Use;i • B a l t i m o r e , M a r y l a n d : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1971. deSmith, S. J u d i c i a l Revieu o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n . Stevens and Son L t d . 1959.  London:  G r i g s b y , L d i l l i a m G. Housing Markets and P u b l i c P o l i c y . P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y l v a n i a Press 1963. IMelkin, Dorothy. The P o l i t i c s o f Housing I n n o v a t i o n . London: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971. R e i d , M a r g a r e t . Housing and Income. Chicago: P r e s s , 1962. Schmid, A. A l l a n . C o n v e r t i n g Baltimore, Maryland:  I t h a c a and  The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago  Land Use from R u r a l t o Urban Uses. Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1968.  Sweet, David C. Models of Urban S t r u c t u r e . • Becks, 1972  Toronto:  Lexington  Ldadler, G e r a l d . Land P l a n n i n g by A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e g u l a t i o n : The P c l i c i e s o f the O n t a r i o M u n i c i p a l Board. T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1971. LUheeler, M i c h a e l . 1968. B.  The R i g h t t o Housing.  Montreal:  Harvest House,  Monographs  L o e u e n s t e i n , L o u i s K. M u n i c i p a l Cost/Revenue A n a l y s i s f o r Planned U n i t Developments. S p e c i a l Report IMo. 9. B e r k l e y : The Centre f o r R e a l . E s t a t e and Urban Economics I n s t i t u t e of Urban and R e g i o n a l Development, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a 1973. Mace, Ruth L. Do S i n g l e Family Homes Pay T h e i r Lday? Research Monograph IMo. 15, Washing, D.C.: Urban Land I n s t i t u t e 1968. Pennance, F.G. Housing Market A n a l y s i s and P o l i c y . Hobart Paper No. 48, W e s t m i n i s t e r : I n s t i t u t e o f Economic A f f a i r s 1969. Pennance, F.G. Housing, Toun P l a n n i n g and the Land Commission A c t . Hobart Paper No. 40, London: I n s t i t u t e of Economic A f f a i r s 1967.  -168-  Suenson, S h i r l e y , F. S u b d i v i s i o n Improvement Requirements. P l a n n i n g B u l l e t i n No. 5. Oregon: Bureau o f Government Research and S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Oregon, 1970. C.  Periodicals  C r a i g , David Id. " D i s c r e t i o n a r y Land Use C o n t r o l s t h e Iron Ldhim o f the P u b l i c " , I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n i n g , Zoning and Eminant Domain Southwestern L e g a l Foundation, 1971, pp. 1-20. Greenspan, David; Vaughan, David. "How the Zoning Game i s P l a y e d : A Look a t Land Use P r o c e d u r e s " , The Law S o c i e t y Gazette 6:50-57, 1972. Harvey, Cameron.  " M u n i c i p a l Law"  O n t a r i o Law Revieu 5:196-209, 1971.  Hooson, L d i l l i a m . " L o c a l Government and Management". No. 5, S e p t . - O c t . 1973.  Urban Focus 1  K a i s e r , Edward 0. " D e c i s i o n Agent Models o f the R e s i d e n t i a l Development P r o c e s s : A Review o f Recent Research", T r a f f i c Q u a r t e r l y 23:597 , 1969. K a i s e r , Edward 0. " P u b l i c P o l i c y and R e s i d e n t i a l ' D e v e l o p m e n t P r o c e s s " , American I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s J o u r n a l 36:30, 1970. Kennedy, N o l a n . " C o n t r a c t and C o n d i t i o n a l Zoning: A T o o l f o r Zoning F l e x i b i l i t y " , H a s t i n g s Law J o u r n a l 33:825-847, 1972. "Land C o s t s : A s i d e o f t h e s t o r y the p u b l i c never hears - t o l d by a developer",•Canadian B u i l d i n g , 15-19 March 1973. Laux, F r e d e r i c k A. "The Zoning Game: Review 9, 268-309, 1971.  A l b e r t a S t y l e " , A l b e r t a Law  M i l n e r , J.B. "An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l L e g i s l a t i o n " , Canadian Bar Review 43:49-98, 1965. S h e l t o n , John P. "The Cost o f R e n t i n g vs the Cost o f Owning a Home", Land Economics 44:168. S t e i n , L e s l i e A. "The M u n i c i p a l Power t o Zone i n Canada and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s : A Comparative Study", Canadian Bar Review 49:535-556, 1971. D.  Unpublished M a t e r i a l  Derkowski, Andre. " R e s i d e n t i a l Land Development i n O n t a r i o " , Urban Development I n s t i t u t e o f O n t a r i o , November 1972. G r u f t , Andrew. "The Urban Environment P r o d u c t i o n System, a P r e l i m i n a r y Model", S c h o o l o f A r c h i t e c t u r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1973.  -169-  Goldberg, M i c h a e l . " R e s i d e n t i a l Developer B e h a v i o r : Some E m p i r i c a l F i n d i n g s " , F a c u l t y of Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., Vancouver 1972. M c A l l i s t e r , C.G. "Development i n Unorganized A r e a s . " A paper s u b m i t t e d to E.C.E. Todd, F a c u l t y of Lau, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1971. O l i v e r , M.G., P e e r s , C.L. " S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l and F i n a n c e " , F a c u l t y df Lau, U n i v e r s i t y a f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963. "Subdivision Regulations: Short Form Model f o r the S t a t e of Vermont" A Paper by the Planners C o l l a b o r a t i v e A l d r i c h House, [Maruichi, Vermont, 1970. " S u b d i v i s i o n S t o r y , E f f e c t i v e Government". A paper by the C i t i z e n s Research I n s t i t u t e of Canada, Toronto. Ldiesman, B. Diploma Course Land P l a n n i n g and Development. Unpublished Course M a t e r i a l , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver B.C. 1972. LdoDdsuarth, K.C. "Land Use C o n t r o l " . Minutes of a c l a s s prepared f a r the Center of C o n t i n u i n g L e g a l E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, October 1972. Ldoodsucrth, K.C. "Zoning and S u b d i v i s i o n " , Minutes of a meeting prepared f o r the Center of C o n t i n u i n g L e g a l E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1971. E.  Government P u b l i c a t i o n s . Federal  Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , C e n t r a l Housing and Mortgage  Corporation.  P l u n k e t t , T.J. The F i n a n c i a l S t r u c t u r e and D e c i s i o n Making Process of the Canadian M u n i c i p a l Government. Ottaua, P o l i c y P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , CMHC, 1972. Population  P r o j e c t i o n s f o r Canada, S t a t i s t i c s  Canada.  Provincial "A Guide to M u n i c i p a l and R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , May 1970.  P r o c e d u r e s"  P l u n k e t t , T.J. A Report of the Union of B.C. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , prepared by T. J . P l u n k e t t and A s s o c i a t e s L t d . May 15, 1971. "A Report on Development C o n t r o l " , O n t a r i o  Lau Reform Commission.  -170-  The S u b d i v i s i o n A p p r o v a l Procedure: A Guide f o r Use i n Areas Outside M u n i c i p a l i t i e s " , Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , 1971. S u b d i v i s i o n Procedures: A Handbook f o r Those Uho O n t a r i o , March 1970. Regional  Want t o S u b d i v i d e .  Districts  The Housing I s s u e , Prepared by the S t a f f of the P l a n n i n g Department of the Greater Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, 1973. The Housing I s s u e , A d i s c u s s i o n paper prepared by the P l a n n i n g Department of the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, February 137k. " P i t t Meadous Study. Development f o r the H i g h l a n d Area" Municipal P l a n n i n g S e r v i c e of Louer Mainland R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g Board 1967. P o p u l a t i o n F o r e c a s t . Prepared D i s t r i c t , 1973.  by the Greater Vancouver R e g i o n a l  P o p u l a t i o n Trends i n Louer Mainland 1921-1986. Louer Mainland R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g Board  Prepared 1968.  by  the  U n i t e d S t a t e s of America S t a t e Governments, " C o n t r o l of Land S u b d i v i s i o n " by S t a t e o f Neu O f f i c e of P l a n n i n g C o - o r d i n a t i o n , 1967. F.  York  Statutes  Revised S t a t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia: I960 1960 1960 1960 1960 Cases.  C255 C261 C76 C208 C208  Municipal Act. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s E n a b l i n g 2nd V a l i d a t i n g A c t . C o n t r o l l e d Access Highuays Act Land R e g i s t r y Act R e a l E s t a t e Act  C i t y of Vancouver vs R e g i s t r a r of Vancouver Land R e g i s t r y D i s t r i c t 15 LdwR 351.  C o r p o r a t i o n of the D i s t r i c t of D e l t a vs P i c c a d i l l y E s t a t e s L t d . the Supreme Court of B.C. No. X3889, January 27, 1973. The  D i s t r i c t of A b b o t s f o r d vs Cam-Kerr Developments. Court of B.C. No. XM-681, October 9, 1973.  In  In the Supreme  

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093122/manifest

Comment

Related Items