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) Univers i ty pf B . C . , 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION in the Department • f Commerce and Business Administrat ion Lie accept t h i s thes is as conforminq to the require[j_P»st^dard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL, 191k In presenting th is thesis in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the l i b ra ry s h a l l make i t f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scholar ly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his representat i ves . It i s understood that copying or publ icat ion of t h i s thes is for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed uithout my wri t ten permiss ion. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada. Date ( i ) ABSTRACT The supply of serv iced bu i ld ing lo ts in Metropol itan Vancouver i s f a l l i n g short of the demand for serv iced bu i ld ing lo ts for the purpose of r e s i d e n t i a l const ruct ion . The amount of time required for the process of approval of app l icat ions for major subdiv is ions of rau land into serv iced r e s i d e n t i a l bu i ld ing lo ts i s an important factor uhich a f fec ts the rate of supply of serv iced bu i ld ing lo t s u i t h i n a mun ic ipa l i t y . It i s the purpose of th is paper to examine the municipal subdiv is ion approval process in a sample of metropolitan Vancouver mun ic ipa l i t i es to determine whether the time required for approval of app l icat ions for subdiv is ion of raw land into serv iced bu i ld ing lo ts i s increasing in these mun ic ipa l i t i es hence creat ing a delay in the supply of r e s i d e n t i a l bu i ld ing l o t s . This problem was analyzed by c o l l e c t i n g data to ident i f y the market condit ions of supply and demand for r e s i d e n t i a l dwell ing units in Metropolitan Vancouver by assembling ava i lab le information regarding dwelling unit s t a r t s , population growth and income l e v e l s . Major developers, consult ing engineers, municipal planners and municipal engineers were interviewed and processes, charts and tables were drawn up where possib le i n d i c a t i n g : (1) the time required for the processing of app l icat ions in four Metropolitan Vancouver mun ic ipa l i t i es in 1971, 1972 and 1973, (2) the actual subdiv is ion approval process in these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , ( i i ) (3) s i g n i f i c a n t constraints r e l a t i n g to each procedure. A l l of the s i g n i f i c a n t components of the procedures of the four mun ic ipa l i t i es uere assembled into three basic procedures: a general subdiv is ion approval procedure, a procedure invo lv ing a zoning amendment, and a procedure involv ing land use cont rac ts . These procedures uere c lose l y analyzed and recommendations uere made regarding so lut ions to problems found. It was found that the time required for approval Df a p p l i c -ations had increased in some munic ipa l i t ies betueen 1971 and 1973 resu l t ing in a delay in the supply of bu i ld ing lo t s produced in these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Land Use Contracts uere found to be a major constraint operating u i th in the approval process uherever they uere used. The f i n a n c i a l pos i t ion of mun ic ipa l i t i es and the decis ion making process of mun ic ipa l i t i es are c i ted as poss ib le external factors uhich could operate as a constraint on the operation of the municipal approval process and are suggested areas of future research . ( i i i ) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem 1 The S ign i f i cance of the Problem 1 Hypotheses 2 L imitat ions of Study 3 Procedure in Development of Thesis k II SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR HOUSING - THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 7 Summary of Supply and Demand 10 E f fec t of Surplus Demand on Land P r i c i n g . . . . 12 E f fec t of Surplus Demand on the Supply of Housing Units to the Market 16 III SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER 20 Demand for Housing as a Function of Income.. 21 Demand for Housing as a Function of Population 25 The Supply of Housing in Metropol i tan Vancouver 28 IV THE SUPPLY OF SERVICED RESIDENTIAL DUELLING SITES - AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTORS DETER-MINING QUANTITATIVE EXPECTATIONS OF INCREMENTS TO EXISTING HOUSING STOCK THROUGH THE DEVELOP-MENT OF SERVICED RESIDENTIAL DUELLING SITES , 38 S t a t i c Analysis of the Res ident ia l Duel l ing Unit Supply Process 38 Dynamic Analysis of the Res ident ia l Unit Supply Process k5 V TIME REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 52 Se lect ion of Mun ic ipa l i t i es 52 P i t t Meadows 52 Richmond 53 D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam 5k Surrey 5<+ ( iv ) CHAPTER PAGE Analys is of Time Required for Sub-d i v i s i o n Approval in Each Munic ipa l i t y 55 Richmond 55 P i t t Meadows 60 D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam 65 Surrey 68 VI THE MUNICIPAL APPROVAL PROCESS 78 General Subdivis ion Procedure 82 Stage I - Preparation for an Informal Meeting 82 Stage II - The Informal Meeting 82 Stage III - Prel iminary App l icat ion 83 Stage IV - Processing of Prel iminary Appl icat ion 83 Stage V - Appl icat ion for F i n a l Approval . B<+ Stage VI - Municipal Review of the Appl icat ion for F i n a l Approval 85 Stage VII - The Development or (serv ic ing) Agreement 86 Stage VIII - Approval of F i n a l Plan 87 Stage IX - Regist rat ion of S u b d i v i s i o n . . 87 Stage X - F i l i n g for Prospectus 88 Subdiv is ion Approval Procedure With a Zoning Amendment 89 Stage IV - Municipal Processing of Prel iminary App l i cat ion 89 Subdiv is ion Approval Process Involving a Land Use Contract 90 Stage IV - Municipal Processing of Appl icat ion 92 Analys is of General Procedure Sk Stage IV of General Procedure 95 Stage V of General Procedure 96 Stage VI of General Procedure 100 Analys is of Zoning By-law Amendments Procedure 102 Analys is of Land Use Contract P r o c e d u r e . . . . 10k (v) CHAPTER PAGE VII THE MUNICIPAL PROBLEM I l l The Financial Position of Municipalities.. 112 Policy Considerations For the Provincial Government 119 Development of Municipal Planning Policies 120 The P o l i t i c a l Decision Making Process ' 123 VIII CONCLUSIONS 128 Areas for Future Research 129 APPENDICES Appendix A-l - General Subdivision Approval Procedure for Pitt Meadows Including a Zoning Amendment.. 131 Appendix B-l - General Subdivision Approval Procedure far the Corporation of the Township of Richmond... 136 Appendix B-2 - Subdivision Approval Procedure for Richmond when an Amendment to a Zoning By-law is Required 1U1 Appendix C-l - General Subdivision Approval Procedure for the District of Coquitlam Ikk Appendix C-2 - Subdivision Approval Procedure for the District of Coquitlam with a Zoning By-law Amendment l<+8 Appendix D-l - General Subdivision Approval Procedure for the District of Surrey 151 Appendix D-2 - Subdivision Approval Procedure Involving a Change in Land Use in Surrey 158 Appendix E - Administrative Check List for 163 Hypothetical Municipality BIBLIOGRAPHY 167 (v i ) LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Ex is t ing Duel l ing Stock Pr ice Rises Throughout Time 13 2 E f fec t of Leverage on Res ident ia l Duel l ing S i te Pr ices Ik 3 E f fec t of Leverage on Rau Land Pr ices 15 k Negative Leverage IS 5 The Pr ices of Homes in Metropolitan Vancouver Relat ive to the Average Incomes of I ndus t r ia l Workers in B.C. 1963-1973 22 6 Household Formation and Duel l ing Unit S tar ts betueen 1961 and 1976 28 7 Res ident ia l Bui ld ing Ac t i v i t y - Duel l ing Star ts in Metropol itan Vancouver 1967-1973 29 8 Res ident ia l Bui ld ing A c t i v i t y - S ingle Family Duel l ing Star ts in Metropolitan Vancouver 1967 to 1973 30 9 Res ident ia l Bu i ld ing A c t i v i t y - Mu l t ip le Duel l ing Star ts Metropolitan Vancouver 1967-1973 31 10 Cost of Construction of Single Family Duel l ings in Metropolitan Vancouver 1960-1973 3k 11 Average pr ice of a t y p i c a l serv iced lo t in the GVRD 196-4-1973 35 12 The cost of housing in the GVRD in terms of bu i ld ing costs and serv iced land pr ices 196*4-1973 36 13 Major Subdiv is ion Under Construction in Richmond August 1973 56 lk A sample of small subdiv is ions approved before September 1973 56 Appl icat ions and approvals for serv iced lo ts in the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam 1970-1973 Appl icat ions and approvals for serv iced lo ts in Surrey 1965-1973 Population and Household Charac te r i s t i cs of Idoodbridge Community on the LUoodbridge S u b d i v i s i o n . . . Property Tax Base for UJoodbridge 1965-1966 ( v i i i ) LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 I n t e r a c t i o n s of Supply and Demand f o r the Housing Stock 11 2 F e r t i l i t y Rates 25 3 Diagram of the S t a t i c A n alysis of the R e s i d e n t i a l D u e l l i n g Unit Supply Process... 39 k P i c t o r i a l Representation of the Dynamic An 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 Unit Supply Process <+6 5 General Approval Procedure 79 6 Approval Procedure u i t h a Zoning Change.... 8D 7 Approval Procedure u i t h Land Use Contract.. 81 ( i x ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The w r i t e r w ishes to thank a l l m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s and e n g i n e e r s , p r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r s 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 , who p r o v i d e d the i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y to complete t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . He i s e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l to P r o f e s s o r S t a n l e y H a milton f o r h i s a d v i c e and d i r e c t i o n , t o h i s f e l l o w s t u d e n t s and h i s w i f e L a r k , f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e , to E l e n i G a r d i n e r f o r her h e l p i n e d i t i n g , and to Mrs. M. Brown r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t y p i n g the f i n a l d r a f t o f t h i s t h e s i s . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem This study i s an attempt to determine that a shortage of supply of serv iced bu i ld ing lots for development Df s ing le family duel l ings in the louer mainland of B. C. r e l a t i v e to demand for such lo ts ex is ts and to i d e n t i f y the municipal subdiv is ion approval pro -cedure in the louer mainland of B. C. as one of the causes of the shortage of supply. The S ign i f i cance of the Problem The s ign i f i cance of th is problem i s that as less land i s made ava i lab le for housing construct ion r e l a t i v e to the increas ing demand for housing the resu l t i s a reduction in the number Df due l l ing units added to the ex is t ing stock. It i s the standing stock of housing that determines the pr ice leve ls of housing in the market, thus, i f increments to the ex i s t ing stock are inadequate an increase in demand u i l l cause an increase in the pr ice l e v e l s of standing s tock . The increased market pr ice leve ls for housing u i l l cause an increase in the pr ice of rau and serv iced land as vendors of rau or serv iced land are in a pos i t ion uhere there i s a shortage of serv iced land r e l a t i v e to the demand for serv iced land and purchasers of t h i s land can af ford to pay more money for th is land as the increase in the -2-market pr ice D f housing u i l l permit an increase in the pr ice of serv iced land . In e f f e c t the shortage of supply of serv iced land places increasing pressure on the pr ice of land for immediate develop-ment. A further e f fec t may be that the bui lder of a home Dn the more expensive serv iced land may bu i ld the most expensive duel l ing unit possib le to take f u l l advantage of the highest market pr ice as determined by the market of ex is t ing stock, maximizing his b u i l d e r ' s p r o f i t . Thus the supply of louer pr iced 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 invest igated focus on the problem of a shortage of supply of r e s i d e n t i a l bu i ld ing lo t s in Metropolitan Vancouver u i t h reference to the amount of time required for the municipal subdiv is ion approval procedure in Metropol itan Vancouver mun ic ipa l i t i es to complete one of i t s major funct ions uhich i s the processing of app l icat ions for subdiv is ion of rau land into serv iced bu i ld ing lo ts for the construct ion of s ingle family d u e l l i n g s . The f i r s t hypothesis to be analyzed asks the quest ion: Is there a shortage of r e s i d e n t i a l bu i ld ing lo ts r e l a t i v e to the demand for r e s i d e n t i a l bu i ld ing lo ts in Metropolitan Vancouver? The second hypothesis concerns uhether the municipal sub-d i v i s ion approval process in cer ta in Metropolitan Vancouver munic ipa l -i t i e s i s becoming less e f f i c i e n t requi r ing more time to complete i t s function than i t required in previous years . The s ign i f i cance of th i s postu lat ion i s that the production of serv iced bu i ld ing lo ts i s being delayed in these mun ic ipa l i t i es thus reducing the supply of - 3 -bu i ld ing lo t s produced in cer ta in time per iods . A t h i r d and f i n a l hypothesis asks i f the use of Land Use Contracts in cer ta in mun ic ipa l i t i es in the process of approval of subdiv is ions of rau land into serv iced bu i ld ing lo ts for s ing le family duel l ings r e s t r i c t s the operation of the approval procedure in these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s hence increasing the time required for sub-d i v i s ion approval . L imitat ions of Study The f i r s t l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s study i s the fact that i t does not provide an empi r ica l analys is of the production of serv iced lo ts by Metropolitan Vancouver m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The number of app l icat ions for subdiv is ion of rau land in terms of bu i ld ing lo t s are i d e n t i f i e d in a feu m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , houever the actual performance of the mun ic ipa l i t i es in terms of the number of lo ts i n i t i a l l y processed versus the lo ts ac tua l l y approved for 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 constra ints uhich operate u i t h i n and external to the subdiv is ion approval procedure that are not researched in th i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . A very s i g n i f i c a n t external constra int i s the planning and f i n a n c i a l organizat ion of the munic ipa l i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y the impact of municipal f inance problems or municipal organizat ional problems upon the operation of the municipal subdiv is ion approval process. Other constra ints that are not researched are the s ign i f i cance of p r o v i n c i a l authority approval procedures and the s ign i f i cance of publ ic hearings, u i th reference to the operation of approval procedures in Metropol itan Vancouver -k-m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Procedure in Development of Thesis Chapter II introduces a t h e o r e t i c a l market analys is of supply and demand providing a frameuork for examination of empir ica l f ind ings re lated to the supply and demand for housing uni ts in Metropol itan Vancouver. In Chapter III the demand and supply for duel l ing units in Metropol itan Vancouver are analyzed separately in terms of demand and supply of s ingle family d u e l l i n g s . Population and income f igures are used to es tab l i sh a l e v e l of demand. Supply i s determined accord-ing to ex i s t ing stock f igures based on census data and due l l ing unit s ta r ts for a l l categories of due l l ing units in Metropol itan Vancouver betueen 1967 and 1973 as compiled by Central Mortage and Housing Corporat ion. Single family duel l ing unit s ta r ts are assumed ind ica t i ve of a majority of the supply of serv iced r e s i d e n t i a l bu i ld ing l o t s . This information i s re la ted to the h i s t o r i c a l trend of average house pr ices in Metropol i tan Vancouver betueen 1967 and 1973 to determine the present market condit ions of supply and demand. Chapter IV re la tes the supply of housing to a s t a t i c and dynamic analys is in order to determine the relevant factors that may be at t r ibuted to reducing the supply production process. Three c r i t i c a l areas are i d e n t i f i e d in the dynamic process of supply. 1) The assembly of rau land 2) The municipal approval process 3) The construct ion process u i th regard to the serv ic ing of due l l ing s i t e s . The municipal approval process i s se lected for intensive a n a l y s i s . -5-ChaptEr V involves the analys is D f the time required for subdiv is ion approval in Metropol itan Vancouver m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Four mun ic ipa l i t i es were selected as a representat ive sample. Data uas c o l l e c t e d by interviewing developers andil-consulting engineers uho uere involved u i th the production of a majority of the serv iced lo ts in each munic ipa l i t y , municipal planners and municipal engineers. Interviews uere based on a format of questions re la ted to der iv ing information regarding the time required for approval of a major subdiv is ion in 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973 and. the number of approvals granted each year by the par t i cu la r munic ipal i ty r e l a t i v e to the number of a p p l i c a t i o n s . These f igures uere also re la ted to the number of serv iced lo ts produced by major subdiv is ions in each munic ipa l i t y . In some mun ic ipa l i t i es the relevant data uas not a v a i l -ab le . It uas necessary to ident i f y the major developments in these mun ic ipa l i t i es and analyze them i n d i v i d u a l l y . It uas only poss ib le to assemble s i g n i f i c a n t evidence regarding the time r e q u i r e d fifor = sub-d i v i s i o n approval and not the l e v e l of product iv i ty of each munic ipa l -i t y regarding the actual number of bu i ld ing lo t s produced r e l a t i v e to appl icat ions made. It uas possib le to conclude that in cer ta in mun ic ipa l i t i es the time required for approval had increased between 1971 and 1973 and that Land Use Contracts could be i d e n t i f i e d as a contr ibut ing f a c t o r . •Subdivision Approval re fers to the approval of- subdiv is ion of rau land into serv iced bu i ld ing lo ts by an approving o f f i c e r . This in te rpre ta t ion u i l l be used throughout the d i s s e r t a t i o n . **A major subdiv is ion i s one uhich necess i tates construct ion of neu roads or serv ices to or beyond any of the lo ts being created. - 6 -In Chapter VI the actual process of approval for each munic ipal i ty uas prepared for subdiv is ions uhichJdo not require a zoning change, those uhich require' ' a zoning change and those uhich required Land Use Contracts . The preparation of these procedures uas based on interv ieus u i th municipal planners, municipal engineers, pr ivate developers and consult ing engineers. A standard procedure uhich included a l l of the components of the i n d i v i d u a l municipal pro -cedures uas prepared for each of the three types of subdiv is ion approval . .Const ra ints in each procedure uere ind icated and recommend-ations for so lut ions uere made. Chapter V/II i d e n t i f i e s the municipal problem regarding the operation of subdiv is ion approval procedures and ind icates cer ta in r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the p r o v i n c i a l government. Chapter VIII l i s t s general conclusions summarizing the f indings re lated to the hypotheses and ind icates topics for future study. -7-CHAPTER II SUPPLY AND DEMAND FDR HOUSING THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Analysis of the supply of r e s i d e n t i a l due l l ing uni ts must y begin u i th an analys is of the supply and demand for the housing stock as a uhole . In cont rad is t inc t ion to many other consumer goods, con-sumers of housing can choose betueen buying ex i s t ing due l l ing uni ts uhich are up for r e s a l e , rent ing due l l ing u n i t s , or buying a neu u n i t . At any given time, the uhole of the ex i s t ing housing stock i s la tent l y up for sale or rent as u e l l as the t o t a l i t y of neu addit ions to the housing stock. If pr ice leve ls d i f f e r betueen the tuD ca te -gories of housing, s u f f i c i e n t holders of ex is t ing stock u i l l be induced into the market to buy neu homes and s e l l the i r o ld homes so as to equal ize p r i c e s . If the pr ice d i f ference i s in the other d i rec t ion a s u f f i c i e n t number of neu home buyers u i l l be induced to pass up neu homes in favour of older ones, u n t i l , once again the pr ice leve ls are approaching e q u a l i z a t i o n . At any one t ime, the ex is t ing housing stock makes up the greatest bulk of the housing market. Increments to the housing stock normally range from tuo to four per cent per annum. Therefore, po tent ia l s e l l e r s of ex i s t ing housing make up ninety s i x to ninety eight per cent of the po tent ia l market at any one t ime. Neu housing *It may be argued that only a small percentage of the ex is t ing stock may be up for sale at any one given t ime. This does not take into account that i f there uere major pr ice d i f fe rences , more ex is t ing housing uould come onto the market. -8-makes up only two tD four per cent . The number of actua l and p o t e n t i a l s e l l e r s i s cons iderab le . In most cases, i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l i e s own ex i s t ing housing. Each family s e l l s i t s oun unit at the pr ice i t can obtain without reference tD any pr ice f i x i n g agreements between s e l l e r s . Edmund Pr ice points out that there are approximately 650 bu i lders in the Greater Vancouver area.'' ' Each bu i lder acts as an independent agent in s e l l i n g h is product . Richard Moore interviewed s ix ty three developers supplying e i ther r e s i d e n t i a l bu i ld ing s i t e s and/or r e s i d e n t i a l dwell ings to the reg iona l market. In terms of the economists' d e f i n i t i o n of pure competit ion , i t appears that the market f o r . t h e housing stock, as a whole, approaches pure competit ion i f r e s i d e n t i a l dwell ings can be considered as l i v i n g space purely and s imply . The housing stock and the in te rac t ions of supply and demand for the housing stock can be diagrammed roughly as ind icated below. Occupants of + Net immigration/ ^ Number of ex i s t ing stock emmigration p a r t i c i p a n t s who + can f inance pur -net household chase of r e n t a l formation or r e s i d e n t i a l dwell ing uni ts = index Ex i s t ing housing stock Net addi t ions to housing number 100% + stock (2% to <4%) I f the index number i s 1 - r e s i d e n t i a l unit p r i ces w i l l s t a b i l i z e . If "Perfect competition i s defined by the economist as a t e c h n i c a l term: •perfect compet i t ion ' ex i s t s only in the case where no farmer, bus iness -man or laborer i s a big enough part of the t o t a l market to have any personal in f luence on market p r i c e . " 3 The point should be made, however, that dwell ing uni ts are not normally considered as purely and simply l i v i n g space. Each dwell ing uni t has a ce r ta in locat ion with l i n k s to or proximity to places of em-ployment, shopping, schoo ls , rec reat ion f a c i l i t i e s and des i rab le neighborhoods. Such s p e c i f i c locat ions 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 dwel l ing unit market. - 9 -the index number i s greater than 1 pr ices r i s e u n t i l e i ther i ) net immigraticn/emmigraticn balance changes, i i ) rate of net houshold formation decl ines - usual ly through doubling up of households, i i i ) number of par t i c ipants able to f inance entry into the market decl ines e i ther through the esca lat ion of the r e n t a l pr ice index or the esca la t ion of the pr ices of homes (neu and e x i s t i n g ) , i v ) s u f f i c i e n t number of neu housing uni ts ( renta l or sa le ) enter market through increased pace of const ruct ion , v) any combination of the above e i ther decreases demand or increases supply. If the index number i s less than 1, then pr ice leve l s u i l l f a l l u n t i l such time as some combination of the above out l ined factors e i ther increases demand or reduces supply. F i l t e r i n g occurs throughout the housing s t o c k . ' Ouners of ex is t ing housing s e l l the i r homes and buy neu or used housing or move to ren ta l accomodation. Occupiers of ren ta l accomodation buy neu or ex is t ing homes. F i l t e r i n g patterns normally, although not aluays, f o l l o u the r e l a t i v e a b i l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l par t i c ipants to f inance the acqu is i t i on of a due l l ing u n i t . As t o t a l net disposable income a l located to housing of the i n d i v i d u a l pa r t i c ipant ( s ) increases r e l a t i v e to other pa r t i c ipant ( s ) the par t i c ipant u i l l normally upgrade his housing accomodation. It should be noted houever that as i n d i v -idua l incomes increase a smaller proportion of income i s spent on housing. The income e l a s t i c i t y for demand has been measured as high as 1.5 to 2 by Reid (1958) houever there i s more conclusive evidence to suggest that income e l a s t i c i t y i s c loser to a range of .5 to 1. Oksanen (1966) has found that housing stock e l a s t i c i t i e s for income 5 range from .3 to .5 and f l ou e l a s t i c i t i e s are belou 1. Uhler (1968) also supports th i s analys is as he has found income e l a s t i c i t i e s range -10-betiueen .34 and .57.^ Lee (136k) supports these findings concluding that income elasticity is less than unity hence the proportion of 7 income spent'on housing f a l l s as income rises. The uillingness and/or ability of participants to " f i l t e r " up or doun through the accomodation spectrum is often influenced by aspirations and needs, such as, size of family and need for space; family and neighborhood associations and ties; psychological importance of status to the individual; expectations as to future income levels; pursuit of l i f e styles uhich lead to allocating funds g to other consumer goods and acti v i t i e s . One important determinant of the individual's uillingness to participate in this f i l t e r i n g process is his expectations as to future housing prices. If the participant is convinced that the price of housing u i l l continue to escalate, he u i l l likely use any means at his disposal to purchase a residential duelling unit "nou" rather than uait. The net effect of this phenomenon is the transfer of future demand to the present. Summary of Supply and Demand The overvieu of the supply and demand for housing stock given in the previous sections, uhile lacking in some details and in refinement, does present a uorking model of the factors that are in-strumental to analysis. These factors are depicted in Figure 1. In Figure 1, current supply is depicted by S^S^ and current demand by D^ D^ . At one point in time, the prevailing price uould be P^. If there is a small increase in the supply to S^S^ that is quite small relative to the number of existing units in 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„, -11-Figure 1 Interact ions of Supply and Demand for Housing S l S2 Source: Hamilton, S . U . , Publ ic Land Banking - Real or I l l us ionary  Benef i ts? Report for the Urban Development Ins t i tu te of Ontario , 137k, p. 10. -12-pr ices u i l l r i s e tD P-^-^ As there are phys ica l l i m i t s to increases in 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 due l l ing s i t e s the planning process u i l l approve, the increases in supply for Canadian urban centres has been less than the increases in demand. If t h i s , as Dr. Hamilton points out,"'' 0 has been the case, i t uould account for a major port ion of the pr ice r i s e s in Canadian housing in the past decade. "The problems of supply of housing and bu i ld ing l o t s , as ser ious as they may be, are not as c r i t i c a l as the changes in demand. Grouing populat ion, rap id l y r i s i n g incomes, demand for better housing, and increased con-centrat ion in a feu urban areas are creat ing insa t iab le demand for housing and land. Over the past ten years, incomes and disposable incomes have r i sen more rap id ly than housing expenditures, and the concentrat ion of population into urban areas has continued. In a d d i t i o n , important neu incent i ves , in the form of s p e c i a l income tax status for p r i n c i p a l res idences, has bolstered the already extensive demands for housing, e s p e c i a l l y ouner-s h i p . 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 inancing for second mortgages have a l l contr ibuted to the increased demands. " H Ef fect of Surplus Demand on Land Pr ic ing Given that an excess of demand v i s - a - v i s supply for the housing stock as a uhole u i l l ra ise pr ice leve ls for the neu housing stock, coming on stream, dramatic changes u i l l occur in the pr ices paid for serv iced due l l ing s i t e s through the act ion of leverage. Even more dramatic pr ice changes u i l l take place for rau land due to the e f fec t of compounded leverage. Table 1 sets out some assumptions about the average pr ice leve ls of ex is t ing housing as these pr ice changes occur through t ime. The bui lder u i l l take his p r i c ing clue from the average pr ice of comparable houses in comparable locat ions to the one he i s going to b u i l d . I n s t i n c t i v e l y , he knous that he cannot inf luence the - 1 3 -Table 1. Ex is t ing Duel l ing Stock Pr ice Rises Through Time. Percentage Percentage Percentage Change Change change Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 to 2 Year 2 to 3 Year 1 to 3 Average Pr ice Level of Ex is t ing Comparable Houses in Comparable| $ $ Locations 26,COO 30,DOC 38,000 + 15% + 27% + 46% o v e r a l l pr ice of housing for the aggregate increment to housing stock in any one year i s only tuo to four per cent Df the t o t a l ex i s t ing stock. He knous that i f h is pr ice l e v e l i s too h igh, the buyer u i l l prefer ex is t ing housing and his unit u i l l not s e l l . He also knous that i f his pr ice l e v e l i s too lou , a craf ty speculator u i l l s e l l ex i s t ing housing to buy the b u i l d e r ' s product at an immediate ' p r o f i t ' to the speculator . The bui lder also i n s t i n c t i v e l y knous that buyers u i l l , on average, pay a premium for neu housing due to such inf luence as improved design, louer maintenance and repa i r cos ts , better f i n -ancing terms and the increased status of auning a neu home. The e f fec t of the b u i l d e r ' s p r i c ing of h is house for sale on the maximum pr ices that he u i l l pay for serv iced r e s i d e n t i a l duel l ing s i t e s i s demonstrated in Table 2. C l e a r l y , i f he receives more for h is house from year to year, he can a f fo rd to pay more for the l o t . The actual pr ice he pays u i l l be the end pr ice for h is house, less the costs of construct ion and p r o f i t . I f house pr ices r i s e more on a percentage basis than construct ion costs r i s e Dn a - 1 4 -percentage bas i s , then pos i t i ve leverage u i l l r e s u l t . For instance, as Table 2 demonstrates, i f house pr ices r i s e by 27% uhi le bu i ld ing costs go up by 20%, lo t pr ices u i l l escalate by 41%. Negative leverage i s also a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y . Assume that house pr ices remained constant at $30,000 uh i le construct ion costs rose by 20%, from $20,000 to $23,000, lo t pr ices uould drop from $9,200 to $7,000 - a 23% decrease. Table 2. E f fec t of Leverage on Res ident ia l Duel l ing S i te P r i c e s . Percentage Percentage Percentage change change change Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 to 2 Year 2 to 3 Year 1 to 3 Price of home b u i l t by bui lder $30,000 $34,500 $43,800 + 15% + 27% + 46% Bui ld ing costs & P r o f i t 20,800 23,000 27,600 + 10% + 20% + 33% Maximum Resident-i a l D u e l l -ing S i te Price 9,200 11,500 16,200 + 25% + 41% + 76% The developer, publ ic or p r i va te , i s part of the p r i c ing process. The bui lder takes his p r i c ing clue from the pr ice l e v e l for ex is t ing comparable housing. The developer takes his p r i c i n g clue from the maximum r e s i d e n t i a l duel l ing s i t e pr ice l e v e l . The pr ice that the developer pays for rau land i s leveraged in the same uay as the pr ice that bui lders pay for serv iced duel l ing s i t e s . If the pr ice paid for a serv iced s i te*increases more D n a -15-percentage basis than the s e r v i c i n g costs the e f f e c t u i l l be upuard leveraging on the p r i c e paid f o r rau land. I f the s e r v i c i n g costs escalate more r a p i d l y than the percentage p r i c e increase f o r servi c e d s i t e s , the e f f e c t u i l l be dounuard leveraging on the p r i c e s paid f o r rau land.' Table 3. E f f e c t of Leverage on Rau Land P r i c e s . Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Percentage change Year 1 to 2 Percentage change Year 2 to 3 Percentage change year 1 to 3 Price paid by 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 1 i 9,200 11,500 16,200 + 25% 4- - 4 1 % 4- 76% Se r v i c i n g costs + municipal imposts + p r o f i t s 5,200 6,300 9,100 4- 21% 4- -45% + 75% Maximum rau land p r i c e per s i t e 4,000 5,200 7,100 + 30% 4- 37% + 78% Note that Table 3 also demonstrates negative leverage i n the t r a n s i t i o n i n rau land p r i c e s from year 2 to year 3. S e r v i c i n g costs 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. In the same year, the p r i c e paid by the 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 increased by a l e s s e r percentage of 41% from $11,500 to $16,200. The e f f e c t on the maximum rau land p r i c e per s i t e i s negative leverage. The p r i c e paid f o r a rau l o t increased only 37% from $5,200 to $7,100 u h i l e the p r i c e paid f o r a se r v i c e d -16-l o t increased 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 paid f o r rau l o t s i f the p r i c e paid by the b u i l d e r had only r i s e n by a much louer percentage. Table 4 points out negative leverage. Table 4. Negative Leverage. Percentage Year 2 Year 3 change P r i c e paid 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 s i t e S e r v i c i n g costs + municipal imposts + p r o f i t s Maximum rau land p r i c e per s i t e $11,5DD 13,225 + 15% 6,3DD 9,ICQ + 45% 5,2DD 4,125 - 21% E f f e c t of Surplus Demand on the Supply of Housing Units to the Market I f the p r i c e of e x i s t i n g housing stock i s climbing at an unusually r a p i d r a t e , the b u i l d e r u i l l develop 'expectations' as to the p r i c e that he may be able to obtain f o r h i s product i f he u a i t s . I f the expected increment i n p r i c e i s considerably more than h i s holding costs f o r the f i n i s h e d house, he u i l l tend to u i t h o l d supply from the market. He uithholds supply i n a very simple f a s h i o n . He simply p r i c e s the house at uhat he expects future p r i c e l e v e l s to be, thereby t r a n s f e r r i n g present supply at present market p r i c e s i n t o future supply a t expected future market p r i c e s . The b u i l d e r u i l l not often u i t h h o l d supply f o r any considerable period of time. F i r s t l y , the holding costs are too onerous. In e f f e c t , the b u i l d e r has to finance the e n t i r e cost of the l o t plus -17-th e cost of co n s t r u c t i o n of the house at current i n t e r e s t r a t e s . 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 processs over again. P r i c e (1972) pointed out that 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 . T h i r d l y , the b u i l d e r i s aluays concerned about temporary setbacks i n the market even though the general d i r e c t i o n i s upwards. The b u i l d e r knows that temporary -setbacks i n p r i c e add to h i s c a r r y i n g costs i n reducing the p r o f i t l e v e l that he u i l l receive from the eventual sale of the house. Fourthly, the b u i l d e r i s u s u a l l y auare that he u i l l earn a higher return on h i s c a p i t a l invested i f he i s to s e l l the house and r e i n v e s t the proceeds i n purchasing more s e r v i c e d l o t s , p a r t i c u l a r i l y i f he perceives the leverage a c t i o n on the p r i c e of ser v i c e d l o t s to 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 to be expected that the b u i l d e r u i l l u i t h h o l d h i s product from the market f o r long periods of time but he u i l l tend to u i t h h o l d i f the short term p r i c e l e v e l s are i n c r e a s i n g d r a m a t i c a l l y . On the other hand, the b u i l d e r u i l l tend to accelerate the supplying of houses to the market i f he perceives short time ueakness i n p r i c i n g f o r e x i s t i n g housing stock. The b u i l d e r knous that h i s c a r r y i n g costs are too heavy. The developer u i l l also tend to u i t h h o l d supply of s e r v i c e d l o t s from the market i f he perceives that the short term p r i c e r i s e s fo r e x i s t i n g stock are e f f e c t i n g p o s i t i v e leverage on the p r i c e s t r u c t u r e f o r se r v i c e d d u e l l i n g s i t e s . Normally, the developer u i l l not u i t h h o l d l o t s from the market f o r long as he i s faced u i t h the same problems as the b u i l d e r . Carrying costs are too high and c a p i t a l i s required f o r the purchase of rau land. The developer u i l l only tend to u i t h h o l d i f the short term p r i c e r i s e s are dramatic. -18-The holder of rau land also has expectations as to the future p r i c e l e v e l s f o r rau land. These expectations u i l l 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 leverage i s uork-ing 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 also on rau land p r i c e s . The landholder i n these periods 'knous' that h i s land u i l l double i n value next year. The landouner i s quite r e l u c t a n t to s e l l . Furthermore, the landholder 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 that h i s c a r r y i n g costs 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 that he expects to receive from f u r t h e r u i n d f a l l gains. The landholder tends to u i t h h o l d rau land from the market i n periods 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 of rau land more d i f f i c u l t and more time consuming. Delays i n land assembly reduce the quantity of rau land uhich may be feed i n t o the supply process f o r eventual conversion i n t o d u e l l i n g u n i t s . C o l l e c t i v e l y , landouners are uorking i n t h e i r oun best i n t e r e s t by u i t h h o l d i n g land from the market. - 1 9 -Footnotes Edmund V. P r i c e . "The House Bui ld ing Industry in Vancouver", Unpublished Master 's of Business Administrat ion t h e s i s , the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1970. 2 Richard A. Moore. "Development Potent ia l Model for the Vancouver Metropol itan Area" , Unpublished Master 's of Business Administrat ion t h e s i s , The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1972. ^ P . A. Samuelson, Economics: An Introductory Ana lys i s . Toronto:McGrau-Hi l l Company of Canada L t d . , 1966, p. 46. M. G. R'eid, "Cap i ta l Formation in Res ident ia l Real Es ta te" , Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy 66:131-153, 1958. 5 E. Dksanen, "Housing Demand in Canada, 1947-1962: Some Prel iminary Experimentation", Canadian Journal of Economics and  P o l i t i c a l Science, 32: p.312, 1966. ^R. A. Uhler, "The Demand for Housing and Inverse Probab 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.88, 1964. Q Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , "The Housing Issue" A Discussion Paper for 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, Publ ic Land Banking - Real or I l lus ionary  Benef i ts , Report of the Urban Development Inst i tute of Ontario, 1974, p. 9 . 1 D I b i d . , p. 9 . ^ I b i d . , p. 9 . 12 E. P r i c e , Op. c i t . - 2 0 -CHAPTER I I I SUPPLY AND DEMAND FDR HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER Chapter II dealt u i t h the supply and demand 'fiorhhousi-ngiin t h e o r e t i c a l terms. A n a l y s i s of the GVRD housing market v e r i f i e s the contention that 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 region exceeds the supply. Demand f o r housing may be measured as a f u n c t i o n of population and income. "Growing populations, r a p i d l y r i s i n g incomes, demand fo r better housing and increased concentrations i n a feu large 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""'' In the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t the p r i c e s of housing, p a r t i c -u l a r l y s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s , have been:increasing r a p i d l y (Refer to column 5, Table 1). I t may be argued that the p r i c e of housing i s reaching a point uhere the t y p i c a l consumer of housing cannot purchase the same house he bought tuo years ago i n today's market, as the increases i n costs of housing have exceeded the increase i n h i s gross income required to s a t i s f y the conventional 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 . The f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s supports t h i s con-c l u s i o n . 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 that the demand f o r housing should decrease. A b r i e f a n a l y s i s D f the basic economics of the housing market and the f u n c t i o n of population grouth as a cause of demand u i l l c l a r i f y the argument that there i s a strong demand i n the housing market i n the G.V.R.D. -21-Demand f a r Housing as a Function of Income The i n d u s t r i a l workers of B r i t i s h Columbia composed 42% of 2 the t o t a l labour force of 1,00D,D45 i n Jul y 1971. Table 5 i n d i c a t e s the gross monthly income of 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 to the average p r i c e s of e x i s t i n g and new homes i n the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and the d o l l a r increase i n the p r i c e s of these homes between 1963 and 1973. These f i g u r e s are r e l a t e d to the increase i n the amount of the monthly payments required to amortize a mortgage at the average annual i n t e r e s t rate over a period of twenty-five years with a 5% and 25% down payment. Column 9 i n d i c a t e s that i f the average worker purchased the average p r i c e d home i n the GVRD i n 1973 with 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 higher than they would have been f o r a home i n 1972 and t h i s increase i s $21.8-4 greater than the increase i n h i s gross monthly income f o r the same perio d . P r i o r to 1973 the monthly increases i n gross income have been greater than the increase i n monthly i n t e r e s t and p r i n c i p a l payments required to finance the purchase of a new home even i n the case where there 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 the GVRD i n 1971 for $26,471 (column 5, Table 5) with a down payment of $6,617 (25%) the monthly mortgage payments at the p r e v a i l i n g rate of 10% i n 1971 on a debt of $19,853 would be $177.59 of p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t amortized over 25 years. The maximum debt permitted with a 30% debt se r v i c e r a t i o would have been $198.24 (column 4, Table 5 ) . The debt s e r v i c e i s below the requ i r e d income. I f one considers the purchase of an average e x i s t i n g home i n the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t i n 1973 according to the Table 5 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 to Average Incomes of I n d u s t r i a l Workers i n B.C. 1963-1973 7 _ 8 9 10 11 Year Monthly Gross income of aver-age worker i n B.C. D o l l a r change i n income % change Maximum Average D o l l a r i n income amount of p r i c e change monthly of i n income s i n g l e p r i c e to s e r - f a m i l y v i c e a d w e l l -mortgage ings i n debt Metro based on Vancouver 30% debt s e r v i c e r a t i o Average annual i n t e r e s t r a t e s The annual The monthly in c r e a s e i n increase i n i n mort-gage debt with a 25% down payment mortgage payments of p r i n c i p a l and i n -t e r e s t with a 25% down payment The annual increase i n mortgage debt with a 5% down payment The monthly i n -crease i n mortgage payments of p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t w ith a 5% down payment 1963 $390.43 - $117.13 1964 £+07.81 $17.38 4.5% 122.34 1965 436.41 28.60 7.0 130.92 1966 465.49 29.08 6.7 139.65 1967 496.17 30.68 6.6 148.85 196a 523.29 27.12 5.5 156.99 1969 560.52 32.23 7.1 168.16 1970. 597.87 33.35 6.7 179.36 1971 660.83 62.96 10.5 198.24 1972 713.72 53.09 8.0 214.18 1973 748.92 35.00 4.9 224.68 $12,637 13,203 13,965 15,200 17,836 20,595 23,939 24,239 26,471 29,714 38.561 - 7% $566 7 $424 $ 2.99 $ 537 762 6 7/8 511 3.47 723 1335 7 3/8 1001 7.24 ' 1268 2636 7 7/8 1917 14.36 2504 2759 8 7/8: 2069 16.81 2621 3344 9 1/4 2508 21.11 3116 1300 10 3/8. 915 8.28 1235 2232 10 1614 14.32 2120 3243 9 1/8 1432 20.08 3080 8847 9 1/2 6635 56.84 8404 & 3.78 4.85 9.06 18.89 21.32 26.19 11.04 18.79 25.93 72.34 Source: (1) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Based an S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Canadian 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. 53. Based on the average p r i c e s of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i n the GVRD der i v e d from Real Estate 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 the S t a t i s t i c a l Survey committee of the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board A s s o c i a t i o n 1963 to 1973. Real E s t a t e Trends i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver 1963-1973. The annual i n c r e a s e i n the r e q u i r e d loan to 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. The monthly i n c r e a s e i n mortgage payments of p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t amortized over 25 years w i t h a down payment of 25%. The annual i n c r e a s e i n the r e q u i r e d mortgage loan to 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. The monthly i n c r e a s e i n the mortgage payments of p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t amortized over 25 years w i t h a down payment of 5%. - 2 3 -c r i t e r i a n USECJ i n Table 5 u i t h a 2 5 % doun payment of $ 9 , 6 - 4 0 the monthly payments of p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t on the remainder of $ 2 8 , 9 2 0 uould be approximately $ 2 - 4 1 . 3 0 . R e f e r r i n g back to Table 5 , column 4 , i f the average uorker uished to obtain a mortgage from a conventional lender uho used a 3 0 % debt s e r v i c e r a t i o , the monthly payments g r e a t l y exceed those permitted, $ 2 2 - 4 . 6 8 ) . This very element-ary a n a l y s i s excludes the monthly c a l c u l a t i o n Df property tax uhich uould be added to 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 req u i r e d 3 0 % of gross income to s a t i s f y the debt. Houever, i t i s obvious that the average i n d u s t r i a l uorker i s not capable of purchasing the average p r i c e d home i n the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . One may argue that the purchaser may turn to a l t e r n a t i v e sources of finance uhich da not consider 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 determining the amount of the mortgage that could be granted. C r e d i t Unions u i l l presently lend at 7 5 % of the market value of a home charging a s l i g h t l y higher i n t e r e s t r ate p e r m i t t i n g a s l i g h t l y higher debt to se r v i c e r a t i o . In 1 9 7 3 the cost of an average p r i c e d home i n the GVRD increased by $ 8 , 8 - 4 7 . A 2 5 % doun payment requires $ 2 , 2 1 1 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 i n 1 9 7 2 . The average i n d u s t r i a l uorker uould have to generate an a d d i t i o n a l $ 2 , 2 1 1 i n savings or uould have to save approximately Zk% of h i s gross income f o r 1 9 7 3 . I t should be noted that the preceding a n a l y s i s merely gives an i n d i c a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p betueen the incomes of a large p o r t i o n of the labour force and t h e i r capacity to finance homes purchased i n 1 9 7 3 . There are many important v a r i a b l e s that have not been considered. A most important conclusion i s that even i f t h i s argument i s accepted, there i s s t i l l a strong demand -2k-f o r housing uhich u i l l keep p r i c e s high. An economic a n a l y s i s of the housing market requires recog-n i t i o n of a very important economic c o n d i t i o n that puts the 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 . Additions to the supply of housing account f a r a very small p o r t i o n of the t o t a l supply. The t o t a l stock of s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s i n the GVRD i s estimated to be 215,<4<45 f o r the year of 1971.^ The a d d i t i o n to the housing stock i n 1971 i n the form of s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s uas approximately 5,67-4 or approximately 2% of the net stock. Approx-imately 6,726 u n i t s uere added i n 1972 and 5,525 i n 1973, y i e l d i n g a stock of 227,698 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s . Uhen considering housing demand, t h i s aspect of the market i s c r i t i c a l . Since there are so feu housing u n i t s created i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l housing stock, the amount of demand required to absorb the a d d i t i o n s to the stock are not that great. 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 according,to 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. A f t e r paying h i s mortgage o f f , he has approximately $18,000 cash uhich he uould use as a doun payment touards the purchase of another home. I t i s quite p o s s i b l e that he may have saved funds to buy a more expensive home and that he could s e r v i c e the debt given h i s increased equity p o s i t i o n . Combining the a c t i v i t i e s of home ouners uho have r e a l i z e d a tremendous equity gain and those uho are entering the market today, the process of f i l t e r i n g takes place and the a d d i t i o n s to the stock of housing are q u i c k l y absorbed. - 2 5 -Demand f o r Housing as a Funct ion of Popu la t ion Since the a d d i t i o n s to the housing are not that great the demand f o r housing does not requ i re a s i g n i f i c a n t number of purchasers to g ive i t s t r e n g t h . A demographic a n a l y s i s w i l l r e v e a l that i n c r e a s e s i n popu la t ion and p rospec t i ve home buyers i n the GI/RD has c reated a s u f f i c i e n t demand i n the housing market to keep p r i c e s h i g h . i n d i c a t e s a steady popu la t ion 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 inc reases i n popu la t ion i n the f u t u r e . A b r i e f c o n s i d e r a t i o n of each component of grouth prov ides 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. taken to be the number of c h i l d r e n born to a female dur ing her e n t i r e reproduct i ve l i f e span i s l e v e l l i n g o f f . In r e l a t i o n to F igure 2 the f o l l o u i n g comments may be made regard ing f e r t i l i t y r a t e s accord ing to S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 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 S t a t i s t i c s Canada i n d i c a t e that the f e r t i l i t y ra te uhich i s F igure 2 F e r t i l i t y Rates •4.2 High 2 - - Lou I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 Source: Popu la t ion p r o j e c t i o n s f o r Canada 1969-198 -4, S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1970. -26-- There e x i s t s a marked decli n e i n t o t a l f e r t i l i t y from 3.9 to approximately 2.k i n the 196D's but an achieved l e v e l l i n g out' around 1969. - Considering the projected ranges to 198 -4, the most p r a c t i c a l rate 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 to the contrary. - The a r r i v a l of a t h i r d c h i l d does not gener a l l y a l t e r a family's need f o r f a m i l y housing as does the a r r i v a l of the f i r s t and second c h i l d ; t h e r e f o r e , the p r o j e c t i o n s to 198k have l i t t l e e f f e c t ; the move from an apartment to a s i n g l e family or a row d u e l l i n g i s usu a l l y i n i t i a t e d by the f i r s t or second c h i l d . - I f a high f e r t i l i t y rate p r e v a i l s say to 2.8, then there u i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t population e f f e c t s but i n terms of the 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 of an a n a l y s i s by the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t on population grouth confirms these conclusions by basing i t s forecast on the f a c t that the number of b i r t h s i n the GVRD uas 10% louer than the expected number of b i r t h s using the knoun rates f o r a l l of 5 B.C. Thus, the trend of population grouth i n t h i s area should be r e -duced. Death rates according tD S t a t i s t i c s Canada approximate 7.k people per 1DDC of population. The GVRD a n a l y s i s has found t h i s rate tD be f a i r l y constant. Migration r a t e s are the most important i n an a n a l y s i s of the GVRD. Migration r a t e s are most important i n a population a n a l y s i s of the GVRD. Approximately 76.5% of the papulation increase betueen 1966 and 1971 i s accounted f o r by migration. 1^ 66% of the t o t a l number of -27-migrants (103,592) uere betueen the ages of 20 and 29 and 28% uere 7 betueen the age of 30 and 39. I f one assumes a. migration of approx-imately 20,000 per year and that approximately 60% of these are i n the age bracket of 20 to 28 t h i s aspect of population grouth should have an e f f e c t on demand f o r housing. I t i s not knoun uhat percentage of these people uould q u a l i f y f o r f i n a n c i n g of the homes i n the present market, houever, since t h i s age group i s one u i t h the highest f e r t i l i t y r a t e . One could argue that these people uould a f f e c t the demand f o r s i n g l e f amily d u e l l i n g s . I t i s important to note that they may purchase homes at various p r i c e l e v e l s i n the housing market absorbing the homes vacated by those moving i n t o more or l e s s expensive homes. The forecast f o r future grouth i n the GVRD i n d i c a t e s that pop-u l a t i o n should increase by 1<+1,678 from 1,028,3-45 i n 1971 to 1,169,923 i n 1976. The population increase forecast f o r those aged betueen 20 and 29 should be approximately 7,3-47 per annum of 25.8% of the average t o t a l population increase of 28,335. The age group betueen 30 and 39 u i l l have a population increase of approximately 6,202 per annum uhich 8 i s 21% of the t o t a l population increase per annum. The population s t a t i s t i c s confirm the f a c t that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t expected grouth rate i n population p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the age bracket most l i k e l y to enter the housing market. The e n t i r e demand an a l y s i s of t h i s chapter has concentrated on s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s i n order to i n t e r p r e t the demand s i t u a t i o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sector of the market. There- i s s u f f i c i e n t information a v a i l a b l e to suggest that the demand f o r d u e l l i n g u n i t s as a uhole i s very strong and u i l l maintain i t s high l e v e l i n the f u t u r e . A r e v i e u of s t a t i s t i c s provided by C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Economics and S t a t i s t i c s D i v i s i o n of Canada confirm t h i s f a c t . -28-Table 6 r e l a t e s household formation to the t o t a l number of d u e l l i n g s t a r t s betueen 1961 and 1976. Table 6. Household Formation and Du e l l i n g Unit S t a r t s i n Metro-p o l i t a n Vancouver 1961 - 1976. Household Formation Family Non Family T o t a l D u e l l i n g Unit S t a r t s 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 arly a d d i t i o n s and K i r k l a n d , J.S., Demographic Aspects of Housing Demand to 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 of Housing i n Metropolitan Vancouver Household formations averaged 8,720 annually f o r the f i r s t h a l f of the 1960's. Housing s t a r t s uere 9,278 annually. Betueen 1966 and 1971 the annual average of d u e l l i n g u n i t s uas 13,970. The average number of household formations uere 12,900 f o r the same pe r i o d . The estimated household formation based on census data betueen 1971 and 1976 i s approximately 18,200 per year. Approximately 20,000 d u e l l i n g u n i t s per year u i l l be required to meet the estimated rate of housing formation. Since 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 short of the projected demand. In 1971 there uere 15,553 s t a r t s , i n 1972 there uere 14,126 and i n 1973 there uere 14,953 (reference to Tables 7,8, and 9 pro'vi'de a d e t a i l e d breakdoun of s t a r t s ) . This f i g u r e i s 4,703 u n i t s short of the projected d u e l l i n g u n i t s t a r t s of 1971-1976 per annum required to s a t i s f y housing formation. Thus given the projected popu-l a t i o n grouth and housing formation and the t o t a l production of d u e l l i n g Table 7. 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 - D u e l l i n g S t a r t s i n Metropolitan Vancouver 1967-1973 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 T o t a l 1972 1972* 1973 Single detached 5,980 5,146 4,763 4,482 5,283 25,654 5,625 7,300 6,726 Semi Detached and Duplex 348 512 402 350 391 2,003 368 368 362 6,328 5,658 5,165 4,832 5,674 A l . 27,657 5,993 7,668 7,088 Rau 2D8 311 580 839 1,057 2,995 1,635 945 Apartments 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 To t a l Annual S t a r t s 13,621 15,690 17,690 13,433 15,553 75,987 14,096 16,199 14,953 Includes Langley, 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 - Si n g l e Family D u e l l i n g S t a r t s i n Metropolitan Vancouver 1967 - 1973 Vancouver Burnaby New Westminster North Vancouver West Vancouver 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 T o t a l 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 5 9 5 5 2 8 3 9 3 4 0 5 5 9 5 2 , 5 1 6 6 0 1 6 9 9 5 2 3 5 5 8 4 9 8 3 3 0 5 9 6 2 , 5 0 5 4 9 6 5 4 4 4 2 1 5 6 a 2 2 9 3 2 1 1 9 5 3 1 5 1 4 4 5 4 4 1 2 5 3 9 2 , 4 5 0 4 3 8 5 2 4 2 6 8 2 4 2 1 5 5 1 1 8 1 1 4 8 9 7 1 3 9 1 6 5 9 5 9 1 , 8 5 7 1 , 5 0 6 1 , 2 7 3 1 , 8 6 6 8 , 4 6 1 1 , 6 9 5 2 , 1 3 1 Coquitlam Port Coquitlam Port Moody Richmond Surrey White Rock Delta Miscellaneous T o t a l Metro-Vancouver Langley - C i t y Langley - M u n i c i p a l i t y Lions Bay Maple Ridge P i t t Meadows 8 1 9 4 2 8 2 3 1 2 0 6 2 4 8 1 , 9 3 2 3 5 0 5 2 5 9 9 3 4 1 4 1 3 3 1 0 3 0 5 1 , 9 6 8 2 8 9 2 8 1 6 8 1 1 3 6 3 4 2 4 6 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 , 5 8 6 8 8 2 7 0 7 5 5 8 5 9 9 4 , 3 3 2 6 6 2 8 3 5 1 2 5 0 7 5 1 6 5 9 0 6 1 0 2 , 7 3 5 7 1 8 1 , 5 2 9 8 2 9 8 7 0 7 2 9 7 3 8 8 5 9 4 , 0 2 5 1 , 0 7 0 1 , 1 5 8 1 1 9 1 2 0 1 1 7 1 1 5 1 5 7 6 2 8 1 0 8 7 7 1 , 2 6 7 1 , 3 8 9 1 , 5 7 0 1 , 5 5 1 1 , 5 8 3 7 , 3 6 0 1 , 7 2 9 1 , 5 0 2 2 , 7 2 7 2 , 8 8 6 2 , 9 3 2 2 , 9 9 4 3 , 2 0 7 1 4 , 7 4 8 3 , 6 2 5 7 , 0 2 0 5 6 3 3 2 0 7 - 1 1 6 1 1 3 9 6 , 3 2 8 5 , 6 5 8 5 , 1 6 5 4 , 8 3 2 5 , 6 7 4 2 7 , 6 5 7 5 , 9 9 3 ^Includes duplexes 114 1,174 19 290 38 1,635 173 1,197 29 483 153 2,011 Source: CMHC Table 9 . 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 - M u l t i p l e Duelling S t a r t s Metropolitan Vancouver 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 7 3 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 T o t a l 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 Vancouver 3 , 6 4 9 Burnaby 1 , 3 1 0 IMeu Ldestminister 9 1 4 North Vancouver 7 1 3 Uest Vancouver 2 1 7 <*, 1 , 1 , 1 , 6 2 6 6 2 8 1 0 6 1 7 0 1 3 3 6 , 1 0 6 1 , 3 2 0 6 7 3 1 , 4 4 9 1 6 3 1 , 2 9 0 2 , 1 1 6 3 4 4 8 8 4 3 4 0 2 , 7 1 6 2 , 1 2 4 1 3 3 8 6 8 1 9 7 1 8 , 3 8 7 8 , 4 9 8 3 , 1 7 0 5 , 0 8 4 1 , 0 5 0 1 , 9 3 6 1 , 1 1 9 1 4 9 9 4 3 1 8 3 2 , 6 1 0 1 , 0 2 7 7 4 2 6 7 5 7 0 7 6 , 8 0 3 a , 6 6 3 9 , 7 1 1 4 , 9 7 4 6 , 0 3 8 3 6 , 1 8 9 4 , 3 3 0 ' 5 , 7 6 1 Coquitlam 2 4 1 Port Coquitlam 5 9 Port Moody 1 0 2 5 0 3 ' 1 3 0 1 5 8 8 3 7 2 3 1 1 3 4 5 1 6 1 4 0 3 7 0 4 8 2 4 2 6 7 5 2 , 5 7 9 9 8 6 8 3 9 5 5 5 6 4 1 8 8 6 4 7 8 4 0 2 7 9 1 1 , 2 0 2 1 , 0 2 6 9 8 3 . 4 , 4 0 4 6 1 9 3 3 0 Richmond Surrrey 1 0 LUhite Rock 7 2 Delta 6 6 9 3 7 9 2 6 1 0 4 6 9 6 5 9 5 1 8 9 1 3 1 1 , 4 2 4 4 6 9 1 5 9 5 4 9 8 4 5 1 , 5 7 5 9 5 3 4 3 3 , 0 3 4 ' 3 , 0 2 9 5 4 1 1 , 1 3 3 9 9 6 1 , 4 2 0 3 4 7 9 6 3 3 6 9 8 9 4 9 2 2 1 8 8 5 7 8 1 , 6 1 2 2 , 6 0 1 2 , 8 5 8 7 , 7 3 7 2 , 8 5 9 " 1 , 8 3 8 7 , 2 9 3 1 0 , , 0 3 2 1 2 , 5 2 5 8 , 6 0 1 9 , 8 7 9 4 8 , 3 3 0 7 , 8 0 8 7 , 8 6 5 Miscellaneous Langley - C i t y Langley - M u n i c i p a l i t y Lions Bay Maple Ridge P i t t Meadous 2 9 5 3 5 4 8 6 6 2 6 4 1 0 6 7 2 3 3 7 0 Source: CMHC -32-u 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 family d u e l l i n g c o s t s , the land and the cost of labour and m a t e r i a l s , u i l l put the case of the cause of increased costs 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 regarding p o l i c y to reduce housing c o s t s . Tables ID and 11 provide a l i s t of p r i c e s of s e r v i c e d l o t s and the costs of c o n s t r u c t i o n based on m a t e r i a l and labour f o r the period of 1964-1973. These f i g u r e s are assembled i n Table 12 uhich provides a breakdoun of the r e l a t i o n s h i p betueen the cost of land and the cost of c o n s t r u c t i o n d e r i v i n g an estimated cost of a home. Betueen 1964 and 1973 the percentage of t o t a l cost of a s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g r e l a t e d to the cost 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 197D to 49% i n 1973. The p r i c e of s e r v i c e d land as a percent of the t o t a l cost of housing has increased from 29% i n 1964 to 51% i n 1973. The most s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n the cost of a home uas betueen 1972 and 1973. The amount of the increase i s $12,965. 71% of t h i s increase i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to land u h i l e only 29% of t h i s increase i s a t t r i b u t a b l e tD the increased cost of labour and m a t e r i a l s . I t i s most important that 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 cost of a s i n g l e family 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. This confirms the t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s that the costs of land are a f u n c t i o n of neu house values uhich, i n t u r n , are determined mainly, by the p r i c e of e x i s t i n g housing. Construction c o s t s , e i t h e r b u i l d i n g costs or land c o s t s , cannot m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t the current general l e v e l of market p r i c e s . This l o g i c a l conclusion i s r e l a t e d to the f a c t that the housing stock i s much l a r g e r than the increment to housing. 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 p e r s p e c t i v e . -34-Table ID. Cost of Construction of Single Family Duellings in Metropolitan Vancouver 1964-1973, Cost/sq. f t . Material Annual Annual % Cost std1200 f t . and Dollar Change Index Year bungalou labor cost Change 1964 10 .60 12, 720 - 1% 104 .3 1966 11 .67 004 1 ,284 1% 113 .2 1967 12 .49 988 984 1% 116 .8 1968 13 .55 16, 260 1 ,;272 8% 128 .1 1969 14 .64 17, 568 1 ,308 B% 141 .0 1970 14 .37 17, 224 - 334 -2% 137 .5 1971 14 .45 17, 340 116 1% 138 .2 1972 16 .02 1 9 . » 224 1 ,884 11% 153 .3 1973 19 .22 23, 064 3 ,840 20% 183 .0 Source: 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 of a T y p i c a l Serviced Let i n GVRD 1964-,973 P r i c e of Serviced Annual D o l l a r - Annual % Lot Change Change 1964 5,D61 + 411 -8% 1966 5,810 749 14% 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: Determined from Table IX *' The. Housing Issue" prepared by the Planning Department of the GVRD 1973. Table 12. The Cost of Housing i n GV/RD i n T;erms of B u i l d i n g Costs and Serviced Land Pr i c e s 1964-1973 Year T o t a l Cost M a t e r i a l & Land Annual Annual Change due Change due se r v i c e d Labour as as a Percent Do l l a r to mat. & labor to land cost land atn.J a % of T o t a l % of change Change cost labor + ma t e r i a l s Cost T o t a l Cost i n t o t a l cost i n T o t a l Cost % D o l l a r s % D o l l a r s 1964 17,760 . 71% 29% 66% 1355 .,64 34% 1966 19,814 70% 30% 11% 2,054 66% 1355.64 34% 698.36 1967 22,698 66% 34% 14% 2,884 34% 980.56 66% 1,903.44 1968 25,860 62% 38% 13% 3,162 40% 1264.80 60% 1,897.20 1969 29,068 60% 40% 12% 3,208 40% 1283.20 60% 1,924.80 197C 28,744 59% 41% - 1% - 324 100% - 324 - -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: Tables 10 and 11. -37-Footnotes """S. bJ. Hamilton, 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 Earnings and Hours, August 1971 and August 1973 S e r i a l #72002. ^The Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , The Housing Issue Vancouver: A Report by the S t a f f of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Committee, p. 12. Ce n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation Single Family D u e l l i n g S t a t i s t i c s 1971, 1972, 1973. 5 The Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Population Forecast Vancouver GVRD Planning Department 1973. Papulation Forecast, Op. C i t Population Forecast, Bp. C i t 'population Forecast, Op. C i t -38-CHAPTER J1\J i 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 of r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g s i t e s have been documented c l e a r l y . The increases i n the s i z e of the e x i s t i n g housing stock have not been s u f f i c i e n t to meet the demand expect-ations generated by net family formations and net migration 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 side of the supply/demand equation i n order to gain some i n s i g h t s i n t o the a b i l i t y of the s u p p l i e r s ( p r i v a t e developers and/or p u b l i c agencies) to meet the demands 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 u i t h i n s p e c i f i e d 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 D u e l l i n g Unit Supply Process Vieued as a s t a t i c program frozen at any given point i n time, the p o t e n t i a l 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 i n the region may be compared to mathematical sets (see Figure 3 ) . These sets on l i m i t a t i o n s are p e c u l i a r to the region under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Such l i m i t a t i o n s may or may not occur i n other regions. Perhaps a s t r i k i n g *These expectations do not take i n t o account the l i m i t e d expansion po s s i b l e of the process of conversion of 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 ac t u a l r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g s . Even i n an u n l i m i t e d number of 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 industry to b u i l d homes due to i n c i p i e n t shortage of m a t e r i a l s , labor management and c a p i t a l . - 3 9 -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 Unit 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 non-use of zoning by-laws' precludes the c r e a t i o n of development areas. The major set i s the supply of urban designated land w i t h i n the region at any given time. This would be the acreage of land e i t h e r zoned f o r urban r e s i d e n t i a l usage or land which the municipal 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 eventually to be rezoned i n t o urban r e s i d e n t i a l land. A s p e c i f i c example, of the land w i t h i n t h i s major set would be the acreage designated as n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l frozen land designated 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 period from 1973 to 1978. These areas, as approved by the Land Commission administering the Act on behalf of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, sets the l i m i t s 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 conversion of "frozen" farm land i n t o urban land. The l a r g e s t subset would be that acreage of urban land which i s s u f f i c i e n t l y close to trunk sewers so as to permit development on an economically sound b a s i s . Someone, e i t h e r the p r i v a t e developers and/or the m u n i c i p a l i t y concerned must underwrite the costs involved i n providing l a t e r a l sewer l i n k s , water l i n e s and roads to the land under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Although considered a s t a t i c supply f o r 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 costs and raw land c o s t s . 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 l e s s expensive land 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 to incur the-higher costs of providing s e r v i c e s to that land. Within t h i s s e t , the supply of economically f e a s i b l e land w i l l vary with 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 -41-shortage of supply i n the e x i s t i n g and incremental housing stocks 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 et, the economic forces of the market could be at uork:- the supply of s e r v i c e -able land u i l l increase i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the p r i c e s paid f o r the product, s e r v i c e d land. This a n a l y s i s does not take i n t o account the e x t e r n a l i t i e s uhich may accompany t h i s development of land 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 schools, longer a r t e r i a l roads and increased community s e r v i c e s . The set of land, uhich i s economically 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 subsets of land u i t h i n the set of land uhich i s economically f e a s i b l e . M u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the region designate "development areas" i n uhich the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s u i l l permit development to take place normally. These are circumscribed areas set out by the municipal planners i n con-s u l t a t i o n u i t h the municipal c o u n c i l . Furthermore such development areas may be given time horizon p r i o r i t i e s by the m u n i c i p a l i t y con-cerned. For example, a m u n i c i p a l i t y u i l l designate an area as Develop-ment Area 1 i n uhich 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 achieved before a p p l i c a t i o n s u i l l be considered f o r Development Area 2. Such Development Areas u s u a l l y , but not aluays, coincide u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s scheme f o r providing the necessary i n f r a -s t r u c t u r e to that area - p a r t i c u l a r l y seuage treatment f a c i l i t i e s . The boundaries of these development areas may or may not be f i n i t e . In some instances, c e r t a i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the region may consider and approve a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r development from holders of parcels adjacent to or completely outside these development areas. Developers and/or landouners may be able to convince c o u n c i l that the advantages -42-to this municipality of tying the non-designated parcel under con-sideration to the infrastructure could outweigh the disadvantages to the municipality. The incidences of such leakage are reduced in the region, however, due to the splintering of land ownership patterns uhich make assembly of a sufficient large parcel to justify the additional off-site 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 included within the subset of designated urban areas is not the sole deter-minant of the number of residential duelling units which may be supplied from the land in this subset. The overall density of develop-ment permitted w i l l affect the number of residential units that could be supplied. Such overall densities are the subject of an interaction betueen developers proposing projects and the municipality approving developments. Some municipalities u i l l rely solely upon existing zoning changes through land use contracts. For instance, i f only single family density uere permitted by the municipality concerned, then the number of residential duelling units potentially supplied would be considerably louer than i f multiple family or mixed density were permitted. . . • Supply of Land Assumed Density Factor Potential number of residential . 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 set of acreage included u i t h i n t h i s designated development area(s) times the average o v e r a l l expected density to be permitted i n that area, c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be given to the l i m i t -ations 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 s u p p l i e d . Due to l i m i t a t i o n s of land assembly u i t h i n the s p e c i f i e d area there i s a subset of land u i t h i n the set of development area(s) uhich i s the land uhich can be assembled by p r i v a t e developers and/or p u b l i c agencies. This subset of assembled land may be as large as the developable areas, but i n most instances i t i s much sm a l l e r . Parcels u i t h i n an assembly area are often i n t e r r e l a t e d to some degree. Many parcels are "key" i n that the road patterns, s a n i t a r y and storm seuers, s a n i t a r y seuer pumpting stations,must be located on these parcels to e f f i c i e n t l y s e r v i c e the area. F r i c t i o n s i n the assembly process a r i s e from a number of d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s . Instrumental amongst these f a c t o r s uould be: 1. Landouners' u n u i l l i n g n e s s to s e l l due to misplaced expectations that land may be e l i g i b l e f o r a higher and better use than that des-ignated. For instance, ouners often f e e l that t h e i r land i s s u t i a b l e f o r m u l t i p l e family use rather than s i n g l e f a m i l y . Such expectations often may have been generated from observations of "leakages" from one zoning category to another as promoted by developers and f o s t e r e d by the approving m u n i c i p a l i t y . 2. Landouner reluctance to s e l l out to t h e i r preference tD con-tinue enjoying the use to uhich the land i s presently put i n s p i t e of the l u r e of monetary reuards. For instance, many smaller acreages are held by older people uho uant to " l a s t out t h e i r days on -the land". Many farmers u i s h to continue farming on the land presently under t h e i r c o n t r o l . -kk-3. P r e s e n t l y , use of a p a r t i c u l a r p a r c e l may be higher and be t t e r than the use to uhich the developer could bring to the surrounding p a r c e l s . For instance, a chicken farm on motel or, most commonly, an expensive or s e r i e s of expensive homes may preclude assembly of an e n t i r e t r a c t at 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 vexing problem i n the Greater V/ancouver and Louer Fraser V a l l e y region i s the predominance of expensive homes an one and tuo acre s i t e s . <+. Landouners i n f l a t i o n a r y expectations have been .'fiiiel>eidbby the ra p i d p r i c e increases i n the r e g i o n . Reluctant to s e l l t h e i r land at a l l , landouners often p r i c e the land at l e v e l s uhich discount i n f l a t i o n a r y expectations f a r i n t o the f u t u r e . 5. Landouners often 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 estate i n d u s t r y . These landouners adapt the a t t i t u d e of "burying t h e i r head i<m the sarad" and refuse to even discuss the p o s s i b i l i t y of s a l e . The coincidence af these p a r c e l s u i t h h e l d r i s e s almost geo-m e t r i c a l l y u i t h the number Df landouners uhose land uas tD be assembled i n a given area. In p r a c t i c a l terms, the assembler knous that he u i l l run i n t o a greater r e s i s t e n c e i n gathering together t h i r t y acres from ten separate landholders than i n p u t t i n g together a comparable t h i r t y - a c r e p a r c e l held by three ouners. The value of 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 s i g n i f i c a n t l y uhen a greater number of landholders hold a given acreage. In the previous example, i t may be that there are ten or more homes placed on the t h i r t y p a r c e l held by ten landouners u h i l e only three homes may be on the comparable t h i r t y - a c r e p a r c e l . In aggregate, the combined e f f e c t of s p l i n t e r e d landholdings and/or holdouts are considerably important uhen considering the -45-potential supply of residential duelling units uithin the region. It may be passible uithin a limited time horizon to assemble a l l or even a significant portion uithin a designated urban development area, but, i f such is not the case, the residential duelling supply pipeline becomes' constricted at the outset. The effect is most pronounced i f the municipality holds the boundaries of the development area constant and does not permit significant "leakages" of potential developments from outside the development areas. Dynamic Analysis of the Residential Unit Supply Process Given the pool of potential residential duelling sites as indicated by static analysis, i t is nou necessary to turn to a dynamic analyses, of the production process aver time to determine the relative efficiency or inefficiency of this 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 residential duelling units to market and the attrition in numbers of duelling unit sites uhich never can come to market or uhose production u i l l be delayed beyond normal expected time horizons. It is one thing far developers and/ar public agencies to have rau land in inventory and quite another for these rau acreages to be transformed into serviced building sites ready for residential construction. Figure 4 sets out the dynamic process in simplified diagramatic form. The time taken for the conversion of rau land into serviced residential sites can vary considerably from municipality to municipal-ity in the region. The time taken to bring serviced residential building sites to market can also vary considerably uithin a municipal-ity from decade to decade. Time taken can be broadly broken doun into time spent on three functions:--46-FIGURE 4 P i c t o r i a l Representation 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 Unit Supply Process D u e l l i n g u n i t c o n s t r u c t i o n 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 s i t e s e r v i c i n g A c Q •H - P • C U-cn c •H tn co cu (H G CU •a a t t r i t i o n i n numbers cn to cn cn .cu -p cn •H to c - P n cn cnx : c .cn •H rH • rH Fn OJ x : 3 - P •a cn cu cn cn co a . • •iH - P • u l+-ai c •H cn CO OJ (H • c A time (H CU XI E - P u c c cu E C D-•H • rH cn cu cn > • . cu _ l TJ 7^ x : E c cu • cn - H cn -p co • TJ (H C - P to cn rH 1= a G • -p •H C 3 C a •H -p D- cn cu c G «(H C rH E a FH Q-C CU ->z CO -p OJ 3 T l H -a x : cn •H c •rH U-a -p Guiding the development through the municipal approval process A Assembly of rau land - 4 7 -1. The assembly of rau land 2. The municipal approval process 3. The c o n s t r u c t i o n process u i t h regard to s e r v i c i n g the d u e l l i n g s i t e . Rau land assembly i s a process that may happen quite q u i c k l y or i t may be draun out over a considerable period of time. I t may be that the developer and/or p u b l i c agency has s u f f i c i e n t land i n inventory uhen the c r e a t i o n of a development area i s announced by the m u n i c i p a l i t y . I t may be that an experienced assembler can put together a p a r c e l s u f f i c i e n t l y large f o r development u i t h i n a matter of ueeks. In most instances houever, land assembly i n the the region i s a s l o u , f r u s t r a t i n g task uhich takes at l e a s t s e v e r a l months and even may l a s t f o r years. Competition betueen the developers i s i n t e n s e . A number of developers may be uorking on an area simultaneously. 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 others. Often, long periods of i n t e n s i v e n e g o t i a t i o n betueen the developers u i l l de-termine uhich developer(s) end up u i t h the developable package. A l l assemblies are subject to the time consuming problem of dealing u i t h "holdouts". I t may be i n the end, that t h e i r e f f o r t s come tD naught. Competition amongst the developers i s not of i n t e r e s t f o r the c r u c i a l question i s the number of rau s i t e s uhich may be gathered t o -gether i n aggregate by a l l the p a r t i c i p a n t s . The point tD note i s that there may be considerable delays encountered by the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n assembling the land due to competition 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 municipal approval process i s the c r i t i c a l element i n the time taken to convert rau land i n t o s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g -48-s i t e s . 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 inherent wi th growth. The s u b d i v i s i o n approval process of the Borough of Scarborough as o u t l i n e d by Andre Derkowski"'' i n d i c a t e s that there are 30 agencies that may have a vo ice i n the process of development a p p r o v a l . The process of approval i s being cons t ra ined by the mul t i tude of i s s u e s which a r i s e i n the cases of equat ing s o c i a l cos ts wi th p r i v a t e c o s t s . I t i s unfor tunate t h a t w i t h i n the complex i ty of the process i t i s only the developer who represents the consumer of housing as var ious agencies invo l ved are g e n e r a l l y those concerned w i th the impact Df a d d i t i o n s tD housing s tack i n the e x i s t i n g housing s tack and the t r a d e -o f f of the inc reased costs 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 of 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 i n process of a p p r o v a l . 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 to reduce the time r e q u i r e d for approva l does not e x i s t . In some cases the time c reated by a slow approval process i s an asset to the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n the respect that 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 iven i t s f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n or succeed i n impress ing the p r o v i n c i a l government that a s e r i o u s m u n i c i p a l f i nance s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s . The planner a l s o has an important r o l e regard ing the e f f i c i e n c y of the dynamics of the approval p r o c e s s . A comprehensive p lan 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 op t ima l deve lop -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 provides the superstructure i n uhich the planner may introduce h i s concepts regarding the s e r v i c e s that are required i n the development of a m u n i c i p a l i t y . The approval process must f u n c t i o n u i t h i n the general frameuork o u t l i n e d by the planner. I f the o b j e c t i v e s and goals 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 plan the micro economics of the approval process cannot f u n c t i o n properly. I f the engineer or school board or other various a u t h o r i t i e s involved i n the approval process are not cognizant of an o v e r a l l municipal planning 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 approval process i s burdened as various a u t h o r i t i e s attempt to r e l a t e t h e i r f u n c t i o n of approval 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 also has an important f u n c t i o n regarding the time required f o r approval process. There i s a very important t r a d e - o f f betueen the t e c h n i c a l assets or disadvantages of a develop-ment and i t s impact 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 that the ratepayer i s not being harmed by a development i n respect that p u b l i c and s o c i a l costs created by a development do not exceed the b e n e f i t to the community as a uhole. Some of the considerations that the p o l i t i c i a n uould 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. Resistence of r e s i d e n t s to grouth i n population 3. Environmental costs k. Desire 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 high income scale 5. Resistence to increased density ( m u l t i - f a m i l y p r o j e c t s ) These are a feu of the c o n s t r a i n t s that can be imposed on the supply of housing u n i t s i n the dynamic process of s u b d i v i s i o n approval. 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 u n i t s brought on the market and inc reases i n the time taken to ob ta in a p p r o v a l . 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 process i s not unduly c o n s t r i c t i n g i n terms of t i m e . S e r v i c i n g of land can u s u a l l y be accomplished i n three to s i x months g iven normal c o n d i t i o n s . M a t e r i a l shortages are houever, a problem at c e r t a i n t i m e s . Mo a t t r i t i o n s i n supply occur i n that no d u e l l i n g s i t e s uould be l o s t at t h i s s t a g e . 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 lags do occur but are not unduly c r i t i c a l . 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 three to nine months to complete. Completion per iods can be lengthened through shortages of labor 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 r e s i d e n t i a l d u e l l i n g u n i t s occurs at t h i s s t a g e . The m u n i c i p a l approval process i s the most c r i t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t 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 f o l l o u i n g chapters provide 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 approval process- i n the louer mainland of B .C . i n d i c a t i n g c r i t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s and p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s . - 5 1 -Footnotes Andre Derkouski, R e s i d e n t i a l Land Development i n Ontario. A Report prepared by the Urban Development I n s t i t u t e of Ontario, November, 1972. -52-0 CHAPTER \V TIME REQUIRED FDR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL The m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of P i t t Meadows, Richmond, the D i s t r i c t 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 of a cross s e c t i o n of louer mainland m u n i c i p a l i t i e s that uould provide inform-ation regarding the time required f o r approval 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 of 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 features 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 family d u e l l i n g s as a large p o r t i o n of t h e i r a d d i t i o n a l housing stock each year yet d i f f e r i n respect to population, land area s i z e , p o t e n t i a l areas of land 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 general methods of s u b d i v i s i o n approval. The sample s e l e c t e d provides a good base f o r determining a general s u b d i v i s i o n procedure (uhich i s the t o p i c of chapter VI) as u e l l as a reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the louer mainland s i t u a t i o n . P i t t Meadous P i t t Meadous uas s e l e c t e d as i t i s a very small m u n i c i p a l i t y u i t h a population of approximately 3,000 people"'" covering a land area 2 of approximately 11,575 acres. P i t t Meadous i s s u b d i v i s i o n oriented u i t h most of i t s population concentrated i n one general area. I t i s -53-expected that of a maximum papulation of approximately 11,000 people, the majority of these people, 9,500, u i l l be concentrated i n the Highlands area uhich includes 790 a c r e s . T h e major f a c t o r l i m i t i n g the future development of the majority of the land i n P i t t Meadous i s the f a c t that t h i s land i s i n the Flood P l a i n area uhich d i s -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 goals af the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n terms of grouth and development are o u t l i n e d i n a comprehensive plan uhich uas based on a study conducted i n 1967. The s u b d i v i s i o n approval process i s very u e l l organized as i t r e l a t e d to the community plan. A f u r t h e r asset i s that the procedure i s very simple p r o v i d i n g an e x c e l l e n t base f o r considering the more complex procedures used i n some of the l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Richmond Richmond being the a n t i t h e s i s of 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 population of over 62,000 people^ on a land area of approximately 9,708 acres.^ Presently 2,499 acres of t h i s land 7 are vacant and 3,292 acres are used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes. Be-tueen 1966 and 1971 4,002 a d d i t i o n a l housing u n i t s uere created u h i l e s e r v i c e d land increased i n p r i c e from $8,000 per l o t i n 1969 to $12,000 g i n 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 that there may be a r e l a t i o n s h i p betueen the cost of serviced- l o t s and the e f f i c i e n c y of the s u b d i v i s i o n approval processes used i n various 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 of Surrey may be considered i n these terms as the cast af s e r v i c e d land has increased at a greater rate than that f o r Richmond u h i l e the s u b d i v i s i o n approval process has tended to require more time than that required i n Richmond. Evidence of t h i s f a c t u i l l be provided i n the a n a l y s i s of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . - 5 4 -D i s t r i c t o f Coquit lam The D i s t r i c t o f Coquit lam 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 1 ' " ' people cover ing an area of 6 ,241 acres of uh ich 2,378 acres are i n r e s i d e n t i a l use and 1,998 are v a c a n t . 1 1 12 Betueen 1966 and 1971 4,033 housing u n i t s uere c r e a t e d . The p r i c e •f s e r v i c e d land has r i s e n from $8,000' per l o t i n 1969 to $12,000 i n 1 9 7 2 . ^ The approval process i n Coquit lam i s much l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d than that used i n Richmond. One major d i s t i n c t i o n i s that Richmond has the capac i t y to analyze s u b d i v i s i o n proposals accord ing to demands of the procedure u h i l e the D i s t r i c t of Coquit lam must employ c o n s u l t i n g f i rms 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 that i n the D i s t r i c t of Coquit lam the M u n i c i p a l Engineer i s the approving o f f i c e r uhereas i n Richmond the planner i s the approving o f f i c e r . Surrey 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 g e o g r a p h i c a l l y , cavers a land area of 74,124 acres 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 acres are vacant and 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 const ruc ted u h i l e the cost of s e r v i c e d land inc reased from $6,500 per l o t i n 1969 to $11,500 i n 1 9 7 2 . 1 8 The sub -d i v i s i o n approval process 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 that vary from those of the other 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 feu m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the louer mainland that maximizes the use af land use c o n t r a c t s i n cases af s u b d i v i s i o n s r e -q u i r i n g land use changes. -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 Approval i n Each  M u n i c i p a l i t y Consulting engineers, developers, municipal planners and municipal engineers working i n each of the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s e l e c t e d were consulted regarding the length of time required f o r approval of 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 the date of the s i g n i n g of the s u b d i v i s i o n plan by the approving o f f i c e r . The information obtained from the survey gives a reasonable i n d i c a t i o n of the present trends regarding the amount of time required 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 experienced 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 consis t e n t record of approval times f o r s u b d i v i s i o n s over the past k years. According to the major developers interviewed approval r e q u i r e s from 6 months to one year depending on the s i z e of the p r o j e c t and the n e c e s s i t y of approval from other government bodies aside 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) required approx-imately 12 months f o r approval of the f i r s t phase, however, the second and t h i r d phases as required were approved i n a shorter period of 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 and the dates of o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n . In most cases approval required l e s s than 1 year. Smaller s u b d i v i s i o n s producing l e s s than 100 b u i l d i n g l o t s g e n e r a l l y require 3 to 6 months for approval (Table Ik gives a few examples). -56-Table 13. Major Subdivisions Under Construction i n Richmond August 1973. Date of P r e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n Quilchena Park 313 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s Sept. 5, 1972 Uestuind IV & VII 147 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s Maple Breve I I I & IV 110 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s 3 &.B Const. 105 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s Dausan Realty 250 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s Nov. 1972 and March 1973 June 1973 Bet. 31, 1972 Nov. 27, 1972 Table 14. A Sample of Smarlil Subdivisions Approved Before September 1973 A p p l i c a t i o n Date A. S c h i e l 36 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g b u i l d i n g l o t s May 29, 1973 Teved Ind. 61 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g b u i l d i n g l o t s March 14, 1973 J . K. Zee 65 s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g b u i l d i n g l o t s March 1973 The trends of a p p l i c a t i o n s uhich are s t i l l i n the approval process i n d i c a t e that sloudouns are encountered uhen s u b d i v i s i o n s are composed of a mixture of s i n g l e family d u e l l i n g s and m u l t i p l e family d u e l l i n g s . The municipal s u b d i v i s i o n by-lau #143D D f Richmond permits c o n s t r u c t i o n of m u l t i p l e family d u e l l i n g s cn 10% of the land i n p r o j e c t s uhich include 50 Dr more acres. The combination af -57-m u l t i p l e and s i n g l e f amily developments often introduces zoning amendments and has required the employment of Land Use Contracts i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . One of 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 Contract i s one that uas i n i t i a t e d by D u n h i l l Developments Ju l y 13, 1972. The projec t a c t u a l l y commenced i n January of 1972. In August of 1972 i t uas recommended to c o u n c i l that a Land Use Contract be prepared. On February 20, 1973 the Land Use Contract uas supposed to be executed, houever i t uas not ready. In August of 1973 a vague proposal i n the form of a Land Use Contract uas r e l e a s e d . In February of 1974 the f i n a l steps i n the approval process are.being completed. Although t h i s case involved approval by other government bodies the major s l o u -doun may be a t t r i b u t e d to the periods of 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 contract uas being s e t t l e d . Richmond only uses Land Use Contracts uhere i t deems necessary. In most cases the development agreement i s used. The d i s t i n c t i o n betueen the tuo i s that under a Land Use Contract the m u n i c i p a l i t y can create 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 entering i n t o a contract u i t h a developer to change 19 zoning f o r h i s p r o j e c t . The development agreement i s not a contract f o r a zoning change. Although i n the process of d r a f t i n g a development agreement, a zoning change may occur i n an area the tuo are not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d . 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 zoning by-lau and i t uould not be a c o n d i t i o n i n the c o n t r a c t . The l a u i s very c l e a r on t h i s point regarding the independence of zoning from develop-ment agreements. In the case of the C i t y of 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 held • - 5 8 -that a promise to rezone a p a r c e l D f land cannot o r d i n a r i l y be the subject of a c o n t r a c t . The important d i s t i n c t i o n i s that Land Use Contracts 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 f o r zoning while 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 give developers a r i g h t to use p u b l i c r i g h t s of way to i n s t a l l s e r v i c e s according to municipal standards so that h i s p r o j e c t may be completed. "A p r i v a t e owner of property has not the r i g h t to construct works of any 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 cost himself." The m u n i c i p a l i t y gives the developer the r i g h t to dig up i t s reads or p u b l i c r i g h t s of way sc that he can f u l f i l h i s requirements to a t t a i n approval of h i s p r o j e c t . Richmond ge n e r a l l y favours 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 zoning" and i t has a l l the power necessary tc regulate 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. (IMate the term Development Contract may 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 others where m u l t i p l e family dwellings are mixed with s i n g l e family dwellings i t has been necessary to spot zone as mentioned e a r l i e r . Since t h i s paper i s concerned with major s u b d i v i s i o n development that involves s u b d i v i s i o n of land intD s e r v i c e d l o t s f o r s i n g l e family dwellings only, the use of Land Use Contracts i n the Richmond approval process does not apply. There are no cases of a Land Use Contract being involved i n a s i n g l e family dwelling 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 process. According tD developers and c o n s u l t i n g - 5 9 -engineers interv ieued the municipal po l icy uhich recommends that the municipal engineer prepares the f i n a l drauings for a project rather than a developer 's consult ing engineer, i s a burden to the process. At peak load in terms of volume app l i ca t ions , the consensus i s that the municipal engineer does not operate as e f f i c i e n t l y as the con-s u l t i n g engineer of the developer. It should be noted that at times uhen the municipal engineer i s overburdened he does recommend to the developer that he should employ his oun consult ing engineer to prepare the drauings. Eventual ly the municipal engineer i s going to be involved u i th the c a r e f u l examination of the draft plans as the developer 's consult ing engineer presents them for i nspec t ion . Thus i t does not appear that the developer can gain that much time in these circumstances. This argument u i l l be mentioned in Chapter 5 regarding the approval process i t s e l f and a l te rnat i ves to ex is t ing systems. In conclus ion, Richmond does not stand as a munic ipal i ty uhich i s su f fe r ing from a lengthening approval process. Table lk ind icated that medium sized developments can be approved in less than 3 months. The survey revealed cases uhere approval uas obtained in three ueeks. The fact that cases c i ted are a t y p i c a l of the Richmond s i tua t ion according to those in terv ieued, i s s u f f i c i e n t proof . The case of major subdiv is ions i s a d i f fe ren t i s s u e . The London Park development of Western Realty i s an excel lent h i s t o r i c a l example of an e f f i c i e n t process. The project uas i n i t i a t e d in July of 1971 and approval of 1 the f i r s t phase uas given in February of 1971.' As noted e a r l i e r , phased developments require more time i n i t i a l l y but 8 months i s d e f i n i t e l y reasonable for a 300 lo t d i v i s i o n . Unfortunately , there i s nothing comparable at the present time to the major subdiv is ion of 2 years ago. There.are only a feu -6CJ-major subdivi s i o n s i n the uorks today i n Richmond and a l l of them in v o l v e mixed land use betueen s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g and m u l t i p l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g . There are delays created i n these developments. Although the m u n i c i p a l i t y of Richmond has d r a f t e d neu zoning by-laus i n areas uhere there are major developments as i n the case of some of the p r o j e c t s developed by Dausan Realty and has used Development Agreements, hence avoiding the use of Land Use Contracts, there i s a delay created by the p u b l i c hearings r e q u i r e d f o r the zoning change. As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h i s paper i s concerned u i t h delays i n develop-ments uhich are not mixed but composed of only 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 uhich 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 processed i n the same period of time as a feu years 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 should als o be c o n s i s t e n t . The mixed developments are being delayed because of p u b l i c input i n p u b l i c hearings concerning zoning changes and the d r a f t i n g of Land Use C o n t r a c t s . 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 of Surrey uhich uses Land Use Contracts f o r major s u b d i v i s i o n s uhich are not mixed. S o l u t i o n s to these problems u i l l be considered i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n of a general procedure f o r sub-d i v i s i o n approval i n Chapter VI. P i t t Meadous The m u n i c i p a l i t y of P i t t Meadous, being a very s m a l l m u n i c i p a l i t y , has a very e f f i c i e n t system of approval. The municipal c l e r k i s the hub of the process. 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 engineering f i r m to carry out i t s engineering c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The r e g i o n a l planning s e r v i c e a s s i s t s i n the planning s i d e of the process. A major -61-s u b d i v i s i o n should not r e q u i r e mure than 6 months f o r approval, hou-ever there are a number of complications that a r i s e . The major threat to an e f f i c i e n t system of approval i s the requirement of p r o v i n c i a l approval i f the p r o j e c t involves the f l o o d p l a i n , a g r i c u l -t u r a l land reserve 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 there involve at l e a s t one of these ; a u t h o r i t i e s . 22 An example i s a case uhich occurred i n 1972, 1973 and involved seven months from the time proceedings began f o r p r o v i n c i a l approval of the use of land i n the f l o o d p l a i n u n t i l the date of approval. A major reason f o r the amount of time required may be r e l a t e d to the lack of f a m i l i a r i t y of 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 f o r approval at t h e i r l e v e l . The f a c t that the f l o o d p l a i n land 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 pro-vide the required imbalance to stimulate confusion. I t uas also necessary f o r the m u n i c i p a l i t y to create a Land Use Contract. 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 involved i n the approval system. The c h i e f f a c t o r uhich may be blamed f o r the l o s s of time uas the state of i n d e c i s i o n regarding uhich department of the p r o v i n c i a l government should be the f i r s t to consider the a p p l i c a t i o n and uhich department of the government has the voice of f i n a l approval i n con-s i d e r a t i o n of recommendations of other departments i n v o l v e d . (Since both the Land Commission and the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s uere involved the s i t u a t i o n became very complex.) A procedure p o l i c y f o r approval of a land use change i n a f l o o d p l a i n area uhich i s also part of the a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve, i s s t i l l not d e f i n i t e . The f o l l a u i n g steps o u t l i n e the process: -62-1. A p p l i c a t i o n must be made to the Land Commission f o r release of the reserve lands. The Environment and Land Use Committee considers the a p p l i c a t i o n and consults u i t h other p r o v i n c i a l government departments such as planning uater resources, highuays, e t c . uhere necessary. 2. In the case of p l a c i n g development i n the Flood P l a i n there are a s e r i e s of a p p l i c a t i o n s that may be made simultaneously u i t h the a p p l i c a t i o n to the Land Commission uhere a g r i c u l t u r a l reserve land i s i n v o l v e d . (This procedure uould also stand i f the land uas not i n a g r i c u l t u r a l reserve.) a) Reference must be made to the r e g i o n a l plan. I f an amendment i s required a p p l i c a t i o n must be made to the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t . ( i ) The r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t u i l l foruard t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n to the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s . (The Depart-ment of Municipal A f f a i r s processes the a p p l i c a t i o n through various departments to assemble s u f f i c i e n t information i n order to make a dec i s i o n . ) b) The m u n i c i p a l i t y must also send i t s oun a p p l i c a t i o n to the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s regarding the change i t uishes to make i n the r e g i o n a l p l a n . (Same process as i n step 2 ( a ) ( i ) . ) 3. When i t i s knoun that the Land Commission i s going to release the necessary land from the reserve the m u n i c i p a l i t y may then prepare a development area by-lau i f a Land Use Contract i s going to be used. (Since a zoning change i s involved the m u n i c i p a l i t y u i l l g e nerally 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 by-lau. ( i ) The development area by-lau 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 approval u i t h regard to the r e g i o n a l p l a n . The r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t foruards the by-lau to the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s uhich analyzes i t . ( i i ) The m u n i c i p a l i t y must send the development area by-lau to the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s f o r approval. 4. The Department of Municipal A f f a i r s u i l l not give m i n i s t e r i a l approval regarding f l o o d p l a i n land u n t i l a r e g i s t e r e d survey shous that the land i n question meets the required geodetic r a t i n g uhich presently i s determined as tuo feet above the h i s t o r i c a l high uater l i n e . The a c t u a l p h y s i c a l uork must be done. 5. The m u n i c i p a l i t y may nou prepare i t s Land Use Contract. a) The Land Use Contract once executed by the developer must be sent to:. ( i ) The Regional D i s t r i c t uhich foruards i t on to the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s uhich then i n v o l v e s various departments of the p r o v i n c i a l government f o r approval or recommendations. ( i i ) The m u n i c i p a l i t y must send the Land Use Contract to the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s (same procedure as 4 ( a ) ( i ) . 6. Nothing can be done u n t i l the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s gives municipal approval according to Sec. 187 of the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s  Enabling and I n v a l i d a t i n g Act. Note: I f t h i s development did not require a change i n the grade l e v e l of the land to meet the requirements of f l o o d p l a i n land use and the proposed development area coincided u i t h the proposed develop-- f o -ment accord ing to the r e g i o n a l p lan the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s uould not be i n v o l v e d . The major sloudouns i n t h i s process i n v o l v e communication breakdouns regard ing p r o v i n c i a l government p o l i c y . 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 va r ious departments r e p o r t i n g to the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s determine p o l i c y . The f a c t that the procedure i s d u p l i c a t e d i n steps 2(a) and 2 ( b ) , 3(a) i ) and i i ) and 5(a) i ) and i i ) a l so burdens the process as a s i n g l e a p p l i c a t i o n i s u n n e c e s s a r i l y s h u f f l e d through va r ious departments. S ince 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 persona 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 manipu la t ing the p roposa l through the e n t i r e m u n i c i p a l p r o c e s s . As each p roposa l i s processed i n t h i s unique manner and as each proposa l i s sub ject to v a r i a b l e exposure to the va r ious a u t h o r i t i e s of the p r o v i n c i a l government uh ich l i e outs ide 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 s u b d i v i s i o n approval cannot be g e n e r a l i z e d . The only c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r of P i t t Meadous i n context of t h i s chapter i s the f a c t that approval outs ide of the m u n i c i p a l i t y can generate excess ive sloudouns uhich are inherent to each p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t and the degree of involvement u i t h the p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s . The major asset 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 approval uh ich prov ided a b a s i s f o r the p r e p a r a t i o n of a genera l s u b d i v i s i o n approval procedure uhich i s the t e x t of Chapter V I . -65-The D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam The D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam processes only a feu major sub-d i v i s i o n s every year. A majority of 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 . Table 15 compares the number of a p p l i c a t i o n s u i t h the number of l o t approvals made betueen 1970 and 1973. Table 15. A p p l i c a t i o n s and Approvals f a r Serviced Lots i n the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam 1970-1973 Year : Lots Approved Number of 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 of the 556 l o t s approved uere produced by three major s u b d i v i s i o n s . BACM i s responsible f o r 136, Nu west created 149 and Austin Developments 40. Ana l y s i s of the Austin development and the Nu West Development revealed the f o l l o u i n g information regarding the amount D f time 23 required tD complete the approval process. The Austin 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 co n s s u l t i n g engineer uas not employed by the developer u n t i l May 22, 1973. On June 18, 1973 a rough plan and design uas submitted to the D i s t r i c t f o r approval. On J u l y 12, 1973 the D i s t r i c t r e p l i e d to the co n s u l t i n g engineer g i v i n g him permission to prepare a mare d e t a i l e d plan uhich involved a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of road centre linesand road grades i n the f i e l d . The co n s u l t i n g engineer spent one month preparing t h i s formal plan and submitted i t to the m u n i c i p a l i t y on August 14, 1973. -66-On October 17, 1973 f i n a l approval uas given. In this particular project the developer did not pursue his project after preliminary discussions in September of 1972. The project did not really get under uay until May of 1973. The time required for approval uas 6 months. This uas not a typical 40 lot subdivision as i t involved rugged terrain 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. Preliminary discussions began November 17, 1971. Consulting engineers uere contacted December 6, 1971. 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 in principle to the preliminary plans. On March 29 more detailed plans uere submitted tD the municipal engineer. A month later 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 internal problems developed regarding land ouned by a private citizen. The. plan of the subdivision had to be modified and re-submitted. In January 1973 the approving officer gave f i n a l approval. In this case the process required 13 months uith a portion of the delay attributable to the developer regarding the internal problems created in November of 1973. -67-The District cf CDquitlam does not use land use contracts in cases of zoning changes except in unusual developments such as a zero lot line project. The most c r i t i c a l delay in the municipal approval process may be linked to the process of approval by the municipal engineer. Improvements in this area uould definitely reduce the length of time for approval as in both cases illustrated there uere lengthy breakdouns in communication betueen the developer's consulting engineer and the municipal engineer in various stages of the process. The case of the District of Coquitlam may be considered to be functioning at a reasonable rate considering that i t processes relat-ively feu major subdivisions and that the trend is touards development of small subdivisions as there are only a feu areas of land that are feasible for major subdivision development. The efficiency of pro-cessing major subdivisions i s not a matter of principle concern. Regardless of. the municipal situation the evidence is conclus-ive that major subdivisions are restrained by Coquitlam approval system. The municipality revealed that a small subdivision of one or tuo lots can be processed in 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 historical 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 in the municipality are so feu the validity of such data uould be questionable. The c r i t i c a l factor i s that imperfections exist and there is potential for improvement. -68-Surrey ThE m u n i c i p a l i t y cf Surrey has one of the longest s u b d i v i s i o n approval procedures of the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s considered. This f a c t i s s u b s t a ntiated by a survey uhich revieued 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 approval 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, included a report 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 Contract and rezoning a p p l i c a t i o n s uhich had been received by the D i s t r i c t p r i o r to November 1, 1973 and uere s t i l l i n the approval process at the date of the c o u n c i l meeting. The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n problem uas one of determining uhich 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 regarding a l l o c a t i o n of imposts and uhich ones uould be processed under the neu p o l i c y of imposts uhich uas introduced i n June of 1973. In January 1974 a l l 65 of the a p p l i c a t i o n s included i n the planner's report uere researched regarding 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 involved 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 length of time that the a p p l i c a t i o n s had been i n the approval process. I t uas discovered that 34 of the 65 a p p l i c a t i o n s involved s u b d i v i s i o n development amounting to 1365 b u i l d i n g l o t s . The aggregate numbers of b u i l d i n g l o t s that uere not approved by December 31, 1973 are l i s t e d as f o l l o u s according 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 l o t s . I t i s important to note that the survey i s based on developments uhich uere caught i n the t r a n s i t i o n of Surrey's p o l i c y regarding imposts. Very feu p r o j e c t s f i l e d i n 1973 uere on the planner's l i s t as most of these p r o j e c t s had been considered i n terms of the proposed impost arrangements rather than according to the o l d impost changes of the -69-amended s u b d i v i s i o n by-lau. On these grounds one may ignore the f i g u r e s f o r 1973 and concentrate on a p p l i c a t i o n s made i n 1971 and 1972. Most of the a p p l i c a t i o n s involved l e s s than 100 se r v i c e d l o t s , houever there are three p r o j e c t s uhich 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 Realty, Rothnie Realty and Sur Del uere responsible f a r the 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 of s e r v i c e d l o t s , the t o t a l of uhich i s 600. A l l three p r o j e c t s had been i n the process f o r a period of approximately 18 months on December 31, 1973. A b r i e f summary of the process of approval f o r Sur Del i l l u s t r a t e s the t y p i c a l problems encountered by the major sub-. 2k d i v i d e r s and many of those encountered by the smaller developer. Sur Del 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 of 1972. A problem concerning the c r e a t i o n of small park s i t e s involved n e g o t i a t i o n s betueen Sur Del and the property depart-ment of Surrey and the engineering department. The nego t i a t i o n s con-tinued from the end of August u n t i l the end of October when an agree-ment uas reached. Sur Del submitted i t 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 s u b d i v i s i o n i n November of 1972. Tentative approval of the plan uas given i n January of 1973. In February of 1973 a l e t t e r s t a t i n g that a por t i o n of the development uas part of the a g r i c u l t u r a l reserve uas sent to Sur Del. A p p l i c a t i o n uas made immediately to V i c t o r i a t D the chairman o f the Environment and Land Use Committee requesting a release of t h i s land. Written confirmation that the land uas removed from the freeze uas received A p r i l 16, 1973. F i n a l engineering plans uere submitted by the end of A p r i l 1973 by Sur Del tc the municipal engineer. They uere returned f o r r e v i s i o n i n l a t e June and resubmitted i n e a r l y J u l y . The municipal engineer returned the "plans to Sur Del -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 sol 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 for February 4th and the project uas approved by the public at this hearing. Third and fourth readings uere given on February 18th and fi n a l approval followed. Major consulting engineers and developers in Surrey consulted with reference to the amount of time required for subdivision approval indicated a number of causes of delay. Some developers attributed the problem of delays in 1972 to the introduction of the land freeze and the additional bureaucracy created by the necessity of obtaining approval from the Land Commission in cases where land was frozen sub-ject to the completion of an o f f i c i a l agricultural land reserve. The case of Sur Del indicates a delay of approximately 3 months. One should note that the delay did not completely impede the approval process. While Sur Del was awaiting confirmation from Victoria 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 in the approval process. A review of the land area presently dedicated as agricultural land reserve and developments in the vicinity of this area, also indicates that there were very few cases where development of subdivisions was re-structed by the land freeze. The c r i t i c a l period of delay for Sur Del was between April 1973 and November 1973 and November 27, 1973 and -71-January 13, 1974. The former period of delay may be attributed to delays caused by the processing of the project through the engineering department, the latter delay uas attributable to Land Use Contract processing problems. A revieu of stat 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 in 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 lot statistics for the District of Surrey betueen 1965 and 1973. Although there are variations the number of building lots given preliminary approval betueen 1965 and 1968 increased at a relatively steady rate of approximately 270 lots per year from a base of 495 in 1966 to 1041 in 1968. The number of serviced lots given f i n a l approval also increased at a steady rate. Betueen 1965 and 1969 the rate of increase is averaged to be 92 lots per year from a base of 3,07 in 1965 to 675 in 1969. Betueen 1968 and 1969 the rate of increase of preliminary building lot approvals de-creased to a negative figure uhile the number of serviced lots given f i n a l approval increased by 98 lots. 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 lot approval uas in fact less than 1 year. The statements of a l l consulting engineers and developers uorking in Surrey -72-prior to 1971 confirmed this fact in interviews. If one assumes that the majority of the building lots were being processed in less than 1 year prior to 1970 the changes in the numbers df building lot approvals relative to the number of pre-liminary approvals becomes very significant. Referring back to Table 16 the number of lots given preliminary approval increased from 699 in 1970 to 1219 in 1971. In 1972 the number of lots given preliminary approval increased fram the 1971 figure to 2191 and tapered off to a total of 2462 in 1973. The number, of building lots 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 in 1971; 903 in 1972 and decreased to 757 in 1973. The c r i t i c a l point to notice is not only the fact that an increase and decrease occurred but that between 1970 and 1973 the number of lots given pre-liminary 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 lots produced over the same time periods there was a 0% increase far f i n a l approved building lots and a 66% increase in lots given pre-liminary approval. There was an obvious breakdown in the system of approval. A l l applications far fi n a l approval made between 1971 and 1973 could not possibly be satisfied in the period of one year given these proportions of f i n a l approvals to preliminary approvals. This information may be tied 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 for as s t i l l in the system as -73-of December 31, 1973. Most of them are included in the 1972 figure of 2191 building lots given preliminary approval. Thus almost 50% of the total number of lots in the system involved land use contracts in 1972. It must be pointed out that there is a certain percentage of lots given preliminary approval that u i l l not reach the f i n a l approval stage. None of the 1097 are in this classification. In 1973 there uere 2462 preliminary approvals which essentially complement the knoun 1097 lots in the system. According to the municipality the number of applications involving land use contracts are increasing. Three very important conclusions may be draun. 1) The approval procedure uas longer than 1 year in 1972 and 1973. This confirms the statement by consulting engineers and developers that the process entails 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 ranging betueen 15 and 80 lots. These smaller subdivisions should be approved in a shorter period of time but uere not. 2) Land Use Contracts may be identified as one of the causes of the sloudoun in 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 in 1973 the municipal council passed a by-lau that a l l land use changes should be dealt uith through Land Use Contracts. 3) The fact that the municipality froze development approvals during May 1973 and introduced a neu development policy regarding imposts in June 1973 may also be indicated as a possible cause of Table 16. A p p l i c a t i o n and Approval f o r Serviced Lots i n Surrey 1965 - 1973 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Prel i m i n a r y A p p l i c -ations Received 250 290 461 380 354 300 411 ' 429 359 Preliminary A p p l i c -ations Reconsidered 36 16 23 17 28 20 /,31 41 44 Preliminary A p p l i c -ations Approved 172 •184 217 234 194 180 267 321 241 Lots Given P r e l i m -inary Approval 506 495 787 1041 888 699 1219 2191 2462 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 a f t e r p r e l i m i n a r y approval ' 94 125 168 183 221 142 216 236 174 Lots Given F i n a l Approval 307 370 480 577 675 471 884 903 757 7200 s q . f t . to 21,780 s q . f t . (1/z acre) 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 to .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%) 1 acre to 4.99 .107 (34.8%) 129 (34.9%) 192 (40.0%) 233 (40.4%: 282 ) (41.8%) : 231 (49.1%) 296 (33.5%) 303 (33.6%) 5 acres + 37 (12.1%) 44 (11.9%) 21 (6.7%) 65 78 (11.3%) (11.6%) 44 (9.3%) , 82 (9.3%) 77 (6.4%) Source: Surrey Planning Department -75-th e slowdown which occurred i n 1973. The s u b d i v i s i o n approval procedure i s f a r more complex than the preceding a n a l y s i s leads one to b e l i e v e . The f a c t that i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y of Surrey and other 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 approval process has become longer and more complicated introduces the nece s s i t y of a n a l y s i s of the approval procedure of Surrey as w e l l as those of the other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s discussed. The next chapter introduces a general approval procedure based on a n a l y s i s of the approval procedures used i n each of the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . -76-Footnotes ^Population Trends i n the Louer Mainland, IMeu LUestminister, Louer Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1968, Table 9. 2 P i t t Meadous Study, IMeu Ldestminister, Municipal Planning Service of 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 . Papulation Trends i n Louer Mainland, Table 9. ^The Housing Issue, 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 L D C . C i t •14 •p. C i t . , Real Estate Trends i n Vancouver, Vancouver . S t a t i s t i c a l and Survey Committee of the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board A s s o c i a t i o n 1973-74. 1 5 16 17 18 'Dp. C i t . Loc. C i t 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 of B.C., Centre f o r Continuing Education, 1972, p. 15. 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 C o n f i d e n t i a l . 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 municipal s u b d i v i s i o n approval 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 uhich the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of the province derive t h e i r system. Part XXI, Community Planning, D i v i s i o n k, S u b d i v i s i o n of Land of the Municipal Act R.S.B.C. I960 C.255 and Part IV, Descriptions and Plans of the Land Registry Act R.S.B.C. 1960 C.208 contain the enabling st a t u t e s uhich set 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 conditions f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n of s u b d i v i s i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Analysis of four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s discussed i n Chapter IVI combined u i t h a r e v i e u of enabling l e g i s l a t i o n has made i t p o s s i b l e to produce three general o u t l i n e s of the s u b d i v i s i o n approval process: one f o r a s u b d i v i s i o n uhich conforms to e x i s t i n g municipal zoning r e g u l a t i o n s (see Figure 5 ) , a second f o r s u b d i v i s i o n uhich r e q u i r e s a non-conforming use of land according to municipal r e g u l a t i o n s (see Figure 6), and a t h i r d uhich uses Land Use Contracts (see Figure 7 ) . The l a t t e r 2 pro-cedures inv o l v e zoning changes i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . (Appendices A, B, C, and D, o u t l i n e the procedures of each m u n i c i p a l i t y studied.) Fallowing then presentation of the general procedures the c r i t i c a l components of each process uhich tend to cause delays i n these processes u i l l be discussed and s o l u t i o n s u i l l be considered. The general 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 uhich may be defined as "one uhich n e c e s s i t a t e s Figure 5 General Approval Procedure P r e l i m i n a r y D i s c u s s i o n s Formulation of d r a f t plan M u n i c i p a l Treasurer Board of School Trustees M u n i c i p a l B u i l d i n g Department M u n i c i p a l Engineer Planning Department Advisory Planning Commission P r o v i n c i a l A u t h o r i t i e s Hi ri P r o v i n c i a l A u t h o r i t i e s U t i l i t y Companies [_^| M u n i c i p a l Engineer LA C o n s u l t i n g J J 1 ^ Engineer ^ of Developer P u b l i c U t i l i t y Companies M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l J P r e p a r a t i o n of F i n a l Plan by Developer ' Planning Department Pr e p a r a t i o n of Development flrjpppmpn-h M u n i c i p a l S o l i c i t o r M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l .. Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e Approving O f f i c e r j - * Developer F i l i n g f o r Prospectus i UD I Application for Rezoning Public Authorities Advisory Planning Commission Municipal Engineer H4 Board of ISchool Trustees Planning Department Committees Composed of Council Members Council Reads Amending By-Law •e Zoning 'and jPlanning Water Sewage Parks and Rec-reation Health and Welfare Figure 6 Approval Procedure With a Zoning Change Public Hearing Council Gives 3 F i n a l Reading* Developer Prepares Final Plan •Council may wait u n t i l developer completes f i n a l plan before giving f i n a l reading. i CD • F i g u r e 7 A p p r o v a l P r o c e d u r e u i t h L a n d Use C o n t r a c t A d v i s o r y i J P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n > A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e z o n i n g M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l P l a n n i n g —5 D e p a r t m e n t D e v e l o p e r P r e p a r e s F i n a l P l a n C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r e -'1 p a r e s Land Use C o n t r a c t M u n i c i p a l S o l i c i t o r P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t D e v e l o p e r S i g n s L a n d Use C o n t r a c t • M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l A d o p t s L . U . C . E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t P l a n D e p a r t > n i n g n e n t K D e v e l o p e r p a y s i m p o s t s , b o n d i n g ! e t c . P u b l i c H e a r i n g Mun i C o u n c i l L . U . C . : i p a l r e a d s 3y - L a u > y F i n a l A p p r o v a l -82-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 created."''" A minor s u b d i v i s i o n uhich i s one that i s "adequately 2 servi c e d by e x i s t i n g roads or u t i l i t i e s " i nvolves the same procedure u i t h the exception of c e r t a i n steps such as those involved i n approval 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 of approval procedures i s presented according to the major stages that the developer and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s must complete i n order to s a t i s f y the demands of the municipal r e g u l a t i o n s uhich for our purposes are standardized. 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 requires many more i n t e r a c t i o n s and frequent i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s to the order of 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 - Preparation f o r an Informal Meeting Preparation f o r an inf o r m a l presentation of a s u b d i v i s i o n concept to a municipal h a l l involves 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 subdivider should be auare D f any municipal by-laus uhich may p r o h i b i t the intended use of the land proposed to be subdivided. 2. The subdivider must note uhether h i s concept i s consistent u i t h the comprehensive plan of the m u n i c i p a l i t y i f such a. plan e x i s t s . 3. The,subdivider should be f a m i l i a r u i t h a l l municipal by-laus r e g u l a t i n g s u b d i v i s i o n . k. The subdivider should be auare of seuerage and uater main c a p a c i t i e s and regulatory by-laus. Stage I I - The Informal Meeting The informal meeting u i t h the municipal planners involves a f i s h i n g expedition on the part of the developer to determine uhether -83-the l o c a t i o n , land use and timing of the development i s acceptable i n p r i n c i p l e . Stage I I I - Pr e l i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n I f the developer i s confident that the p r i n c i p l e of the pr o j e c t i s f e a s i b l e i n terms of the plans of 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 f a r s u b d i v i s i o n approval. The basic steps i n c l u d e : 1. The developer generally employs a co n s u l t i n g engineer t D draw up a d r a f t plan uhich includes the f o l l o u i n g information: (a) The layout of 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 centre of each l o t or parcel, at the i n t e r s e c t i o n s of any proposed roads u i t h e x i s t i n g roads and at 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 location,dimension and uses of any s t r u c t u r e s e x i s t i n g on the land being proposed f o r s u b d i v i s i o n must be given. 2. The developers must i d e n t i f y the ouner D f the land i n question. 3. A c e r t i f i c a t e of encumbrances must be provided. 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 standard form provided by the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The form i s f i l e d i n the municipal planning o f f i c e . Stage IU - Processing of the Preliminary A p p l i c a t i o n The m u n i c i p a l i t y processes 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. Technical planners assign a f i l e number to the a p p l i c a t i o n and confirm the v a l i d i t y of the information submitted i n the a p p l i c a t i o n regarding ounership and encumbrances. Reference-is made to any municipal zoning by-laus that are r e l a t e d to the a p p l i c a t i o n . A record sheet i s drafted u i t h a l l relevant m a t e r i a l and copies may benforuarded -8k-to the f o l l o u i n g departments f o r comments. (a) The Board of School Trustees (b) Engineer ing Department (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) M u n i c i p a l Treasurer ( f ) C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion (g) M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l (h) Any other departments that may be i n v o l v e d ( i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ) e . g . i)_ . Highuays Department . i i ) F i s h e r i e s i i i ) Department of Transport i v ) Reg iona l D i s t r i c t v) Greater Vancouver Seuerage and Drainage D i s t r i c t v i ) Greater Vancouver Water Boars!. 2 . The comments of a l l departments are rev ieued by the p lanning department and i f the p r o j e c t i s s t i l l i n a favo rab le p o s i t i o n a f i e l d i n s p e c t i o n i s conducted. (a) The t e c h n i c a l p lanner 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 no t ing 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 , b u i l d i n g s , e t c . 3 . A l e t t e r i s d r a f t e d not ing the requirements 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 approval 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 Approval I f the -.developer r e c e i v e s p r e l i m i n a r y approva l h i s d e c i s i o n to apply f o r f i n a l approval 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 approva 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 approval u i l l be vo id ( u s u a l l y 90 days ) . -85-2. The developer'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 engineering department of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . A s e r i e s of r e v i s i o n s are u s u a l l y required as the c o n s u l t i n g engineer presents h i s plans to the municipal engineer. (Note that i n some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s such as Richmond the municipal engineer gen e r a l l y prepares the d e t a i l e d f i n a l drawings.) 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. This includes a ground survey as w e l l as a d e s c r i p t i o n of easements, r i g h t s of way and r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. „. Stage UI - M u n i c i p a l Review of the A p p l i c a t i o n f o r F i n a l Approval 1. The m u n i c i p a l i t y must receive a u t h o r i z a t i o n from any depart-ments which derive s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y over the approval of the f i n a l plan. The C o n t r o l l e d Access Highways Act requir e s that any land use which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with plans approved by the Highways Department must be approved by the Highways Department i f the land i n question i s w i t h i n one-half mile of a c o n t r o l l e d access highway."^ 2. The municipal engineering department i n i t i a t e s ! preparation of a s e r v i c i n g agreement while d i r e c t i n g the c o n s u l t i n g engineer of the developer with regard to s e r v i c i n g requirements. ' The complexity of 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 basis f o r determining the monies required of the developer i f he wishes to post a guarantee that he w i l l complete the s e r v i c e s . The agreement i s based cn the f i n a l d r a f t plan which l i s t s a l l the s e r v i c e s and expenses required of the developer. 3. The municipal s o l i c i t o r r e l a t e s the s e r v i c i n g agreement to the requirements of monies i f the developer wishes to 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 transformed i n t o a -86-development agreement uhich introduces c e r t a i n c o n s t r a i n t s on the developer regarding c o n d i t i o n s that 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 information i s included i n the basic s e r v i c i n g agreement. In e i t h e r case the municipal lauyer provides the l e g a l s k i l l s f o r draftsmanship and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the agreement to favour the m u n i c i p a l i t y . Stage UII - 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 to the requirements of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ) as a guarantee that he u i l l carry out the requirements of the s e r v i c i n g agreement (the s e c u r i t y must equal the estimated cost of the i n s t a l l -a t i o n of the 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 pasting a s e c u r i t y the developer can move on to Stage M i l l and r e g i s t e r h i s s u b d i v i s i o n . I f he chooses to not place s e c u r i t y but to 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 of 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 municipal inspector before he can r e g i s t e r h i s s u b d i v i s i o n . The disadvantage of t h i s second a l t e r n a t i v e i s that the developer loses a great deal of time by u a i t i n g u n t i l ' . a l l 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 of r e g i s t r a t i o n goes on simultaneously u i t h the i n s t a l l a t i o n and i n s p e c t i o n of services-. 2. In 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 the refunding of monies as phases of the s e r v i c i n g are completed and inspected 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 generally r e q u i r e s that a maintenance band of 50% of the cost of i n s t a l l a t i o n be held f o r 1 year a f t e r the completion of s e r v i c e s . Same m u n i c i p a l i t i e s require that 5% of the costs must be deposited i n cash as s e c u r i t y f o r 1 year. -87-3. The develaper reviews the conditions of the s e r v i c i n g agree-ment or the development agreement and decides uhich a l t e r n a t i v e i s most favorable f a r him. I f he agrees u i t h the conditions of the s e r v i c i n g agreement and signs i t , he must carry out the funding of s e c u r i t i e s as a guarantee. I f the developer does not choose to commit himself to the s e r v i c i n g agreement, he may i n s t a l l the se r v i c e s according to the standards prescribed by the m u n i c i p a l i t y pending i n s p e c t i o n . k. The municipal engineer revieus the agreement and notes that a l l r i g h t s of uays and encumbrances are l i s t e d . Assuming that the developer chooses to sign the s e r v i c i n g agreement, ue move to Stage V/III. Stage W i l l - Approval of F i n a l Plan The developer tenders the s u b d i v i s i o n plan to the c l e r k of m u n i c i p a l i t y f o r examination and approval by the approving o f f i c e r accompanied by: 1. An examination fee ( u s u a l l y $2.00). 2. A c e r t i f i c a t e that a l l taxes uhich have been assessed on the land subdivided have been paid and i n the case uhere l o c a l improvement taxes, rates or assessments are payable i n annual i n s t a l l m e n t s that a l l i n s t a l l m e n t s ouing at the date of the c e r t i f i c a t e have, been paid (Land Re g i s t r y Act S.B9). 3. When the plan i s approved the approving o f f i c e r u r i t e s "Approved under the Land Registry Act" and signs h i s name and o f f i c i a l designation (Sec. 97 Land Registry A c t ) . Stage IX - R e g i s t r a t i o n of Subdivis i o n The s u b d i v i s i o n plan must be tendered f o r deposit u i t h the 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 officer 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 certificate of t i t l e covering the land subdivided shall be produced for cancallation or endorsement " (Sec. 101 Land Registry Act). 2. A l l land must be registered an the register. 3. The plan shall be signed by each owner of lands subdivided or his agent (Sec. 103 Land Registry Act). k. •"The.Registrar shall examine the application and the instruments and plan produced in support thereof and i f satisfied that they are in order and in compliance with a l l the requirements of the Land Registry Act shall assign to the plan a serial deposit number and issue such new certificates of t i t l e for the parcels shown upon the 5 plan as may be necessary." 5. "No certificate of t i t l e shall contain more than five parcels.'1^ Stage X - Filing for Prospectus . The f i n a l step in the process is 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 shall s e l l or lease or offer for Eale or lease or knowingly assist in the sale or lease or offering for sale or lease of any lot 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 is situate or- i f the subdivision is in a place outside the province where the subdivision plan can be registered i t is 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. -89-1. The prospectus must be accompanied by a c e r t i f i c a t e of a s o l i c i t o r who i s a member of the Law Society of B r i t i s h Columbia, the st a t u t o r y d e c l a r a t i o n of e i t h e r a promoter or d i r e c t o r and a true copy of the plan of the 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 prospectus a true copy must be d e l i v e r e d to the prospective purchaser or agent before any sales or leases may be completed, ^ Real Estate Act, Sec. 51(2)(a)„ The subdivided l o t i s now ready f o r sale and the issuance of b u i l d i n g permits. Su b d i v i s i o n Approval Procedure with a Zoning Amendment The s u b d i v i s i o n approval process v a r i e s i n the event that a zoning change i s required i n order f o r the p r o j e c t to be approved. Stages I, I I and I I I are conducted i n the same manner as i n the general approval process procedure. When the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r sub-d i v i s i o n approval subject to a zoning change i s f i l e d i n Stage" IV a new s e r i e s of steps' are introduced. The developer fo l l o w s the same procedure i n t r o d u c i n g a rezoning 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 not. Stage I\l - Municipal Processing of Prel i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n The municipal planner must submit the developer's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a zoning by-law amendment to the municipal c o u n c i l . 1. The municipal c o u n c i l may e l e c t to r e f e r the a p p l i c a t i o n t c the Advisory Planning Commission which may be e s t a b l i s h e d by the municipal c o u n c i l under the a u t h o r i t y of Section 701 of the Municipal  Act. 2. The advisory planning commission functions as an advisor to the c o u n c i l on matters earning w i t h i n the scope of Community Planning -90-Part XXI of the Municip a l Act. This includes o f f i c i a l community plans, zoning, s u b d i v i s i o n of land, and b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . 3. The Advisory Planning Commission u i l l research any comments of the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Board of School Trustees, or any other departments that may be a f f e c t e d . This inform-a t i o n i s then presented to c o u n c i l . k. I f c o u n c i l decides that the zoning amendment i s f e a s i b l e i t may authorize preparation of an amending by - l a u . 5. Various committees may be appointed by c o u n c i l to consider important aspects of the proposed amendment. 6. The c o u n c i l s h a l l not amend a zoning by-lau u n t i l a p u b l i c hearing i s held subject; to Sec. 703 of the Municipa l Act. 7. Subsequent to the p u b l i c hearing the c o u n c i l may amend the by-lau upon an a f f i r m a t i v e vote of 2/3 of a l l members of c o u n c i l . (Note that council's pDuer i s l i m i t e d to the enabling s t a t u t e s . In cases uhere c e r t a i n bodies must give approval to 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 approval i s not received.) An example uould be an amendment uithout approval of 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 approval of the Lieutenant Governor i n Council i s required in,order to amend an O f f i c i a l Community plan pursuant to Sec. 187 of the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Enabling and V a l i d a t i n g Act. The developer may nou move on to Stage V of the general process. 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 In the event that a m u n i c i p a l i t y decides to employ a Land Use Contract i n the procedure of amending a zoning by-lau the procedure u i l l vary. Sec. 702A of the Municipal Act i s the enabling s e c t i o n f o r -91-the procedure by uhich a m u n i c i p a l i t y may enter 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 Council s h a l l have due regard to the f c l l c u i n g con-s 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 subsection (2) c f s e c t i o n 702:-(a) The development of areas to promote greater 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 goals: and (e) The p r o v i s i o n of necessary p u b l i c space. (2) The Council may, by by-lau, amend the zoning by-lau to designate areas of land u i t h i n a zone as development areas, but a p u b l i c hearing under sections 703 and 704 i s not r e q u i r e d . (3) Upon the a p p l i c a t i o n of an ouner of land u i t h i n the development area, or h i s agent, the Council may, by by-lau, notuithstanding any by-lau 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, enter i n t o a land use contract containing such terms and conditions f o r the use and development of the land as may be mutually agreed upon, and t h e r e a f t e r the use and development of the land s h a l l , notuithstanding any by-lau of the m u n i c i p a l i t y , or s e c t i o n 712 cr 713, be i n accordance u i t h the land use c o n t r a c t . (4) A contract entered i n t o under subsection (3) s h a l l have • the force 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 land and s h a l l be r e g i s t e r e d i n the Land Registry O f f i c e by the m u n i c i p a l i t y . (5) The Council may, by by-lau, prescribe the procedure by uhich the m u n i c i p a l i t y may enter i n t o a land use contract and the form and consideration of the c o n t r a c t . (6) The Council s h a l l not enter i n t o a land use contract u n t i l i t has held a p u b l i c hearing, notice of uhich has been published i n the manner prescribed i n subsection (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 cf 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 apply, 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 hearing under t h i s s e c t i o n . (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 land 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 applying to the zone i n uhich the land i s s i t u a t e uho does not enter i n t o a land use contract u i t h the C o u n c i l . -92-(9) A land use contract i s deemed t c be a zoning by-lau f o r the purposes Df the C o n t r o l l e d Access Highuays Act. 1971, c.3B,s.52; 1972,c.36, a.28. The m u n i c i p a l i t y must also s a t i s f y the general requirements of sec. 7D2 of the Municip a l Act. The a p p l i c a t i o n i s processed according tD the procedure s p e c i f i e d i n the land use contract pro-cedural by-lau enabled by sec. 7D2A(5). The developer f o l l o u s the same pattern as o u t l i n e d i n the General Procedures up to an i n c l u d i n g the Preparation of a Pr 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 - Municipal Processing of A p p l i c a t i o n The municipal planner submits the developer's proposal to c o u n c i l . 1. Council may r e f e r the a p p l i c a t i o n to the Advisory Planning Commission or' give the a p p l i c a t i o n approval tD proceed according to the ru l e s of preparation of land use c o n t r a c t . ( I f the Advisory Planning Commission i s used f o r advice 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 continues i n the same manner.) 2. The developer must i n d i c a t e that he agrees to proceed under a land use c o n t r a c t . 3. The t e c h n i c a l planner d r a f t s up the land use contract according to the municipal procedural by-lau. The developer generally has tuo choices of a c t i o n uhen under-taking a land use c o n t r a c t . 1. The developer may stay at stage I\7 of the general process and enter a land use contract that i s based on estimated costs of engineering f o r the p r o v i s i o n of required s e r v i c e s . (a) The developer must sign the land use c o n t r a c t . (b) The land use contract i s presented to c o u n c i l f o r a f i r s t and second reading. -93-(c) Sec. 702A (6) Municipal Act requires that c o u n c i l s h a l l not enter i n t o a land use contract u n t i l i t has held a p u b l i c hearing according to the p r o v i s i o n s of sec. 703 of the Municipal Act. (d) I f the p u b l i c hearing approves, the c o u n c i l may give a t h i r d reading to the land use contract subject to the approval of the engineering department that must s t a t e that 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 the a c t u a l land use contract i s apprcved by the m u n i c i p a l i t y . Houever, by u a i t i n g u n t i l the p u b l i c hearing he has the s e c u r i t y that h i s project u i l l be accepted subject to meeting the conditions prescribed by the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The disadvantage of t h i s option i s that the developer waits u n t i l the p u b l i c hearing i s complete before drauing up h i s f i n a l engineering 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. The advantage i s that he reduces h i s f i n a n c i a l l o s s i n the event that the land use contract u i l l be r e j e c t e d by the p u b l i c hearing. 2. The developer may move on to stages IV, V, VI, VII as he signs a land use contract u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The land 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 engineering drauings and e s t a b l i s h e s a s e r v i c i n g agreement with the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The procedure of approval i n v o l v e s , (a) The m u n i c i p a l i t y w i l l incorporate the f i n a l c o n ditions of the s e r v i c i n g agreement i n t o the land use c o n t r a c t . (b) The developer must sign the land use contract which i s presented to c o u n c i l and p u b l i c hearing i n the same manner as described i n Option 1. (c) The municipal engineer u i l l review the f i n a l d r a f t of the land use contract to a s c e r t a i n that a l l conditions l a i d out i n the s e r v i c i n g agreement are included i n the land use c o n t r a c t . (d) Subject to the approval of the engineering department the c o u n c i l may then approve the land 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 s t i p u l a t e d . ( f ) The developer f o l l o u s the general procedure p l a c i n g , h i s monies as s e c u r i t y . The land use contract u i l l be signed by the mayor and c l e r k . (g) The s u b d i v i s i o n plan may nou be approved and r e g i s t e r e d according to stage VII of the general process uhich continues as o u t l i n e d i n the general procedure. The 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 approval of the land use c o n t r a c t . He took the r i s k that a l l h i s expenses on f i n a l drauings could be l o s t i f the p u b l i c hearing r e j e c t e d h i s p r o j e c t . In most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , t h i s approach saves time as the developer i s not held up by the p u b l i c hearing 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 f o r p u b l i c hearing. A n a l y s i s of the General Procedure The s u b d i v i s i o n approval process i s becoming a very complex procedure. During the past three years, the amount of time required 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 increased i n most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . I ntervieus u i t h developers, con-s u l t i n g engineers' and planners i n each m u n i c i p a l i t y revealed that the process i s becoming longer. Developers c i t e municipal p o l i c y as being one of the most important s i n g l e reasons uhy t h e i r land holdings are not being s e r v i c e d . S i x t y - s i x percent of the responses to a land inventory survey conducted i n Metropolitan Vancouver, i n d i c a t e that municipal p o l i c y i s s l o u i n g doun t h e i r development process. The In conjunction u i t h research of the municipal process an unpublished survey uas conducted to determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e of land holdings of major developers i n Metropolitan Vancouver. -95-a n a l y s i s of the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n Chapter I I I i d e n t i f i e d a number of s p e c i f i c components of the procedure process that are p o s s i b l y responsible f o r delays. An a n a l y s i s of the general framework of approval stage by stage i n d i c a t e s these c r i t i c a l areas and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the procedure i t s e l f . The f i r s t three 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 developer. His entrepreneural capacity w i l l determine the rate, af approval of t h i s p o r t i o n of the process. Stage IV of General Procedure Numerous developers surveyed i n d i c a t e d that the major impediment at the p r e l i m i n a r y approval stage was the bureacracy created i n the processing and approval 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 contention i s that a p p l i c a t i o n s tend to s i t on the desks of the various departments involved with the a p p l i c a t i o n . The time period involved i n these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s surveyed i s approximately 3 t c 5 weeks for the completion of t h i s stage. 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) according 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 approval of a department of a higher 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 approval of the Department of Highways i s r e q u i r e d . I f road exchanges or closures are required a by-law may have"to be drawn up r e q u i r i n g readings by c o u n c i l subject to d i v i s i o n 1 of part V of the Municipal Act. This process may add k weeks to the process. I f the approval of the highways department i s required the s i t u a t i o n i s worsened considerably. 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 approval i s required 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 providing 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 Regional Highuays Department uhich foruards the information to the o f f i c e s of the P r o v i n c i a l Highuays Department i n V i c t o r i a . V i c t o r i a then returns the approved a p p l i c a t i o n to the Regional Highuays Department uhich foruards the information to the D i s t r i c t o f f i c e uhich foruards the information to the m u n i c i p a l i t y uhich may adapt i^yG by-lau. This process alone can take up to three months. Although 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 closures i t does occur i n some. A f u r t h e r example of the bureacracy introduced by the i n v o l v e -ment of higher l e v e l s of government i s exemplified i n the case of by-lau amendments i n the f l o o d p l a i n areas. This u i l l be r e f e r r e d to i n the 'analysis of zoning change procedure. Stage V of General Procedure This i s one of the most complicated stages i n the procedure. The 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 plan by t h e . c o n s u l t i n g engineer of the developer'is the f i r s t example of a source of hold-ups. I f the developer's c o n s u l t i n g engineer i s not f a m i l i a r u i t h the engineering 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 -volved i n preparation of the f i n a l plan could be increased up to one month. Uhen th e - c o n s u l t i n g engineer of the developer i s preparing h i s f i n a l d r a f t plan, he must be i n communication u i t h the municipal engineers. A major s u b d i v i s i o n requires 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 are r e f i n e d f o r unusual s i t u a t i o n or circumstances, unique to a p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t . Every meeting betueen the municipal engineer.and the c o n s u l t i n g engineer -97-• f the developer involves time. 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 standard requirements of the municipal 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 i s also prevalent on the municipal engineering s i d e . 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 engineering department i s to r e v i e u a l l f i n a l d r a f t plans u i t h the greatest of care to ensure that there are no e r r o r s . In many cases, t h i s involves hours of c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s and frequently uncovers numerous e r r o r s . I t i s the consensus of most co n s u l t i n g engineers i n t e r v i e u e d that 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 uould be considerably 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 plans of the c o n s u l t i n g engineers subject to cor-r e c t i o n of any e r r o r s i n the plan at the time of execution of the plan. I t appears that t h i s phase of the process does produce an unnecessary delay. The plans should be revieued but an e f f o r t should not be made to i d e n t i f y problems uhich are of a very minor s t a t u s and are subject to change u i t h the a c t u a l execution of the plans. I t should be noted that there are some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s considering the more l i b e r a l approach, e.g. Richmond. Another very s i g n i f i c a n t problem uhich tends to l i m i t the e f f i c i e n c y of the engineer's preparation of f i n a l plans f o r a sub-d 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 as-constructed plans i n the municipal h a l l . The as-constructed plans are the d e t a i l e d plans of s e r v i c e s located i n a p a r t i c u l a r area. In many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the plans uhich 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 land are incorrect.. The consequence of t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s that i f a f i n a l plan uhich 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 -98-i n c o r r e c t plan of e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s , the f i n a l plan can become inoper-able. The c o n s u l t i n g engineer must draw up an a s - b u i l t plan 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 plan uhich must be approved by the municipal engineer. An e x c e l l e n t s o l u t i o n to t h i s problem uould be a manditory 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. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s could e s t a b l i s h a manditory impost of $30u touards the correct mapping cf a l l s e r v i c e s . L e g i s l a t i o n should also provide f o r a better system of enforcing 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 uhich are presently required uhen the developer's c o n s u l t i n g engineer inspects 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 cf the process i t does o r i g i n a t e at t h i s point and i s a v a l i d cause of delays i n the production of ser v i c e d l o t s . A f i n a l point regarding the d r a f t i n g c f the f i n a l plan i s that each m u n i c i p a l i t y sets 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 engineers suggest that the process of pre-paring a f i n a l d r a f t plan i s hampered by the changing demands of the municipal engineers. A standardized process of d r a f t i n g f i n a l plans could a l l e v i a t e many problems. I f a comprehensive procedure that uas' based on recommendations derived from a n a l y s i s of a l l the municipal systems uas employed, there uould be a case of e x p e r t i s e triumphing over imperfections. An important drauback i s that most municipal area p r o j e c t s vary according to topography and i n some cases c l i m a t e . Regulations f o r the depth c f uater mains i n Vancouver uhich i s noted f a r i t s mild ueather, uould d e f i n i t e l y net apply i n the subzero climate of northern B.C. I f a more consistent procedure uas derived, even though i t permitted v a r i a t i o n s i n standards, i t uould be an asset. -99-A must important aspect of the preparation of the f i n a l plan i s that i t i s the basis f o r the preparation of the s e r v i c i n g agreement by the municipal engineer. The s e r v i c i n g agreement can require that the developer provide a l l of the s e r v i c e s as prescribed by s e c t i o n 711 to 713A of the Municipa l Act. Sec. 711 (4) s t a t e s that "The approving o f f i c e r may refuse to approve a s u b d i v i s i o n plan i f he i s of the opinion that the cost to the m u n i c i p a l i t y of 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 municipal works or s e r v i c e s uould be excessive." The devel-oper i s thus forced i n t o a p o s i t i o n uhere the :approval of h i s pr o j e c t depends upon h i s absorption of o f f - s i t e as u e l l as on-s i t e c o s t s . The municipal engineer u i l l attempt to maximize the expenditure of the developer f o r o f f - s i t e requirements i f they do not e x i s t . O f f - s i t e requirements include p r o v i s i o n of trunk l i n e s uhich 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 of uater mains, storm seuers betueen the s i t e and e x i s t i n g systems. One must note that 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 not, the developer may be required to increase the cap a c i t y . The issue of o f f - s i t e requirements introduces a very i n t e n s i v e bargaining s i t u a t i o n . Once bargaining commences the developer and the m u n i c i p a l i t y have entered a p o s s i b l e time-consuming s t r u g g l e . In some cases the demands of the m u n i c i p a l i t y are put to the t e s t i n court. There are a feu recent cases uhich i l l u s t r a t e the complexity of t h i s aspect D f the procedure and the time that can be l o s t . In the case of P i c c a d i l l y & Estates vs. the Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Delta J u s t i c e Munro stated that sec. 12 of the Delta Municipal S u b d i v i s i o n by-lau no. 1925 uhich purports to require a proposed subdivider to construct a l l uork and i n s t a l l a l l s e r v i c e s at h i s oun expense p r i o r to the approval of -100-h i s s u b d i v i s i o n plan i s not E n a b l e d by the Municipal Act or the Land Registry Act. J u s t i c e Munro stressed that s e c t i o n s 711 and 711A of the Municipal Act make i t c l e a r that i t i s the plan and not the uork that requires approval by the approving o f f i c e r . Justice,Munrc held sec. 12 u l t r a v i r e s of the municipal c o u n c i l s t a t i n g that "A municipal c o u n c i l has only the pouers vested i n i t by s t a t u t e and e s p e c i a l l y uhere pouer i s conferred to enact by-laus d i r e c t e d against the common lau r i g h t s of an ouner to use and dispose cf h i s land as he pleases: 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 conferred. Vic Restaurant Inc. v C i t y of Montreal (1959) 17 D.L.R. (2d) 81; -10 Re Surrey (1960) 20 D.L.R. (2d) 174."' Thus the m u n i c i p a l i t y must consider i t s pouers u h i l e the developer h i s r i g h t s . This case does not resolve l i t i g a t i o n regarding t h i s i s s u e . There have been many i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n s . I t should be noted that amendments to s e c t i o n 911 of the Municipal Act introduce s e c t i o n 911 (9) (b) by sec. 18 of chapter 59 Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 ( f i r s t session) uhich gives municipal-i t i e s the pouer to enforce conditions such as those s t i p u l a t e d i n by-lau 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 that s e r v i c e s u i l l be i n s t a l l e d according tD the s e r v i c i n g agreement can introduce delays i n the procedure. I f a developer i s nat f i n a n c i a l l y secure to the extent that he can provide funds to the m u n i c i p a l i t y and at the same time provide funds to 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 i n a p o s i t i o n uhere he can a f f o r d temporary double funding, he moves through the process at a f a s t e r rate 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 -101-i n the Land Registry 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 . In most cases, t h i s i s a s i t u a t i o n of s u r v i v a l - o f - t h e - f i t t e s t . The developer uho cannot a f f o r d double funding u i l l s u f f e r the consequences - delays i n the process. 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 required to achieve h i s goal of r e g i s t e r e d l o t s u i t h a prospectus he must s u f f e r the consequences - possible bankruptcy. A case uhich i l l u s t r a t e s the complications uhich a r r i v e i n the event of poor draftsmanship of the s e r v i c i n g agreement i s that of H . Cam-Kerr Developments v. the D i s t r i c t of Abbotsford. J u s t i c e Hutcheon held that the approving o f f i c e r had acted beyond h i s pouers by r e f u s i n g to approve the s u b d i v i s i o n plan of Cam-Kerr Developments on the grounds that Cam-Kerr had f a i l e d s a t i s f y sec. 711 (9) of the Municipal Act uhich s t a t e s : Sec. 711 (9) A l l uorks and s e r v i c e s required to.be constructed and i n s t a l l e d at the expense of the ouner of land proposed to be subdivided pursuant to the p r o v i s i o n s of a by-lau under t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be constructed and i n s t a l l e d to the standards prescribed i n the by-lau p r i o r to the approval of the s u b d i v i s i o n by the approving o f f i c e r unless (a) the ouner of the land deposits u i t h the municipal-i t y a bond i n the form and i n the amount pre-s c r i b e d i n the by-lau or, 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 regard to' the cost of i n s t a l l i n g and paying f o r a l l uorks and s e r v i c e s required pursuant to the by-lau, and (b) the ouner of the land enters i n t o an agreement u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y to construct and i n s t a l l the pre-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 m u n i c i p a l i t y . The approving o f f i c e r using h i s pDuer under t h i s s e c t i o n refused 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 according 'to the s p e c i f i e d date. J u s t i c e Hutcheon held that "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 -102-d r a f t agreements uhich each party prepared f o r the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of 12 the other party." He also s t a t e d that "many c f the clauses i n each d r a f t seemed reasonable and proper as f o r example that the ouner of the land may be given an extension of time of the s p e c i f i e d date i f there i s a delay uhich occurs u i t h c u t h i s f a u l t . " ^ Under the pouer of sec. 98 (4) of the Land Registry Act the j u s t i c e ordered that the plan be deposited. This case i s not completely i l l u s t r a t i v e of the bargaining process but i t does i n d i c a t e that the conditions agreed upon are subject 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 considerable amount of time in-order to meet the demands of the bargaining 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 future court actions uhich turn pn i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n . The most severe hcld-ups i n the process cf 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 revealed i n the a n a l y s i s of land use contracts i n the r e v i e u of zoning change'procedures. Stages UII, UIII 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 developer 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 re q u i r e d f o r completion u i l l g e nerally coincide u i t h the time required f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n and issuance of a prospectus. 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 Registry O f f i c e , he might u e l l be constrained by the procedure. An 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 approval uhich involves an amendment to a zoning by-lau introduces a number of a d d i t i o n a l hold-ups. Stage IU c f the process requ i r e s a p u b l i c hearing i n order that -103-a zoning by-lau may be amended. P u b l i c hearings can destroy a pr o j e c t ; or stimulate c o u n c i l to research a p a r t i c u l a r aspect of the p r o j e c t , hence i n c r e a s i n g the delay or approval of the p r o j e c t . The method of conducting the hearing i s perhaps the 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 of Richmond has one of the best p o l i c i e s (see App.endix B-2). • The hearing i s held as c l o s e l y as pos s i b l e to 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 of the planning committee acts as chairman u h i l e a member of the planning 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 proposal and i s a v a i l a b l e to ansuer t e c h n i c a l questions or those of a non-policy nature. The.developer i s responsible f o r the i n t r o d u c t i o n of h i s proposal to the p u b l i c . In some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the developer i s not given the opportunity to speak and a l s o , i n many, the hearings are held p r i o r to 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 hearings i s that p u b l i c p a r t i c i -pation 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 to demands of the r e s i d e n t s of the m u n i c i p a l i t y even i f they are represented by a small group. In many cases there i s the s i t u a t i o n of expertise vs absolute inexperience. A major question 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 understanding of the complex-i t i e s of a- p r o j e c t , have to r e j e c t a projec t using h i s l i m i t e d s k i l l s . The major problem of the p u b l i c hearing i s the banduagon approach. C i t i z e n s may have d i s t i n c t objections to a pro j e c t but may r e j e c t i t by concentrating on one minor p o i n t . In many cases they are s u c c e s s f u l . The combination of inadequate expertise u i t h p o l i t i c a l pressure has had numberous severe consequences f o r the developer. The developer must also assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of being auare of the general a t t i t u d e s of the people. I f he i s completely ignorant of the general a t t i t u d e s of the people, he can be forced 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 of Land Use Contracts Procedure The i n t r o d u c t i o n c f land use contracts i n 1971 through sec. 702A of the Municipal Act has increased the time required to approve a s u b d i v i s i o n as exemplified i n the case of Surrey i n chapter .'J/,. The enabling l e g i s l a t i o n has tended to complicate the bargaining s i t u a t i o n betueen the developer and the m u n i c i p a l i t y . I t also tends to increase the bureaucratic problems created by a d d i t i o n a l t r a n s f e r of information betueen the various departments i n v o l v e d . The oppor-t u n i t y cast i s gene r a l l y considered u i t h respect to the advantages to the m u n i c i p a l i t y and not u i t h regard to the impact of delays created by the system. Sec. 702A (5) of.the Municipal Act st a t e s that "the c o u n c i l may, through by-lau, prescribe the procedure by uhich the m u n i c i p a l i t y may enter i n t o a Land Use Contract and the form on consideration of the c o n t r a c t . " This enabling 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 of being one of tuo independent e n t i t i e s uhich are free to contract as they choose. This i s a very important f a c t o r i n the eyes of 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 of 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 three main functions of the m u n i c i p a l i t y according ta Wi l l i a m Lane, Professor .of Planning i n the School c f Community and Regional Planning at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, are the regulatory by-laus 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 various forms of l e g i s l a t i o n uhich delegate pouers tc m u n i c i p a l i t i e s delegate these pouers such that 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 -1D5-f u n c t i o n ;. uhen , using the pouer. From a l e g a l point of view, the m u n i c i p a l i t y must be con s i s t e n t i n performing these functions i n the respect that uhen playi n g one r o l e , i t must not attempt to play another uhich uould be c l a s s i f i e d as a d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n unless there i s enabling l e g i s l a t i o n uhich creates such a s i t u a t i o n . Sec. 7D2A (5) of the Municipal Act gives 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 alloued to use i t s l e g i s l a t i v e pouer to amend a zoning by-lau as a con d i t i o n upon uhich i t may enter a contract u i t h another e n t i t y . I f the courts .uere concerned that a m u n i c i p a l i t y uas ac t i n g beyond i t s pouers ( u l t r a v i r e s ) they uould r e v i e u .the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . In t h i s case, the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n introduces the magic uord "contract" uhich i m p l i e s that although 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 uhen i t e x h i b i t s i t s regulatory pouer to make r e g u l a t i o n s that are ascer-t a i n a b l e , i t also i s found i n the p o s i t i o n uhere i t i s using i t s housekeeping pouer to make a contract that i s favorable to the munic-i p a l i t y . I f the m u n i c i p a l i t y draus up a land use contract and sta t e s that a developer had no choice but to sign i t , t h i s uould remove the contract s i t u a t i o n and create an e n t i r e l y r egulatory system uhich i s not permitted under the uording of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n . The important conclusion that must be draun i s that the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s given a tremendous amount df freedom to set up requirements i n the bargaining s i t u a t i o n . When the eourts see the uord "contract",.they see a s i t u a t i o n of independent e n t i t i e s bargaining and not a s i t u a t i o n of a m u n i c i p a l i t y p o s s i b l y standing on the limb of i t s regulatory pouer. Sec. 7D2A (1) sta t e s the m u n i c i p a l i t y s h a l l have due regard f o r a number of con s i d e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g those o u t l i n e d i n sec.702 (2) of the Municipal Act. Sec. 7D2A ( l ) ( b ) uhich s t a t e s the m u n i c i p a l i t y -106-shall consider "the impact of development on present and future 15 public costs" is an example. The enabling legislation permits contracts uhich can include very general considerations, as u e l l as very specific ones, permitting an open invitation for municipalities to maximize the use of their housekeeping pouers. The result is a more complex time consuming bargaining situation than that described uith reference to the development agreements in the case of Richmond in Chapter V." The use of land use contracts is a discretionary policy D n the part of the municipalities. Many municipalities use land use contracts only for zoning changes uhich involve a very unique situation such as a zero-lot-line concept. Other municipalities employ land use contracts uherever possible. An example of the latter is Surrey. Statistics obtained from the municipality of Surrey confirmed the present use of contracts by this municipality. During the year of 1973 there uere approximately 75 development applications processed through land use contracts. Approximately 359 applications uere received in total. Almost 20% of the major applications have been processed through land use contracts. It is the opinion of consulting engineers and developers in this 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 specific legislative policy uhich uould give more definite 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 the loss D f time uhen attempting to achieve an optimum situation. -107-Presently, municipalities generally require that the developer completes his servicing agreement uith the municipality prior to council's revieu of the land use contract and recommendation for a public hearing. The problem uith this system is that in certain cases the developer is risking considerable expenditures in vieu of the fact that a public hearing on a land use contract uould prevent a project from realizing completion. A more equitable system uould be one uhich provides for a public hearing regarding the land use contract to be folloued by negotiations regarding rights of uay and then by a servicing agreement. The major consideration is time. In the municipalities that offer options to the developer, the consensus is that the. municipality is structuring the procedure such that a great deal of time is lost i f the developer does not undertake the risk to carry through uith a servicing agreement prior to public hearing of the land use contract. If the municipality conducted public hearings at a less elaborate stage of the process both sides uould be better off. 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. lilith the present system the municipal engineer must revieu a l l of the plans before the council gives i t s f i n a l reading for the land use contract follouing the public hearing. If the alternative approach uere used the municipal engineer uould consider the plans only in preparation of the servicing agreement uhich uhen completed uould be adapted to the land use con-tract and submitted for approval by council. An earlier stage of public hearing reduces the double steps and hence the paper uork uhich > amounts to unnecessary time. -108-The r o l e of the municipal s o l i c i t o r i n preparation of land use contracts i s also very important. The survey r e s u l t s suggested that i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s such as Surrey the municipal s o l i c i t o r i s overworked and cannot process the contracts u i t h i n the required period of time. I f land use contracts uere standardized i t uould not be necessary to incorporate the time consuming d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the s o l i c i t o r required f o r approval of 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 lauyer should be capable of q u i c k l y reviewing a standard format and foruard i t on. The case of Sur Del i l l u s t r a t e d i n Chapter i S l . i n d i c a t e s the present problem quite c l e a r l y . The pr 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 of the municipal s o l i c i t o r from the end of November u n t i l the end of January. One must account f o r the holiday season, houever a feu days should be the maximum time required at t h i s stage of the procedure. In conclusion land use contracts should hot be ruleo\ 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 respect D f c o n t r o l . This i s a 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. The contracts should be f l e x i b l e but at the same time they should be as 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 general l i m i t s uhich uould pervent the e f f o r t s of municipal-i t i e s to . incorporate the r i d i c u l o u s . One aspect that should d e f i n i t e l y be l i m i t e d i s that of cash imposts. These should be standardized regarding the amount and the purpose of the impost. The preparation of the improved land use contracts should consider both p a r t i e s very c a r e f u l l y so as not to jeopardize t h e i r future 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 of municipal s u b d i v i s i o n approval delays are not e n t i r e l y o r i e n t e d around the planners o f f i c e , the s o l i c i t o r ' s o f f i c e , -109-or the municipal engineer's o f f i c e . Chapter \lII introduces a number of e x t e r n a l i t i e s uhich have an important r o l e i n the operation 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 Planning, 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, Faculty of Commerce & Business 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 Act, Sec. 4(2). ^Iland Registry Act, RSBC C.208, Sec. 101. 5Land Registry Act, RSBC C.208, Sec. 105(1) 6L_and Registry Act, 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 to E. C. E. Todd, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Law, May 1971. M u n i c i p a l Act, RSBC 1960, chapt. 255, sec. 711(4). P i c c a d i l y Estates vs The Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of De l t a . IMo. X3889, In Supreme Court of B.C. " ^ P i c c a d i l y Estates vs The Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Delta, op'.cit. "^Cam-Kerr Developments v The D i s t r i c t of Abbotsfcrd, IMc. X4681, In Supreme Court of B.C. October 9, 1973, January 29, 1973. 12 Cam-Hierr- Developments vs The D i s t r i c t of Abbotsford, Op. c i t . "^Cam-Kerr Developments vs The D i s t r i c t of Abbptsford, Op. c i t . "^Municipal Act, RSBC 1960 C255, sec.7D2A(5). . 1 5 M u n i c i p a l Act, RSBC 1960, C255 sec. 702A ( 1 K b ) . -111-CHAPTER VII THE MUNICIPAL PROBLEM The a n a l y s i s of the s u b d i v i s i o n approval process i n Chapter VI/ d e f i n i t e l y supports the argument that the production of s e r v i c e d l o t s i s retarded by the present systems of approval i n many of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of metropolitan Vancouver. This conclusion may be r e l a t e d to the argument revealed i n Chapter IJIil that supply of 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 of b u i l d i n g l o t s produced each year i s decreasing r e l a t i v e to the i n -creasing demand f o r b u i l d i n g l o t s . The s i t u a t i o n created i s d e f i n i t e l y one of an imperfect machet. 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 constrained by government c o n t r o l s , one of uhich i s the approval process. The problem houever, i s not one that can be solved by the m u n i c i p a l i t y alone nor i s i t one created 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 TV' and VI uas very narrou concentrating s p e c i f i c a l l y on the approval process u i t h i n given m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . In order to comprehend the complexity of the s i t u a t i o n i t i s necessary to consider a number of e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s uhich have-tended to create the present s i t u a t i o n . The tuo broad areas concerned are 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 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 of the delays c i t e d i n the approval procedures discussed are oriented around the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s concern f o r reducing the cost of development r e l a t i v e to the municipal budget u h i l e other delays uere -112-created by the problem of bureaucracy and the decision making policy of the municipality. The Financial Position of Municipalities The production of serviced lots for the construction of single family duellings is not an asset to the budget of most municipal-i t i e s in British Columbia. This fact has been confirmed particularly in the case of Richmond, B.C. A study conducted there found that "every single family house uas a $250 .•• a year deficit operation from a tax dollar point of vieu." 1 The cost of each additional single family 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 brief revieu of several case studies conducted in the United States, gives additional evidence of this problem. A study conducted by Louis Loeuenstein on the Brookvale sub-division in Fremont, California, concluded that for every dollar paid by a resident in the form of tax the municipality paid $1.01 to service 2 him. This.study 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. In this county 72% of i t s total revenue uas generated by property taxation. It is possible to relate this case to that of municipalities in British Columbia generally speaking as approximately 66% of the revenue generated by B. C. municipalities came from real property taxation in 1968.^ The conclusions of this study cannot be applied directly to the case of British Columbia -113-but do provide a good indication of the revenue generated by taxation of single family duellings relative to the costs single family duellings create. A study conducted by Ruth Mace in three U.S. counties, IMorth Carolina's Guilford, California's San Joaquin, and Middlesex, IMeu Jersey, provides an example of a case uhich is quite representative 4 of the position of many British Columbia municipalities. The results of a study uhich created a. hypothetical subdivision in the Ldoodbridge Tounship in Middlesex County is quite applicable to the situation of subdivision in many B.C. municipalities. 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 total per capita school expenditures uere financed locally. Tables 17 and 18 give information 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 Grade and High School Population Total Per Duelling Unit Ldoodbridge community 95,530 25,654 3.7 20,542 .8 Ldoodbridge subdivision 281 76 3.7 61 .8 -114-Table 18. Property Tax Base f o r Uoodbridge 1965-1966 7 Actual Assessed Valuation ( m i l l i o n s of $) T o t a l , r e a l and personal property $ 232.4 Assessment r a t i o 37% .  R e s i d e n t i a l as a % of 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 M u n i c i p a l i t y 1,759 School D i s t r i c t .233 F i r e D i s t r i c t .69 T o t a l 5.39 Equalized T o t a l Assessed Value ( m i l l i o n s of $) 628.1 Per c a p i t a assessed value 6,573 Tax rates County .226 Municipal .651 School D i s t r i c t .862 A l l other .255 T o t a l 1.994 Hypot h e t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s Assessed v a l u a t i o n (per d u e l l i n g u n i t ) Real property 7,400 T o t a l 7,400 Per d u e l l i n g u n i t property Tax y i e l d 371.73 I t uas found that f o r continuing operating 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 other than education s e r v i c e s , revenues exceeded costs 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 school purposes i n the Ldoodbridge s u b d i v i s i o n uere short by $78 per u n i t on t o t a l costs of $246. The conclusions of t h i s study r e l a t e the dilemma of the excessive cost of school 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 created uhen most of the p u b l i c education support i s derived from the l o c a l property taxes.''"0 The i n t e n t i o n of i n t r o d u c i n g these studies i s not to prove that 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 uhich have to generate a majority of t h e i r revenue from r e a l property t a x a t i o n . In B r i t i s h Columbia the r e a l property tax provided approx-imately 66.9%"'""'" of the revenue f o r B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n 1968. According to the report to the Union of B.C. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , the proportion of municipal expenditures used for. s o c i a l u e l f a r e and education purposes i s i n c r e a s i n g r e l a t i v e to other expenditures. Betueen 1961 and 1969 expenditures on s o c i a l u e l f a r e increased by 12% 12 u h i l e government grants to s o c i a l u e l f a r e decreased by 12%. The municipal expenditure f o r education as a percentage D f property t a x a t i o n f o r the same period increased from 38.2% i n 1961 to 48.0% i n 1969. 1' 3 The conclusion of the Report to the Union of B.C. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s that 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 did a century ago, municipal governments s t i l l r e l y on the y i e l d from 14 r e a l property 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 only the f a c t that revenue i s l i m i t e d but that the municipal 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 finance.the expanding needs of education and s o c i a l u e l f a r e -116-15 services over uhich the municipal governments have no control. Education and welfare costs should be the responsibility of the provincial government and should not be recovered through municipal revenues. The provision of the necessary infrastructure required for municipal growth should become the responsibility 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 situation by relating expenditures of municipal revenue to services over which the municipalities would have direct control. •  * It would also reducej the cost of urban growth. The pressures of financial problems have forced municipalities ta undertake a number of measures to reduce the burden of residential development as provincial government policy regarding this problem has not been determined to date. The present system D f subdivision approval in mast municipal-i 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 is 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. "It may be argued that while streets, sewers, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting and hydro electric 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 Provincial Government is going ta reduce the burden of the cast af education an municipalities. -117-demands, regardless of the benefit enuring to a particular indiv-idual, aught to be financed differently.""^ The use of imposts may offset short run costs but they u i l l not solve the long run financial problem of municipalities. 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-ity can determine that a development is favorable in terms of cost vs benefits in relation to municipal finances by using imposts, i t is only deceiving i t s e l f in the long run. A more equitable situation is created i f the municipality forces the developer to the greatest extent possible to include 17 servicing in his subdivision, but distributes the .casts af develop-ment uhich are of benefit to the uhole municipality among a l l tax-payers. Many people believe that uhen a developer pays additional impost charges he merely passes these costs an to the purchaser of a home by selling the house for a higher price and that as a result the home buyer "may pay more for his home both in the doun payment 18 and in his mortgage redemption installment" and "may conclude that 19 he cannot afford a neu house at a l l . " This argument is false. Chapter tuo introduced the concept of positive and negative leverage. If the price of servicing a lot increases by more than the increase in the market value of a serviced lot the result u i l l be negative leverage on the price of rau land. If 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 lot uho u i l l pay .» the market value for serviced land as determined by the market value -118-for duelling as explained in Chapter tua. If the developer can't buy land at the louer price he uon't develop i t unless the selling price of serviced land increases by a greater amount than the serv-icing 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 in reducing public and private costs for land servicing and development by clustering housing rather than permitting 20 spraul. He cites the case of the Columbia planned toun development in Houard County, Maryland. "Contrasting the fully clustered uith fu l l y open settlement patterns the per family saving is $600 far land 21 and over $2,H-DQ. for investment in public services." In the case of B.C. municipalities methods such as these do not alleviate the real problem. The solution to the financial problems of.B.'C. municipalities lies in 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 provincial government to reduce the rate of increase in the cast af housing. This is not the responsibility af the municipalities but that of the provincial government. The present situation of a lengthening subdivision approval process is directly related to this situation. Municipalities such, as Surrey caught by the rising costs of expanding residential develop-ment, have had to introduce imposts to temporarily salve the problem. The evidence af sloudauns in 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 legislative and regulatory rights uith regard to the introduction of the imposts -119-and drafting of land use contracts to add further assistance in achieving a goal of reducing municipal costs uhile permitting expansion of residential development. A very important assumption must be made before suggesting policies for the provincial government. British Columbia must be u i l l i n g to accept a policy uhich does not restrict demand, but resigns i t s e l f to the fact that many neu arrivals u i l l come to the province for residence and they u i l l be accepted. The problem must be put into perspective. If the government is not going to regulate demand by restricting the entry of neu residents i t must concentrate on increasing the supply of housing. Policy Considerations for the Provincial Government A number of policies uhich may be adapted by the provincial government and directed by the provincial government or delegated to regional boards are: 1. The provincial government must increase the financial capacity of a l l municipalities. The present real property taxation system in British Columbia is due for revision. 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 provincial government must determine the relationship be-tueen the developer and the municipality and the housing market, particularly uith regard to allocation of costs for servicing rau land and the use of imposts. 3. The provincial government must supply funds to municipalities to increase the capacity of existing trunk uater and seuer lines as -120-well as sewage treatment plants and water reservoirs. k. The provincial government must also improve the approval process of authorities which have powers over municipalities regarding those certain land areas within municipalities. An example would be a new policy regarding the approval of land use changes in the flood plain areas of the province. A l l of these policies, directly or indirectly, assist the subdivision approval procedure. If the provincial government f u l f i l s i t s responsibility of assisting the municipalities with their afore-mentioned 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 is resolved. A municipality must operate a rational decision-making process. There are two specific 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 Policies Development of planning policy may be interpreted on two levels: macro planning and micro planning. Macro planning may be defined as "budgetary control by way of a long term financial plan against which the timing of development may be measured but has not 22 been employed as an integral part of the total planning process." Many municipalities have neglected to adopt or to maintain macro plans by satisfying short run demands without consideration for the long run. An excellent example is the case of Surrey and i t s introduction of imposts mentioned in the preceding analysis. The short run advantage to the municipality may very well be a long run burden in respect of maintenance of the services given the municipalities present financial -121-p o s i t i o n and p r o j e c t e d long 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 , the 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 at the micro l e v e l . Micro p lann ing r e f e r s to f u n c t i o n i n g of r e g u l a t i o n s and p o l i c i e s as an i n t e g r a l par t of the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . The approva l process f u n c t i o n s as p a r t of the micro p lann ing sys tem. A p r o j e c t may be stopped because i t does not f i t the zoning b y - l a u r e q u i r e m e n t s . A p u b l i c hear ing 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 aga ins t i t . Houever i t i s p o s s i b l e that the munic -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 tax base as the proposed development u i l l p rov ide a b e t t e r use f o r the l a n d . The 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 i s going to change the use of the land uh ich 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 that 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 uh ich the h igher 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 process of s u b d i v i d i n g l a n d . The m u n i c i p a l i t y must observe that micro p lann ing 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 lann ing p o l i c i e s . I f 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 goa ls 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 approva l p o l i c y should f u n c t i o n much more e f f i c i e n t l y . 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 to i t s micro p lann ing p o l i c y u i t h o u t the h e s i t a t i o n that i s ev idenced i n the m u n i c i p a l d e c i s i o n process uhen the e f f e c t s of 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 r i s k of approving the p r o j e c t becomes too h igh and, t h u s , i t i s d e l a y e d . The p o l i c y r o l e of the p lanner i s very important uhen c o n -s i d e r i n g the process of 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 r o l e shou ld be to reduce the r i g h t s of c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s i n terms of the use of t h e i r land 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 p lanner must -122-have a comprehensive understanding Df the residential development process in order to achieve such a goal. An understanding o f the actions, the attitudes of the ouners, producers and consumers of residential land should be the basis for creating local public policies and implementing policies to influence urban residential 4.1, z l + grouth. The planner plays an important role regarding the distribution aspect of the competitive market system. In order for housing units to be allocated equitably the forces of supply and demand should operate as freely as passible. The planner introduces certain re-strictions to the supply function as he determines uhich public services are being ignored by the activity of the market. An example uould be inadequate roads. As the planner participates in the sub-division approval process he must contr regard to the role of the project in th in the municipality and the costs and b does not have an adequate understanding and the market activity and i t s demands system. In the case of B. C. municipal planning goals and understanding of the process hence restricting the supply of delayed because of a lack of caardinati information required by the planner to project proposal. The coordination of a l l sources in order to ensure the efficient operat The administrative check l i s t in Append the instruments uhich the planner may u ibute his expertise uith e existing stock of development enefits created. If the planner of the development process , he acts as a burden to the i t i e s the lack of comprehensive market tends to impede the housing as projects are an Df a l l the sources of reach a decision regarding a of information is important ion of the approval procedure, ix E is an example of one of se to ensure that the approval -123-process is functioning as i t should. It is the responsibility of the planner to observe that a project is taken through the approval process in 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 District of Surrey and procedures illustrated in a number of 25 studies made in the United States. The responsibility of the planner to relate particular projects to the grouth of the municipality as ue l l as his responsibility to assist in the operation of the approval process are not the sole determinants of the efficient operation of the approval process. The policy of the planner is not the determining factor re-garding a project, i t is merely a requisite of technical expertise to assist in the democratic process established to confirm the fact that the bundle of rights uhich are reduced or increased in the case of one land use are considered in relation to the bundle of rights of society in general. "The municipality is a corporation, a legal entity uith a chairman, the mayor and a board Df directors, the municipal council uhich functions not tD make a profit but to provide services. The successful operation of a municipality depends upon efficient com-munication plus a clearly delineated chain of command evolving around 26 fu l l y documented council policy." The role of the planner i s quite clear regarding the approval process, houever, his interaction uith 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 Pitt Meadous is an example of a municipality uhich has a council that places f u l l confidence in the expertise of i t s municipal clerk and the technical recommendations he assembles from the regional planner and others. The result is an efficient decision making process uhich produces results favorable far the council in respect of satisfying the service requirement to the community and also provides an efficient approval process uhich is not restrained by imperfections in the decision making process. "Unlike the technologist uho uses his expertise to define and reach specific technological objectives the politician seeks to establish a consensus in the context of a large number of often conflicting 27 pressures." In some communities, the pressures have induced the politician 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 this internal complications grow uithin the system. The planners resent the activities of the politicians 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 politician has a strong voice regarding this policy. The efficiency 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 level of communication uhich exists betueen the planners and -125-the counc i l members. "The ro le of the p o l i t i c i a n should be one of provid ing a r a t i o n a l environment u i t h f u l l pub l i c d i sc losure in uhich the p o l i t i c i a n and p r o f e s s i o n a l can funct ion as a team respect ing each o the r ' s views and judgements." "Unfortunately many l e g i s l a t o r s operate on a rough and ready kind of r a t i o n a l i t y that deals u i t h a 28 tremendous number of v a r i a b l e s . " Thus the l e v e l of communication betueen the planner , developer and the p o l i t i c i a n can be s t ra ined and reduced according to a given s i t u a t i o n . Thus, i t i s imperative that counc i l po l i cy be f u l l y ascer ta inable and that as counc i l f u l f i l s i t s p o l i t i c a l funct ion u i t h i n the system i t takes f u l l cons iderat ion of the planner and h is funct ion as a representat ive of macro and micro po l i cy and a chairman of the approval process and the developer as representat ive of the p o t e n t i a l res idents for the p a r t i c u l a r community. In conclusion the delays created in municipal approval p ro -cesses could d e f i n i t e l y be reduced i f munic ipal and p r o v i n c i a l govern-ments adopted p o l i c i e s uhich considered the impact of the a f o r e -mentioned e x t e r n a l i t i e s on the subd iv is ion approval process . -126-Footnotes ^rS. C. LUoodsuarth. Land Use C o n t r o l . Vancouver, The Centre f o r Continuing Education, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972, p. 7. 2 Louis Loeuenstein. Municipal Cost Revenue An a l y s i s f o r Planned Unit Developments, Berkely I n s t i t u t e of Urban and Regional Development, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1973. 3T. J . P l u n k e t t . A Report to the Union of B.C. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s . T. S. Plunkett Associates L t d . 1971, p. 82. 1+ Ruth Mace. Do Single Family Homes Pay Their way. Washington, D.C. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e Research Monograph IMo. 15, 1968. 5R. Mace, •p. C i t . p. 32. 6R. Mace, •p. c i t . Table h, 7R. Mace, •p. c i t . Table 6. 8R. Mace, Op. c i t . p. 31. 9R. Mace, Op. c i t . p. 32. 1 DR. Mace. Op. c i t . p. 32. 1 : LT. 0. P l u n k e t t , Op. c i t . P. 82. 1 2 T . J . P l u n k e t t , Op. c i t . p. 36. 1 3 T . J . P l u n k e t t . The F i n a n c i a l S tructure and the Deci s i o n - Making Process of Canadian Municipal Government, Ottawa: C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1972, p. hi, Table 5. J . P l u n k e t t , Loc. c i t . p. 69. 1 5 T . 0. Pl u n k e t t , Loc c i t . p. 69. 1 6 G e r a l d Ldadler. Land Planning by A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Regulation: P o l i c i e s of the Ontario Municipal Board, Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1971, p. 185. -127-17 S. Ld. Hamilton; R. R a t c l i f f . Suburban Land Development. Vancouver: Faculty of Commerce and Business 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 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 of Canada. Subdivisions  Story, p. 4. 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 Clausen. Suburban Land Conversion i n the United States, Baltimore and London: John Hopkins Press, 1971, p. 155. 21 Dp. c i t . M. Clauson, p. 154. 22 Dp. c i t . Gerald Ldadler, p. 19D. 23 Dp. c i t . Gerald 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 Process. American I n s t i t u t e of Planners J o u r n a l , V o l . 36, 1970, p. 31. 25 Charles T. Tanigan. Control of Land S u b d i v i s i o n . IMeu York: O f f i c e of Planning Co-ordination, 1968. 26 Ldilliam Hooson. "Urban Government and Management i n the Canadian Federal System" Urban Focus, V o l . 1, IMo. 5, 1973. 27 'Dorothy IMeilkin. The P o l i t i c s of Housing Innovation. Ithaca and London: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1971, p. 90. 2 8Dp. c i t . D. N e i l k i n , p. 90. -128-CHAPTER VII I CONCLUSIONS The hypothesis of the t h e s i s uas div i d e d i n t o tuo major areas and one secondary area. The tuo major hypothesis uere: Is the demand fo 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 of the supply i n Metropolitan Vancouver? Is the time r e q u i r e d f o r municipal s u b d i v i s i o n approval i n c e r t a i n Metropolitan 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 delaying the 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 i n these municipal-i t i e s ? The a n a l y s i s of the supply and demand and p r i c e s of 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 family d u e l l i n g u n i t s proved that demand i s i n excess of supply. The a n a l y s i s of four 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 that the time required f o r approval of su b d i v i s i o n s has increased i n c e r t a i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and that t h i s f a c t has also caused a delay i n the 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 i n these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . A secondary hypothesis uas: Are Land Use Contracts a con-s t r a i n t i n the municipal approval procedure causing a delay uhich increases the time required f o r municipal s u b d i v i s i o n approval? The an a l y s i s of Surrey m u n i c i p a l i t y proved that the use of land use contracts may be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to delays created i n the municipal approval process. This t h e s i s has concentrated s p e c i f i c a l l y on the time required f o r municipal s u b d i v i s i o n approval and the relevance of t h i s s i t u a t i o n to the supply of s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g l o t s . Suggestions have been made - 1 2 9 -u h i c h u o u l d improve the o p e r a t i o n o f the p r o c e s s i n t e r n a l l y . There are houever a number o f i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s t h a t s h o u l d be ansuered b e f o r e u n d e r t a k i n g the t a s k o f i m p r o v i n g the i n t e r n a l o p e r a t i o n of 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 . Areas f o r Fu t u r e Research A major 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 out e a r l i e r , uas t h a t i t d i d not i d e n t i f y 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 t i e s i n terms o f the a p p r o v a l o f b u i l d i n g l o t s r e l a t i v e t o a p p l i c -a t i o n s made. The t h e s i s a l s o f a i l s t o s p e c i f i c a l l y determine the demand f o r r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g l o t s and the impact o f s u p p l y o f b u i l d i n g l o t s r e l a t i v e 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 . I t i s n e c e s s a r y to 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 d u e l l i n g u n i t s v e r s u s an inadequate s u p p l y o f s i n g l e f a m i l y d u e l l i n g s i s i n -d i c a t i v e o f a s h o r t a g e 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 . A very i m p o r t a n t area f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h u o u l d i n v o l v e r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g the a c t u a l p r o d u c t i o n o f s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g l o t s 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 r e l a t i v e t o the demand f o r r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g l o t s . C h a p t e r ' V I I i d e n t i f i e d the m u n i c i p a l f i n a n c i a l problem 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 a c t i v i t i e s as b e i n g c r i t i c a l u i t h r e g a r d to e x t e r n a l i t i e s u h i c h c r e a t e a burden upon the o p e r a t i o n 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 . Research u h i c h i d e n t i f i e d the impact of comprehensive p l a n n i n g i n terms o f a macro f i n a n c i a l p l a n and micro t e c h n i c a l p l a n n i n g upon the o p e r a t i o n of the p r o c e s s u o u l d be u s e f u l . I f i t c o u l d be proved t h a t the f i n a n c i a l problems i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and poor methods 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 are a cause D f d e l a y s -130-i n the production c f s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g l o t s the present problems uould be i n a much be t t e r p e r s p e c t i v e . I f i t uas proved that t h i s problem e x i s t s i t uould have t c be solved before improvements could be made to the s u b d i v i s i o n approval process. The cases c i t e d uhich i n d i c a t e the problems of approval 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 that the p r o v i n c i a l government has a r a l e u i t h respect to the more favorable operation c f the approval process. Research icculd t e s t the hypothesis: Does the procedure c f approval 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 of b u i l d i n g l o t s produced by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ? I t i s p a s s i b l e that p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s are a s i g n i f i c a n t cause c f the delay of s u b d i v i s i o n approvals. The cases c i t e d i n the t h e s i s tend to suggest that such an hypothesis i s t r u e . The municipal s u b d i v i s i o n procedure i s net the only cause of delays 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 . Tuo other important aspects of the dynamics of the supply production process deserve future research: (1) The assembly of rau land by the p r i v a t e developer or p u b l i c developer, (2) The c o n s t r u c t i o n process u i t h regard tc the s e r v i c i n g • f d u e l l i n g s i t e s . The assembly'of rau land i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the capacity of supply tc meet demand and i s j u s t as s i g n i f i c a n t as delays i n the municipal approval process regarding c o n s t r a i n t s on supply. -131-APPEIMDIX A - l GENERAL SUBDIV/ISIDN APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR PITT MEADOWS INCLUDING A ZONING AMENDMENT * Stage I - Preparation 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 developer must consider h i s p r o j e c t i n terms of the com-prehensive plan provided 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 permitted. A majority of the land i s not permitted to be developed 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 p l a i n . The developer must also note that he u i l l probably 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 uhich per-mits s u b d i v i s i o n i n t o one-half acre p a r c e l s . Urban zoning permits s u b d i v i s i o n i n t o l o t s containing 7200 square feet uhich are much smaller permitting 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 subdivider prepares a t e n t a t i v e sub-d i v i s i o n plan 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 Preliminary Approval 1. The subdivider submits h i s t e n t a t i v e plan to 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 foruards the plan to the Deudney Alouett Regional 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 smaller 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 plan may spend tuo to three ueeks u i t h the planning s e r v i c e as recommendations and comments are made. 2. The plan i s returned to P i t t Meadous and goes before a planning committee uhich i s composed of tuo aldermen and the municipal c l e r k . *Based on i n t e r v i e u s u i t h municipal c l e r k and c o n s u l t i n g engineers. .•' -132-3. Recommendations of the planning committee and those of the r e g i o n a l planning s e r v i c e are attached to the t e n t a t i v e plan and submitted to municipal c o u n c i l . k. I f the plan i s approved i n p r i n c i p l e i t i s processed f o r r e -zoning from sub-urban to urban according to the municipal by-lau enabled by Sec. 703 of the Municipal Act, uhich r e q u i r e s tuo readings by c o u n c i l , a p u b l i c . h e a r i n g (advertised t u i c e i n the l o c a l paper), and a t h i r d reading 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 the p u b l i c hearing. In the case of P i t t Meadous the t h i r d reading i s not given u n t i l f i n a l engineering drauings are complete. 5. I f the t e n t a t i v e plan r e q u i r e s approval from a higher l e v e l of government as uould be the case i f the p r o j e c t involved the f l o o d 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 reserve, the c o u n c i l uould obtain 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 passing a neu zoning by-lau. 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 acres or more by p e r m i t t i n g the subdivider to develop a p o r t i o n of the land i n one stage and upon completion and approval of that stage he must make a p p l i c a t i o n to develop the f o l l o u i n g stage. In some cases three or four stages may be e s t a b l i s h e d . The.total time that elapses 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 required to consider r e l e v a n t f a c t s . Stage I I I - Preparation of F i n a l Plan Assuming that 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 plan the subdivider can commence preparation 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 -133-B. C. surveyor. 2. The developer's c o n s u l t i n g engineer prepares h i s f i n a l drauings u i t h l o t l i n e s , roads, grades, e t c . i n conjunction u i t h the l e g a l survey. 3. I f the s u b d i v i s i o n involves the f l o o d p l a i n and requi r e s f i l l to r a i s e the geodetic r a t i n g to the standard pr e s c r i b e d by the pro-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 before 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 uhich i n turn u i l l amend the f l o o d p l a i n plan r e l i e v i n g the s u b d i v i s i o n from t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . k. The c o n s u l t i n g engineer of the developer must apply to the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Board of 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 . , i f the s u b d i v i s i o n d i r e c t s storm sewers to a creek or r i v e r . 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 of the sub-d i v i s i o n ' s c o l l e c t i o n system uhich contributes to a p a r t i c u l a r out-f a l l p o i n t . I f the capacity of an o u t f a l l point cannot handle the s u b d i v i s i o n the developer must improve the capacity according to the demands of the p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l branch before the permit u i l l be issued. 5. The .consulting engineer of the developer must also send spec-i f i c a t i o n s of the s u b d i v i s i o n plan t o , i . The B.C. Hydro i i . B. C. Telephone (and c a b l e v i s i o n ) 6. The developer must also obtain easements from a d j o i n i n g property holders ( i f necessary) on behalf of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . Sec. 711(3)(c) of The Municipal Act requi r e s that the 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. -134-7. The by-lau i s generally given t h i r d reading once the sub-d i v i d e r has completed h i s f i n a l engineering plans according to the requirements of the municipal engineer and other 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 p l a i n . Stage IV - Preparation of Development Agreement 1. P i t t Meadous uses a standard form of development agreement. The municipal engineer enters the appropriate 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 required deposits of the s u b d i v i d e r . The development agreement i s based on the engineering drauing and r e f e r s to them by number. A l l of the monies required of the developer are l i s t e d i n the agreement. 2. The municipal lauyer revieus the agreement. Stage V - F i n a l Approval The subdivider has tuc choices. 1. He can accept a development agreement and provide the required monies as s e c u r i t y to the m u n i c i p a l i t y against 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 required s e r v i c e s uhich must be inspected by the m u n i c i p a l i t y uhen completed so that he can have h i s s u b d i v i s i o n plan approved according to Sec. 88 c f the Land Registry  Act making i t e l i g i b l e f o r deposit i n the Land Reg i s t r y o f f i c e . This approach involves the l o s s of time i n the respect that 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 plan u n t i l a l l s e r v i c e s are completed and meet municipal standards. The f i r s t choice i s most common and i s o u t l i n e d as f a l l o u s : (1) The developer submits h i s f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n plan to the m u n i c i p a l i t y . -135-(2) The developer brings 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 has been staged i n the respect of the number of l o t s permitted to be developed). The cheque must also include 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 other, that 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. Theemmnicipality gen e r a l l y releases the money placed 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 cost of s e r v i c i n g as a s e c u r i t y against one year of maintenance of the s e r v i c e s a f t e r completion uhich i s ta be provided by the developer. (3) The development agreement i s signed. (4) The suburban zoning i s formally rezoned urban r e s i d e n t i a l . Stage \JI - 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 1. The 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 Registry • f f i c e . This i s the main ad-vantage of the f i r s t choice as the developer i s i n s t a l l i n g s e r v i c e s u h i l e the r e g i s t r a t i o n i s being processed. 2. The developer can also f i l e f o r prospectus 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 . -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 Discussion u i t h the Planning Department 1. This informal meeting provides the developer u i t h basic i n -formation regarding the municipal a t t i t u d e touards h i s p r o j e c t and the procedure required f o r the formulation of a p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t plan. 2. The plan must be cons i s t e n t u i t h e x i s t i n g zoning ( i f not a zoning amendment a p p l i c a t i o n must be f i l e d ) . 3. The plan must be con s i s t e n t u i t h the capacity of e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s . ( I f they are not capable Df handling the p r o j e c t the developer should determine the expense involved i n i n c r e a s i n g the capacity as t h i s u i l l probably became an o f f s i t e cost to the developer.) k. The plan must be cons i s t e n t u i t h the o f f i c i a l community plan or r e g i o n a l plans 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 Draft Plan f a r the  Proposed S u b d i v i s i o n 1. The d r a f t plan must be submitted i n the form of: ( i ) 15 u h i t e or blue paper p r i n t s ( i i ) 1 t r a c i n g plus a fee of $10.00. 2. The d r a f t plan should shou: ( i ) Layout and alignment of a l l proposed s t r e e t s and l o t s ( i i ) Spot l e v e l s i n approximate centre 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 of any proposed roads u i t h e x i s t i n g roads and at 50 foot 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 . ( i i i ) An i n d i c a t i o n of extent and boundaries of any land 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 supplied by Richmond Planning Department. -137-i v . Location, 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 land being proposed f o r s u b d i v i s i o n . 3. Submission must be accompanied by: ( i ) A c e r t i f i c a t e of encumbrance. ( i i ) 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 Approval • f a Plan of S u b d i v i s i o n " . k. Plan i s amended uhere necessary by the Planning 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 of m a i l i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r department i s recorded and the date c f r e c e i v i n g of the recommendations from each department i s recorded.) Only departments that uould be a f f e c t e d by the proposal are n o t i f i e d . ( i ) The Advisory Planning Commission ( i i ) The Municipal Treasurer ( i i i ) Board of School Trustees ( i v ) M u n i c i p a l B u i l d i n g Department (v) Municipal Engineering Department ( v i ) 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 approving o f f i c e r determines uhether or not the plan can proceed and n o t i f i e s the developer. 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 municipal engineer must provide a p r e l i m i n a r y estimate of the cost of s e r v i c i n g the s u b d i v i s i o n . The subdivider must pay a fee of 6% of t h i s estimate to cover the cost D f the preparation of a f i n a l plan by the municipal engineer. The process of Stage I I r e q u i r e s approximately 3 to k ueeks i n an average p r o j e c t . Stage I I I - Preparation of F i n a l Plan 1. The developer may h i r e h i s oun c o n s u l t i n g engineer or l e t the municipal engineer prepare designs i n accordance u i t h standards s p e c i f i e d by the municipal engineer. The m u n i c i p a l i t y p r e f e r s the -138-l a t t e r approach. 2. The developer must EnclosE the 6% a d m i n i s t r a t i o n fee i n cash or 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 easEmEnts, r i g h t s of way, 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 B. C. surveyor. k. 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 of the costs of .the works i s prepared. 6. The m u n i c i p a l i t y r e q u i r e s a surety guarantee i n respect of the s e r v i c e s being i n s t a l l e d . (1) a. I f cost of work i s $10,000.00 or l e s s : A c e r t i f i e d cheque i n the amount of 5Q% of the Municipal Engineer's f i n a l estate i s r e q u i r e d . This may be r e t a i n e d u n t i l 60 days a f t e r the l a s t c e r t i f i c a t e regarding the s t a t e of the work has been issued by the M u n i c i p a l Engineer or held u n t i l a l l outstanding accounts with the m u n i c i p a l i t y are p a i d . b. Uhere the cost of the work exceeds $10, i ) A c e r t i f i e d cheque f o r the f i r s t $5,000 of 50% of the estimated cost, uhich may be r e t a i n e d u n t i l 60 days a f t e r the l a s t c e r t i f i c a t e regarding the s t a t e of the work pending approval of the Municipal Engineer and passing by c o u n c i l , Dr held u n t i l a l l outstanding accounts u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y have been paid, together with: 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 estimated cost l e s s the $5,000 paid i n cash. Upon completion of the uork a p o r t i o n of the bond covering 15% of a l l costs of the uork u i l l be r e t a i n e d f o r 1 year from the date of the Engineer's f i n a l C e r t i f i c a t e of Approval. -139-i i ) 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 refunding as the engineer c e r t i f i e s completion of each part of the work: 35% of f i n a l estimated cost of s a n i t a r y sewer 35% " " " " " storm sewer curb 35% " " 11 " " sidewalks road 35% " 11 " " 11 paving roads 35% " " " 11 " completing sidewalks 35% " " " 11 " s t r e e t l i g h t i n g (2) I f developer does not wish to do above he may not post guarantee. He must however, i n s t a l l s e r v i c e s to the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the municipal engineer. The f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n plan cannot be r e g i s t e r e d u n t i l the municipal engineer c e r t i f i e s that the i n s t a l l a t i o n of the s e r v i c e s i s completed. A developer cannot f i l e a prospectus u n t i l t h i s plan i s r e g i s t e r e d . The issuance of b u i l d i n g permits which cannot be issued 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 delayed. 7. The s u b d i v i s i o n contract i s discussed with the municipal s o l i c i t o r . The process of Stage I I I r e q u i r e s approximately 6 to 9 weeks. Stage IV - Preparation of Development Agreement This i s the bargaining stage between the developer and the m u n i c i p a l i t y regarding s e r v i c e s and f r i n g e b e n e f i t s required 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 presents i t to the developer. 2. The developer returns to the m u n i c i p a l i t y the duly executed development agreement which i s then presented to c o u n c i l and then executed on behalf of the corporation i f approved. -140-Stage \l - F i n a l Approval The developer submits f i n a l l i n e n transparencies and p r i n t s of the survey plan to the municipal h a l l . These should be accom-panied by 6 paper p r i n t copies 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 of c r e d i t or bank deposit 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 municipal 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 that current taxes have been paid i n respect of the property being subdivided. • c) A r e c e i p t from municipal treasurer c e r t i f y i n g payment of any ether charges n o t i f i e d to the developer. d) A plans approval fee of $2.00 accompanied by one paper p r i n t stamped "return to Richmond Planning Department". (This plan u i l l be deposited i n the Land Registry O f f i c e and returned to Richmond so that b u i l d i n g permits can be issued.) Stage VI - R e g i s t r a t i o n i n Land Registry 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 . Refer to Sec. 88 of the Land Registry Act. -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 is 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 t r i p l i c a t e . 1. 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 build-ings and structures on the property and also shouing the approximate location and usage of the nearest buildings or adjacent lands. 2. If the application is made on behalf of a number of ouners the application forms should be accompanied by a petition (in t r i p -licate) 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 for-uards i t on to the Planning Department and the Advisory Planning Commission. -142-2- The recommendations of these bodies are attached to the a p p l i c a t i o n and presented 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 authorize preparation of an amending by-lau. 4. The amending by-lau i s given tuo readings and the date f o r a p u b l i c hearing i s set according to Sec. 703 of the Municipal Act. 5. The p u b l i c hearing i s i n f o r m a l and organized 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 proposal u i l l be determined by the Planning Committee, and the .residents u i t h i n the defined area u i l l be n o t i f i e d by the Planning 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) Planning committee chairman or member of the committee u i l l act as chairman and conduct the hearing. No de-c i s i o n u i l l be made u n t i l a f t e r the hearing; d) A member of the Planning Department !<s s t a f f u i l l attend, o u t l i n e the area a f f e c t e d by the proposal, and on request, c l a r i f y any matters of a t e c h n i c a l , non-policy nature; e) The proposal u i l l be explained to the neighbourhood r e s i d e n t s by the developer; f ) I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d that i n f o r m a l p u b l i c hearings 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 goals (3 hearings on one p r o j e c t are not uncommon). 6. I f the zoning amendment involves land use that i s under the a u t h o r i t y of a government body other than the m u n i c i p a l i t y approval from t h i s body must be obtained. 7. During the process of p u b l i c hearings the subdivider must bargain u i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y regarding conditions he must meet to achieve a rezoning. These conditions are draun up i n the development agreement. In the case of a zoning amendment i n v o l v i n g a complex pr 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 formal engineering drauings p r i o r to p u b l i c hearing. I f the zoning amendment does not involve a complex s i t u a t i o n the developer may not have to go to a great deal -143-• f expense regarding preparation of f i n a l engineering drawings before a p u b l i c hearing. The a t t i t u d e Df the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s tD minimize the r i s k to the developer. Depending an the s i t u a t i o n the subdivider may f i n d that he i s at any one of a number of 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 hearing. In a complex p r o j e c t he w i l l probably be at the stage of f i n a l approval as o u t l i n e d i n the general pro-cedure. A rezoning amendment can require 8 weeks up to 2 years de-pending on the circumstances. IM .B . Richmond very r a r e l y uses land use contracts i n zoning by-law amendments. A major s u b d i v i s i o n would never involve a land use contract unless the pr o j e c t i n v o l v e s 'a combination of s i n g l e family 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 of Richmond permits 10% of land 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 of s i n g l e family dwelling s u b d i v i s i o n s . In cases where developers wish to b u i l d mere m u l t i p l e family u n i t s or vary the zoning r e g u l a t i o n s land use contracts may be employed. Stage UI - R e g i s t r a t i o n and Prospectus 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 - Prel i m i n a r y Preparations 1. The developer must consider h i s proje c t i n terms of the comprehensive plan provided by the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam. 2. Pr e l i m i n a r y discussions u i t h the Planning Department should be held to e s t a b l i s h the f e a s i b i l i t y of the p r o j e c t . 3. A-draft plan must be prepared i n d i c a t i n g layout of 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 centre of each i n t e r s e c t i o n of proposed roads. k. A c e r t i f i c a t e of encumbrances must be provided. 5. The ouner of the land i n question must be i d e n t i f i e d . Stage I I - Submission of Prel 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 pr e l i m i n a r y approval i s made to the Planning Department. 1. The s u b d i v i s i o n committee revieus the a p p l i c a t i o n . 2. The major departments involved u i t h the pr e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n are the Engineering, Health, B u i l d i n g Departments and Planning Department. 3. The Engineering Department requires p r e l i m i n a r y engineering designs based on the Planning Department sketch l a i d out i n the master plan but providing more d e t a i l such as roads, centre l i n e s and grades. k. The s u b d i v i s i o n committee approves the prel i m i n a r y plan subject to recommendations made by the various departments and subject to the Su b d i v i s i o n Control By-lau 1930, as u e l l as any other r e q u i r e -*Based on i n t e r v i e u s u i t h the Engineering Department and the Planning Department. - l a -ments such as easements, e t c . T o t a l time f o r Stage I I i s approximately 5 ueeks. Stage I I I - Preparation c f a F i n a l Plan 1. The developer's c o n s u l t i n g engineer prepares the formal engineering plans subject tD recommendations of the municipal engineer. 2. The 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 B. C. surveyor. 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 of 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 of B r i t i s h Columbia must be n o t i f i e d according to the same procedure as out-l i n e d i n the P i t t Meadous process. k. The Greater Vancouver Seuerage and Drainage D i s t r i c t and the Greater Vancouver Water Board must be consulted regarding the sub-d i v i s i o n ' s involvement u i t h trunk l i n e s of s a n i t a r y seuers and uater mains. These boards must authorize the subdivider to carry 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 fee of k% of estimated co n s t r u c t i o n cost as c a l c u l a t e d by the c o n s u l t i n g engineer of the developer and approved by the municipal engineer. 7. The developer must arrange f o r an insurance p o l i c y f o r a l l s e r v i c i n g that he u i l l undertake. (The p o l i c y i s revieued by a pr 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 of the s u b d i v i s i o n plan 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 also obtain a l l necessary easements from adj o i n i n g property holders on behalf c f the m u n i c i p a l i t y or h i s -146-s u b d i v i s i o n . T o t a l time f o r Stage I I I i s approximately 6 weeks. Stage IV - Preparation of Performance Bonds The current planner prepares a d r a f t agreement de s c r i b i n g a l l of the requirements that the developer must f o l l o w . The signature of the developer on a performance bond provides the s e c u r i t y to the m u n i c i p a l i t y that the s e r v i c e s w i l l be i n s t a l l e d . The procedure i s as f o l l o w s . Note: The developer has the same choices 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 that the developer i s w i l l i n g to post s e c u r i t y as a guarantee f o r s e r v i c e s rather than complete s e r v i c e s before g e t t i n g approval. 1. The developer must provide funds i n the form of bonding which must be cash i f the amount of the required s e c u r i t y i s l e s s than $100,000. The amount i s determined according to the cost of s e r v i c i n g as estimated by the developer's c o n s u l t i n g engineer and confirmed by the municipal engineer. 2. In l i e u of cash the developer may give 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 of deposit 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 of these monies must be based on 110% of the estimated cost of the works rather than 100%. 3. I f the amount i s greater than $100,000 the m u n i c i p a l i t y w i l l 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 refund these monies upon completion of the s e r v i c e s subject to i n s p e c t i o n . However 50% of the bonding i s re 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 developer. 5. A l l monies go to the municipal t r e a s u r e r . The agreement i s signed and sealed i n the name of the developer on the same day as -147-presentation Df bonds. Stage \J - F i n a l Approval The basic requirements o f the s u b d i v i s i o n by-lau 1930 must be met before f i n a l approval i s given. 1. The developer must sign a d e c l a r a t i o n form assigning a l l s e r v i c e s to the d i s t r i c t . 2. The developer must provide funds to cover i n s p e c t i o n fees af hi s completed s e r v i c e s . 3. The D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam i n s t a l l s a l l uater mains. The developer must pay a f l a t rate f o r such i n s t a l l a t i o n s . 4. I f there are any s e r v i c e s that uere not f e a s i b l e tc i n s t a l l at present but u i l l be req u i r e d i n the future the developer must pay a f l a t rate f o r these s e r v i c e s uhich the d i s t r i c t u i l l i n s t a l l at the proper time. 5. The agreement betueen the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the developer must be signed. 6. A l l conditions of Sec. 88 of the Land Reg i s t r y Act must be met i n order that 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. Subject to the approval of a l l departments and a r e v i e u of the f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n plan by the Engineering Department the approving o f f i c e r uho i s the municipal engineer i n t h i s m u n i c i p a l i t y signs the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n . Stage UI - R e g i s t r a t i o n and Prospectus Developer may r e g i s t e r the s u b d i v i s i o n plan 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 - Pre l i m i n a r y Discussion with thE Planning Department The procedure f o r Stage I i s the same as that o u t l i n e d f o r the general procedure f o r the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam. The developer must obtain an a p p l i c a t i o n form f o r a zoning by-lau' -amendment from the Planning Department and submit i t u i t h a non-refundable a p p l i c -a t i o n fee of $35 uhen he makes h i s prel i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n f o r sub-d i v i s i o n approval. Stage I I - Process of Revieu of the Preliminary A p p l i c a t i o n 1. The planning d i r e c t o r revieus the a p p l i c a t i o n i n respect of the community plan and foruards the a p p l i c a t i o n to the Advisory Planning Commission. 2. The Advisory Planning Commission considers the a p p l i c a t i o n and r e f e r s i t to i t s various committees f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s i f necessary. The Advisory Planning Commission meets i n the c o u n c i l chamber of the municipal h a l l at 7.30 P.M. on the f i r s t and t h i r d Wednesday of each month. The developer i s n o t i f i e d of the date uhen the s u b d i v i s i o n u i l l be revieued by the Advisory Planning Commission and i s advised to appear before the Commission to present any a d d i t i o n a l information that may help advance the a p p l i c a t i o n . 3. The Advisory Planning Commission at the completion of i t s r e v i e u makes recommendations to c o u n c i l . 4. The c o u n c i l revieus the advice and recommendations of the Advisory Planning Commission and the Planning D i r e c t o r s Report and -149-decides t o : a) Indicate 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 subject t c the ap p l i c a n t supplying a d d i t i o n a l inform-a t i o n ; b) Decline 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 to the Planning D i r e c t o r and/or the Advisory Planning Commission f o r f u r t h e r study. Stage I I I - The Amendment df the Zoning By-Lau The developer may assemble a d d i t i o n a l information i n order to 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 by-lau uhich i n due course i s r e f e r r e d to a p u b l i c hearing as the developer moves i n t o the stages o f preparation of f i n a l plans. For purposes of t h i s example assume that 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 amend-ment and has given d i r e c t i o n to have an amending by-lau d r a f t e d . A p u b l i c hearing date i s e s t a b l i s h e d according to the r u l e s of Sec. 703 c f the Municipal Act. F o l l o u i n g the p u b l i c hearing the c o u n c i l u i l l e i t h e r , 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 . This r e q u i r e s three readings to the amendment by-lau. b) Decline to give f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Assuming that c o u n c i l gives three readings to the by-lau amendment the developer nou moves i n t o the fo u r t h stage of the general process pr e v i o u s l y o u t l i n e d providing he has met a l l the requirements of the t h i r d stage uhich i n v o l v e s preparation c f a f i n a l p l a n . Stage IV/ - Preparation of Performance Bonds When the developer provides the necessary funds f o r bonding and the municipal t r e a s u r e r has received these funds and the agree-ment betueen the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the developer i s signed and sealed i n the name of the developer the planning d i r e c t o r reports to c o u n c i l -150-that t h E b y - l a u can be recommended f o r f i n a l adoption. ' StagE \l - F i n a l Approval 1. The planner rEcommends that the agreement be approved by c o u n c i l once he i s assured that a l l p r o v i s i o n s are acceptable. The Engineering Department must r e v i e u the f i n a l plan to confirm that a l l r i g h t of uays, easements and other requirements are provided according.to demands. 2. The c o u n c i l then approves the agreement and adopts the amended by - l a u a f t e r considering a l l relevant matters. Stage Ul - 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 f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n of the s u b d i v i s i o n at the Land Registry O f f i c e and apply f o r a prospectus. -151-APPEIMDIX D-l GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SURREY''* Stage I - Informal Meeting 1. Informal discussions 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 of planning o f f i c e regarding f e a s i b i l i t y of the project and e x i s t i n g planning r e g u l a t i o n s . Stage I I - Preparation of Preliminary A p p l i c a t i o n 1. Formulation of Rough Draft plan. The developer f i l l s i n a standard 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 providing the f o l l o u i n g information: a) Draws proposal to scale of 1" = 200' noting the e x i s t i n g and proposed property dimensions. b) Gives distances of 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 adjacent 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) Colours roads and lanes to be b u i l t i n red or orange. f ) Outlines the property involved i n the s u b d i v i s i o n i n blue or green. 2. A ncn-refundable s e r v i c e charge of $5 per l o t being applied f o r or a minimum of $10 whichever i s greater i s presented upon a p p l i c a t i o n . Stage I I I - Processing of Preliminary A p p l i c a t i o n by the  M u n i c i p a l i t y The developer f i l e s the a p p l i c a t i o n with the Planning Depart-ment. The a p p l i c a t i o n i s received by the t e c h n i c a l personnel of the Planning Department and a l l information from the a p p l i c a t i o n i s *Based on in t e r v i e w s with the Planning Department and Consulting Engineers. -152-recorded on a s u b d i v i s i o n record sheet. 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 record sheet i s completed as f o l l o u s : 1. The ounership of the property i n question i s confirmed through the Assessment Department or the Land Registry 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 required to submit proof of ounership. (Mote that cases e x i s t uhere holding companies do not uish to r e v e a l the ounership of the land. In order to proceed the Planning Depart-ment requi r e s absolute•proof, a deed i f necessary.) 2. The proposed development i s checked regarding: a) the a g r i -c u l t u r a l land reserve, b) intended use r e l a t e d to zoning, c) seuage d i s p o s a l ( s a n i t a r y seuer or on s i t e ) , d) easements or r i g h t s of uay e x i s t i n g or req u i r e d , e) s e c t i o n 712 of the Municipal Act regarding frontage r e l a x a t i o n ( i f non-conforming i t r e q u i r e s approval of c o u n c i l ) . 3. Comments are made by the Planning Department - these are r e l a t e d to the Surrey Development by-lau and the s u b d i v i s i o n by-lau. 4. Comments are also obtained from other departments and d i v i s i o n s uhere r e l e v a n t . Parks - Planning Department and i t s comments regarding p r i o r i t y - 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 - Planning Department - Property Department - School Board Land/Road Closures or Exchanges - Planning Department - Engineering Department - Memo to the municipal manager c o u n c i l regarding approval - Memo to the Property Department - Highuays Department 5. A s p e c i a l form (P.S.27) i s dated and sent to the Engineering Department. This form notes planning 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 l i s t s required services regarding water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, internal roads and external roads. Other services or additional comments are noted. This sheet also bears a l l impost charges which are multiplied by the number of lots. The general areas are non-arterial roads, arteria l roads, drainage, water, public land, sanitary sewer installation cost, sanitary sewer connection fee, water rates, and other. Engineering dates the form when completed and returns i t to Planning Department. 6. Uhere applicable other agencies are sent a letter providing relevant information regarding the project: Department of Highways B. C. Hydro Fisheries Others 7. If the application appears feasible a f i e l d inspection is con-ducted. The technical planner notes location of the existing services, checks for gravel sidewalks, location of buildings, etc. 8. A letter is then drafted noting the requirements upon the developer or conditions necessary for approval of the developer's application form (PS-32). This letter includes requirements laid out by the Engineering Department. The letter goes to the supervisor of the Technical Planning Department for approval. After the typing of the letter i t is sent to the supervisor once again with an attached copy of the application. The letter is then forwarded to the director of planning for a signature. The director of planning w i l l make any changes he feels are necessary. Once signed the letter is sent to the developer. 9. The letter notifying the developer of preliminary approval of -154-his s u b d i v i s i o n includes impost charges. The standard ones are:* 1) 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 constructed to present municipal standards, and uhich i s not requ i r e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y to be up-graded by the developer as part of the s u b d i v i s i o n or development uorks." 2) Municipal a r t e r i a l roaduay impost, $200 per l o t , f o r the purpose of defraying the excessive costs to the M u n i c i p a l i t y required " f o r the upgrading and improvement of highuays i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y made necessary by the increased population and t r a f f i c density created 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 per l o t , "for the purpose Df defraying the excessive cost tD the m u n i c i p a l i t y of pro-v i d i n g funds required f o r the upgrading and improvement of drainage f a c i l i t i e s made necessary by the increased f l o u created by s u b d i v i s i o n s and developments. In the event that the subdivider or developer e l e c t s to upgrade the municipal drainage system dounstream from the development (no developer s h a l l discharge any drainage uater i n t o any municipal drainage system uhere such discharge u i l l overload the capacity of any part of the municipal drainage system) the m u n i c i p a l i t y u i l l c o ntribute to the cost of the excess c a p a c i t y , an amount not i n excess of the drainage impost received from the developer." 4) Trunk and supply uater main f a c i l i t i e s impost, $150.00 per l o t , f o r the purposes of defraying excessive costs to the municipal-i t y of providing funds required f o r the upgrading and improvements of Municipal Development P o l i c y as amended to December 10, 1973. -155-main trunks and supply f a c i l i t i e s c f the uater ucrks system. 5) P u b l i c land 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 created Thus a developer i s required to pay a minimum of $1,555 per un i t or a d d i t i o n a l l o t created plus a d d i t i o n a l o f f - s i t e costs created by a p a r t i c u l a r case. T o t a l Time. I f the p r o j e c t conforms i n every uay to the c o n t r o l plan and there are feu problems t h i s p o r t i o n of the process u i l l take 3 months. I f the a p p l i c a t i o n involves complexities i t may require k or 5 months. Stage IV - Preparation of the F i n a l Plan Subject to the requirements l i s t e d on the approval c f the preliminary a p p l i c a t i o n the developer has 90 days tc proceed u i t h an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r f i n a l approval. I f he f a i l s to meet t h i s 90 day requirement he must s t a r t a l l over again. 1. The developer gives the l e t t e r he received from the Planning Department to 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 cost a n a l y s i s . 2. I f the.project 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 d e t a i l e d drauings on the basis of the requirements l a i d out by the municipal engineer. This process can take tuo to three 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 engineering system and requirements of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The process, i s lengthened according to the number of meetings held betueen the c o n s u l t i n g engineer of the developer and the municipal engineer. 3. 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 B. C. surveyor. 4. The f i n a l plans of the c o n s u l t i n g engineer are submitted to -156-the municipal engineer f o r r e v i s i o n s . This step may re-occur 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 approval of the plans by the municipal engineering 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 contains a l l of the d e t a i l e d engineering plans approved by the municipal engineer and also i n d i c a t e s the costs of i n s t a l l a t i o n of s e r v i c e s and s t i p u l a t e s a l l requirements.) 6. 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 created during the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the developer's engineer and the municipal engineer i n preparation of the f i n a l p lan. (The Planning Department i s not involved i n the d r a f t i n g of the s e r v i c i n g agreement.) 7. Providing that a l l approvals regarding matters beyond the au t h o r i t y of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ( f l o o d p l a i n approval, department of highuays, etc.) are obtained uhere required the developer can enter the stage of f i n a l approval. Stage \J - F i n a l Approval 1. The developer must sign the s e r v i c i n g agreement and provide a l l monies (cash, c e r t i f i e d cheque or l e t t e r of c r e d i t ) required i n the agreement (note banding i s s i m i l a r to that af Coquitlam). 2. A l l r i g h t s of uays, documents and easements must be noted. 3. The developer must pay outstanding property taxes and make a deposit f o r those property taxes of the succeeding year i f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r approval i s signed betueen September 3D and December 31. h. An i n s p e c t i o n fee of 1% of assessed land value.of the property must be paid i n f u l l . 5. A s u b d i v i s i o n approval fee of $1D.DD' must be paid. 6. The municipal engineer must r e v i e u the survey.plans and note -157-uhether they agree i n layout u i t h those approved i n prel i m i n a r y approval plus amendment l e t t e r s . 7. Council gives f i n a l reading to the agreement subject to any considerations i t may ui s h to take. 8. The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r f i n a l approval i s executed by the c l e r k and the mayor. 9. The approving o f f i c e r signs the plan subject to the conditions required by Section 88 of the Land Registry Act. Stage Ul - 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 to r e g i s t e r h i s sub-d i v i s i o n and f i l e f o r a prospectus. -158-APPENDIX D-2 SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURE INVOLVING A CHANGE IN LAND USE IN SURREY ' Sec. 702A of the Municipal Act i s the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n uhich gives the municipal c o u n c i l the r i g h t to enter i n t o a contract u i t h the ouner c f a p a r c e l c f land concerning the use of that p a r c e l of land i f i t i s located i n a "development area". The m u n i c i p a l i t y must designate areas of land u i t h i n a zone as "development area". Surrey has proclaimed development areas i n four urban grouth areas. Since major s u b d i v i s i o n s generally require changes i n land use almost a l l c f them are processed through land use c o n t r a c t s . Sec. 702A(8)of the A'ctch s t a t e s that "nothing i n Sec. 702A r e s t r i c t s the r i g h t of an cuner to develop h i s land i n accordance u i t h the r e g u l a t i o n s of the m u n i c i p a l i t y applying to the zone i n uhich the land i s s i t u a t e d uho does not enter i n t o a land use contract 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 gene r a l l y governed i n a suburban c l a s s i f i c a t i o n uhich dees not permit the required number of d i v i s i o n s of an acre of land to make a pr o j e c t f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e f o r the developer given present 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 general procedure o u t l i n e d f o r Surrey up to the stage c f pr 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 of Revieu of the Prel i m i n a r y A p p l i c a t i o n  by the Planning Department 1. The Planning Department conducts a prel 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. general procedure o u t l i n e d . 2. The Planning Department r e f e r s the a p p l i c a t i o n to the Advisory - 1 5 9 -Planning Commission uhich i s composed of 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 to make recommendations on a l l change of use a p p l i c a t i o n s . 3. The app l i c a n t may be c a l l e d before the Advisory Planning Commission to describe h i s proposal. k. Recommendations of the Advisory Planning Commission and those of the Planning Department are attached to the a p p l i c a t i o n and presented to c o u n c i l uho by a tuo 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 to proceed, t a b l e or r e j e c t i t . This i s not an approval i n p r i n c i p l e but merely an approval to permit the f u r t h e r processing of the a p p l i c a t i o n . 5 . The subdivider must provide s u b d i v i s i o n plans to the Advisory Design Panel uhich i s composed of ID members appointed by c o u n c i l to make recommendations on design of commercial, i n d u s t r i a l and apartment a p p l i c a t i o n s . (The Panel does not gene r a l l y make recommendations regarding s u b d i v i s i o n layout but does give t e n t a t i v e approval of l o t layout.) 6. The subdivider must i n q u i r e of the Engineering Department u i t h regard to the engineering requirements. 7. Once t e n t a t i v e approval of l o t layout i s given, the Land Use Contract can be prepared by the planner, development engineer and municipal s o l i c i t o r . The form of the contract depends on the developer's choice of the f o l l o u i n g 2 options. • p t i o n 1. I f the developer f e e l s r e l a t i v e l y secure that h i s proposal u i l l be accepted at a p u b l i c hearing and approved by c o u n c i l he may move i n t o Stage IV by having h i s co n s u l t i n g engineer prepare the f i n a l d r a f t of the s u b d i v i s i o n plan. The Land Use Contract u i l l be draun up i n conjunction u i t h the engineering agreement uhich -160-contains f u l l engineering requirements together u i t h a l l s e c u r i t y bonding amounts, fees and imposts. I f the pr o j e c t i s r e j e c t e d due to the p u b l i c hearing the developer loses a l l the money he has spent thus f a r i n c l u d i n g the fees of the co n s u l t i n g engineer. Although the a c t u a l d r a f t i n g of the Land Use Contract u i l l take a l i t t l e longer because of the time needed to prepare the engineering agree-ment t h i s option i s the f a s t e r one. Option 2. I f the developer f e e l s that h i s projec t i s con-tentious and that he can a f f o r d to spend more time i n the process of approval he can request a contract based on general engineering r e -quirements and impost charges. The advantage of t h i s step i s that the engineer's plans do not have to be prepared i n a f i n a l plan form. The developer can u a i t u n t i l the p u b l i c hearing regarding the Land Use Contract, i s held. The contract draun up u i l l make reference to a subsequent agreement dealing u i t h s p e c i f i c engineering requirements, fees and engineering s e c u r i t y bonding amounts. The developer cannot move on tD Stage \l uhich i s f i n a l approval, u n t i l t h i s agreement i s executed. The major disadvantage of t h i s option i s that the time spent u a i t i n g f o r the p u b l i c hearing could be used to d r a f t the f i n a l engineering plans and the engineering agreement. This step r e q u i r e s at l e a s t 30 to 60 days depending upon the co n s u l t i n g engineer of the developer and h i s experience 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 Df the municipal engineer i n drauing up the engineering agreement. The time involved i n preparation of a p u b l i c hearing according to Sec. 703 af the Municipal Act u i l l i n v o l v e at l e a s t 3 ueeks to a month. We u i l l assume that Option 1 i s c a r r i e d out. -161-Stage IV - Preparation af F i n a l Plan The f i n a l plan i s prepared and the engineering agreement executed according to the procedure i n the general process. 1. The Land Use Contract proposal i s submitted to the a p p l i c a n t f o r signature and r e t u r n . Consent i s required 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 property. 2. The Land Use Contract i s foruarded to the c l e r k and an author-i z i n g by-lau i s introduced and given f i r s t and second reading by c o u n c i l . The date f o r p u b l i c hearing i s set according to the pro-cedure required by Sec. 7D3 of the Municipal Act. (An advertisement i s placed i n the p u b l i c press and n o t i c e s are u s u a l l y sent to sur-rounding property ouners.) 3. F o l l o u i n g the p u b l i c hearing 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 fees are submitted and the engineering department i s s a t i s f i e d that 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 adoption of the author-i z i n g by-lau may take place. The Land Use Contract i s then signed by the mayor and the c l e r k . 5. 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 Contract i n the Land Registry O f f i c e . I f Option 2 uere used the engineering plans of the subdivider uould have to be submitted to the development engineer for approval and the development or engineering agreement uould 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 fees submitted before f i n a l adoption of the a u t h o r i z i n g by-lau. (Third reading can be given i f imposts have been submitted.) The project may nou move on to Stages \J and VI according to the general procedure. - 1 6 3 -APPEIMDIX E ADMINISTRATIV/E CHECK LIST: FOR HYPOTHETICAL MUNICIPALITY A p p l i c a t i o n Number Date of A p p l i c a t i o n Name & Address, Ouner T e l . No, Name & Address, Subdivider 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 Su b d i v i s i o n F i l e No..., Land Use Contract No.., Date completed: Sketch Plan Informal Discussion Preliminary A p p l i c a t i o n D i s t r i b u t i o n by Planning Department: Date Sent Date Received Comments School Board Health Department Department of Highways Engineering Department Greater V/ancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Flood P l a i n : L e t t e r to the M i n i s t e r of Municipal A f f a i r s Date Sent Approved Land Commission Amendment • Required: Yes No Applied Completed O f f i c i a l Community Plan Category: Amendment Required: Yes No Applied Completed.. Development Area: Yes No -164-F i e l d Inspection: Planning Department Report: Advisory Planning Commission Considerations: Recommendations Comments of other bodies p o s s i b l y i n v o l v e d : C.M.H.C.: Department of Lands & Forests: 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 Control Branch: M i n i s t e r of Lands, Forests and Uater Resources: Environmental Engineering: Inspector of Dykes: Uater Rights Branch: Deputy M i n i s t e r of Commercial Transport: National Energy Board: Railways: U t i l i t y Companies: Canadian Department of 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 Contract required c o u n c i l may give approval to i n i t i a t e procedure) Request of Technical Requirements from Engineering Dept. Date.... ( I f a Land Use Contract required engineering 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) Technical Requirements completed by Engineering Dept. Date N o t i f i c a t i o n given to a p p l i c a n t regarding p r e l i m i n a r y approval and requirements. Date De t a i l e d Plans received from the a p p l i c a n t . Date -165-Distribution 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. (If a Land Use Contract is 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 First and Second Reading Public Hearing Date Set Date Held Comments Decision of Council Preparation of fi n a l draft plans by developer's engineer Date commenced Date completed -- 1 6 6 -Legal survey providing ground survey and a l l easements, r i g h t s of way, and r e s t r i c t i v e covenants e x i s t i n g and re q u i r e d . Date completed Meetings betueen c o n s u l t i n g engineer of developer and municipal engineer: Dates ' IMotification of s e c u r i t i e s required by the s u b d i v i d e r . Amount of the bonding set i n the Development Agreement or Land Use Contract: F i n a l Land Use Contract or Development Agreement. Checked by Date Received Date Returned Comments Planning Engineering (checks to see that F i n a l Survey Plan meets a l l requirements) S o l i c i t o r : Date sent ...Received Comments Subdivider makes a p p l i c a t i o n f o r F i n a l Approval. Date F i n a l Plans Received S e c u r i t i e s Received Delivered to Treasurer... Amount Receipt F i n a l Reading of Land Use Contract or Development Agreement. Adaption of Land Use Contract or Development Agreement. Land Use Contract f i l e d i n Land Registry Copy returned S u b d i v i s i o n Plans approved School Board Property Department Treasurer and B u i l d i n g Department informed of F i n a l Adoption As b u i l t drawing re c e i v e d by municipal engineer. Date I f a Land Use Contract the new zoning is.:;mapped. Date -167-BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books Clauson, Marion. Converting Land Use from Rural to Urban Use;i • Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971. deSmith, S. J u d i c i a l Revieu of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n . London: Stevens and Son L t d . 1959. Grigsby, Ldilliam 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 of Pennsylvania Press 1963. IMelkin, Dorothy. The P o l i t i c s of Housing Innovation. Ithaca and London: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1971. Reid, Margaret. Housing and Income. Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1962. Schmid, A. A l l a n . Converting Land Use from Rural to Urban Uses. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. Sweet, David C. Models of Urban S t r u c t u r e . Toronto: Lexington • Becks, 1972 Ldadler, Gerald. Land Planning by A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Regulation: The P c l i c i e s of the Ontario Municipal Board. Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1971. LUheeler, Michael. The Right to Housing. Montreal: Harvest House, 1968. B. Monographs Loeuenstein, Louis K. Municipal Cost/Revenue A n a l y s i s f o r Planned  Unit Developments. S p e c i a l Report IMo. 9. Berkley: The Centre f o r Real.Estate and Urban Economics I n s t i t u t e of Urban and Regional Development, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a 1973. Mace, Ruth L. Do Single Family Homes Pay Their 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, Westminister: I n s t i t u t e of Economic A f f a i r s 1969. Pennance, F.G. Housing, Toun Planning and the Land Commission Act. 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. Sub d i v i s i o n Improvement Requirements. Planning B u l l e t i n No. 5. Oregon: Bureau of Government Research and Ser v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, 1970. C. P e r i o d i c a l s C r a i g , David Id. " D i s c r e t i o n a r y Land Use Controls the Iron Ldhim of the P u b l i c " , I n s t i t u t e of Planning, Zoning and Eminant Domain  Southwestern Legal Foundation, 1971, pp. 1-20. Greenspan, David; Vaughan, David. "How the Zoning Game i s Played: A Look at Land Use Procedures", The Law Society Gazette 6:50-57, 1972. Harvey, Cameron. "Municipal Law" Ontario Law Revieu 5:196-209, 1971. Hooson, Ldilliam. "Local Government and Management". Urban Focus 1 No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1973. Kais e r , Edward 0. "Decision Agent Models of the R e s i d e n t i a l Development Process: A Review of Recent Research", T r a f f i c Quarterly 23:597 , 1969. Kais e r , Edward 0. "Pu b l i c P o l i c y and Residential'Development Process", American I n s t i t u t e of Planners Journal 36:30, 1970. Kennedy, Nolan. "Contract and C o n d i t i o n a l Zoning: A Tool f o r Zoning F l e x i b i l i t y " , Hastings Law Journal 33:825-847, 1972. "Land Costs: A side of the st 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, Frederick A. "The Zoning Game: Alb e r t a S t y l e " , A l b e r t a Law  Review 9, 268-309, 1971. Milner, J.B. "An Introd u c t i o n to Sub 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. Shelton, John P. "The Cost of Renting vs the Cost of Owning a Home", Land Economics 44:168. S t e i n , L e s l i e A. "The Municipal Power to Zone i n Canada and the United 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 Ontario", Urban Development I n s t i t u t e of Ontario, November 1972. Gruft, Andrew. "The Urban Environment Production System, a Preliminary Model", School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1973. -169-Goldberg, Michael. " R e s i d e n t i a l Developer Behavior: Some E m p i r i c a l Findings", Faculty of Commerce and Business 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 Areas." A paper submitted to E.C.E. Todd, Faculty 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., Peers, C.L. "Subdivision Control and Finance", Faculty df Lau, U n i v e r s i t y af B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963. "Subdivision Regulations: Short Form Model f o r the State 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. "Subdivision Story, 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 Planning 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 Continuing Legal Education, 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 Continuing Legal Education, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1971. E. Government Publications. Federal Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , C e n t r a l Housing and Mortgage Corporation. Plunkett, T.J. The F i n a n c i a l Structure and Decision Making Process of the Canadian Municipal Government. Ottaua, P o l i c y Planning 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. P r o v i n c i a l "A Guide to Municipal and Regional D i s t r i c t A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedures" Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , May 1970. Plunkett, 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 . Plunkett and Associates L t d . May 15, 1971. "A Report on Development C o n t r o l " , Ontario Lau Reform Commission. -170-The S u b d i v i s i o n Approval 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 Municipal 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 Want to Subdivide. Ontario, March 1970. Regional D i s t r i c t s The Housing Issue, Prepared by the S t a f f of the Planning Department of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, 1973. The Housing Issue, A d i s c u s s i o n paper prepared by the Planning Depart-ment of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, February 137k. " P i t t Meadous Study. Development f o r the Highland Area" M u n i c i p a l Planning Service of Louer Mainland Regional Planning Board 1967. Population Forecast. Prepared by the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1973. Population Trends i n Louer Mainland 1921-1986. Prepared by the Louer Mainland Regional Planning Board 1968. United States of America State Governments, "Control of Land S u b d i v i s i o n " by State of Neu York O f f i c e of Planning Co-ordination, 1967. F. Statutes Revised Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: I960 C255 Municipal Act. 1960 C261 M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Enabling 2nd V a l i d a t i n g Act. 1960 C76 C o n t r o l l e d Access Highuays Act 1960 C208 Land Registry Act 1960 C208 Real Estate Act Cases. C i t y of Vancouver vs R e g i s t r a r of Vancouver Land Registry D i s t r i c t 15 LdwR 351. Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Delta vs P i c c a d i l l y Estates L t d . In the Supreme Court of B.C. No. X3889, January 27, 1973. The D i s t r i c t of Abbotsford vs Cam-Kerr Developments. In the Supreme Court of B.C. No. XM-681, October 9, 1973. 

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