UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The use of subdivision controls to conserve open space Dorchester, Patricia Anne 1977

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 D67.pdf [ 6.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094190.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094190-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094190-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094190-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094190-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094190-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094190-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094190-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094190.ris

Full Text

THE USE OF SUBDIVISION CONTROLS TO CONSERVE OPEN SPACE PATRICIA ANNE DORCHESTER B.A., University of Massachusetts, 1 9 7 ^ A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING i n We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1 9 7 ? In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. P. A. Dorchester Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date May 1977 i i ABSTRACT In recent years conservation of the natural environment has become an important concern. U n t i l recently, a munici-p a l i t y wishing to r e t a i n open space usually purchased i t . There are, however, less c o s t l y a l t e r n a t i v e s . This thesis explores the actual and potential uses of one alternative -the conservation of open space through subdivision c o n t r o l . The objectives of the study were f i r s t , to describe the use of subdivision control devises to conserve open space i n the GVRD and then, to suggest ways to increase t h e i r e f f e c t -iveness. In order to indicate the range of subdivision controls open to B.C. municipalities the l e g i s l a t i v e basis was i n v e s t i -gated. Under the e x i s t i n g system, municipalities have l i m i t e d powers fo r securing open space i n subdivisions. Four l o c a l m u n i c i palities were then interviewed to determine how sub-d i v i s i o n controls are used i n practice. Negotiations with the developer were found to character-ize the process. '--.However, because of the weakness of the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , the developer's cooperation in preserv-ing open space i s e s s e n t i a l . In addition, most municipalities lack c l e a r p o l i c i e s to d i r e c t conservation of open space i n subdivisions. The study concludes that controls would be more e f f e c t -ive i f stronger enabling l e g i s l a t i o n were introduced to .-i-improve the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' bargaining p o s i t i o n . In addition, environmental analysis of undeveloped areas would provide the necessary basis for the a r t i c u l a t i o n of conservation objectives f o r subdivision control. TABLE OF CONTENTS C h a p t e r 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n I Open Space C o n s e r v a t i o n I I D e f i n i t i o n s I I I The Importance o f Urban Open Space IV L o c a l Open Space P r o v i s i o n V The P o t e n t i a l o f S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l t o Conserve Open Space A. Problems A s s o c i a t e d w i t h Development B. The R o l e o f S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l C. S u b d i v i s i o n O p p o r t u n i t i e s VI O b j e c t i v e s V I I M e t h o d o l o g y / O r g a n i z a t i o n C h a p t e r 2 The L e g a l B a s i s o f S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l I D i r e c t C o n t r o l s A, I n t r o d u c t i o n •B. The M u n i c i p a l A c t C. The Land R e g i s t r y A c t D. M u n i c i p a l By-Laws E. The Scope o f B.C. S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l L e g i s l a t i o n I I I n d i r e c t C o n t r o l s A. Land Use C o n t r a c t 1. Purpose o f L e g i s l a t i o n 2 . D e f i n i t i o n 3. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Open Space C o n s e r v a t i o n 4. L i m i t a t i o n s B. M u n i c i p a l P e r s u a s i o n 1. I n f o r m a l N e g o t i a t i o n s 2 . Development Agreements 3. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants CMHC St a n d a r d s C h a p t e r 3 Case S t u d i e s I West Vancouver A. Background B. The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s C. C o n t r o l Techniques 1. Land Use C o n t r a c t s 2 . Other Methods a. L a r g e L o t Z o n i n g b. C l u s t e r Development c. T a x a t i o n d. G i f t s D. B a t c h e l o r Cove I I C o q u i t l a r r r A. Background B. The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s C. C o n t r o l Techniques 1. P a r k l a n d A c q u i s i t i o n Pee 2. Development Agreements 3. Land Use C o n t r a c t ^. Other Methods a. I n f o r m a l N e g o t i a t i o n b. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenant c. R i g h t s - o f - W a y D. E a g l e Ridge I I I Burnaby A. Background B. The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s C. C o n t r o l Techniques 1. P a r k l a n d A c q u i s i t i o n Levy 2. I n f o r m a l N e g o t i a t i o n s a. D e d i c a t i o n b. D e s i g n C o n t r o l c. C l u s t e r Development 3. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants 4. Land Exchange D. A Comparison o f Two S u b d i v i s i o n s IV N o r t h Vancouver D i s t r i c t C h a p t e r Summary o f C o n t r o l Techniques Employed I Overview I I P r o c e e d u r a l C o n s t r a i n t s A. S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s B~. R o l e o f the A p p r o v i n g O f f i c e r I I I C o n s e r v a t i o n Methods A. D e d i c a t i o n B. P a r k l a n d A c q u i s i t i o n Fees C. C l u s t e r Development D. D e s i g n C o n t r o l E. Other Techniques 1• Land Exchange 2. L a r g e L o t Z o n i n g 3. T a x a t i o n l+. Rights-of-Way 5 . CMHC I V I m p l e m e n t a t i o n and Enforcement A. I n f o r m a l N e g o t i a t i o n s B. Development Agreements C. Land Use C o n t r a c t D. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants C h a p t e r 5 C o n c l u s i o n I I I I I I I n t r o d u c t i o n The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s Open Space C o n s e r v a t i o n B i b l i o g r a p h y A ppendices v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express thanks to my advisors, Professor Brahm Wiesman and Professor Henry Hightower, who provided a s s i s -tance and encouragement throughout the preparation of thi s t h e s i s . I must also acknowledge those individuals who kindly devoted t h e i r time to the interviews. In addition, I extend my gratitude to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for making this thesis possible with f i n a n c i a l assistance. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Gary, Pat and Larry for t h e i r constant support. Chapter 1 Introduction I Open Space Conservation The conservation of open space " i s becoming a c r i t i c a l concern i n our metropolitan area - a concern about which there i s probably more consensus than on any other i s s u e . I n a recent G.V.R.D. study, regional residents " ' c l e a r l y and by some measure' ranked preservation of the natural environment highest among some 12 regional issues." Public opposition to high density developments at Boundary Bay, Pidgeon Cove, Burnaby Mountain and elsewhere further demonstrates regional concern over conservation.^ Unfortunately, much of the recent public awareness of our open space requirements represents a reaction to environmental losses already sustained. The G.V.R.D. notes, Creeks, such as Lower Mosquito Creek on the North Shore, have been culverted or covered because natural water flows have caused flood damage to homes constructed adjacent to the water c o u r s e s p e c t a c u l a r views have been blocked because views have been ignored as important factors i n the s i t i n g of buildings; and natural areas have been mis-used due to the lack of an environmental analysis i n r e s i d e n t i a l - i n d u s t r i a l location.3 In each of these cases, the damage to the environment could have been lessened or avoided by stringent controls over the subdivision and development of land. 2 I i D e f i n i t i o n s The term " s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l " , as i t i s f r e q u e n t l y used, a p p l i e s to municipal r e g u l a t i o n of the extension of roads and s e r v i c e s to new developments. I t s purpose i s to ensure th a t minimum standards are met f o r the h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and welfare of the i n h a b i t a n t s . As i t i s to be used i n t h i s paper, however, s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l i s not simply the s e t t i n g of standards. Rather, i t r e f e r s to r e g u l a t i o n of a proposed development to insure conformance w i t h municipal o b j e c t i v e s . A number of devices may be used to c o n t r o l land use i n t h i s way; i t i s one of the o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s t h e s i s to d i s c u s s how these c o n t r o l s are a p p l i e d . The d e f i n i t i o n of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l , then, i n the context of t h i s paper, extends beyond simple r e g u l a t i o n of s e r v i c i n g to the p o s i t i v e implementation of p o l i c y . This study w i l l examine the use of various s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l devices to conserve open space. Open space r e f e r s not only to parks or r e c r e a t i o n areas. Rather, to borrow a d e f i n i t i o n used by Charles E. L i t t l e , "What open space means i s the present it-t o t a l of the n a t u r a l environment i n a given m u n i c i p a l i t y . " Thus, open space i n c l u d e s n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s , views and scenery, p l a n t s , w i l d l i f e , and farmland. In a d d i t i o n to p r o v i d i n g r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s , open space preserves f r a g i l e ecosystems, and adds beauty and v a r i e t y to our urban landscape. I l l The Importance of Urban Open Space Canadian researchers emphasize growing demands f o r open space. I n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n , per c a p i t a disposable income, l e i s u r e time, and m o b i l i t y are s a i d to create compounded 3 demands f o r r e c r e a t i o n opportunities.-' Often, however, p o l i c y -makers and researchers a l i k e focus on l a r g e t r a c t s of open space s u i t a b l e f o r r e g i o n a l , p r o v i n c i a l , and n a t i o n a l parks. The Canada Land Inventory of open space, For example, conducted by the Department of the Environment, does not i n c l u d e land w i t h i n m u n i c i p a l boundaries. In a paper presented to the Canadian N a t u r a l Resources Conference i n 1962, W. M. Baker commented, "The tremendous park acreage t h a t has been accumulated i n many provinces... obviously tends to a l l a y f e a r s . Few are concerned about problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i s t r i b u t i o n a l d e f i c i e n c i e s . " ^ Demand f o r open space, however, i s as l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d by p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n as by pop u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e . The Conservation C o u n c i l of Ontario notes, "At the present r a t e of urban growth, i t i s p r e d i c t e d t h a t 80% of the po p u l a t i o n i n North America w i l l soon be concentrated on lfo of the land. I t i s i n the c i t y that the gre a t e s t need occurs f o r open space and r e c r e a t i o n on a day to day b a s i s . Yet the c i t y has g e n e r a l l y r e c e i v e d l e s s a t t e n t i o n w i t h respect to i t s open space resources and p o t e n t i a l than have the wilderness and r u r a l areas f u r t h e r a f i e l d . " 7 Already, the G.V.R.D. , w i t h about 1/4 of If of B.C.'s l a n d , accomodates almost 1/2 of the province's p o p u l a t i o n . ^ There are other d i s t r i b u t i o n a l problems as w e l l . Low income and l a c k of m o b i l i t y due to income, age or h e a l t h l i m i t the usefulness of l a r g e , remote parks to many i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s . In a d d i t i o n , l e i s u r e time occurs mostly a f t e r school and work, or on weekends. As one w r i t e r laments, "our weekend open space demands al r e a d y cause crowding and t r a f f i c jams both w i t h i n the region and at i t s highway p o r t a l s . S u r e l y these demands - plus the l a t e n t demands tha t are not now met because many of us- are deterred by the prospect of crowded c o n d i t i o n s . . . should be met by steps to guarantee the a v a i l a b i l i t y o of f u t u r e open space w i t h i n the r e g i o n . " y Crowding i s not l i m i t e d to highways; i t extends to the parks themselves. In recent years, overuse of l a r g e parks has become a major problem. W i l d l i f e i s d i s t u r b e d ; t r e e s are cut f o r firewood; t r a i l s and campsites become muddy bogs; l i t t e r accumulates. These abuses not only d e t r a c t from our enjoyment of n a t u r a l areas but they are extremely d e t r i m e n t a l to the ecology which the parks are intended to preserve. Second home ownership i s another m a n i f e s t a t i o n of growing open space demands. Unfortunately, many second home developments are counterproductive, r u i n i n g the n a t u r a l landscape through e r o s i o n , p o l l u t i o n , and dense development. Whether or not increased emphasis on the r e t e n t i o n of open space i n urban r e s i d e n t i a l areas would abate the trend to second homes, i t i s c e r t a i n l y l i k e l y to r e l i e v e some of the s t r a i n on our e x i s t i n g park f a c i l i t i e s . F i n a l l y , w i t h r i s i n g g a s o l i n e c o s t s and d i m i n i s h i n g reserves, one might wonder how much longer any of us can r e l y on i n c r e a s i n g m o b i l i t y to meet our open space needs. IV L o c a l Open Space P r o v i s i o n The need f o r urban open space to reduce demand elsewhere and to provide day to day enjoyment i s c l e a r . However, primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t s p r o v i s i o n r e s t s w i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 5 This presents problems f o r the implementation of any open space program because of the severe budgetary r e s t r a i n t s w i t h which municipal governments are faced. M u n i c i p a l revenue i s l a r g e l y dependent on the property tax. Open space i s not only expensive to acquire and maintain, but i t does nothing to expand the tax base as would higher i n t e n s i t y uses. Furthermore, the a c q u i s i t i o n of parks and open space i s o f t e n considered a secondary f u n c t i o n of government, whi l e primary importance i s given to the p r o v i s i o n of p h y s i c a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . One observer suggests, i n f a c t , t h a t , "The g r e a t e s t d e t e r r e n t to a b e t t e r park system i s the current m e n t a l i t y that places higher p r i o r i t y on such s e r v i c e s as roads and expressways than on amenities that w i l l c o n t r i b u t e 10 to the q u a l i t y of urban l i f e . " L i m i t e d f i s c a l resources, however, do not r u l e out an a c t i v e open space program. Rather, they n e c e s s i t a t e e x p l o r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e methods of open space conservation. Many of these a l t e r n a t i v e s do not r e q u i r e municipal ownership of the land. A thorough a n a l y s i s of open space o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the U.S. by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission concluded that p r i v a t e land use i s as c r i t i c a l as p u b l i c land 11 a c q u i s i t i o n i n s o l v i n g urban open space problems. S i m i l a r l y , i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g open space o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n downtown Toronto, the Conservation C o u n c i l of Ontario maintained that the crux of the problem was the i n e f f e c t u a l use of open space 1 ? due to l a c k of p u b l i c / p r i v a t e c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r i t s c o n t r o l . P u b l i c use of u t i l i t y rights-of-way or r e s t r i c t i v e covenants which prevent deforestation are two ways i n which control of private use may provide open space. In subdivisions, densities may be increased i n part of the project i n order to provide communal open space. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s may also obtain open space without bearing the cost of fee a c q u i s i t i o n . This may be done ei t h e r by purchasing a l e s s e r i n t e r e s t such as an easement or leasehold, or by req u i r i n g the dedication of parkland to the municipality at the time of subdivision. Many writers f e e l that such controls have wide po t e n t i a l i n minimizing the impact of 13 private development upon open space. J In i t s recent report on regional open space opportunities, the G.V.R.D. recommended, "Increasing public open space dedication should play a larger Ik part i n the requirements f o r subdivision approval." I t would indeed appear that s i g n i f i c a n t opportunities to control open space without fee a c q u i s i t i o n do e x i s t , which municipalities should recognize and use. The importance of alter n a t i v e s to fee purchase was emphasized by consultant Norman Pearson i n h i s 1973 open space report f o r the G.V.R.D. In the course of his investigation, Pearson i d e n t i f i e d areas of c r i t i c a l open space concern to munic i p a l i t i e s and to the public. The cost of buying a l l the land i d e n t i f i e d was approximately l / 2 - b i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Even i f the p r o v i n c i a l government devoted one-half of i t s Greenbelt Funds to greater Vancouver "and even i f the funds were replenished each year, and even i f land values s t a b i l i z e d , i t would s t i l l take kO years to buy up a l l t h i s open space." 7 Pearson concludes that we must not only investigate other methods of obtaining open space, but that our f i r s t p r i o r i t i e s should be "lands of high open space quality,...but which are 15 threatened by inappropriate uses." J At Canada's Resources f o r Tomorrow Conference, researchers Johnson and T y r e l l reach s i m i l a r conclusions. Again, primary importance i s given to the need f o r " e f f e c t i v e machinery at every governmental l e v e l .for i d e n t i f y i n g and saving p o t e n t i a l 16 park lands from a l i e n a t i o n or unwise development." V The Potential of Subdivision Control to Conserve Open Space A. Problems associated with development Subdivision control i s an important way i n which lands of "high open space q u a l i t y " can be protected from "inappropriate uses." Every year, great amounts of open space are l o s t through the subdivision and development of land. Urban growth consumes open space both at the fringe and within the urban area. Small i r r e g u l a r parcels l e f t over from low-density subdivisions are l a t e r developed f o r higher i n t e n s i t y uses. Increasing d e n s i f i c a t i o n means more multiple-family housing i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas, and smaller l o t sizes i n single-family subdivisions. As a r e s u l t , opwn space i s scarcest i n areas of highest 17 population and need. The subdivision of land frequently r e s u l t s i n wasteful use of natural resources. Building occurs i n areas susceptible to flooding, or on steep slopes causing erosion and mudslides, or on prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Areas of scenic i n t e r e s t , ravines, and f o r e s t s , are destroyed, and views are blocked. 8 These encroachments are often described as "inappropriate land uses", a term which v a s t l y under-emphasizes resultant environmental damage. "Not only i s the eye offended...," one writer observes, "but the d o l l a r cost i n engineering construction to do nature's work when nature's defenses have been destroyed i s h i g h . " 1 8 "Urban sprawl", the haphazard spread of urban development into the fringe, i s frequently c r i t i c i z e d as a waste of land. I t s random nature r e s u l t s i n space that i s open only i n the sense that i t i s unbuilt upon. Frequently, however, t h i s land i s neither usable by the public nor i s i t of p a r t i c u l a r ecological s i g n i f i c a n c e . Furthermore, because of large l o t sizes and d i s c o n t i n u i t y of developed areas, single family subdivisions are expensive to s e r v i c e . 1 ^ B. The role of subdivision control Many of the problems created by the development of land could be a l l e v i a t e d or eliminated by subdivision c o n t r o l . There are many ways i n which t h i s can be done. At i t s most basic l e v e l , a subdivision by-law regulates the extension of roads and services and sets minimum standards f o r t h e i r provision. A more sophisticated subdivision by-law, however, may regulate or p r o h i b i t development which would have detrimental environmental consequences. Thus, bu i l d i n g upon steep slopes, near lakes, streams, and shorelines, or i n areas prone to flooding may be c u r t a i l e d . Developments which would adversely a f f e c t natural drainage patterns or a l t e r water table l e v e l s may also be prevented. 9 Further, subdivision control may extend to the layout and design of a proposed subdivision. Requirements f o r land-scaping or retention of tree-cover may be set. The s i t i n g and height of buildings may be controlled e i t h e r to preserve views or to r e t a i n project open space. Such controls may be regulatory, as i n the s e t t i n g of standards with which a l l applications must conform, or conditional, as where i n d i v i d u a l applications are subject to municipal approval. F i n a l l y , subdivision control may consider the park and school requirements of a new development. Land that i s unbuildable f o r ecological reasons may be set aside, as, f o r example, a nature reserve. In addition, the dedication of other land f o r school or park s i t e s , or other public uses may also be required. C. Subdivision Opportunities Not only do subdivision controls have considerable p o t e n t i a l i n eliminating the undesirable aspects of development, but they can play a p o s i t i v e role i n the creation of a more l i v a b l e urban environment. Each new subdivision represents an opportunity to incorporate municipal objectives into a development. The environmental concerns of a municipality can be accomodated from the outset. A s i t e ' s scenic amenities can be preserved. Recreation opportunities can be provided where the need i s greatest, i n areas of growing population and increasing d e n s i f i c a t i o n . Through the control of subdivision design, the high s e r v i c i n g costs and waste of land c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of sprawl can be reduced. Furthermore, these objectives can be accomplished at r e l a t i v e l y low cost to the municipality. 10 VI Objectives Thus f a r , the case f o r open space conservation at the l e v e l of subdivision has been presented. The p o t e n t i a l use of subdivision control f o r accomplishing t h i s objective i s indicated and some suggestions as to how such controls may be applied are offered. Although the poten t i a l of subdivision controls may be great i n theory, p r a c t i c a l problems of t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n , l e g a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n , and public acceptance may l i m i t t h e i r usefulness as a t o o l . The objectives of t h i s thesis are: 1. to describe the use of subdivision control devices to conserve open space i n selected case studies of lower main-land municipalities, and 2 . to suggest ways to increase the effectiveness of subdivision control as a means of open space conservation. VII Methodology/Organization In order to accomplish the above objectives i t was necessary to determine the scope of controls available to B.C. municipalities. Accordingly, Chapter II describes the l e g a l basis f o r subdivision control i n B.C. Direct controls over land subdivision are discussed f i r s t , including council's by-law making authority and the role of the approving o f f i c e r . This i s followed by a description of various formal and informal devices which may be used to control subdivisions i n d i r e c t l y . Land use contracts, r e s t r i c t i v e covenants, and informal negotiations between municipality and developer are examples of some i n d i r e c t controls. 11 Next, intensive interviews were conducted with municipal planners from West Vancouver, Coquitlam, Burnaby, and North Vancouver. The purpose of the interviews was to investigate the actual use of subdivision controls, including: - the open space conservation objectives of the muncipality - how various subdivision control devices are used to achieve those objectives - the problems and l i m i t a t i o n s involved i n employing the controls. Chapter III presents case studies of each municipality's use of subdivision controls. The discussion includes examples representative of the municipality's approach to the problem. The use of various subdivision control devices i s summarized i n Chapter IV. F i n a l l y , Chapter V analyzes the f i n d i n g of the study and suggests ways by which subdivision control could be made a more e f f e c t i v e tool f o r conserving open space. 1 2 F o o t n o t e s - C h a p t e r 1 1 Norman P e a r s o n , O p e r a t i o n Open Space, G.V.R.D., Vancouver, B.C., 1973t P.6. 2 M i c h a e l G-. Powers, R e g i o n a l Open Space O p p o r t u n i t i e s , G.V.R.D., Vancouver, B.C., 1975* p.7. 3 Ibid.,p.7 . 4 C h a r l e s E. L i t t l e , C h a l l e n g e o f the Land, Pergamon P r e s s , New Y o r k , N.Y., 1968, p.8. 5 Norman P e a r s o n , op_ c i t . , p. 5. 6 W. M. B a k e r , " A s s e s s i n g and A l l o c a t i n g Renewable Resources f o r R e c r e a t i o n ' ? R e s o u r c e s F o r Tomorrow - Con f e r e n c e  Background P a p e r s . Vol.2, Queen's P r i n t e r and C o n t r o l l e r o f S t a t i o n e r y , Ottawa, Ont., 1961, p.983. 7 C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l o f O n t a r i o , The Urban Landscape. T o r o n t o , Ont., J u l y 1974, p. 4. 8 Norman P e a r s o n , p_p_ c i t . , p.6. 9 I b i d . , p.6. 10 C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l o f O n t a r i o , op c i t . , ,p.25. 11 W i l l i a m H. Whyte, C l u s t e r Development. Woodhaven P r e s s , New Y o r k , N.Y., 1964, p.7. 12 C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l o f O n t a r i o , p_p_ c i t . , p.4. 13 Jon A. K u s l e r , P u b l i c / P r i v a t e P a r k s and Managmnfint, & £ P r i v a t e Lands f o r Par k P r o t e c t i o n . I n s t i t u t e f o r E n v i r o n -m e n t a l S t u d i e s , R e p o r t #16, U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , M a d i s o n , Wis., 1974, p.113. 14 M i c h a e l G. Powers, op_ c i t . , p. 4. 15 Norman P e a r s o n , op_ c i t . , pp. 15t 18. 16 Johnson & T y r e l l , "Problems & Techniques o f Land A c q u i s i -t i o n , " Resources f o r Tomorrow, p. 1009. 17 D a v i d W a l l a c e , M e t r o p o l i t a n Open Space & N a t u r a l P r o c e s s , U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1970, pp. 11-15. 18 I b i d , p. 1. 19 Joseph J . Shoman, Open Land f o r Urban A m e r i c a , John Hop-k i n s P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e , Md., 1973t pp. 45-47. 13 Chapter 2 The Legal Basis For Subdivision Control I Direct Controls A. Introduction The B r i t i s h North America Act gives provinces the authority to manage and s e l l t h e i r own lands, to e s t a b l i s h municipal i n s t i t u t i o n s and to regulate a l l matters of a merely l o c a l or private nature i n the province. This, of course, includes subdivision controls. The federal government has d i r e c t 1 control only over i t s own lands. Theoretically, subdivision control could be e n t i r e l y p r o v i n c i a l , e n t i r e l y l o c a l , or l o c a l subject to p r o v i n c i a l d i r e c t i o n . In B. C , the province authorizes m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to control s p e c i f i c aspects of subdivision development within t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . The two main sources of l e g i s l a t i v e authority f o r subdivision control i n B. C. are the Municipal  Act and the Land Registry Act. B. The Municipal Act (Appendix A) Section 711 of the Municipal Act authorizes municipal councils to control subdivision development by enacting by-laws as follows: 1) To regulate the area, shape, and dimensions of parcels of land; dimensions, locations, alignment, and gradient of 14 highways; and to make d i f f e r e n t regulations f o r d i f f e r e n t zones. 2) To set standards f o r the above. 3) To require that proposed subdivisions are suited to the configuration of the land, are suited to t h e i r intended use, do not make future subdivision of land or adjacent land impracticable. 4) To regulate and set standards f o r highway construction and s t r e e t l i g h t i n g . 5) To regulate sewage disposal systems. 6) To require that the subdivision be provided with adequate water supply. Also under Section 711, the approving o f f i c e r i s subject to the following regulations: 1) He s h a l l give due regard to and take cognizance of any o f f i c i a l community plan. 2) He may refuse to approve a subdivision plan i f he i s of the opinion that the cost to the municipality of providing public u t i l i t i e s or other municipal works or services would be excessive. The provision of open space within a proposed subdivision i s not dealt with d i r e c t l y by the Municipal Act. When a subdivision plan deposited i n the Land Registry Office sets aside a parcel of land f o r a park, under Section 627• the municipality has control and possession of the land from the time i t was dedicated. Section 627-A further states that land so dedicated may be disposed of by Council i n exchange f o r other lands suitable f o r a park,^r_Jbhe proceeds may be kept 15 i n a reserve fund f o r the future a c q u i s i t i o n of parkland. I f a municipality succeeds i n negotiating a park with a subdivision developer, t h i s section may be used to implement an open space program. There i s , however, no mandatory dedication of parkland i n subdivisions. C. The Land Registry Act (Appendix B) Sections 83-98 of the Land Registry Act cover subdivisions and the approval of subdivision plans. This function i s administered by the approving o f f i c e r who i s defined by Sec. 91 as "the Municipal Engineer, or any person duly authorized by the Council of the municipality." The Act includes requirements f o r tendering a subdivision plan, and procedures f o r both the applicant and the approving o f f i c e r to follow. I t also s p e c i f i e s requirements f o r subdivisions to provide access to highways, and highway access to navigable waters, reservoirs, or Crown Land. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t are Sections 94, 95t and 96,, which provide further grounds f o r the decision of the approving o f f i c e r . Under Sec. 94, the approving o f f i c e r may refuse an a p p l i c a t i o n i f the proposed subdivision does not conform to municipal or regional d i s t r i c t by-laws. Section 95 indicates he must consider the s u i t a b i l i t y of highway allowances with regard to the nature of the proposed use and the configuration of the land. Under Sec. 96, the approving o f f i c e r may hear objections from any interested persons, and refuse to approve the subdivision i f , i n his opinion, the anticipated development 16 would " i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t the established amenities of adjoining or adjacent properties or would be against the public i n t e r e s t . " I f a plan f o r a subdivision has been rejected, the applicant may, within 21 days of the r e j e c t i o n , p e t i t i o n the Supreme Court. A hearing w i l l be held on the merits of the case, and the Judge may order that the plan be registered regardless of the o r i g i n a l decision of the approving o f f i c e r . As i n the Municipal Act, there i s no s p e c i f i c mention of open space requirements i n the Land Registry Act. D. Municipal By-Laws In conformance with the statutory authority vested i n them by the Municipal Act, mu n i c i p a l i t i e s adopt by-laws governing the subdivision of land. These by-laws are r e s t r i c t e d by the scope of the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . I f a municipality passed a by-law which exceeded i t s statutory authority, such a law would be u l t r a - v i r e s and compliance with i t would be held un-necessary by the courts. In addition to being l i m i t e d to the authority vested i n them by the province, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s must follow three common law rules when drawing up a by-law. F i r s t , they cannot delegate, by by-law, t h e i r l e g i s l a t i v e authority to another body. They cannot, f o r example, empower the planning department to enact l e g i s l a t i o n governing the subdivision of land. They may, however, delegate administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r subdivision control to an appropriate agency. Second, municipal councils cannot l e g i s l a t e each case on i t s merits. A subdivision control 17 by-law must apply uniformly to one category. F i n a l l y , the l e g i s l a t i v e authority of municipal councils cannot be fettered by t i e i n g l e g i s l a t i o n to the performance of a s p e c i f i c act. In other words, municipal council may not change a zone i n k return f o r the dedication of a park. The municipal subdivision by-law, then, c l a r i f i e s the powers outlined by the p r o v i n c i a l government, s e t t i n g standards appropriate to the municipality. The by-law also outlines i n d e t a i l the subdivision approval process to be followed. Since the wording of some of the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n i s rather vague, a municipality may attempt to specify what i s meant, f o r example, by "the public i n t e r e s t " . To t h i s end, a by-law may i n s t r u c t the approving o f f i c e r to consider "the demand f o r school or park f a c i l i t i e s that would be created by the anticipated development" or whether the proposed development would create "a public offense or nuisance or a hazard to public health."-' E. The Scope of B. C. Subdivision Control L e g i s l a t i o n Under the present subdivision regulations, the approving o f f i c e r i s authorized to r e j e c t an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a subdivision development on the following grounds: 1) non-conformance with municipal or d i s t r i c t by-laws 2) non-conformance with o f f i c i a l community plans 3) excessive cost to the municipality of providing public u t i l i t i e s or other municipal works or services 4) unsuitable or i n s u f f i c i e n t provision of highways 18 5) injurious a f f e c t s on the established amenities of adjoining or adjacent properties 6 ) not being i n the public i n t e r e s t . There are several problems regarding the a p p l i c a t i o n of these c r i t e r i a . One arises from the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "excessive costs". I f an o f f i c e r refuses an a p p l i c a t i o n on t h i s basis he must accompany hi s r e f u s a l with an explanation as to what t h i s cost w i l l be, or the courts w i l l probably overrule him. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , council may attempt to define "excessive cost" as a matter of p o l i c y , as some municipalities have attempted to do.^ Another problem of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n arises from Sec. 96 of the Land Registry Act, which allows r e f u s a l i f the development would be "against the public i n t e r e s t " . In a recent court case, Simpson vs. The C i t y of Vancouver , t h i s matter was brought to a t e s t . Simpson owned a l o t on Point Grey Road i n Vancouver which C i t y Council designated as top p r i o r i t y f o r development as a park. Council made an o f f e r to Simpson to buy the l o t ; the o f f e r was refused. Simpson then applied to subdivide the l o t . The approving o f f i c e r rejected the applicatio n on the grounds that the subdivision of land intended f o r future use as a public park was against the public i n t e r e s t under Section 96 of the Land Registry Act. The case eventually made i t s way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the approving o f f i c e r ' s decision was upheld. 19 The Simpson case i s considered c r i t i c a l "because i t went to the Supreme Court and because i t supports the exercise of quite strong municipal powers i n r e l a t i o n to private property r i g h t s . " The Supreme Court decision maintained that the Land  Registry Act c u r t a i l s the common law right s to. subdivide land. "The landowner has no r i g h t to subdivide save subject to the approval of the approving o f f i c e r who i s required by the Act to determine i f the contemplated development would be against the public i n t e r e s t . " 7 This i s of significance not only f o r the development of future l e g i s l a t i o n r e s t r i c t i n g the free exercise of property r i g h t s . This does not grant the approving o f f i c e r l i m i t l e s s exercise of discretionary powers. In Re Land Registry Act Re Proposed Subdivision (1955) Judge Coady used the following Q c r i t e r i a f o r the legitimate exercise of d i s c r e t i o n : 1. There must be d i r e c t statutory foundation f o r the grounds given. 2 . The decision may not be made i n bad f a i t h . 3. The decision may not be made with the intention of discriminating against an i n d i v i d u a l . 4. The decision may not be made on specious or inadequate fac t u a l basis. I f these considerations are met, then there should be no interference by the court with municipal o f f i c i a l s "honestly endeavoring to comply with the duties imposed upon them by the l e g i s l a t u r e i n planning the coherent and l o g i c a l development of t h e i r area. In short, the approving o f f i c e r must exercise his di s c r e t i o n j u d i c i a l l y and reasonably.^ 2 0 I t can be seen that l e g i s l a t i v e authority to use d i r e c t subdivision controls to provide open space i n B. C. i s l i m i t e d . B. C. has no mandatory dedication of open space i n proposed subdivisions as do most other provinces. Unlike many provinces, however, B. C. in s t r u c t s i t s approving o f f i c e r s to "give due regard to and take cognizance of any o f f i c i a l community p l a n . " 1 0 This provision has some p o t e n t i a l f o r the regulation of subdivisions. Under Section 695 of the Municipal Act, a council may adopt by by-law a community pland, that i s , "an expression of p o l i c y f o r (a) any use or uses of land including surfaces of water; or (b) the pattern of the subdivision of land; and eithe r or both may apply to any or a l l areas of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . " 1 1 A. municipality could, therefore, as part of an o f f i c i a l plan, adopt s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r the retention of open space, or of certa i n natural features, i n any area to be subdivided. However, very few mun i c i p a l i t i e s adopt o f f i c i a l community plans. An OCP must pass by a 2 / 3 vote of council and be 12 approved by the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council. This l a t t e r requirement imposes an unwelcome i n f l e x i b i l i t y on o f f i c i a l plans. Not only i s i n i t i a l approval by the Lieutenant-Governor a time-consuming process, but any proposed change to the o f f i c i a l plan i s subject to the same delay, with no assurance that the desired change w i l l be approved, or that i t w i l l be approved on time f o r a c r i t i c a l action. 2 1 Municipal councils, d e s i r i n g a more f l e x i b l e plan and one over which they have the ultimate control, usually adopt community plans by resolution rather than by by-law. Such plans do not have the force of law. One possible method of avoiding the drawbacks of an o f f i c i a l plan i s f o r municipal council to adopt a broad category plan. In t h i s way, i f the municipality was concerned with protecting s p e c i f i c natural features such as ravines or steep slopes, i t could designate these areas as open space uses i n i t s o f f i c i a l plan. Other areas could be designated as urban uses. More s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of a plan would be contained i n the u n o f f i c i a l community plans accepted by council. In recent years, the provision of parks and open space, and the conservation of antural features has become an increasingly important concern. Recognizing the i n s u f f i c i e n c y of available methods of a t t a i n i n g these objectives, various other approaches have been t r i e d . These include the development of informal, n o n - l e g i s l a t i v e , measures, as well as a l e g i s l a t i v e innovation, the land use contract. II Indirect Controls A. The Land Use Contract (Appendix C) 1. Purpose of the L e g i s l a t i o n In 1971, the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e added Sec 702A, the land use contract, to the Municipal Act. This innovative device arose out of the d e f i c i e n c i e s of other land use control measures available to B. C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 22 Of p a r t i c u l a r concern were the l i m i t a t i o n s of Sec 711 of the Municipal Act i n regulating subdivision control, e s p e c i a l l y 13 with respect to the provision of parks and other public lands. In employing land use contract, municipal councils must give due regard to the following: 1) "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 , 2) the impact of development on present and future public costs, 3) the betterment of the environment, 4) the provision of necessary public space, 5 ) the f u l f i l l m e n t of community goals." Land use contracts blend t r a d i t i o n a l zoning and subdivision control measures to create a more e f f e c t i v e means of dealing 14 with large scale subdivisions. Open space conservation within subdivisions and the cost of providing parks necessitated by large developments are both important concerns to which the l e g i s l a t i o n was i n part addressed. 2. D e f i n i t i o n The land use contract i s a device whereby a municipality enters into an agreement with a landowner to develop and use a t r a c t of land according to c e r t a i n mutually agreed upon terms and conditions. The terms and conditions are not r e s t r i c t e d i n any way by the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , rather, they are arranged e n t i r e l y by negotiation between the contracting p a r t i e s . The opportunities t h i s provides f o r creative planning would be almost l i m i t l e s s were i t not necessary f o r a l l parties to agree to the terms of the contract. 2 3 As with any l e g a l contract, land use contracts are binding, and future use and development of the affected area must proceed according to i t s terms, superceding any municipal by-law. Land use contracts 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 with the land and s h a l l be registered i n the Land Registry Office by the municipality." A land use contract, therefore, i s not discharged by sale of the land i n question. Land use contracts may be used whenever a proposed development would be impossible under the e x i s t i n g zoning by-law. A municipality wishing to encourage the use of land use contracts i n an area may down-zone the land to a low i n t e n s i t y use such as a g r i c u l t u r e . Any owner of land wishing to develop f o r a higher i n t e n s i t y use w i l l therefore have to apply f o r a zoning change. In l i e u of rezoning, the municipality or the developer may o f f e r to enter a land use contract, containing conditions f o r the development which could not be s p e c i f i e d by t r a d i t i o n a l zoning or subdivision control devices. Rather than downzoning land, which requires a public hearing, a municipality may promote the use of land use contracts by designating areas of land within a zone as development areas. Such designation does not require a public hearing. A person wishing to develop land within the designated development areas may then be requested by the municipality to enter into a land use contract. However, i f the developer does not enter into a land use contract with the municipality he may s t i l l proceed according to the relevant zoning and subdivision by-laws pertaining to the area i n question. 24 Before a land use contract can take e f f e c t , a public hearing must be held. A two-thirds vote of Council must also a f f i r m the contract. The actual procedure f o r obtaining a land use contract, as well as i t s form and subject matter, may be regulated by the municipal council. 3. Implications f o r Open Space Conservation Because of i t s inherent f l e x i b i l i t y and scope, the land use contract is.\a p o t e n t i a l l y important means of c o n t r o l l i n g subdivisions i n B.C. Before i t s introduction, much subdivision control was a matter of informal negotiation between the municipality and the developer. In many instances, negotiations of t h i s type were the only means of ensuring open space provisions i n subdivisions. Sometimes these agreements took the form of development contracts. These were contractual agreements between municipality and developer, but, unlike land use contracts they had no c l e a r statutory authorization. Therefore, such arrangements had to be used cautiously, often 16 with l i m i t e d success. Land use contracts were not intended to be used to "get around" zoning regulations. Rather, they were intended to enable m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to make s p e c i f i c requirements and to control aspects of the development that would be d i f f i c u l t to 17 achieve under other subdivision or zoning by-laws. For these purposes they have several advantages. The most obvious i s that the terms and conditions of the contract are absolutely negotiable. Since municipalities can introduce v i r t u a l l y any 2 5 requirement, land use contracts accomodate innovative planning and design. Furthermore, design can be s t r i n g e n t l y controlled. Land use contracts also permit narrow s p e c i f i c a t i o n of accepted uses of land, rather than the broad land use categories of t r a d i t i o n a l zoning. Land use contracts can also specify a completion date f o r the project. In t h i s way, municipalities not only control the type and design of the development but they ensure that the project occurs, thereby discouraging speculation. These advantages can c l e a r l y be used to promote open space conservation within a subdivision. In negotiating the terms of the contract, a municipality may require a number of acres be set aside f o r use as a public park. The municipality may r e s t r i c t development i n e c o l o g i c a l l y sensitive areas of a t r a c t of land. I t may p r o h i b i t b u i l d i n g within a c e r t a i n distance of streams, ponds, or ravines. The arrangement that i s made i s only r e s t r i c t e d by the perspective and imagination of the municipality, and by what the developer i s w i l l i n g to accept. Land use contracts can accomodate open space conservation i n other, l e s s d i r e c t ways. By f a c i l i t a t i n g innovations i n design, techniques such as c l u s t e r i n g and zero-lot l i n e s , which provide open space i n subdivisions, can be encouraged. Also, s p e c i f i c a t i o n of land uses allows experimentation with mixed land uses, where, f o r example, a non-offensive industry might be permitted i n a r e s i d e n t i a l area i n return f o r the dedication of parkland. 2 6 To ensure the performance of a project, a land use contract may be bonded. For example, the contract may s t i p u l a t e land-scaping requirements. I f the developer does not f u l f i l l t h i s o b l i g a t i o n , the municipality i s e n t i t l e d to compensation. A f i n a l advantage of the land use contract, and one that 18 has been frequently employed, i s the use of impost fees. An impost fee i s a charge l e v i e d on the developer to cover the cost of the development to the municipality. Costs borne by municipalities are substantial, and include road, u t i l i t y , school, and park requirements which new developments necessitate. The growing gap between the cost of c a p i t a l improvements and the increase i n l o c a l taxes has been a major concern of 19 municipal governments. 7 Impost fees force the developer to bear part, or a l l , of these costs. As a large subdivision w i l l require open space, the municipality can assess the developer the cost of acquiring the desired acreage. 4. Limitations In spite of i t s wide scope and general f l e x i b i l i t y , the land use contract i s not u n i v e r s a l l y applicable nor i s i t without l i m i t a t i o n s . As has been previously mentioned, a l l pa r t i e s must be agreeable to the terms of the contract. The municipality may bargain concession f o r concession with a developer, but i t cannot force a developer to accept i t s terms. Nevertheless t h i s i n i t s e l f i s not necessarily a serious constraint upon the effectiveness of the land use contract as a planning t o o l . 27 A more serious drawback i s that a municipality cannot force a developer to enter a land use contract at a l l . P a r t i c u l a r l y where land i s designated a development area within a zone, the developer always has the option to proceed under t r a d i t i o n a l zoning instead. Unless land i s downzoned r a d i c a l l y t h i s option always exists f o r the developer, and downzoning always requires a public hearing. A municipality wishing to employ land use contracts extensively may f i n d i t p o l i t i c a l l y inexpedient to rezone land to s u f f i c i e n t l y low i n t e n s i t y areas. Another problem i s the p o t e n t i a l l y time-consuming nature of contract negotiation. This problem has been apparent i n Surrey, B.C., where land use contracts have been extensively 20 employed. The requirement of a public hearing and two-thirds affirmation by council has added to the delay, p a r t i c u l a r l y where the contract must be renegotiated. In addition, developers must spend a considerable amount of money p r i o r to the public 21 hearing on engineering and a r c h i t e c t u r a l plans. I f the land use contract i s not approved, the developer stands to lose t h i s investment. The public hearing and council approval requirements also l i m i t f l e x i b i l i t y of the land use contract. Since the terms of the contract run i n perpetuity with the land, any changes i n the contract necessitate i t s re-negotiation through the same time-consuming process. Narrow s p e c i f i c a t i o n of land uses can thus be a l i a b i l i t y as well as an advantage. 28 This problem may be minimized by careful wording of the contract to provide some f l e x i b i l i t y . However, as the a r t of-writing land use contracts i s r e l a t i v e l y new, t h i s problem i s l i k e l y to remain f o r some time. The same public hearing/council; approval procedure i s needed to discharge the terms of the land use contract, unless a l i m i t e d term has been s p e c i f i e d . Again, t h i s may be a long process, e s p e c i a l l y i f i n t e r e s t s affected by the land use contract such as homeowners i n a subdivision are opposed to i t s discharge. Because of the problems associated with land use contracts, 22 municipalities may be reluctant to employ them. In addition, as they are a recent innovation, lack of f a m i l i a r i t y and experience with land use contracts may also discourage t h e i r use. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s concerned with open space i n subdivisions may be wary of entering complex and time-consuming negotiations which could bind them i n an unwanted s i t u a t i o n at a future date. Instead, they may prefer to r e l y on the f a m i l i a r devices of t r a d i t i o n a l subdivision control or they may look to informal measures to encourage park provision. B Municipal Persuasion 1 . Informal Negotiations Because of the l i m i t a t i o n s of statutory methods of subdivision control available to B.C. munici p a l i t i e s , much open space provision i s arranged by informal methods. The degree to which informal agreements are r e l i e d upon w i l l vary between mun i c i p a l i t i e s . Generally, an owner of land who wishes to 29 subdivide requires the cooperation of the municipality i n which the land i s located. 2-^ In the in t e r e s t of the future residents of the subdivision, the municipality may persuade the developer to dedicate a portion of the land f o r public open space. I t must be remembered that ultimately, control over subdivision approval i s vested, not i n council, but i n the approving o f f i c e r , and that a proposal may be rejected i f i t i s not i n the public i n t e r e s t . Therefore, a developer may wish to provide such open space as the municipality indicates i s es s e n t i a l . 2. Development Agreements In order to ensure that agreed-upon arrangements are ac t u a l l y carried out, municipalities may request a developer to sign an agreement to perform cer t a i n duties contingent upon receiving municipal services to his subdivision. Such agree-ments are sometimes c a l l e d development contracts or development agreements. Although there i s no c l e a r l e g a l basis f o r development agreements, t h e i r use has been j u s t i f i e d as an exercise of municipal administrative, rather than l e g i s l a t i v e , powers. In the performance of administrative "housekeeping" duties, municipalities can enter contracts with a w i l l i n g party "to do certain things that perhaps they could not i n s i s t upon under Sec 711 of the Municipal Act when they were simply l e g i s l a t i n g . " As the use of the development agreement has not been tested i n court, municipalities must proceed 2k cautiously when employing t h i s method. 3 0 3- R e s t r i c t i v e Covenant Another method of ensuring the provision of parkland i n an agreement with a developer i s the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant. Sec 24A of the Land Registry Act provides c l e a r statutory authorization f o r i t s use: There may be registered as annexed to any land that i s being or has been registered a condition or covenant i n favour of the Crown or of a municipality or regional d i s t r i c t that the land, or any sp e c i f i e d portion thereof, i s not to be b u i l t on, or i s to be or not to be used i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner.2 5 Therefore, i f a developer agrees to provide parkland within a subdivision, rather than i n v i t i n g the complications of a land use contract or a development contract, a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant may simply be registered i n favor of the municipality. The only condition i s whether or not the developer i s agreeable. C CMHC Standards In i t s loan insurance and d i r e c t loan program, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation wields a p o t e n t i a l l y e f f e c t i v e weapon f o r subdivision control - money. I t i s estimated that 10 *?<> of a l l new housing s t a r t s i n B.C. are financed i n part by 26 CMHC. To q u a l i f y f o r CMHC assistance, however, a developer must submit plans of the proposed development f o r approval. These subdivision plans must s a t i s f y minimum standards. In addition, CMHC's design guidelines, while not mandatory, also exert an influence upon developers seeking CMHC assistance. A considerable amount of attention i n the CMHC planning handbooks i s focused on open space provision. The most important requirement s t i p u l a t e s , "For subdivisions capable of development of more than 50 housing units, a suitable parcel of land equal i n area to at l e a s t 5% of the t o t a l r e s i d e n t i a l area s h a l l be designated as municipal public open space." 2 7 M u n i c i p a l i t i e s have no control over t h i s process, however, and the requirement may be relaxed i f the developer can demonstrate e i t h e r adequate e x i s t i n g public open space or adequate proposed open space i n an O f f i c i a l Plan with municipal intention and a b i l i t y to acquire i t . Besides i t s minimum requirements, CMHC off e r s guidelines which i t s administrators should consider i n reviewing an applicati o n . The development should be "well-served by community f a c i l i t i e s such as open space." Attention should also be paid to such factors as topography, drainage, and subsoil c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Natural features such as lakes and trees should be preserved where possible. A l l these guidelines are f l e x i b l e and l e f t to the di s c r e t i o n of the administrator. Although m u n i c i p a l i t i e s may acquire open space i n some subdivisions because of the CMHC standards, the municipality has no d i r e c t control over i t s provision. In p a r t i c u l a r , the municipality cannot insure that open space provided i n t h i s way i s relevant to community goals. The amount of open space, i t s l o c a t i o n and q u a l i t y are a l l arranged by negotiation between CMHC and the developer. 3 2 Furthermore, as CMHC standards are applied primarily to low-income housing developments, i t i s quite l i k e l y that the minimum standards w i l l only be met, not exceeded. Additional open space or amenity area r a i s e s the value of housing and soon pushes the s e l l i n g price above the $ 4 7 , 0 0 0 l i m i t permitted under A.H.O.P. There i s no incentive to exceed the standards required. In some cases i t may be legitimate to relax open space requirements within a proposed subdivision. In return, however, the municipality may wish to charge the developer f o r the municipal purchase and development of prime recreation land adjacent to or near the s i t e . As the municipality i s not d i r e c t l y involved i n CMHC negotiations, such arrangements are u n l i k e l y to materialize. F i n a l l y , CMHC standards apply only to those developments being financed under the NHA. For other developments, municipalities must r e l y on other measures to ensure open space i n subdivisions. 33 Footnotes - Chapter 2 1 B r i t i s h North America Act 1 8 6 7 . Sec. 92 ( 5 ) . (8), ( 1 6 ) , Sec. , 9 1 . 2 J.B. M i l n e r , "An I n t r o d u c t i o n to S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l L e g i s -l a t i o n " , The Canadian Bar Review, March 1965» p.5 8 . 3 Upland Developments vs. Town of Quesnel ( 1 9 7 2 ) . 4 W i l l i a m Lane, l e c t u r e , "Municipal and Regional Planning 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, Vancouver, B.C., Nov. 1 3 . 1976. 5 Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, " S u b d i v i s i o n By-Law", Vancouver, B.C., i 9 6 0 . 6 J . Wilson i n Land Use Co n t r a c t s , K.C. Woodsworth, ed., l e c t u r e t r a n s c r i p t s , 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, Vancouver, B.C., Sept. 1976 , pp. 7 4 - 7 5 . 7 Simpson vs. C i t y of Vancouver ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 65 DLR (3d) 669 (SCC). 8 Re Land R e g i s t r y Act; Re Proposed S u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 9 5 5 ) . 9 Simpson vs. C i t y of Vancouver (1976). 10 M i l n e r , op c i t . , pp. 8 3 , 6 6 . 11 B r i t i s h Columbia M u n i c i p a l A c t , Sec. 6 9 5 . 12 I b i d . , Sec. 6 9 7 . 13 W i l l i a m Lane i n Land Use C o n t r a c t s , p . l 4 . 14 J b i d . , p.11. 15 B r i a n P o r t e r , The Land Use Contract! I t s V a l i d i t y as a Means  of Use and Development C o n t r o l , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1 9 7 3 . p . l l 6 . 16 W i l l i a m Lane i n Land Use Co n t r a c t s , pp.15-17. 17 B r i a n P o r t e r i n Land Use C o n t r a c t s , p.35. 18 I b i d . , p.53. 19 W i l l i a m Lane i n Land Use Co n t r a c t s , p.13-20 Gary Young, The M u n i c i p a l S u b d i v i s i o n Approval Process i n Metropolitan"~v"a"ncouver, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. , 1974, p.110. 34 21 B r i a n P o r t e r i n Land Use Co n t r a c t s , p.48. 22 B r i a n P o r t e r , The Land Use Contract: I t s V a l i d i t y as a Means of Use and Development C o n t r o l , p.120. 23 W i l l i a m Lane i n Land Use Co n t r a c t s , pp.14-15 . 24 I b i d . , p.15. 25 B r i t i s h Columbia Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec 24A. 26 T. Wilson, C.M.H.C., Vancouver, B.C., i n t e r v i e w , May 3 , 1977. 27 C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation, S i t e Planning  Handbook, Ottawa, Ont., 1 9 7 5 . p.18. 28 I b i d . , p . 7 . 35 Chapter 3 Case Studies The l e g a l basis f o r subdivision control must be understood i n order to appreciate the uses and l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s t o o l , but the l e g a l research can hardly be expected to show how i t works i n pr a c t i c e . This chapter w i l l describe subdivision control f o r conservation purposes as i t i s a c t u a l l y being used i n four Lower Mainland municipalities: West Vancouver, Coquitlam, Burnaby, and North Vancouver D i s t r i c t . The four municipalities were selected primarily because of s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the problems and opportunities they face. A l l operate under the same l e g a l framework, face s i m i l a r development pressures and often deal with representatives of the same land development i n t e r e s t s . In addition, unlike other Lower Mainland municipalities at the same stage of development, these four have s i m i l a r topography and natural vegetation. In each one, an intensive interview was held with a planner who i s a c t i v e l y involved i n subdivision control. The main purpose of the interview was to discover what approaches are being used i n that municipality to deal with objectives and situations found i n a l l four. This chapter summarizes those interviews. Each section begins with a b r i e f description of the conservation issues facing the municipality. Next, the subdivision approval process i s outlined as i t relates to open space conservation. The 36 methods of conservation are then described, i n order of t h e i r apparent importance to the municipality. F i n a l l y , a representative i l l u s t r a t i o n i s given of the way various techniques are used to conserve open space i n subdivisions. Although an interview was conducted i n North Vancouver as i n other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , i t was discovered that the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver owns most of the undeveloped land within i t s boundaries. Because municipal ownership of land presents a d i f f e r e n t set of problems and opportunities f o r subdivision control, the techniques employed by North Vancouver are not discussed. However, North Vancouver does provide an unusual example of environmental planning applicable as a basis f o r subdivision c o n t r o l . As none of the other municipalities had attempted t h i s , North Vancouver's approach i s b r i e f l y described. I West Vancouver* A. Background West Vancouver i s characterized by mountainous t e r r a i n , and a large expanse of waterfront. There i s very l i t t l e developable land, r e s u l t i n g i n high land p r i c e s . Because great portions of the municipality are unsuitable f o r development, there i s a correspondingly large amount of open space. At present, 2/3 of the t o t a l land area i s i n public open space, the most sizeable holdings including Cypress P r o v i n c i a l Park, the G.V.R.D. watershed, and Lighthouse Park. In spite of the impressive quantities of open space, past and future developments i n West Vancouver e n t a i l serious problems. Shortage of undeveloped land at low elevations increases pressures f o r b u i l d i n g on hazardous slopes which are expensive to service and of high scenic and recreation value. A large proportion of future development i s expected to occur on land located above the Upper Levels Highway. An intensive study of t h i s area was conducted by the municipality i n 1 9 7 3 - 7 4 . 2 The r e s u l t of t h i s e f f o r t was the publication of guidelines,for development above the Upper Levels Highway. The guidelines'; implications f o r open space conservation are discussed i n depth l a t e r i n t h i s chapter. Numerous creeks flow from the mountains, cutti n g deep ravines into the h i l l s i d e . In the past, b u i l d i n g practices have d r a s t i c a l l y altered the delivery of water to the creeks. As natural vegetation i s cleared, the binding and s t a b i l i z i n g e f f e c t of trees upon creekbeds i s l o s t . The introduction of impervious surfaces of roads, roofs, and driveways increases d i r e c t run-off into creeks, accelerating flows. Resultant erosion threatens not only land and landscaping but also buildings. Attempts to deal with the problem have, i n the past, been wasteful and i n s e n s i t i v e . Many creeks have been culverted and f i l l e d , further a l t e r i n g natural drainage patterns, often with adverse r e s u l t s . Such practices not only i n t e n s i f y drainage problems but destroy the v i s u a l and aesthetic amenity of the watercourses. 3 8 An extensive study of West Vancouver's creeks was con-ducted by the engineering firm, Dayton & Knight. As a r e s u l t of t h e i r recommendations, s t r i c t new p o l i c i e s have been developed f o r the regulation of development adjacent to creeks. Future development upon the coastal waterfront w i l l also be subject to s t r i c t controls. Much of West Vancouver's prime oceanfront property has been closed to the public through intense development. The municipality i s now committed to acquiring coastal property f o r public use and to r e t a i n i n g public beach access i n waterfront developments. Ambleside Park i s an example of the municipality's e f f o r t s to open ocean front property to public enjoyment. West Vancouver i s currently preparing a comprehensive open space plan. The plan i s expected to emphasize the use of creekways as the basic framework f o r a l a t t i c e work of open space. Key municipal acquisitions w i l l provide connecting l i n k s i n the creation of an extensive open space system. Community awareness and p o l i t i c a l committment to open space objectives create a favorable climate f o r conservation. A resultant willingness to take necessary action i s believed to be a major factor i n West Vancouver's increasing success i n r e a l i z i n g some of i t s goals. 39 B. The Subdivision Process Because West Vancouver r e l i e s l a r g e l y upon land use contracts f o r major subdivisions, the approval process w i l l not be described i n d e t a i l i n t h i s section. The land use contract i s regulated by Sec 7 0 2 A of the Municipal Act, as described i n Chapter 2 . West Vancouver's use of t h i s device i s discussed i n part C of t h i s Chapter. Applications to subdivide are reviewed by the planning department. Discussion and negotiation characterize the process. Although land use contracts are not employed f o r small subdivisions, the informal negotiating process usually produces project designs which conform to municipal open space objectives. The approving o f f i c e r f o r West Vancouver i s the municipal engineer. He reviews the f i n a l subdivision application, often i n consultation with the planner. Cooperation between the planning department and the approving o f f i c e r allows a "very s a t i s f a c t o r y " degree of planning input. The powers of the approving o f f i c e r are described i n the subdivision by-law as those granted i n the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , the Municipal Act and Land Registry Act. However, recent concern over drainage problems, as outlined hy Dayton & Knight, has l e d to the in c l u s i o n of a s p e c i a l provision i n the subdivision by-law f o r the protection of natural drainage channels. In reviewing an a p p l i c a t i o n , the approving o f f i c e r i s asked to consider the proximity of 40 buildings to watercourses. The by-law then recommends a minimum bui l d i n g setback of 2 5 ' from the 100-year flood mark on a l l creeks. As the creeks i n some areas switch courses frequently, t h i s provision has the e f f e c t of p r o h i b i t i n g development over very wide areas i n some instances. C. Control Techniques 1. Land Use Contracts In a l l major developments and i n a l l development above the Upper Levels Highway, land use contracts are employed. Because large amounts of money are involved, West Vancouver i s wary of using devices of doubtful l e g a l i t y which could be tested i n court. The land use contract i s not only c l e a r l y l e g a l , but i t i s binding on both p a r t i e s . Hence, i t i s enforceable and, as a contract, can be bonded. A major problem with land use contracts a r i s e s because the contract runs i n perpetuity with the land. Therefore, even minor changes i n land use may have to be renegotiated. Also, i n areas i n which land use contracts have been extensively used, administrators fear the creation of a very complex and confusing system. Under t r a d i t i o n a l zoning, permitted land use f o r a s i t e i s under a land use contract, however, the terms of the i n d i v i d u a l contract must be thoroughly studied i n order to determine i f a use i s permitted. In order to avoid these complications, West Vancouver i s introducing an experimental self-destruct clause i n land use contracts. A f t e r a s p e c i f i e d number of years, the contract expires and t r a d i t i o n a l zoning takes e f f e c t . 41 When a group of landowners are involved i n a land use contract, the terms f o r the group are l i s t e d i n a master contract. The provisions of the master contract are purposely-vague. Then, i n d i v i d u a l contracts are drawn up containing s p e c i f i c a t i o n s regarding each holding. In t h i s way, i f one owner wishes to change the terms of the contract, the res t do not necessarily have to be involved i n the renegotiation. West Vancouver planners consider the land use contract e f f e c t i v e i n achieving open space objectives, e s p e c i a l l y dedication of open space. Open space on the waterfront, t r a i l s and linkages to e x i s t i n g parks, and retention of natural drainage channels are of p a r t i c u l a r concern. In negotiating dedications, municipal planners attempt to achieve a l a t t i c e of open space throughout the municipality. Creekbeds and ravines provide north-south corridors and dedications from developers supply east-west linkages. Above the Upper Levels Highway, developers are required to dedicate public lands proportionate to 10 acres per 1,000 persons. Where land i s unsuitable f o r municipal purposes, a sum equivalent to the value of the required land w i l l be accepted i n l i e u . When increased densities are permitted i n a land use contract, a fee of $800 d o l l a r s per addit i o n a l unit may be required. These monies are placed i n an open space fund which i s used to purchase or develop new parks. 42 Before the introduction of the land use contract, open space concessions from developers were rare and negotiations d i f f i c u l t . Now, the municipality usually succeeds i n securing developers' cooperation i n adhering to basic open space objectives. Recently, an oceanfront development i n i t i a l l y approved under the old subdivision system was renegotiated under a land use contract to regain public access to the beach. Developers have generally accepted West Vancouver's p o l i c i e s regarding open space and the use of land use contracts. Most of the large developers own a^great deal of land i n West Vancouver, and require the good w i l l of the municipality. Contract negotiations usually proceed without major c o n f l i c t . 2. Other Methods a. Large Lot Zoning The steep topography of the land being developed above the Upper Levels Highway i s extremely sensitive to erosion and run-off, threatening the area's ecological s t a b i l i t y . Furthermore, recent studies indicate that above 1200' elevation, high s e r v i c i n g and maintenance costs render development uneconomic. In order to p r o h i b i t development i n t h i s area, a new zoning by-law permits one house per f i v e acres above 1200'. This replaces the previous zoning of one house per acre. The large l o t zoning i l l u s t r a t e s the p o l i t i c a l committment to environmental concerns which the planning department regards as an important asset. 43 b. Cluster Development The guidelines f o r development above the Upper Levels Highway recommend an o v e r a l l density of 2 . 5 units per acre. However, much greater densities are allowed i n areas of l e s s e r slope i n order to permit areas with very steep slope to remain undeveloped. Panorama V i l l a g e , one of the f i r s t projects i n t h i s area, has a density of 18.5 units per acre on one of the most " e a s i l y accessible and economic" of the available s i t e s . No public land was dedicated because of the s i t e ' s " s u i t a b i l i t y f o r building, but impost fees c o l l e c t e d are to be used to buy 10 acres of land "for municipal purposes."^ Developed areas are to be separated by greenbelts designed to r e t a i n the forest character of the area and to l i m i t rapid run-off. A recent development, f o r example, retained a buffer s t r i p of trees e n c i r c l i n g the built-up area. Clustering of housing units i s recommended "as a means of preserving green b e l t areas and obtaining public ownership of creek zones...." Where land i s dedicated to the municipality or preserved from development by cohvenant, the developer may include the open space lands i n c a l c u l a t i n g the number of units permitted. Because of i t s adaptability to blustering, townhouse development i s recommended above the Upper Levels Highway. c. Taxation Occasionally, private open space, large estates or recreation f a c i l i t i e s , are threatened with subdivision because of the high taxes on land value. In West Vancouver, t h i s problem can be severe because of the lack i f developable land and the high price of raw land i n desirable locations. Because the municipality cannot a f f o r d to buy a l l the land subject to pressures f o r development, much open space i s l o s t . In some instances, however, the private open space being threatened serves a p a r t i c u l a r l y valuable community function. Such was the case recently with a golf course i n B r i t i s h Properties which the owners wished to subdivide because of high taxes. Although the golf course was private, i t s l o s s would increase demand elsewhere i n the municipality beyond the capacity of e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . The municipality, not able to afford to buy the g o l f course, created a special tax category under Sec 328A of the Municipal Act so that the land tax on the golf course was considerably lower. In t h i s way a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of open space was protected. d. G i f t s The dedication of project open space i s usually welcome, although a recent experience may cause the municipality to evaluate the usefulness of future dedications more thoroughly. Back yard rights-of-way f o r lanes i n B r i t i s h Properties were dedicated to West Vancouver fo r $1.00. The only purpose of t h i s dedication was to provide a tax deduction f o r the 45 developer. However, the rights-of-way were found unsuitable f o r meaningful t r a i l s as they were e s s e n t i a l l y " l e f t - o v e r s " , leading nowhere. Instead of contributing to municipal open space, the dedication became a burden, not only requiring maintenance but e n t a i l i n g municipal l i a b i l i t y as well. D. Batchelor Cove West Vancouver's waterfront i s a valuable asset, but i t s preservation requires stringent regulation of future development. S i g n i f i c a n t amounts of ocean front were l o s t to the public through subdivision before the introduction of land use contracts. Now, however, the land use contract provides an e f f e c t i v e devise whereby the municipality can negotiate the design of oceanfront development so as to provide public access to the beach. The a c q u i s i t i o n of public beach areas i s also of high p r i o r i t y . A recent subdivision at Batchelor Cove i l l u s t r a t e s how open space can successfully be achieved by land use contract. The s i t e , an area of approximately f i v e acres, contained 666' of ocean frontage. A t r a i l through the northern portion of the s i t e provided pedestrian access to the beach. Under the zoning by-law, ten dwelling units could be constructed on half-acre l o t s . The r e l a t i v e l y large l o t s would provide considerable private open space but public access to the beach would be eliminated. 46 Instead, a land use contract was drawn up f o r the area. Ten units were s t i l l permitted but the amount of private open space was considerably reduced. A s t r i p of land, 30 to 150 feet deep, was retained as project open space along 6 0 0' of ocean frontage. This area was to be held i n common by the project residents. Furthermore, a s t r i p of communally-held land extended to the back of the property to provide private beach access to residents whose l o t s did not front on the ocean. In addition, 1 .3 acres were dedicated to the municipality, including 6 6 ' of ocean frontage. The land, located at the extreme northern t i p of the property, adjoined the e x i s t i n g t r a i l to the beach. Thus, public access to the beach was not only retained but enhanced by the provision of a park area f o r p i c n i c i n g or other recreational a c t i v i t i e s . Besides the retention of public and semi-public open space, the subdivision was designed with regard f o r views and tree preservation. The houses were angled to provide each unit with an ocean view. Exterior decks were placed to take advantage of these views. E x i s t i n g trees were retained when-ever f e a s i b l e . The Batchelor Cove subdivision successfully r e a l i z e d municipal open space objectives f o r waterfront development. While adhering to the o v e r a l l density of one unit per 1/2 acre, a large amount of public open space was created. The 1.3 acres dedicated to West Vancouver represents a sizeable contribution to municipal waterfron property and constitutes 4 7 a substantial portion of the t o t a l s i t e area. In addition, public access to the beach was retained f o r residents of eit h e r the subdivision i t s e l f or of the neighbourhood. In a l l , a l l 4 0 % of the s i t e was l e f t i n open space. F i n a l l y , s i t e design showed s e n s i t i v i t y to the e x i s t i n g natural character of the area, protecting trees and views. I I . Coquitlam7 A. Background Although a vari e t y of physical features may be found i n Coquitlam, i t isgenerally characterized by h i l l y t e r r a i n with some very steep slopes. As r e s t r i c t i o n of development on slopes i s considered desirable, Belcarra and Burke Mountain are designated f o r recreational development. Coquitlam also contains several lakes and major watercourses. Indian Arm borders on Belcarra to the north. The Coquitlam River provides further recreation opportunities. To the south, the Fraser River i s cut o f f from public access by the Trans-Canada Highway and by i n d u s t r i a l development along i t s shores. Development i n Coquitlam i s unevenly d i s t r i b u t e d . The southwest portion of the municipality i s heavily built-up. In the northeast sector, however, development i s just beginning i n conjunction with a planned Regional Town Center. Hence, the opportunity exists f o r extensive pre-planning i n t h i s section. A l i n e a r park system i s planned f o r Coquitlam Town Center incorporating two ravines and the Coquitlam River. Several major parks are also planned. 48 Elsewhere i n the municipality, destruction of ravines through development brought attention to the need f o r ravine preservation. The planning department now i n s i s t s on a 2 5 ' minimum bui l d i n g setback from ravine edges. Coquitlam's community plan indicates major park and open space f a c i l i t i e s f o r the southeast sector. When neighbourhood parks are required, a standard of 2 . 5 acres per 1 0 0 0 population i s used to determine the acreage. Other factors such as a v a i l a b i l i t y , method of a c q u i s i t i o n or cost, and l o c a t i o n influence s e l e c t i o n of land. The municipality i s now t r y i n g to remedy open space d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the older areas of the c i t y which were developed without s u f f i c i e n t regard f o r the need f o r park f a c i l i t i e s . 8 No comprehensive open space p o l i c y has been developed f o r Coquitlam. As the recent concern over ravines indicates, problem areas are often dealt with as they appear. The open space pote n t i a l of each proposed subdivision i s evaluated i n d i v i d u a l l y . B. The Subdivision Process The subdivision process i n Coquitlam d i f f e r s from that usually employed by B.C. mu n i c i p a l i t i e s i n J t h a t a subdivision committee handles a l l subdivision applications. The committee i s comprised of two representatives of the planning department, one of whom, the municipal engineer, i s also the Approving O f f i c e r . 49 A landowner wishing to subdivide his property undertakes informal discussions with the planning department to ascertain procedure, possible municipal concerns, and relevant by-laws. The prospective developer then draws up a sketch plan, showing the general features of the proposed subdivision. The subdivision committee indicates what changes must occur to the plan and what conditions may be attached i n order f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n to be approved. I f the proposal appears to present special problems, appropriate departments outside planning or engineering may be n o t i f i e d f o r t h e i r comments. This may include other municipal departments, or regional p r o v i n c i a l or federal agencies. Along with the committee's recommendation and conditions, the proposal i s then forwarded to the engineering and planning departments. With the help of these departments, the applicant draws up the s i t e and engineering plans necessary to make a formal subdivision a p p l i c a t i o n . Formal application i s made to the subdivision committee, which reviews the proposal i n view of municipal p o l i c i e s and other concerns. The proposal i s eithe r accepted subject to s p e c i f i c conditions, or i t i s tabled f o r further consideration. At t h i s point i n the process, the application should not need to be tabled unless s p e c i a l circumstances are involved. For example, Council action may be necessary, as i n a rezoning a p p l i c a t i o n or a land use contract. The app l i c a t i o n may also 5 0 be tabled i f the approval of another governmental agency, such as the Department of Highways, or the Department of the Environment, i s required. I f i n s u f f i c i e n t information i s available for the committee to decide, the application may be tabled pending further analysis. When the subdivision committee approves the application," the approving o f f i c e r w i l l o f f i c i a l l y accept or r e j e c t the applicati o n . However, i t would be unusual to have an application rejected a f t e r the entire process of negotiation. The subdivision committee system employed by Coquitlam has several advantages. Because the committee i s composed of s t a f f from both planning and engineering departments, i n t e r -departmental cooperation i s f a c i l i t a t e d . More important, input from both these departments i s incorporated into the subdivision process from the outset. Moreover, the committee i s responsible not only for on-going supervision of the application, but also, ultimately, for the decision. As the approving o f f i c e r i s a committee member, the chances of a r r i v -ing at a s a t i s f a c t o r y subdivision plan are enhanced. The committee system was created by Council i n order to simplify and expedite the subdivision approval process. I t seems to be an e f f e c t i v e improvement. As i s frequently the case i n B.C. mu n i c i p a l i t i e s , Co-quitlam' s approving o f f i c e r i s the municipal engineer. The subdivision control by-law instructs the approving o f f i c e r to consider a number of aspects of a proposed development 51 which might be used to protect open space. For example, a l l subdivisions must be "suited to the configuration of the Q land being subdivided." 7 This section may be used to prevent subdivisions on e c o l o g i c a l l y - s e n s i t i v e areas of a tr a c t of land. „ For example, i t has been used to prevent building too close to a ravine. The by-law further states that the approving o f f i c e r s h a l l not approve a subdivision plan which " i s not suited to the use to which i t i s intended." The by-law then attempts to define t h i s phrase and to i d e n t i f y areas of p a r t i c u l a r concern. Lands subject to erosion, lands which may s l i p or cause a s l i p , lands subject to flooding, and land having inadequate drainage, are s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned as unsuitable. Provision i s made i n the by-law fo r the conditional approval of subdivisions i n sensitive areas. Such subdivisions may be approved i f the landowner r e g i s t e r s "a condition or covenant pursuant to Section 2M-A of the Land Registry Act i n favour of the Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam." Such a covenant may pr o h i b i t or r e s t r i c t any use of or building upon a parcel or part of a parcel subject to 11 environmental hazard. In order to make a knowledgeable assessment of the capacity of the land to sustain development, the Approving O f f i c e r may request certain information from*the developer. A topographical survey may be required "where the t e r r a i n i s steep, i r r e g u l a r , or otherwise d i f f i c u l t to appraise." 52 Spot e l e v a t i o n s , and a p r o f e s s i o n a l engineer's e s t i m a t i o n of the development's impact upon s o i l s t a b i l i t y , ground water l e v e l , and l i k e l i h o o d of f l o o d i n g may a l s o be necessary. The s u b d i v i s i o n by-law autho r i z e s the approving o f f i c e r , i n c o n s i d e r i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n , to hear o b j e c t i o n s from any i n t e r e s t e d person i n order to determine i f the proposal would " i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t the e s t a b l i s h e d amenities of a d j o i n i n g or adjacent p r o p e r t i e s or would be against the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . I f the approving o f f i c e r b e l i e v e s that lands adjacent to the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n might be adversely a f f e c t e d he may r e q u i r e the s u b d i v i d e r to n o t i f y nearby landowners of h i s i n t e n t i o n to subdiv ide, and of the scheme of s u b d i v i s i o n . The w r i t t e n consent of the neighbours may be r e q u i r e d f o r the s u b d i v i s i o n to proceed. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the approving o f f i c e r may him s e l f n o t i f y the adjacent owners of the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n and "may make such f u r t h e r i n q u i r y i n t o the e f f e c t of the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n upon a d j o i n i n g or neighboring lands as w i l l e s t a b l i s h , to h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , the d e s i r a b i l i t y or otherwise 13 of the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n . " J Coquitlam's s u b d i v i s i o n by-law i s unusual i n that i t concentrates, not upon s p e c i f i c a t i o n of engineering standards f o r s e r v i c i n g , but upon d e f i n i t i o n of the r o l e of the approving o f f i c e r . Because of the vagueness of the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , t h i s c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s u s e f u l . 53 C. Control Techniques 1. Parkland a c q u i s i t i o n fee A Municipal resolution i n s t r u c t s the approving o f f i c e r to consider "the excessive costs" of providing parks which new subdivisions e n t a i l . The developer's payment of a park-land a c q u i s i t i o n fee i s suggested to o f f s e t the municipality's costs. U n t i l November of 1976, the fee required was $100.00 per new l o t , since November the amount has been $600.00. As the parkland a c q u i s i t i o n fee applies to a l l subdivisions, regardless of si z e , i t i s the most common method by which Coquitlam addresses open space concern i n subdivision. The money that i s exacted i n t h i s way i s placed i n a fund earmarked for a c q u i s i t i o n of land. Generally, parkland aquired w i l l serve the entire municipality, not just the s p e c i f i c development from which the funds were co l l e c t e d . Because development i n Coquitlam i s unevenly d i s t r i b u t e d , two problems a r i s e i n implementing an open space p o l i c y with regard to subdivisions. The f i r s t i s that a majority of the development application received are f o r areas too small to permit a meaningful dedication of parkland. In addition, frequently there i s no land within the proposed development which, i f dedicated, would contribute to an open space system by providing linkages or l i n e a r parks. A second problem i s a severe shortage of parks and open space i n the older built-up areas of the municipality. The more recently developed areas have been subject to more stringent subdivision controls- with 54 the r e s u l t that these areas often are generously provided with parks r e l a t i v e to older areas. I t was considered desirable, therefore, rather than to require outright dedication of land In subdivisions i n new areas, to exact a fee which could be used to remedy d e f i c i e n c i e s elsewhere i n the c i t y . 2. Development Agreements In spite of i t s usefulness i n most cases, the park a c q u i s i t i o n fee i s not always the most appropriate method of obtaining open space i n subdivisions. In l a r g e r develop-ments i t i s often desirable to negotiate s p e c i f i c conditions with the developer. Often large developments encompass land on which the municipality would prefer to l i m i t development. This may include areas with unstable s o i l , or areas subject to flooding. For example, protection of Coquitlam's many ravines has recently become an important municipal concern. Because of these environmental concerns, development applications may be approved subject to the condition that no b u i l d i n g i s to occur i n designated areas of the s i t e . Often, large subdivisions contain land which the municipality wants f o r recreation and park purposes. As large subdivisions create a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n the demand f o r these f a c i l i t i e s , land within the development may be needed to provide linkages f o r t r a i l s to other park f a c i l i t i e s . The municipality may request that these park and recreation areas be landscaped and developed to some extent at the expense of the developer. 55 When a subdivision involves s p e c i a l circumstances e n t a i l i n g numerous provisions f o r i t s approval, the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam enters a< contractual agreement with the developer. The development agreement, describes the conditions which the developer has agreed to f u l f i l l . Because the development agreement i s a l e g a l l y binding contract between the corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam and the developer, Council approval i s necessary. Therefore, to avoid annoying and unnecessary delays, development agreements are used sparingly. Their advantage i s that they are l e g a l l y binding and, as a contract, are bondable. Thus, the D i s t r i c t has a measure of security that the developer w i l l , i n f a c t , f u l f i l l h is obligations. 3. Land Use Contract The land use contract i s r a r e l y used i n Coquitlam. I t has, i n fact, been used approximately f i v e times. In each case a large development requiring rezoning was involved. Land use contracts require a public hearing. Because a development agreement can achieve the same ends as a land use contract, without the necessity of a public hearing and i t s attendant delay and possible complications, development agreements are preferred. Rezoning, however, requires a public hearing. Since applications which necessitate rezoning w i l l involve a public hearing anyway, land use contracts are used i n these cases. 56 Apart from the public hearing requirement, Coquitlam avoids land use contracts because they are considered too i n f l e x i b l e . Of p a r t i c u l a r concern i s the problem of discharging or changing a land use contract. As i t runs with the land i t i s feared that with the l e a s t change, renegotiation of the contract may be necessary. A development agreement, on the other hand, applies only to the conditions s p e c i f i e d and i s considered completed when the terms of the contract have been f u l f i l l e d . 4. Other Methods a. Informal negotiations During the process of subdivision approval, the municipality frequently attaches conditions to the proposal which are never formalized i n a contract, but with which the developer must comply i n order to receive approval. Payment of the parkland a c q u i s i t i o n fee i s one example of such a condition. Other conditions may involve layout and design of the subdivision and are achieved i n consultation with the planning department. Requirements f o r landscaping may also be attached. One recent a p p l i c a t i o n to create two l o t s from one on an unusually a t t r a c t i v e s i t e was approved subject to "the retention of as much as possible of the present parklike s e t t i n g and 14 atmosphere. Conditions of t h i s sort are d i f f i c u l t to enforce. To a large degree, the goodwill and cooperation of the developer i s r e l i e d upon. As the municipality would not, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , 57 go to court, an i n f r a c t i o n of these informal agreements would probably be overlooked. On the other hand, developers wish to maintain a c o r d i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the municipality because many of them submit several applications per year f o r approval. b. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenant Occasionally, the municipality receives an a p p l i c a t i o n on v a r e l a t i v e l y small s i t e , but one which nevertheless involves s p e c i a l circumstances. In order to ensure that the development conforms to the conditions imposed by the municipality, a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant may be registered with the subdivision. A recent case involved a single l o t subdivision on a steep slope, adjacent to a ravine. The proposal was approved subject to a 2 5 ' setback from the property l i n e bordering the ravine and a r e s t r i c t i o n on b u i l d i n g above a given elevation. c. Rights-rof-way In recent years, Coquitlam has paid increasing attention to acquiring public access to B.C. Hydro rights-of-way. At the time of the interview, negotiations were underway between the municipality, a developer, and B.C. Hydro to acquire lands i n a proposed subdivision within the B.C. Hydro right-of-way " f o r park and recreation purposes as an i n t e g r a l part of the Scott Creek l i n e a r parkway system." 1^ D. Eagle Ridge Eagle Ridge i s a large scale development on approximately 400 acres. Located i n Coquitlam's underdeveloped northeast sector, i t i s the f i r s t of a series of ^subdivisions to take 58 place i n conjunction with the development of the town center. In a l l , about 1700 dwelling units are to be constructed. Now underway, the development i s proceeding by stages, and i s ; expected to be completed i n 1978. Due to the unusually large scale of the subdivision, the provision of open space within the development was of p a r t i c u l a r concern. In addition, the s i t e had two unusual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of which both the developers, BACM development corporation, and the municipality were anxious to take advantage. An outstanding natural feature, the Scott Creek ravine, bisects the eastern section of the s i t e from north to south. The s i t e i s also crossed by a BC Hydro right-of-way, again d i v i d i n g the s i t e from north to south, s l i g h t l y west of center. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s presented s p e c i a l problems, but also special opportunities with regard to open space. The development concept i n i t i a l l y proposed by BACM was accepted i n p r i n c i p l e by the municipality, as part of the preliminary appli c a t i o n . This meant that the more s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s would be worked out i n time. A hierarchy of parks within the development were to be established, based on the anticipated density of development. Neighbourhood parks, "intended primarily to serve pre-school and elementary school children...located within 1/2 mile of the residents to be served" were to be provided at a standard of 1.25 acres per thousand persons. A n t i c i p a t i n g an ultimate population of 5,600 persons, BACM proposed a t o t a l of 7 acres of park. Therefore, one " f u l l - s i z e d 5 acre park f o r development adjacent to the elementary school s i t e " was suggested, f i v e acres being considered "the optimum size of the neighbourhood parks. "The remaining two acres would be provided " i n the form of smaller t o t - l o t s located i n the Hydro easement and other greenbelt spaces where they can be of p a r t i c u l a r benefit to the higher density forms of family-housing." 1^ Community parks and town parks serve an area beyond the development i t s e l f . Provision was not determined according to a s p e c i f i c standard but was based upon special features of the s i t e . The developer proposed that: the Scott Creek Ravine, with i t s b e a u t i f u l rushing stream and heavily wooded banks lends i t s e l f i d e a l l y to t h i s purpose and it...(should) ...be dedicated as a public park to be l e f t as much as i s possible i n i t s natural wooded condition.*7 The B.C. Hydro Easement was also considered f o r recreational purposes. In addition to the t o t - l o t s mentioned above, a system of t r a i l s was suggested. The Upland portion of the Easement "could be incorporated into the Regional T r a i l System proposed to l i n k the future Regional Parks at Burke 1 8 Mountain and Belcarra." B.A.C.M. corporation designed the s i t e so that the development would compliment the natural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the land. In r e s i d e n t i a l layout, areas of high density were concentrated adjacent to the commercial center. Exceptions to t h i s general rule are a s t r i p of low-density multi-family development proposed for the narrow, steeply sloping bank below Coronation Heights near the southwest corner...; and a c l u s t e r of s i m i l a r low-density multi-6 0 family development near the Port Moody boundary....The units i n t h i s area w i l l be arranged to allow f o r a public pedestrian-way to l i n k the Scott Creek Ravine to a major park proposed i n the Port Moody Plan;" 1° In a l l , a t o t a l of about 84 acres, or approximately 21$ of the s i t e were l e f t i n open space or other public uses. Excluding the B.C. Hydro right-of-way, 32.5 acres remain, or 9$ of the t o t a l area. This example i l l u s t r a t e s that the conservation of open space within a subdivision does not necessarily place an u n f a i r burden on either the developer or the future residents. Although a large proportion of t h i s s i t e remains as usable open space, much of t h i s area would not have been buildable i n any case. Only Ifo of the t o t a l s i t e was outright dedication of parkland f o r community recreation f a c i l i t i e s . The remainder was school s i t e , ravine land, or easement. The commendable aspect of Eagle Ridge i s that recreation p o t e n t i a l of the s i t e was considered and a meaningful system of usable open space was created. This open space..not only serves the residents of the subdivision, but provides linkages with other parks and t r a i l systems. The Eagle Ridge development was negotiated by means of a development agreement. In addition to the dedication to the municipality of the park and school s i t e s and other open spaces such as the Scott Creek Ravine, the development agreement required BACM to construct s p e c i f i c recreation f a c i l i t i e s . These included tennis courts, a heated outdoor 61 swimming pool, baseball and soccer f i e l d s , a lacrosse box, and an adventure playground. The developer also agreed to: Retain the services of a registered Landscape Architect to layout and design and to construct and fund the ravine walkway system, the dyke walk-way or bicycle pathway system along Scott Creek within the open green space connecting with the c i t y of Port Moody - including the Hydro r i g h t -of-way. . . " 2 0 These provisions of the development agreement were bonded, i n stages, as the development progressed. 21 III Burnaby A. Background Burnaby's notable geographical features include Burnaby Mountain, Burnaby and Deer Lakes, Burrard I n l e t , and the Fraser River. The recreation and open space value of these features i s well recognized i n Burnaby's open space plans. Burnaby Mountain has recently been designated a Conservation Area with no bu i l d i n g to be permitted above the 5 0 0 ' elevation. The decision came i n response to continued pressure to develop the mountain f o r housing. The Burnaby Lake region, now undeveloped, i s planned for l i m i t e d development as a major recreation f a c i l i t y . In conjunction with t h i s , "parklike development" on Deer Lake w i l l promote the retention of the Burnaby Central Valley as a 22 recreation area. The key feature of Burnaby's proposed open space plan i s the creation of an integrated system of parks and urban t r a i l s . The t r a i l concept has been developed over many years beginning more than 10 years ago. P a r t i c u l a r attention i s given to providing pedestrian access to Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River and to creating t r a i l s to connect major parks. Burnaby's many creeks and ravines are important components of the t r a i l system. The G.V.R.D. notes? ' Burnaby now has the most comprehensive and care-f u l l y thought-out system i n the Region of municipal and regional parks, waterfront access to Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River, l i n e a r parks, and urban t r a i l s . I f the system i s f u l l y v developed, i t w i l l be possible to t r a v e l from Burrard Inlet to the Fraser River e n t i r e l y i n major parks, or through l i n e a r parks or urban t r a i l s . " 2 3 In developing the l i n e a r parks idea, economy was an important variable. Wherever possible, municipal land, 24 unused street allowances, and rights-of-way are u t i l i z e d . Although not s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned i n the concept plan, i t follows that open space a c q u i s i t i o n through subdivision control could play a major r o l e . Burnaby has a r e l a t i v e l y large amount of undeveloped land, e s p e c i a l l y i n the eastern sector of the municipality. In addition, development of a regional town center i s planned f o r the Central Park area-. Many new subdivisions can therefore be expected i n Burnaby over the next few years. In spite of the extensive planning which has gone into the development of i t s open space plan, Burnaby has, as yet, no comprehensive p o l i c i e s governing open space conservation i n subdivisions. The urban t r a i l s concept with i t s proposed major parks and connecting l i n k s guides the sel e c t i o n of open space 63 f o r a c q u i s i t i o n i n subdivisions. Creeks and ravines are protected and trees preserved where possible to r e t a i n the f o r e s t atmosphere of Burnaby*s undeveloped areas. B. Subdivision Process Burnaby's subdivision process i s t y p i c a l of that employed' by B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The a p p l i c a t i o n i s handled by the palnning department, who informs the applicant of municipal p o l i c i e s and a s s i s t s i n preparation of a sketch plan f o r preliminary a p p l i c a t i o n . Upon receipt of the preliminary application, the planning department evaluates the proposed development i n view of municipal regulations. The s i t e may be assessed f o r open space p o t e n t i a l . Of p a r t i c u l a r concern are the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of stands of mature trees, proximity to creeks and ravines, and access to recreation f a c i l i t i e s . The a p p l i c a t i o n i s then granted tentative approval, subject to c e r t a i n conditions of which the developer i s n o t i f i e d . These conditions include conformance with the zoning and subdivision by-laws plus such other conditions as the municipality may deem appropriate. Additional conditions might include the retention of designated trees or b u i l d i n g setbacks from a ravine. Having received conditional approval, the developer prepares the detailed plans which must accompany his formal application. These plans are studied by the planning department and i f a l l appears to be i n order the app l i c a t i o n i s forwarded to the approving o f f i c e r f o r his f i n a l judgement. 64 The approving o f f i c e r f o r Burnaby i s the Planning Director. Planning input appears to be incorporated throughout the subdivision approval process. The powers of the approving o f f i c e r are generally as outlined i n the Municipal and Land  Registry Acts. The subdivision by-law leaves the approving o f f i c e r a r e l a t i v e l y free hand i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these statutes. However, the by-law s p e c i f i c a l l y authorizes r e f u s a l of a subdivision i f i t contains land subject either to erosion or to flooding, "so as to render i t unsuitable f o r the use to which i t i s intended." J The r e s t of the subdivision by-law s p e c i f i e s engineering standards. In considering the s u i t a b i l i t y of the intended use of a s i t e , the approving o f f i c e r does consider municipal plans. A subdivision presumably would not be approved, therefore, i f i t v i o l a t e d s p e c i f i c open space objectives. C. Control Techniques 1. Parkland A c q u i s i t i o n Levy (Appendix D) Probably the most generally applied measure to provide open space i n r e s i d e n t i a l developments i s Burnaby's parkland a c q u i s i t i o n levy. Payment of t h i s levy i s one of the standard conditions, along with zoning and se r v i c i n g s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , f o r the tentative approval of the subdivision. Many of Burnaby's r e s i d e n t i a l areas were experiencing rapid development or redevelopment to higher densities. The rapid growth of these areas increased the need f o r add i t i o n a l neighbourhood parks. Unfortunately, subdivisions i n these areas were often too small to contribute land suitable f o r park purposes. 65 Another municipal p r i o r i t y was the consolidation of community park areas into an open space system. This necessitated the a c q u i s i t i o n of key properties as they became av a i l a b l e . The need f o r the park a c q u i s i t i o n levy i s explained as follows: Due i n part to the f i n a n c i a l p r i o r i t i e s and constraints of the municipality i n budgeting f o r parkland a c q u i s i t i o n , i t has been deemed appropriate that the developers of new r e s i d e n t i a l developments should bear some ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the provision of necessary neighbourhood parks. Accordingly, Council approved a levy "equal to 50% of the estimated a c q u i s i t i o n cost of neighbourhood parkland." Because the levy was calculated according to a recreational space standard of 2.0 acres per 1,000 persons, the amount of the levy varies according to the density of the proposed development. The amount ranges from $521.00 per unit f o r a single family dwelling to $1,125.00 per unit for a three-story apartment at densities of 50 units or more per acre. The levy f o r senior c i t i z e n s developments were reduced to 50% of the usual levy. The levy i s used to acquire parkland i n the immediate area from which the funds are c o l l e c t e d . For t h i s purpose the municipality i s divided into 36 Neighbourhood Planning Areas. The parkland levy can only be used within the same Neighbourhood Planning area "or i n any d i r e c t l y abutting area." 66 A developer may be exempted from the levy requirement i f he dedicates "appropriate designated parkland" instead. Thus, the levy i s not an i n f l e x i b l e p o l i c y . In practice, the outright dedication of suitable parkland i s a top p r i o r i t y i n reviewing a subdivision application. 2. Informal Negotiations * V i r t u a l l y a l l subdivision control i n Burnaby i s the r e s u l t of informal negotiations between the municipality and the prospective developer. Land use contracts are not used, nor are development agreements. In order to bond the provision of necessary inf r a s t r u c t u r e , s e r v i c i n g agreements are arranged with the developer. Landscaping requirements may be stipulated i n the serv i c i n g agreement but no other s p e c i f i c a t i o n concerning open space are included. The municipality d i s t r u s t s the binding nature of land use contracts, and attempts to accomplish the same ends by other means. Development agreements are avoided also except to enable performance bonding. a. Dedication Dedication of open space i s often arranged through informal negotiation. U n t i l recently, however, the municipality met with only l i m i t e d success i n these e f f o r t s . In developing i t s own lands, Burnaby attempted to set an example f o r private developers to follow. In single family subdivisions, f o r example, up to 20$ of the t o t a l area was l e f t i n open space. Tree-cutting was prevented by r e s t r i c t i v e covenant and s i t i n g approval was required f o r any future construction. 67 Unfortunately, i f they were impressed by the municipality's example, private developers were not ins p i r e d to the same magnanimity. The municipality, i n turn, could not force the developers to contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to public open space. This state of a f f a i r s has altered considerably i n recent years. Increasingly, municipalities concerned over loss of open space through development, have experimented with various ' measures to conserve open space i n new subdivisions. Land use contract l e g i s l a t i o n provided a l e g a l basis f o r imposts and dedications achieved through negotiations. Even i n mu n i c i p a l i t i e s , such as Burnaby, which did not use the new device, developers became much more accomodating to the municipality's open space concerns. Burnaby's introduction of the park a c q u i s i t i o n levy saw a marked improvement i n successful negotiation f o r dedication of open space i n subdivisions. Realizing that the alternative to dedication i s payment of the levy, developers are more w i l l i n g to set aside such land as the municipality indicates shoudl be conserved. As mentioned e a r l i e r , the dedication of suitable land i s the f i r s t p r i o r i t y i n subdivisions large enough to make a neaningful contribution to community open space. In spite of t h e i r willingness to accept land dedication i n subdivisions, Burnaby i s reluctant to have the acquired land registered as park. Instead, the dedicated parcel i s indicated as municipal land on the plans to be deposited i n the Land -Registry O f f i c e . This i s done to avoid possible l e g a l 68 complications i f , f o r any reason, the municipality changes i t s mind about the use of the land i n question. Understandably, developers sometimes i n s i s t that the parcel be designated as park. b. Design control Through the informal negotiation process, the design and layout of the subdivision can often be influenced to protect p a r t i c u l a r natural a t t r i b u t e s of the s i t e . A c q u i s i t i o n of greenspace adjacent to water courses i s a major municipal objective. Accordingly, retention of a 5 0 - 1 0 0 ' s t r i p of land along streambanks i s required i n new subdivisions. The land may be dedicated to the muncipality or i t may remain as project open space. Protection of f o r e s t cover i s also a major concern and the developer may be required to e i t h e r b u i l d around heavily treed areas or to r e t i a n selected trees. c. Cluster development In the event of rezoning, the c l u s t e r p r i n c i p l e i s frequently used to achieve the objectives mentioned above. Increased densities are permitted on part of the s i t e ; the r e s t i s l e f t as open space. This technique has been success-f u l l y applied to ravine conservation. Because the rezoning procedure requires a public hearing, developers are anxious to achieve an a t t r a c t i v e s i t e design i n order to make the proposed project acceptable totthe neighbourhood. Local residents are 6 9 also increasingly sensitive to the additional burden which new subdivisions place on e x i s t i n g parks and schools. Municipal planners can therefore wield considerable influence upon open space provisions and upon the design of a proposal i n v o l v i n g rezoning. 3. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants Covenants are frequently used, e s p e c i a l l y to protect trees. Trees are retained either to preserve mature specimens or to provide a buffer s t r i p along roads. In a l l recent sub-d i v i s i o n s , tree covenants are applied to property abutting major streets. Recent construction along Winston Street provides an example of t h i s technique. Tree covenants p r o h i b i t b u i l d i n g and tree-cutting. Usually, a landscape a r c h i t e c t surveys the s i t e and c l a s s i f i e s trees as "no cutting permitted" or "no cutting recommended". I f an owner wishes to remove trees i n the former category he must apply to the municipality f o r a cutting permit. Such a permit w i l l generally be granted for the removal of unhealthy trees or i n other unusual circumstances. Tree covenants are d i f f i c u l t to enforce. Because covenants o f f e r a private benefit to i n d i v i d u a l landowners by enhancing the attractiveness ofua neighbourhood, v i o l a t i o n s among residents are infrequent. Building contractors, however, occasionally f a i l to appreciate the need f o r conserving trees. In most instances, the municipality overlooks i l l e g a l f e l l i n g of protected trees because of the time and money involved i n 7 0 b r i n g i n g a case t o c o u r t . O c c a s i o n a l l y , however, C o u n c i l has succeeded i n demanding t h a t t r e e s be r e p l a n t e d . A n other problem i n v o l v e s p o t e n t i a l m u n i c i p a l l i a b i l i t y s h o u l d a p r o t e c t e d t r e e f a l l c a u s i n g i n j u r y o r damaging p r o p e r t y . T h e r e f o r e , the m u n i c i p a l i t y employs a l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t t o c e r t i f y t h a t the p r o t e c t e d t r e e s a r e h e a l t h y . 4. Land Exchange I n i t s p l a n s o f undeveloped a r e a s the m u n i c i p a l i t y o f t e n has u n n e c e s s a r y r o a d a l l o w a n c e s . Where m u n i c i p a l r o a d a l l o w a n c e s b i s e c t p r o p e r t y so as t o make s u b d i v i s i o n i n c o n v e n i e n t , a l a n d exchange may be a r r a n g e d . The m u n i c i p a l i t y w i l l p e r m i t development on the r o a d a l l o w a n c e i n r e t u r n f o r the d e d i c a t i o n o f l a n d e l s e w h e r e . Because such arrangements a r e u s u a l l y t o the d e v e l o p e r ' s advantage, the m u n i c i p a l i t y can o f t e n a c h i e v e q u i t e d e s i r a b l e p a r c e l s i n exchange. I n p r a c t i c e , the m u n i c i p a l i t y seldom approves an exchange u n l e s s i t r e c e i v e s l a n d g r e a t e r t h a n o r e q u a l i n a r e a and v a l u e t o the l a n d r e c e i v e d by the d e v e l o p e r . A r e c e n t s u b d i v i s i o n i l l u s t r a t e s a n o t h e r type o f l a n d exchange. The d e v e l o p e r proposed a s i n g l e f a m i l y s u b d i v i s i o n two l o t s deep i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t t o the o f f i c i a l c o n s e r v a t i o n a r e a on Burnaby M o u n t a i n . However, t h e r e was no c o n v e n i e n t a c c e s s t o the back l o t s w h i c h a d j o i n e d the c o n s e r v a t i o n l a n d . The m u n i c i p a l i t y agreed t o d e d i c a t e a 15' r o a d a l l o w a n c e on the c o n s e r v a t i o n l a n d i f the d e v e l o p e r would a l s o d e d i c a t e 15'• I n r e t u r n , the d e v e l o p e r a l s o a g r e e d t o d e d i c a t e a s m a l l park 71 abutting his subdivision and the conservation area. This was an advantageous arrangement f o r the municipality. Not only did they acquire a neighbourhood park i n a desirable location, but the newly created road provided community access to the conservation area as well. The developers need f o r a road gave the municipality a favorable negotiating p o s i t i o n . D. A Comparison of Two Subdivisions The following examples are offered to i l l u s t r a t e the success with which the municipality has negotiated land dedication with developers. The f i r s t case occurred f i v e years ago. The developer applied to subdivide 6 acres of land into sing l e family l o t s . However, the ^ eastern segment of the parcel was cut by a s i g n i f i c a n t ravine which the municipality wanted to conserve f o r both ecological and recreational purposes. Ravine land to the north of the development had already been acquired f o r municipal purposes. The area the municipality wished to protect covered almost 2 acres, 30% of the t o t a l s i t e . Because land dedication was not an accepted p o l i c y , the municipality did not expect the developer to donate the parcel. In any case, i t was believed that dedication of 3 0 % of a s i t e would place an u n f a i r burden upon the landowner. The issue was f i n a l l y resolved when the municipality purchased the two acre parcel. More recently the municipality received an a p p l i c a t i o n to subdivide 15 acres containing large stands of mature fo r e s t . The s i t e adjoined a B.C. Hydro right-of-way to the north, an 72 i n t e g r a l l i n k i n a neighbourhood park system. Upon examination of the s i t e , the municipality decided that the northwestern portion, containing s i g n i f i c a n t mature forest growth, should be preserved as an important component of the park system being developed along the right-of-way. As a condition of receiving approval to subdivide, the developer was requested to dedicate a four acre parcel. In return, the developer would be exempted from the payment of the parkland a c q u i s i t i o n levy. The t o t a l dedication comprised 30% of the s i t e . The examples c i t e d are s i m i l a r i n several respects. In each case the land i n question comprised part of an open space system. Both were r e l a t i v e l y small subdivisions and the public open space acquired consisted of 30% of the t o t a l area. In the e a r l i e r example, however, the development of the ravine would have had serious environmental consequences. Furthermore, as the ravine lands formed an i n t e g r a l component of a natural system, land elsewhere could not have been substituted. The development necessitated rezoning, which strengthened the municipality's bargaining p o s i t i o n . Thus, the p a r c e l " i n question was not only a key municipal a c q u i s i t i o n but i t was not buildable. In the second case, while the municipality was anxious to preserve the f o r e s t cover, the consequences of b u i l d i n g would probably not have been disastrous. Trees could be retained and protected from cutt i n g by covenant. Because the land formed part of a man-made system of open space, i t s a c q u i s i t i o n was possibly, l e s s c r i t i c a l than i n the previous 73 example. Nevertheless, established open space p o l i c i e s , the parkland a c q u i s i t i o n levy, and the developers acceptance of dedication requirements enabled the municipality to negotiate a substantial dedication of e s s e n t i a l l y buildable land. The d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s between the two cases demonstrate a major s h i f t i n attitude. In the f i r s t case, the municipality did not attempt to arrange a dedication. Such a request would have been unacceptable to the developer. Also, the municipality had no power to force a dedication. Moreover, one can only conclude that the municipality was less aware of and l e s s committed to open space conservation i n subdivisions. The preservation of the ravine could have been accomplished by other methods. Property immediately adjacent to the ravine could have been subject to covenants providing b u i l d i n g setbacks. In t h i s way the t o t a l area of the dedication might have been reduced. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the municipality might have suggested increasing densities on the buildable area i n return f o r outright dedication. The recent successfully negotiated development r e f l e c t s municipal determination to secure open space i n subdivisions. F i n a l l y , the developer's need fo r rezoning approval and the parkland a c q u i s i t i o n levy provided the municipality with an e f f e c t i v e bargaining p o s i t i o n . 74 IV North Vancouver Distr i c t ' ' " The D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver i s unusual among lower mainland municipalities i n that a vast majority of the undeveloped land within i t s borders i s p u b l i c l y owned. The private sub-d i v i s i o n i s an exception and those that do occur are r e l a t i v e l y small i n s i z e . Ownership of the land gives the municipality d i r e c t control over development. Therefore, the subdivision control techniques employed are generally not applicable to other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . While the role of municipal land ownership i s beyond the scope of t h i s paper, the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver's approach to land development deserves consideration. North Vancouver w i l l soon begin to develop a 6500-acre t r a c t located i n the Seymour area, i n the eastern portion of the d i s t r i c t . The land, owned by the d i s t r i c t , extends from the waterfront to the 1150' elevation, and contains a var i e t y of landscapes, many of which are not amenable to development. Acknowledging a fundamental lack of understanding concerning "the r e l a t i v e tolerance of North Shore habitats...to the encroachment of an urban society", d i s t r i c t planners undertook 27 an intensive study of the natural systems of the Seymour area. The entire s i t e was divided into 15 study areas. Each area was assigned a team of b i o l o g i s t s , geologists, landscape arch i t e c t s , and planners. Each team conducted a landscape reconnaisance to c o l l e c t data on geology, s o i l s , climate, hydrology, fauna, and f l o r a . The o b j e c t i v e s of the recon-naisance study were to i d e n t i f y the best n a t u r a l areas and those best s u i t e d f o r development. The philosophy behind the environmental reconnaisance s t u d i e s i s best explained i n the r e s u l t a n t r e p o r t i The r o l e of the environmental study i s to d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n from the outset to n a t u r a l and p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s of the land (so) t h a t they can be considered i n the context of other v a l i d and competing claims to the use of land. In t h i s way we should avoid the problem of having to i d e n t i f y and compensate f o r c o n d i t i o n s a f t e r a d e c i s i o n to develop has been made. 28 A c c o r d i n g l y , the landscape reconnaisance teams i d e n t i f i e d on maps areas which, because of physiographic features such as slope or s o i l i n s t a b i l i t y , presented c o n s t r a i n t s to development. Areas of important n a t u r a l a t t r i b u t e s such as f o r e s t cover, or w i l d l i f e were a l s o mapped. "By comparing the two maps...," the r e p o r t notes, "we can i d e n t i f y f o r the f i r s t time those areas of Seymour where there i s no c o n f l i c t between nature and development." I n many cases, however, l a n d s u i t a b i l i t y i s not so obvious. "In these shadow areas, we must f i n d out j u s t how much urban development nature can t o l e r a t e and what types of development could e x i s t i n harmony 29 with nature." 7 On the b a s i s of the environmental s t u d i e s , the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver proposed conservation g u i d e l i n e s f o r f u t u r e development. Areas designated "Best N a t u r a l Areas" were to be set aside f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n . I n "Good Nat u r a l Areas" l i m i t e d development would be permitted, p r o v i d i n g that a major portion of the natural features be conserved. F i n a l l y , the d i s t r i c t would require that a l l future developments "be designed i n accordance with environmental design p r i n c i p l e s , 30 including the use of detailed environmental impact studies." Pol i c y implementation and enforcement was an acknowledged problem. From past experience, the planners r e a l i z e d that voluntary cooperation and enforcement by c i v i l action was u n r e a l i s t i c and inadequate The report recommended, therefore, that two new zoning categories be created, a Nature Preservation Zone where no development other than pathways etc. would be permitted and a Nature Conservation Zone where a "limited amount of compatible r e s i d e n t i a l development" would be allowed. Within the zones, standards would pro h i b i t tree-cutting, protect w i l d l i k f e , and pr o h i b i t p o l l u t i o n or a l t e r a t i o n or watercourses. Development within Conservation Zones would be subject to the issuance of a b u i l d i n g permit and a l l plans would be reviewed by a Conservation Panel, with members drawn from conservation f i e l d s . Zoning regulations could be enforced by the building inspector.-^ 1 F i n a l l y , b u i lding within conservation zones should be subject to a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant "to prevent future abuses of the conservacy." Registration of a covenant would be a condition of sale of any public lands. Land Use Contracts, not currently used by the d i s t r i c t , were suggested "for better control during the construction stage. 77 The landscape reconnaisance study was not intended as a d e f i n i t i v e statement on the future development of Seymour. As the municipal planner M . Chesworth noted: ...we are a l l too aware that the landscape reconnaissance technique i s only a f i r s t , broad brush step, and must be supplemented by more detailed investigations at the l o c a l l e v e l . 3 3 In attempting to base future development upon a clea r understanding of the natural systems involved, North Vancouver's reconnaisance approach i s s i g n i f i c a n t . Public ownership of the Seymour area does not make the technique inapplicable to. other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Rather, the approach was adopted i n response to problems common to many municipalities: To continue with the ins e n s i t i v e and imposed subdivision patterns of past years i s neither i n t e l l i g e n t nor economic planning and as development proceeds onto steeper slopes and into marginal areas, t h i s becomes increasingly apparent. We have the opportunity and the obligation ...to continue with the... i n i t i a t i v e of the landscape reconnaisance and to supplement and refine t h i s technique to the extent that we achieve a l e v e l of understanding and harmony between the natural order and manmade elements of which we a l l may be j u s t i f i a b l y proud.34 Footnotes - Chapter 3 1 Unless otherwise noted, Section I i s based on an interview with Robert C o l l i e r , Municipal Planner, West Vancouver, Feb. 11, 1977. 2 Seei D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, Development Guidelines f o r  Land Above the Upper Levels Highway, Sept. 17, 1973. and Advisory Planning Commission, Recommendations and Reports  With Respect to Development Above the Upper Levels Highway, D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, May 15 , 1974. 3 Advisory Planning Commission, op_ c i t . , p. 32. 4 Ibid., p.32. 5 Ibid., p.38. 6 I b i d . . p.40. 7 Section II i s based on an interview with Larry Wolfe, Planner, Coquitlam, Feb. 4, 1977. 8 E r i c Tiessen, Planner, Coquitlam, interview, Feb. 3, 1977. 9 D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam, Subdivision Control By-Law - By-Law  No. 1930, May 1971, Sec. 5 (a). 10 I b i d . . Sec. 5(b), Sec. 6. 11 Ibid., Sec. 7. 12 Ibid., Sec. 8-9. 13 Ibid., Sec. 11. 14 D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam, "Subdivsion Committee Minutes", Nov. 30, 1976. 15 I b i d . , Jan. 18, 1977. 16 B.A.C.M. Limited, "Report on Eagle Ridge", Coquitlam, B.C., 1973, P.23. 17 I b i d . , p.24. 18 I b i d . , p.24. 19 Ibid., p.20. 20 D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam, "Development Agreement with B.A.C.M. Limited and Southern Slope Holdings (1959) Limited", October 1, 1976. 21 Section III i s based on an interview with Helen Russell, Subdivision Technician, Burnaby, B.C., March 1 0 , 1977 . 22 D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, Planning Department, "Burnaby Linear Parks and T r a i l System", memo to Parks and Recreation Administrator, March 2 0 , 1 9 7 4 , p.2. 23 Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , The Livable Region  1976/1986, Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater  Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C., 1 9 7 6 , pp.3 4 - 3 5 . 24 D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, Planning Department, "Burnaby Linear Parks and T r a i l System", p . l . 1 25 D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, By-Law No. 5953. Consolidated for Convenience with By-Laws Nos. 6230} 6 3 5 6 ; 6402 and 6 5 6 ? ; A By-Law to Regulate Subdivision of Land, Sec, 3 . 26 Section IV i s based on an interview with Des Smith, Planner D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver, March 1 6 , 1977 . 27 D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver, Planning Department, Seymour: The Natural Environment, June 1975 , p . ( i ) . 28 I b i d . , p.7. 29 Ibid., p.7. 30 I b i d . . p.67. 31 I b i d . . P.68. 32 I b i d . , pp.6 8 - 6 9 . 33 I b i d . , p. ( i ) . 34 Ibid., p. ( i i ) . Chapter 4 Summary of Control Techniques Employed This chapter summarizes the conservation techniques employed by the three municipalities interviewed. While facing s i m i l a r problems, each municipality approaches subdivision control i n a d i f f e r e n t way. In fact, the m unicipalities appear to represent a spectrum, from a very formal l e g a l i s t i c approach i n West Vancouver to an informal approach i n Burnaby. Coquitlam assumes a midway po s i t i o n on the spectrum. The d i f f e r e n t municipal attitudes to control are r e f l e c t e d i n the techniques employed. In many cases, informal techniques have evolved i n reponse to d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . Part I of t h i s chapter describes the open space p o l i c i e s and objectives which serve as a framework f o r conservation e f f o r t s i n subdivisions. In the next section, the role of the approval process i s discussed. The t h i r d part summarizes measures by which conservation objectives are achieved. F i n a l l y , methods of implementing and enforcing the conservation techniques are compared. North Vancouver, i s f o r the most part, l e f t out of the discussion. The implications of North Vancouver's landscape reconaissance work w i l l be discussed i n Chapter 5' 81 I Overview A l l the municipalities examined have i n common certain types of t e r r a i n , g i v i n g them markedly s i m i l a r problems with regard to conservation. The areas of most c r i t i c a l cacern appear to be r e s t r i c t i o n of b u i l d i n g upon steep slopes and , the protection of ravines and creeks. Ignoring these factors i n the past has led to v i s i b l e environmental degradation, but each municipality now at l e a s t recognizes the dangers. The neglect of other natural assets have les s dramatic consequences. As a r e s u l t , conservation of these areas i s not always a high p r i o r i t y . For example, although a l l the muni-c i p a l i t i e s have a large expanse of ocean or r i v e r waterfront, e f f o r t s to gain public access have sometimes been lacking. West Vancouver i s now attempting to remedy past mistakes i n i t s new waterfront subdivisions. In Coquitlam, although the Fraser River i s l o s t f o r the time being, some e f f o r t i s being directed to u t i l i z i n g Indian Arm and the Coquitlam River shore-l i n e s . Burnaby i s fortunate i n that the scenic a t t r i b u t e s of i t s waterfrontage were recognized before intense development occurred. Tree preservation also receives varying degrees of attention, and the r o l e of tree conservation d i f f e r s between muni c i p a l i t i e s . In West Vancouver trees are retained, i n part, to separate housing c l u s t e r s . Burnaby, on the other hand, protects mature specimens f o r t h e i r ecological value and to preserve the forest character of an area. Although i n both instances, 82 trees serve a cosmetic function, West Vancouver's approach i s more a r t i f i c i a l and design oriented while Burnaby emphasizes the irreplaceable character of climax forest. Besides t h e i r common physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a l l the municipalities are facing s i m i l a r development pressures. Each m u n i c i p a l i t i t y contains one intensely developed region and one r e l a t i v e l y open region. Because new development can no longer occur i n t h e i r older areas, the municipalities must begin to open new areas to developent. This prospect gives a municipality a chance to plan the development of the new areas so as to avoid the mistakes of the past. To d i f f e r e n t extents, t h i s challenge i s recognized by a l l the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . As future development i n West Vancouver must occur i n p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive environments, attention i s directed to conservation objectives. In Burnaby and Coquitlam, however, the ecological implications of new development has not been s p e c i f i c a l l y dealt with. Nevertheless, f r a g i l e areas such as ravines and slopes are to be preserved and, i n addition, plans f o r large scale developments include substantial park areas. Only i n North Vancouver, has the prospect of new development inspired a comprehensive study of the region's ecological and physical capacity to sustain development. No other municipality, therefore, has yet attempted to guide development i n accordance with the natural c a p a b i l i t i e s of the land. Even i n West Vancouver, whose Upper Levels guidelines come closest to «3 approximating North Vancouver's e f f o r t s , attention i s only directed to s p e c i f i c areas of concern; a comprehensive analysis of the entire area i s not attempted. In the past, most municipalities have not formulated a comprehensive open space plan. Burnaby i s apparently a pioneer i n t h i s regard, West Vancouver i s now also working on an open space plan, based, l i k e Burnaby's on a l i n e a r parks concept. Although Coquitlam has not devised a comprehensive plan, a l i n e a r park system i s proposed f o r Coquitlam Town Center. For the southwest sector, major parks are included i n the Community Plan. II Procedural Constraints A. Subdivision Process In each of the three municipalities studied, the planning department has a s i g n i f i c a n t degree of control ,over the subdivision process. However, planning p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n subdivision control has evolved independently of enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . Formal subdivision control i s vested by the Municipal and Land Registry Acts i n the approving o f f i c e r . Therefore, the role of planning i s e s s e n t i a l l y informal. The enabling l e g i s l a t i o n and most subdivision by-laws r e f l e c t a narrow approach to subdivision control. Primary concern i s focused on engineering standards f o r the extension of roads and services. A good example of t h i s attitude i s the suggestion i n the Land Registry Act that the approving o f f i c e r be the municipal engineer. 84 The enabling l e g i s l a t i o n ' s vagueness concerning planning input i n subdivision control i s dealt with d i r e c t l y by Coquitlam. A considerable amount of decision-making authority i s allocated to the subdivision committee, formalizing planning input. On the committee, engineering and planning considerations have equal representation. In Burnaby, subdivision approval i s primarily a planning function. However, Burnaby's approach i s l e s s d i r e c t than Coquitlam's. The planning department handles the subdivision application throughout the process and the planning d i r e c t o r i s the approving o f f i c e r . Because i n i t i a l approval i s tentative, the municipality may attach conditions as needed. West Vancouver's planning department appears to r e l y upon a good rela t i o n s h i p with the engineering department. The municipal engineer i s the approving o f f i c e r . However, land use contracts necessitate substantial planning input i n the process. As a r u l e , informal interdepartmental cooperation successfully incorporates planning concerns. B. Role of Approving O f f i c e r Another problem a r i s i n g from the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n i s municipal uncertainty regarding the grounds upon which the approving o f f i c e r may refuse a subdivision a p p l i c a t i o n . Again, Coquitlam deals with t h i s problem d i r e c t l y i n i t s subdivision control by-law. Lands unsuitable f o r high i n t e n s i t y uses include those subject to flooding, erosion, slippage, or poor drainage. Simple environmental analyses may be required from 85 developers to a i d the approving o f f i c e r i n determining the appropriateness of a given use. "The public i n t e r e s t " and the e f f e c t of a development upon "established amenities" might be determined by n o t i f i c a t i o n of adjacent property owners. Although i t i s not included i n the subdivision by-law, "excessive cost" i s defined by resolution as the cost to the municipality of providing park and recreation services. In Burnaby and West Vancouver, the subdivision by-law deals primarily with engineering standards. Interpretation of the approving o f f i c e r ' s powers f o r environmental protection i s not attempted to any extent. West Vancouver's recently established building setbacks from creeks i s an exception,. In Burnaby, flooding and erosion render land unsuitable f o r intense uses. The absence of municipal c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the powers of the approving o f f i c e r leads to several conclusions. Probably most municipalities do not f e e l such d e f i n i t i o n i s necessary. S u f f i c i e n t control over an a p p l i c a t i o n during the approval process makes the approving o f f i c e r ' s function a formality. Also, there i s safety i n ambiguity. A subdivision by-law which interprets too much i n the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n may be ruled u l t r a - v i r e s . The municipal council may prefer to communicate i t s interpretation of the statute informally to the approving o f f i c e r . 8 6 I I I C o n s e r v a t i o n Methods A. D e d i c a t i o n The d e d i c a t i o n o f p u b l i c open space i s a w i d e l y - e m p l o y e d means o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i n s u b d i v i s i o n s . S i n c e o u t r i g h t d e d i c a t i o n s i s n o t a u t h o r i z e d i n the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , v a r i o u s methods 'have been adopted t o a c h i e v e d e d i c a t i o n . The means o f i m p l e -m e n t a t i o n v a r y between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . I n West Vancouver, d e d i c a t i o n i s a c h i e v e d p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h l a n d use c o n t r a c t s . The l a n d use c o n t r a c t i s , i n f a c t , t h e o n l y c l e a r l y l e g a l d e v i c e by w h i c h d e d i c a t i o n may be a r r a n g e d . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f the l a t t i c e c o n c e p t o f open space depends upon d e v e l o p e r s ' d e d i c a t i o n o f c o n n e c t i n g s t r i p s . D e d i c a t i o n s a r e a l s o c r u c i a l i n g a i n i n g s m a l l w a t e r f r o n t p a r k s . The a creage t o be d e d i c a t e d i s d e t e r m i n e d on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s . Above the Upper L e v e l s Highway, however, l a n d s must be d e d i c a t e d e q u a l t o 10 a c r e s p e r 1,000 p e o p l e . C o q u i t l a m r e l i e s upon development agreements t o a c q u i r e open space d e d i c a t i o n . As i n West Vancouver, the amount o f t h e d e d i c a t i o n i s n e g o t i a t e d f o r each s i t e . Some p r i m a r y c oncerns a r e neighbourhood p a r k a c q u i s i t i o n and, more r e c e n t l y , r a v i n e p r o t e c t i o n . Burnaby's d e d i c a t i o n s a r e a r r a n g e d e n t i r e l y t h r o u g h i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s . Lands w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e t o the . . l i n e a r p a r k system a r e p r e f e r r e d . 87 There are two areas where municipalities exercise caution regarding dedications. In West Vancouver recent experience with a useless dedication, may lead to more careful evaluation of prospective uses i n the future. Burnaby's unwillingness to be i n e x t r i c a b l y committed to park uses has resulted i n dedicated open space not being designated "park" when plans are deposited i n the Land Registry O f f i c e . B. Parkland A c q u i s i t i o n Fees In many cases, dedication of land i s unsatisfactory. Often there are no suitable parcels f o r municipal purposes, especially i n small subdivisions. Also outright dedication does not a l l e v i a t e open space d e f i c i e n c i e s i n highly developed areas of a municipality. Both Burnaby and Coquitlam now require that a l l subdividers pay a levy f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of municipal open space. Coquitlam has established a f l a t rate f o r each new l o t created. In Burnaby the levy increases according to the density of the proposed development. Presumably because seniors require less open space and are l e s s able to bear extra costs, Burnaby reduces l e v i e s f o r seniors' developments. In Burnaby, an attempt i s made to acquire parkland which provides r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t benefits to the residents of the development from which the levy i s c o l l e c t e d . As the fee may be passed on to the consumer, i t i s believed that the consumer should derive some tangible benefit from the increased cost. Therefore, the monies are spent within the same 88 neighbourhood as the new subdivision. Coquitlam, on the other hand, uses i t s parkland a c q u i s i t i o n fund to remedy d e f i c i e n c i e s elsewhere i n the municipality. Because they apply to a l l subdivisions regardless of s i z e , parkland a c q u i s i t i o n fees are the most frequently applied technique i n both Burnaby and Coquitlam. As developments increase i n si z e , however, dedication of approbate public lands gains i n p r i o r i t y and i n large scale developments assume primary importance. West Vancouver also uses parkland imposts, but to a l e s s e r extent and only i n conjunction with land use contracts. Municipal p o l i c y regarding imposts only applies to development above the Upper Levels where fees i n l i e u of dedication equal to 10 acres per 1,000 population i s permitted. As subdivisions i n that area must be at l e a s t 20 acres i n size,, suitable land i s l i k e l y to be available f o r dedication. In other areas, parkland a c q u i s i t i o n fees apparently play a r e l a t i v e l y minor role and small subdivisions, which are not negotiated by contract, escape assessment. C. Cluster Development The c l u s t e r p r i n c i p l e appears to be gaining acceptance and can be implemented through land use contracts or through informal negotiation of rezoning applications. Of the municipalities studied, only West Vancouver has o f f i c i a l l y endorsed the c l u s t e r p r i n c i p l e , i n i t s development guideline.s.„._f,Qr land above the Upper Levels Highway. Elsewhere 8 9 i n the municipality, land use contracts are successfully used to permit clustering, as i n the Batchelor Cove subdivision. Burnaby often negotiates c l u s t e r i n g when an application requires rezoning, p a r t i c u l a r l y on lands adjacent to ravines or other sensitive environments. Increased densities on part of the s i t e can create sizeable open areas while maintaining the same o v e r a l l density. Under t r a d i t i o n a l zoning, c l u s t e r i n g i s not possible. Therefore development agreements, which transpire within the framework of established zones, can not permit c l u s t e r i n g . Outside of land use contracts, c l u s t e r i n g can only occur i n rezoning. D. Design Control In the approval process, formal or informal negotiations often r e s u l t i n modifications to the s i t e design. A l l municipalities exercise design control to some extent. West Vancouver's use of the land use contract necessitates formal negotiations, f a c i l i t a t i n g municipal control over design. The s i t i n g of buildings to preserve views, as i n Batchelor Cove, i s an example of design modification. In Coquitlam and Burnaby, design is. controlled through informal negotiations r e s u l t i n g i n conditional approval of a subdivision a p p l i c a t i o n . Coquitlam also uses development agreements, es p e c i a l l y to ensure landscaping i s performed. 90 E. O t h e r Techniques 1. Land Exchange As the Burnaby example i l l u s t r a t e s , l a n d exchange can r e s u l t i n m u n i c i p a l a c q u i s i t i o n o f d e s i r a b l e open space. Because the t e c h n i q u e depends b o t h on the m u n i c i p a l i t y owning r i g h t s t o l a n d needed by a d e v e l o p e r and on the d e v e l o p e r owning l a n d s u i t a b l e f o r m u n i c i p a l p u r p o s e s , i t has l i m i t e d a p p l i c a b i l i t y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , l a n d exchanges can be n e g o t i a t e d e f f e c t i v e l y , as the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s o f t e n i n a f a v o r a b l e b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s the d e v e l o p e r . 2. L a r g e L o t Z o n i n g The o n l y m u n i c i p a l i t y a t t e m p t i n g t o c o n t r o l development by l a r g e l o t z o n i n g i s West Vancouver. The s u c c e s s o f t h i s t e c h n i q u e i s y e t t o be d e t e r m i n e d . I n s p i t e o f e x t r e m e l y h i g h l a n d p r i c e s , i t i s n o t c l e a r t h a t the f i v e a c r e l o t s w i l l be a d e t e r r e n t t o f u t u r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , th e c o s t t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y o f e x t e n d i n g s e r v i c e s above 1200', a l r e a d y uneconomic, would be i n c r e a s e d i f such low d e n s i t y development d i d o c c u r . 3. T a x a t i o n Reduced t a x assessments on undeveloped l a n d , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e a l l o w i n g p u b l i c a c c e s s , can encourage i t s r e t e n t i o n as open space. I n West Vancouver, the o n l y m u n i c i p a l i t y i n w h i c h s p e c i a l open space t a x a t i o n was mentioned, a g o l f c o u r s e r e c e i v e d the b e n e f i t . However, n o t a l l undeveloped l a n d i s 91 u s e f u l open space. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f open l a n d s w h i c h s h o u l d be a s s e s s e d a t l o w e r r a t e s and l a n d s i n w h i c h l o w e r t a x a t i o n would p r i m a r i l y encourage s p e c u l a t i o n i s a major d i f f i c u l t y . 4. R i g h t s - o f - w a y Both C o q u i t l a m and Burnaby mentioned t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n g a i n i n g p u b l i c use o f u t i l i t y r i g h t s - o f - w a y . A l t h o u g h i n the p a s t , r i g h t s - o f - w a y have been l a r g e l y unused, t h e y o f t e n p r o v i d e c o n v e n i e n t l i n k s i n the c r e a t i o n o f a l i n e a r p a r k system. 5. C.M.H.C. I n C h a p t e r 2, t h e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y o f C.M.H.C. t o r e q u i r e p a r k l a n d d e d i c a t i o n i n s u b d i v i s i o n s was d i s c u s s e d . I n p r a c t i c e , C.M.H.C. p l a y s a m i n o r r o l e i n open space c o n s e r v a t i o n . Burnaby i n d i c a t e d t h a t the 5% d e d i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t was i n s u f f i c i e n t w i t h r e g a r d t o m u n i c i p a l p o l i c y . I n most c a s e s , the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s imposed t h e i r own s t a n d a r d s o v e r those o f CMHC. IV I m p l e m e n t a t i o n and Enforcement A. I n f o r m a l N e g o t i a t i o n Because o f the n a t u r e 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 , a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e l y on i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s t o some e x t e n t . The s u c c e s s o f the n e g o t i a t i o n s depends on the c o o p e r a t i o n o f the d e v e l o p e r and the commitment o f the 92 m u n i c i p a l i t y . I n i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s , t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y can be most demanding when the d e v e l o p e r r e q u i r e s s p e c i a l con-c e s s i o n s from the m u n i c i p a l i t y , as i n a l a n d exchange. Of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n t e r v i e w e d , o n l y Burnaby depends e n t i r e l y on i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l . By g r a n t i n g t e n t a t i v e a p p r o v a l t o p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n s , p e r m i s s i o n t o s u b d i v i d e becomes c o n d i t i o n a l upon the p e r -formance o f c e r t a i n r e q u i r e m e n t s . C o q u i t l a m has adopted a s i m i l a r approach i n t h a t t h e s u b d i v i s i o n committee a l s o g r a n t s c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o v a l . I n some i n s t a n c e s , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s imposed i n s u r e s t h e i r performance. F o r example, a p l a n d e p o s i t e d i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e i n d i c a t i n g the b u i l d i n g s l o c a t e d a t a d i s t a n c e from a r a v i n e and t h e d e d i c a t i o n o f p a r k l a n d i s e n f o r c e a b l e . On the o t h e r hand, c o n d i t i o n s f o r l a n d s c a p i n g and t r e e r e t e n t i o n a r e n o t e n f o r c e a b l e i n t h i s way. E i t h e r t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y must t r u s t t h e d e v e l o p e r o r o t h e r d e v i c e s must be adopted. B. Development Agreements One such d e v i c e i s t h e development agreement. Burnaby uses a type o f development agreement t o c o v e r s e r v i c i n g . Because the agreements a r e c o n t r a c t s between the m u n i c i p a l i t y ,and the d e v e l o p e r , t h e i r performance can be bonded. L a n d s c a p i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e u s u a l l y bonded t h r o u g h Burnaby's s e r v i c i n g agreements. C o q u i t l a m uses development agreements t o c o v e r a v a r i e t y o f c o n d i t i o n s i n a d d i t i o n t o l a n d s c a p i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . As i l l u s t r a t e d by the Eagle Ridge example, c o n d i t i o n s might i n c l u d e d e d i c a t i o n or, i n l a r g e s u b d i v i s i o n s , p r o v i s i o n of r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . U n l i k e land use c o n t r a c t s , development agreements occur w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s of t r a d i t i o n a l zoning. Therefore, f u t u r e changes i n land use are subject to the appropriate zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e impossible to enforce such c o n d i t i o n s as tree r e t e n t i o n which are not covered by zoning, once the subdivided l o t s have been s o l d . G. Land Use Contracts Because land use c o n t r a c t s replace zoning and run i n p e r p e t u i t y , the terms of the c o n t r a c t can be enforced. Land use c o n t r a c t s can accomplish a l l of the o b j e c t i v e s acheived by other methods, and more. Often, land use c o n t r a c t s are used i n areas that have been i d r a s t i c a l l y downzoned. Therefore, the developer i s much more dependent on municipal g o o d w i l l , as breakdown of n e g o t i a t i o n s w i l l mean no development can occur. The land use c o n t r a c t thereby gives the m u n i c i p a l i t y the favor-able b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n which i s so important i n n e g o t i a t i o n s . In s p i t e of i t s advantages, the land use c o n t r a c t i s not widely used. Most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are s a t i s f i e d with the r e s u l t s achieved by other methods. In a d d i t i o n , they f e a r the d i f f i c u l t i e s of changing c o n t r a c t terms and want to avoid time-consuming p u b l i c hearings. West Vancouver alone uses land use c o n t r a c t s e x t e n s i v e l y , p r i m a r i l y because they b e l i e v e development agreements to be i l l e g a l yet want an enforceable system of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l . 9-4-To i n c r e a s e the f l e x i b i l i t y o f l a n d use c o n t r a c t s where s e v e r a l owners a r e i n v o l v e d , a maste r c o n t r a c t / i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r a c t system i s employed. I n a d d i t i o n , the l a n d use c o n t r a c t i s sometimes s u b j e c t t o a f i v e y e a r time l i m i t , a f t e r which z o n i n g a p p l i e s . However, the f i v e y e a r time l i m i t p r e s e n t s the same d i f f i c u l t i e s as the development agreement. That i s , c o n d i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g b u i l d i n g s e t b a c k s and t r e e r e t e n t i o n a r e u n e n f o r c e a b l e , D. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants R e s t r i c t i v e c ovenants a r e e n f o r c e a b l e d e v i c e s , r e g i s t e r e d i n t he Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e , which can be used t o p r o t e c t t r e e s and l i m i t development. They a r e employed t o guarantee c o n d i t i o n s i n i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s o r development agreements. U n l e s s s u b j e c t t o a time l i m i t , l a n d use c o n t r a c t s make covenants u n n e c e s s a r y . C o q u i t l a m uses r e s t r i c t i v e covenants i n a v a r i e t y o f ways, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s m a l l e r s u b d i v i s i o n s . However, the most e x t e n s i v e use o f covenants i s i n Burnaby, where t r e e covenants a r e f r e q u e n t l y employed. M u n i c i p a l l i a b i l i t y , s h o u l d a p r o t e c t e d t r e e f a l l , i s one problem. A n o t h e r problem, common t o a l l a v a i l a b l e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s , i s the expense i n v o l v e d i n b r i n g i n g v i o l a t o r s t o c o u r t . Formal a c t i o n i s a l m o s t n e v e r t a k e n . O c c a s s i o n a l l y , however, i n f o r m a l p r e s s u r e from C o u n c i l has r e s u l t e d i n some r e p a r a t i o n s . 9 5 Chapter 5 Conclusion I,. I n t r o d u c t i o n As a r e s u l t of the i n t e r v i e w s , i t became apparent that i n p r a c t i c e , the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s depends, by the nature of the process, uponi l , 1 the a r t i c u l a t i o n of municipal open space and conservation o b j e c t i v e s , 2 . the vaules, knowledge, and s k i l l of municipal o f f i c i a l s i n v o l v e d i n the process, and 3. the cooperation, v a l u e s , and o b j e c t i v e s of the developer. The nature of the s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l process makes i t d i f f i c u l t and perhaps i r r e l e v a n t to evaluate the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the c o n t r o l s based upon performance. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s lacked c l e a r conservation o b j e c t i v e s against which success could be measured. The atmosphere of the n e g o t i a t i o n s was u s u a l l y cooperative and spontaneous. W r i t t e n records of n e g o t i a t i o n s were not kept, as major agreements were made v e r b a l l y , p r i o r to t e n t a t i v e approval. A l s o , as conservation i n s u b d i v i s i o n s has become an important municipal o b j e c t i v e l a r g e l y w i t h i n the l a s t f i v e years, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are s t i l l experimenting. I t must be noted that m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were both o p t i m i s t i c about the use of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s to conserve open space and g e n e r a l l y s a t i s f i e d w i t h the r e s u l t s acheived under the cu r r e n t system. No m u n i c i p a l i t y acknowledged any major problems. However, a l l admitted that the scope of the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n needs e n l a r g i n g . 96 I n the f i r s t c h a p t e r , s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l was d e f i n e d as a p l a n n i n g t o o l which a m u n i c i p a l i t y s h o u l d be a b l e t o use t o r e a l i z e open space o b j e c t i v e s . I t s h o u l d be n e i t h e r n e g a t i v e i n n a t u r e n o r dependent upon the d e v e l o p e r ' s c o o p e r a t i o n f o r i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . A c c o r d i n g l y , the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a a r e s u g g e s t e d as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f an e f f e c t i v e s u b d i v i s i o n con-t r o l s y s t e m i 1. The m u n i c i p a l i t y s h o u l d be a u t h o r i z e d t o a p p l y c o n t r o l s a t i t s d i s c r e t i o n , whether or not the d e v e l o p e r i s a g r e e a b l e . 2 . The c o n t r o l s s h o u l d p r o v i d e f l e x i b i l i t y -a. t o r e f l e c t the u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an i n d i v i d u a l s i t e , and b. t o encourage i n n o v a t i v e s o l u t i o n s . 3. The m u n i c i p a l i t y s h o u l d be a b l e t o p r e v e n t development from o c c u r r i n g i f open space o b j e c t i v e s a r e not met. The p r e s e n t s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l system i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s . As many o f the commonly used c o n s e r v a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s such as d e d i c a t i o n o r park a c q u i s i t i o n f e e s a r e n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d , the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s dependent upon the d e v e l o p e r ' s c o o p e r a t i o n . Even under l a n d use c o n t r a c t s , the d e v e l o p e r can e l e c t t o p r o c e e d under t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g r a t h e r i. t h a n under c o n t r a c t . T h i s c l e a r l y l i m i t s t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s a b i l i t y t o use s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s i n a p o s i t i v e manner. F u r t h e r m o r e , i f open space o b j e c t i v e s a r e not met, a m u n i c i p a l i t y cannot always p r e v e n t a development from o c c u r r i n g . The power t o r e f u s e a s u b d i v i s i o n i s v e s t e d i n the a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r , and a l t h o u g h he c o n s u l t s w i t h o t h e r m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l s , he must e x e r c i s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n w i t h i n the narrow l i m i t s o f the s t a t u t e s , o r r i s k l i t i g a t i o n . On t h e p o s i t i v e s i d e , the e x i s t i n g system p r o v i d e s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i t h a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f f l e x i b i l i t y , an e s s e n t i a l element i n d e a l i n g w i t h e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n s . I n c o n c l u s i o n , t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s i n c o n s e r v i n g open space would be improved by» 1. e x p a n s i o n o f the scope o f the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n t o p e r m i t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o employ s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s p o s i t i v e l y t o a t t a i n open space o b j e c t i v e s , and 2, a r t i c u l a t i o n o f m u n i c i p a l open space o b j e c t i v e s based upon an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the i n h e r e n t c a p a c i t y o f v a r i o u s l a n d s c a p e s t o s u s t a i n v a r y i n g degrees of development. These two s u g g e s t i o n s a r e d e t a i l e d i n t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h i s c h a p t e r . II-. The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s R e g a r d l e s s o f which approach t o s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l a m u n i c i p a l i t y a d o p t s , the p r o c e s s i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by n e g o t i a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , th e v a l u e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l p l a n n e r i n v o l v e d i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s i s a c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e . A p l a n n e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f , and commitment t o , open space o b j e c t i v e s , as w e l l as h i s knowledge o f a v a i l a b l e t o o l s and s k i l l i n n e g o t i a t i n g , i n f l u e n c e the outcome. , As a r u l e , n e g o t i a t i o n s p r o c e e d i n an atmosphere o f c o o p e r a t i o n , n o t c o n f l i c t . The smooth o p e r a t i o n o f the system r e l i e s on the mutual dependence o f n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t i e s . D e v e l o p e r s r e q u i r e t h e good w i l l o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r t h e e x t e n s i o n o f s e r v i c e s and the e x p e d i e n t p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e i r s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s . As most l a r g e d e v e l o p e r s p r o c e s s 98 s e v e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n s a year, i t i s p o l i t i c to encourage a good r e l a t i o n s h i p . On the other hand, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are e q u a l l y dependent upon the developer's cooperation to conserve open space. I n n e g o t i a t i n g f o r open space i n s u b d i v i s i o n s , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are most s u c c e s s f u l when the developer r e q u i r e s a p a r t i c u l a r concession. For example, land use c o n t r a c t s , rezoning a p p l i -c a t i o n s , and land exchanges a l l increased the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' chances of sec u r i n g s u b s t a n t i a l open space p r o v i s i o n s . However, as m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are not backed by enabling l e g i s -l a t i o n , they are unable to f o r c e the developer to provide open space. The process of n e g o t i a t i o n provides a f l e x i b l e framework which i s r e a d i l y adaptable to the environmental concerns of an i n d i v i d u a l s i t e . However, since the attainment of open space i s enhanced when the m u n i c i p a l i t y has some c l o u t i n n e g o t i a t i o n s , some simple enabling l e g i s l a t i o n should be introduced. I n s p i t e of the widespread acceptance of mandatory d e d i c a t i o n or f e e s - i n - l i e u requirements elsewhere i n Canada and the United S t a t e s , B , C . ^ m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s t i l l have no c l e a r s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n to impose such requirements. I f open space conservation i s accepted as a n e c e s s i t y i n urban areas, then m u n i c i p a l i t i e s should not only be autho r i z e d but encouraged to adopt the r e g u l a t i o n s necessary to r e a l i z e such o b j e c t i v e s . The l e g a l i t y of such devices as parkland a c q u i s i t i o n fees i s a debatable question, one which i s l i k e l y to be s e t t l e d only i n c o u r t . Nevertheless t h e i r frequent use i n d i c a t e s the e x i s -9 9 tence of a problem which r e q u i r e s a t t e n t i o n . Furthermore, while a l l are faced with conservation problems, some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are h e s i t a n t to employ devices of doubtful l e g a l i t y . In f a c t , West Vancouver, the m u n i c i p a l i t y which gave the most e n t h u s i a s t i c endorsement to the suggestion of enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , was the most r e l u c t a n t to experiment with unauthorized devises. This suggests t h a t while problems e x i s t , the search f o r s o l u t i o n s i s i n h i b i t e d by the present l e g i s l a t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t ely, the longer the search f o r answers i s delayed, the more oppor-t u n i t i e s are l o s t . The type of l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r e d should a l l o w the munici-p a l i t i e s to take s t r i n g e n t a c t i o n when necessary, but should be general enough to permit m o d i f i c a t i o n s . F i x e d d e d i c a t i o n requirements expressed as percentages of the t o t a l s i t e area are u n s a t i s f a c t o r y i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s . 1 F i r s t , they do not take i n t o account v a r i a t i o n s i n the p h y s i c a l c a p a c i t y of a s i t e to s u s t a i n development, nor do they r e l a t e park acreage to the d e n s i t y or s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s u b d i v i s i o n or the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, depending upon the wording of the l e g i s l a t i o n , standards could be i n t e r p r e t e d as- the maximum permissable by developers, whereas m u n i c i p a l i t i e s would p r e f e r to regard them as the minimum acceptable. In a d d i t i o n , i f a low percentage requirement were e s t a b l i s h e d , i t would not serve the purpose of enhancing the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n . For example, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n d i c a t e d i n the i n t e r v i e w s that CvM.H.C#'s 5% requirements were i n s u f f i c i e n t to achieve municipal o b j e c t i v e s . The greater amounts of open space a r r a n g e d t h r o u g h m u n i c i p a l n e g o t i a t i o n s s u p p o r t t h i s a s s e r t i o n . A s u p e r i o r method would he t o enable m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s e n s i t i v e a r e a s o f a s i t e . As Appendix E . , i l l u s t r a t e s , s e v e r a l p r o v i n c e s have adopted e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g such d e d i c a t i o n s . A l b e r t a ' s new p l a n n i n g a c t p r o v i d e s a good example o f t h i s 2 t y p e o f l e g i s l a t i o n . Under the A l b e r t a law, the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l a u t h o r i t y may r e q u i r e t h e d e d i c a t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s e r v e s a t t h e time o f s u b d i v i s i o n . There i s no l i m i t t o the acreage o f t h e r e s e r v e , which may i n c l u d e : - c r e e k s , g u l l i e s , r a v i n e s , swamps, c o u l e e s , n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e c o u r s e s , o r c r e e k b e d s , - l a n d s u b j e c t t o f l o o d i n g , - l a n d w h i c h , i n the o p i n 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 a u t h o r i t y i s " u n s u i t a b l e i n i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e f o r development", - a s t r i p o f l a n d no l e s s t h a n 20' a b u t t i n g the bed and s hore o f any l a k e , r i v e r , s t r e a m , o r o t h e r body o f w a t e r , f o r the purpose o f 1) p r e v e n t i n g p o l l u t i o n , o r 2) p r o v i d i n g p u b l i c a c c e s s . Thus, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e encouraged t o t a k e p o s i t i v e a c t i o n toward p r o t e c t i n g f r a g i l e environments w i t h o u t b e i n g bound t o i n f l e x i b l e and o f t e n i n a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d s . The p r o v i s i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n a l open space i s o f t e n a s e p a r a t e problem from t h a t o f s e c u r i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s e r v e s . I n s e v e r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , o l d e r d e v e l o p e d a r e a s a r e f a c i n g s e v e r e p r e s s u r e on e x i s t i n g p a r k and open space f a c i l i t i e s due J.U1 i n c r e a s i n g d e n s i f i c a t i o n . I t i s i m p o r t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t open space o r f e e s - i n - l i e u be s e c u r e d even i f the new s u b d i v i s i o n does n o t pose any problems e c o l o g i c a l l y . A g a i n , A l b e r t a r e c o g n i z e s t h i s problem and a l l o w s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n o f p a r k l a n d o r f e e s - i n - l i e u i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s e r v e s . The a r e a o f p a r k l a n d , o r the amount o f the f e e , may be i n c r e a s e d i n h i g h d e n s i t y developments. A n o t h e r a r e a t h a t appears t o w a r r a n t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the l a n d use c o n t r a c t . I t p r o v i d e s c o n s i d e r a b l e f l e x i b i l i t y and g i v e s t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i n n e g o t i a t i n g . However, the a p p a r e n t r e l u c t a n c e o f m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o u t i l i z e the d e v i c e s u g g e s t s some major problems. U n f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h l a n d use c o n t r a c t s may be a f a c t o r , a l t h o u g h s i x y e a r s seems ample time i n which t o g a i n e x p e r i e n c e . The major f e a r appears t o be t h a t o f becoming " l o c k e d i n " t o the c o n t r a c t and u n a b le t o change i n response t o new c i r c u m s t a n c e s . More i m p o r t a n t l y , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s would r a t h e r be c o n t e n t w i t h r e s u l t s a c h i e v e d by o t h e r , perhaps i l l e g a l methods, t h a n t o e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t . T h i s i s i n d i c a t i v e o f the d i s t r u s t w i t h which l a n d use c o n t r a c t s a r e r e g a r d e d . However, t h e r e i s one d e v i c e which i s i n s t r u m e n t a l i n c o n s e r v i n g open space which the l a n d use c o n t r a c t p e r m i t s where i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s do not - c l u s t e r development. C l u s t e r i n g h o u s i n g u n i t s can f r e e l a r g e a r e a s of a s i t e f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n purposes w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g the same o v e r a l l d e n s i t y . A t the same t i m e , t h e v i s u a l amenity o f t h e development may even be enhanced. 1UZ Because o f i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r open space c o n s e r v a t i o n and i t s s u i t a b i l i t y f o r s i t e s i n s c e n i c o r f r a g i l e e n v i r o n m e n t s , c l u s t e r development s h o u l d be encouraged. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , e x c e p t where r e z o n i n g i s i n v o l v e d , c l u s t e r i n g i s o n l y p o s s i -b l e i n a l a n d use c o n t r a c t . I n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e c l u s t e r s u b d i v i s i o n s o r o t h e r i n n o v a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s , the l a n d use con-t r a c t s h o u l d be r e v i s e d o r r e p l a c e d by a more a c c e p t a b l e d e v i c e . F l e x i b i l i t y would be o f p r i m a r y importance i n any proposed t e c h n i q u e . F u r t h e r m o r e , i f the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e t o use the t o o l i n a c r e a t i v e , p o s i t i v e manner, t h e n they must be a l l o w -ed t o r e q u i r e t h a t c e r t a i n s u b d i v i s i o n s be n e g o t i a t e d u s i n g the d e v i c e . As m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have had c o n s i d e r a b l e exper-i e n c e w i t h t h e problems o f l a n d use c o n t r o l s , m u n i c i p a l p a r t i c i -p a t i o n i n the d r a f t i n g o f new l e g i s l a t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l . I I I . Open Space C o n s e r v a t i o n A l t h o u g h the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n would i n c r e a s e the p o t e n t i a l o f s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s , t h e i r e f f e c t i v e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n depends upon the a r t i c u l a t i o n o f con-s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s . D e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e d e s i g n a t i o n o f open space 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 a r e c u r r e n t l y made on an ad hoc b a s i s . Indeed, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o d e a l w i t h open space a t the l e v e l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s i t e . However, a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what i s t o be a c h e i v e d a t the m u n i c i p a l l e v e l would guide p l a n n e r s i n the n e g o t i a t i o n o f open space f o r each s u b d i v i s i o n . I t i s n o t enough, as some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have done, t o d e v e l o p l i n e a r open space p l a n s o r t o p r e s e r v e i n d i v i d u a l n a t -u r a l f e a t u r e s . The m e r i t s o f tho s e open space p l a n s which e n v i s i o n m e a n i n g f u l and comprehensive systems o f u s u a b l e open space a r e n o t t o be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d . However, i t must be r e c o g -n i z e d t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n i n s u b d i v i s i o n s p r e s e n t s a d i f f e r e n t , i f r e l a t e d , s e t o f p roblems. S u b d i v i s i o n , by d e f i n i t i o n , imposes a g r e a t e r degree o f u r b a n i z a t i o n upon a s i t e . When v a s t segments o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y a r e b e i n g s u b d i v i d e d f o r the f i r s t t i m e , as i n n o r t h e a s t Co-q u i t l a m and Burnaby, the i m p o s i t i o n o f urban uses i s s i g n i f i c a n t . Undeveloped l a n d i s n o t unused l a n d . The l a n d i s u sed b y the n a t u r a l systems which i t s u p p o r t s . And man, as p a r t o f the eco-system, i s a major b e n e f i c i a r y o f the n a t u r a l p r o c e s s e s o f the l a n d . Y e t , n o t a l l l a n d i s e q u a l l y v a l u a b l e l e f t i n an open s t a t e . I a n McHarg, i n D e s i g n With N a t u r e , e x p l a i n s , "... c e r t a i n t y p e s o f l a n d a r e o f such i n t r i n s i c v a l u e , o r p e r f o r m work f o r man b e s t i n a n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n , o r f i n a l l y , c o n t a i n such h a z a r d s t o development t h a t t h e y s h o u l d n o t be u r b a n i z e d . S i m i l a r l y , t h e r e a r e o t h e r a r e a s , t h a t f o r s p e c i f i c r e a s o n s , a r e i n t r i n s i c a l l y s u i t a b l e f o r urban u s e s . " T h e r e f o r e , when c o n t e m p l a t i n g the shape o f f u t u r e d e v e l -opment i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o e v a l u a t e the n a t u r a l p r o c e s s e s o f the l a n d . 'Landscape r e c o n n a i s s a n c e ' , o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l -y s i s , s h o u l d p r e c e e d any s u b d i v i s i o n . The f u n c t i o n s which the l a n d p e r f o r m s a r e seldom s u p e r f i c i a l l y a p p a r e n t . "We r e q u i r e ... p r e c i s e i n f o r m a t i o n on which t o base our d e c i s i o n s . I t i s n o t enough t o d e s c r i b e l a n d as u n f o r e s t e d t one must examine ... f a c t o r s o f founda-t i o n s , s u i t a b i l i t y o f s o i l s ... s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o e r o s i o n ... and groundwater r e s o u r c e s . " The purpose o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s i s b e s t e x p l a i n e d by McHargi " R a t h e r t h a n propose a b l a n k e t s t a n d a r d o f open / space, we wish to f i n d d i s c r e t e aspects of n a t u r a l processes that c a r r y t h e i r own values and p r o h i b i t i o n s ! i t i s from these t h a t open space should be s e l e c t e d , i t i s these that should provide the p a t t e r n , not only of m e t r o p o l i t a n open space, but a l s o the p o s i t i v e p a t t e r n of development." Thus, growth i s d i r e c t e d to those areas best able to sus-t a i n i t , and a meaningful, f u n c t i o n a l system of open space i s c r e a t e d . Open space i t s e l f becomes a c r e a t i v e f o r c e , not simply the absence of development. Environmental a n a l y s i s provides the m u n i c i p a l i t y with an e m p i r i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e i r open space requirements i n s u b d i v i -s i o n s . As i t would give the approving o f f i c e r d e f e n s i b l e grounds upon which to. refuse an a p p l i c a t i o n , the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s a b i l i t y to negotiate with the developer would be strengthened. Furthermore, environmental a n a l y s i s supports the c l u s t e r concept on a l a r g e s c a l e . Areas capable of supporting devel-opment can be b u i l t i n t e n s i v e l y , while s e n s i t i v e areas can be l e f t inr-a n a t u r a l s t a t e . In a d d i t i o n , areas s u i t a b l e f o r mixed uses can be i d e n t i f i e d . I n order to determine the d e n s i t y , design, and type of development that the land w i l l c a r r y , mixed use areas r e q u i r e c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s f o r each s i t e . One might conclude from t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , that the l a c k of environmental a n a l y s i s w i l l create major problems. F o r t u n a t e l y , the l i n e a r open space systems f o r t u i t o u s l y u t i l i z e important n a t u r a l features such as creeks and w a t e r f r o n t s , s i n c e the areas best s u i t e d f o r r e c r e a t i o n are o f t e n those with the greatest conservation value. As McHarg notes, i t i s a l s o f o r t u n a t e that the areas of most c r i t i c a l conservation value are u s u a l l y 7 those l e a s t s u i t a b l e f o r development. Therefore, e c o l o g i c a l b u i l d i n g p r a c t i c e s are not uneconomic. On the c o n t r a r y , the c o s t b o t h t o the b u i l d e r and t o s o c i e t y o f r e p a i r i n g the damage caused by i n t e r r u p t i n g the b e n e f i c i a l f u n c t i o n s o f n a t u r e overshadow the i n i t i a l expense o f a s e n s i t i v e s i t e l a y o u t . F i n a l l y , j u s t as the e f f e c t i v e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f s u b d i v i -s i o n c o n t r o l s depends upon the use o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s t o f o r m u l a t e c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s , so e f f e c t i v e c o n s e r v a t i o n depends upon the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n . I t s h o u l d n o t be assumed t h a t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e unaware o f , o r unconcerned about, the e c o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f s u b d i v i -s i o n s . R a t h e r , the r e s t r i c t i v e n a t u r e o f the p r e s e n t e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n may d i s c o u r a g e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s from u n d e r t a k i n g an a d m i t t e d l y c o s t l y e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s i f th e y l a c k the power f o r e f f e c t i v e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . As the Seymour s t u d y n o t e s , " F r e q u e n t l y i t i s f a r e a s i e r t o o u t l i n e c o n s e r v a t i o n g o a l s on paper t h a n i t i s t o a c h i e v e them i n everyday p r a c t i c e • Q u n l e s s t h e r e i s p r o v i s i o n f o r l e g a l e n f o r c e m e n t . " 0 I n s t e a d o f r e s t r i c t i n g t h e scope o f m u n i c i p a l a c t i o n , the p r o v i n c e s h o u l d encourage l o c a l governments t o c o n s i d e r the e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s p e c t s o f development. W h i l e o t h e r p r o v i n c e s f a c i l i t a t e and promote c o n s e r v a t i o n i n s u b d i v i s i o n s , B.C. l a g s b e h i n d . What i s needed i s not o n l y g r e a t e r s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o c o n t r o l development, b u t a s h i f t i n p r o v i n c i a l a t t i t u d e toward l o c a l c o n s e r v a t i o n e f f o r t s . P r o v i n c i a l a r t i c u l a t i o n o f an e n v i r o n m e n t a l e t h i c would c o n t r i b u t e a p o s i t i v e impetus t o m u n i c i p a l a c t i o n . F o r an example o f p r o v i n c i a l l e a d e r s h i p i n t h i s r e g a r d , an e x c e r p t from a p l a n n i n g g u i d e p u b l i s h e d by the Ma n i t o b a Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s i s a t t a c h e d i n Appendix F. I U D Footnotes - Chapter 5 1 Sees Mary E. Brooks, "Mandatory Dedication of Land or Fees-in-Lieu of Land for Parks and Schools", Planning Advisory Service, Chicago, 111., Feb.,1971, pp.27-28. 2 Alberta B i l l #15 - Planning Act 1977. 3 Seet William Graham Consultants, "Improving Land Use Con-t r a c t s " , Research Report to the B.C. Real Estate Associa-t i o n , Vancouver, B.Cl, Feb. 1977, pp. 8-10. 4 Ian McHarg, Design With Nature, Natural History Press, Garden C i t y , N.Y., T 9 T 9 , p.154. 5 Ibid., p.154. 6 Ibid. , p.57. 7 Ibid . , p.64. 8 D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver, Planning Department, Seymourt The Natural Environment. p.67. BIBLIOGRAPHY I . Books and A r t i c l e s B a k e r , W.M., " A s s e s s i n g and A l l o c a t i n g Renewable Resources f o r R e c r e a t i o n " , Resources f o r Tomorrow - Con f e r e n c e  Background P a p e r s , Volume 2 , Queen's P r i n t e r and C o n t r o l l e r o f S t a t i o n e r y , Ottawa, Ont., 1 9 6 1 . B r o o k s , Mary E., "Mandatory D e d i c a t i o n o f Land o r F e e s - i n -L i e u o f Land f o r P a r k s and S c h o o l s " , P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r y S e r v i c e , R e p o r t #266, American S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , C h i c a g o , 1 1 1 . , F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 1 . Johnson, Norah and Joyce T y r r e l l , "Problems and Techniques o f Land A c q u i s i t i o n " , Resources f o r Tomorrow - C o n f e r -ence Background P a p e r s , Volume 2 , Queen's P r i n t e r and C o n t r o l l e r o f S t a t i o n e r y , Ottawa, Ont., I 9 6 I . K u s l e r , Jon A., P u b l i c / P r i v a t e P a r k s and Management o f  P r i v a t e Lands f o r P a r k P r o t e c t i o n , I n s t i t u t e f o r E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t u d i e s , R e p o r t #16, U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , M a d i s o n , Wis., 1 9 7 4 . L i t t l e , C h a r l e s E., C h a l l e n g e o f the Land, Pergamon P r e s s , New Y o r k , N.Y., 1 9 6 8 . McHarg, I a n , D e s i g n With N a t u r e , N a t u r a l H i s t o r y P r e s s , Garden C i t y , N.Y., 19W. M i l n e r , J.B.J- "An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l L e g i s l a t i o n " , The Canadian B a r Review. 4 3 1 49 - 9 8 , March 1 9 6 5 . P o r t e r , B r i a n , The Land Use C o n t r a c t ! I t s V a l i d i t y as a Means o f Use and Development C o n t r o l , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver, B.C., 1973. Shomon, Joseph J . , Open Land f o r Urban A m e r i c a , John Hopkins P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e , Md., 1973. W a l l a c e , D a v i d , M e t r o p o l i t a n Open Space and N a t u r a l P r o c e s s , U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pa., 1970. Whyte, W i l l i a m H,, C l u s t e r Development, Woodhaven P r e s s , New Y o r k , N.Y., 1964. Young, Gary, The M u n i c i p a l S u b d i v i s i o n A p p r o v a l P r o c e s s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver, B.C., 1974. xuo I I . Government Sources B.A.C.M. L i m i t e d , "Report on E a g l e R i d g e " , C o q u i t l a m , B.C. , 1 9 7 3 . D i s t r i c t o f Burnaby, P l a n n i n g Department, "B'urhaby L i n e a r P a r k s and T r a i l System", memo t o P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n A d m i n i s -t r a t o r , March 2 0 , 1 9 7 k . ,"The P a r k l a n d A c q u i s i t i o n L evy", September 2 8 , 1976 . C e n t r a l Mortgage and H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n , S i t e P l a n n i n g  Handbook, Ottawa, 1975 . C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l , o f O n t a r i o , The Urban Landscape, T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o , J u l y 1 9 7 k . D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam,"Development Agreement w i t h B.A.C.M. L i m i t e d and S o u t h e r n S l o p e H o l d i n g s (1959) L i m i t e d " , O ctober 1, 1976. / ' S u b d i v i s i o n Committee M i n u t e s " , November 3 0 , 1976 and J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1977 . W i l l i a m Graham C o n s u l t a n t s , " I m p r o v i n g Land Use C o n t r a c t s " , Research Report t o the B.C. R e a l E s t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n , Vancouver, B.C., F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 7 . G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , The L i v a b l e R e g i o n 1 9 7 6 / 1 9 8 6 , P r o p o s a l s t o Manage the Growth o f G r e a t e r  Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C., 1976 . Heayn, B r u c e , "Comparative Canadian P l a n n i n g L e g i s l a t i o n " , an u n p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t p r e p a r e d f o r the Environment and Land Use Committee, V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1 9 7 6 . Lower M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g B o a r d , " S u b d i v i s i o n By-Law", Vancouver, B.C., i 9 6 0 . M a n i t o b a Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , " S h o r e l a n d R e c r e a t i o n -An E n v i r o n m e n t a l Approach t o Development", P l a n n i n g Guide No. 2 , 1 9 7 6 . D i s t r i c t o f N o r t h Vancouver, P l a n n i n g Department, Seymour: The N a t u r a l Environment, June 1 9 7 5 . P e a r s o n , Norman, O p e r a t i o n Open Space, G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, B.C., 1 9 7 3 . Powers, M i c h a e l G., R e g i o n a l Open Space O p p o r t u n i t i e s , G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, B.C.,1975. D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, Development Guidelines f o r Land  Above the Upper Levels Highway, September 1 ? , 1 9 7 3 . , Advisory Planning Commission, Recommendations and Reports With Respect to Development Above the  Upper Levels Highway, May 1 5 , 1974. I I I . L e g i s l a t i o n Province of Alberta, B i l l No. 1J>, Planning Act - 1977. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Municipal Act. Consolidated for Convenience Only, July 1, 1973* , Land Registry Act, Consolidated f o r Convenience Only, July 1 , 1 9 7 3 . D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, By-Law No. 5953, Consolidated f o r Convenience with By-Laws Nos. 6230j 6356j 6402 j and 6 5 6 7 ; A By-Law to Regulate Subdivision of Land. Dominion of Canada, B r i t i s h North America Act, 1 8 6 7 . D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam, Subdivision Control By-Law - By-Law No. 1930. May 1 9 7 1 . IV. Court Cases Re Land Registry Act t Re Proposed Subdivision ( 1 9 5 5 ) . Simpson vs. C i t y of Vancouver (19? 6 ) , 65 DLR (3d) 669 (SCC). Upland Developments vs. Town of Quesnel ( 1 9 7 2 ) , V. Lectures Lane, William, "Municipal and Regional Planning Administration University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., November 1 3 , 1976 . Woodsworth, K.C., ed., Land Use Contracts, lecture transcripts Centre for Continuing Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., September, 1 9 7 6 . VI. Interviews C o l l i e r , Robert, Municipal Planner, D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver February 11 , 1977. Russell, Helen, Subdivision Technician, D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, March 1 0 , 1977. S m i t h , Des, P l a n n e r , D i s t r i c t o f N o r t h Vancouver, March 16, 1977. T i e s s e n , E r i c , P l a n n e r , D i s t r i c t o f C o q u i t l a m , F e b r u a r y 3, 1977 . W i l s o n , T., A d m i n i s t r a t o r , C e n t r a l Mortgage and H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n , Vancouver, B.C., May 3 , 1977. W o l f e , L a r r y , P l a n n e r , D i s t r i c t o f C o q u i t l a m , F e b r u a r y 4 , 1977 . Appendix A - M u n i c i p a l Act S e c t i o n 711 Division (4).—Subdivision of Land RepiiMiotu 711. (!) The Council may regulate the subdivision of laud, and for concerning \ s J & * zoncs'.wd t h a t PurPosc may by by-law highways. (#) regulate the area, shape, and dimensions of parcels of land and the dimensions, locations, alignment, and gradient of highways in connection with the subdivision of land, and may make different regulations for different uses and for different zones of the municipality; (b) prescribe minimum standards with respect to the matters con-tained in clauses (a) and (ci); (c) require that a proposed subdivision (i) be suited to the configuration of the land being sub-divided; and (ii) be suited to the use to which it is intended; and (iii) shall not make impracticable the future subdivision of the land within the proposed subdivision or of any adjacent land; (ci) require that the highways within the subdivision be cleared, drained, and surfaced to a prescribed standard, including the construction of sidewalks and boulevards and the installation of street lighting and underground wiring, and'may prescribe different standards, provisions, and uses in different zones of the municipality; (e) where the municipality has a sewage-disposal system, require Hint a sewage-collection system be provided in accordance ' with standards set out in the by-law, make provision for '\ • the connection of the system with the established sewage-disposal system of the municipality, and provide that the lands included in the subdivision shall be exempt from, but only from, the charges imposed in the municipality for works of a like nature for a period of time calculated to be sufficient to amortize the actual cost of the collection system computed at an interest rate not exceeding four per centum per annum; but if the municipality requires that any main of such collection system be of a diameter in excess of that required to service the subdivision, the municipality shall assume and pay the cost providing the excess capacity; • -(/) require that the subdivision be provided with a community water supply system, or that it be connected to an existing system, or that each parcel in the subdivision have a proven source of potable ground water. (2) Subject l.o section 713, the owner of land being subdivided shall provide, without compensation, land for highways in accordance with a by-law under subsection (1). (3) Every approving officer shall give due regard to and take cog-nizance of any official community plan when dealing with applications for the approval of any plan of subdivision. (4) The approving officer may refuse to approve a subdivision plan if he is of the opinion that the cost to the municipality of providing public utilities or other municipal works or services would be excessive. (5) Notwithstanding clause (c) of subsection (1), in addition to any other powers exercisable or exercised under this Act, the Council may by by-law require, that where the nearest boundary of any land proposed to be subdivided is two thousand feet or more in distance, or such greater distance specified in the by-law, from an established trunk water-main or a trunk sanitary sewer, or both, provision be made by the owner of the land for the installation of water-mains or sanitary sewers, or both, in-cluding trunk water-mains or trunk sanitary sewers, or both, from such established trunk water-main or trunk sanitary sewer, or both, in and to the proposed subdivision, according to rninimum standards prescribed in the by-law. (6) A by-law under subsection (5) may provide for the sharing of the cost, or any portion thereof, of any trunk water-main or trunk sani-tary sewer, or both, between the municipality and the owner of the land proposed to be subdivided. (7) Where laud proposed to be subdivided is in an area of the municipality zoned for agricultural, rural, or industrial use, an appeal lies to the Board of Variance from the enforcement of any provisions of a by-law enacted under subsection (5), and the provisions of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 709 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply. (8) In this Division, " approving officer " means a person appointed as an approving officer under the Land Registry Act. (9) All works and services required to be constructed and installed at the expense of the owner of land proposed to be subdivided pursuant to the provisions of a by-law under this section shall be constructed and installed to the standards prescribed in the by-law prior to the approval of the subdivision by the Approving Officer, unless (a) the owner of the land deposits with the municipality a bond in the form and for the amount prescribed in the by-law, or, if not so prescribed, in a form and for the amount satisfactory to the Approving Officer having regard to the cost of installing and paying for all works and services required pursuant to the by-law; and (b) the owner of the land enters into an agreement with the munici-pality to construct and install the prescribed works and services by a specified date or forfeit the amount secured by the bond to the municipality. 1957, c. 42, s. 70S; 195S, c. 32, s. 312; 1960, c. 37, s. 31; 1961, c. 43, s. 45; 1962, c. 41, s. 31; 1964, c, 33, s. 67; 1969, c. 21, s. 25; 1970, c. 29, s. 22; 1972, c. 36, s. 32; 1973, c. 59, ss. 17, 18. Appendix B - Land R e g i s t r y A c t S e c t i o n s 8 3 - 98 Subdivision Plans Mio'8ub.' c"' s S3. (1) Except in the case of a subdivision for (lie purpose of lcas-rurpmeoT '"6 P a r t °f a building, no person shall subdivide land for the purpose of conveyance, conveying the same, or leasing the same for a life or for a longer term than three years, in smaller parcels than that of which he is the registered owner, except upon compliance with the provisions contained in this Part. 2245 Requirements OS to sub-division for purpose of charge. Effect of contravention of section. Method of defining new parcel. Certain desig-nations pro-hibited on subdivision plans. Requirements as to sub-divisions. 2246 (2) No person shall subdivide land for the purpose of a mortgage or other dealing which may be registered under the provisions of this Act as a charge if the estate, right, or interest conferred upon the grantee, mortgagee, or other party thereto be such as would enable or entitle him in law under any circumstances to demand or exercise the right to acquire or convey the fee-simple, except upon compliance with the provisions contained in this Part. (3) No instrument executed by any person in contravention of this section confers upon the party claiming thereunder any right to registra-tion. R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 83; 1965, c. 22, s. 4. 84. A new parcel created by subdivision or a parcel for which-a cer-tificate of indefeasible title is sought shall be defined by a subdivision plan, unless the Registrar sees fit to accept under section 106 (a) a full metes and bounds description; or (b) an abbreviated description of the parcel as an aliquot part of a former registered parcel or by reference to the quantity or frontage of the land described, and sufficiently definite to be acceptable as equivalent to a metes and bounds description; or (c) an explanatory plan; or (d) a plan based upon a survey in accordance with section 80, to be known as a "reference plan." R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 84; 1954, c. 18, s. 2. ; 85. No subdivision plan shall be deposited which designates the land subdivided as beir.3 a city, town, townsite, port, borough, or village, or as a separate part thereof or an addition thereto. R.S. 1948J c. 171, s. 85. 86. All subdivisions shall comply with the following requirements, in addition to all other requirements contained in this Part:— (a) Necessary and reasonable access to all new parcels and through the land subdivided to lands lying beyond or around shall to the extent of the owner's control be provided by a sufficient public highway, and all existing highways provided for in sub-division plans of adjoining latids or otherwise legally estab-lished shall be continued without unnecessary jogs: (/>) Where the land subdivided borders (i) on the shore of any navigable water; or (ii) on the boundary of a strip of land established as the boundary of a water reservoir; or (iii) on any strip of Crown land one chain or less in width contiguous to a natural boundary as defined in the Land Act, . access shall be given by sufficient public highway to such navigable water and to such strips at distances not greater than six hundred and sixty feet between centre lines, or, in district municipalities or unorganized territory where the parcels into luim imini.-i- «)•> (i) I,, t.;,.;c (|]C l.nuls subili viclcd arc not within a "municipality, pal hunts. i J ' the approving officer may, al the cost of the owner of the hinds, person-ally examine or have an examination anil report made on the subdivision, and may refuse to approve the plan if he considers that (o) the roads shown within the plan arc not graded and gravelled to his satisfaction; (/>) the land covered by the plan has not adequate drainage instal-lations; (c) the deposit of the plan is against the public interest; (rf) the plan does not comply with the provisions of this Act rela-tive to access and sufficiency of highway allowances shown within the plan, and with all regulations of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in-regard to subdivision plans. (2) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may from time to time by Proclamation prescribe additional reasons for refusal by the approving officer to approve the plan. R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 93; 1950, c. 36, s. 4; /" 1961, c 33, s. 12. L*nds within 9 4 Where lands being subdivided are within a municipality or within municipality. 0 1 J a regional district, the approving officer may refuse to approve the sub-division if it does not conform to the respective by-laws of the munici-pality or the regional district regulating the subdivision .of land. 1970, c. 19, s. 6. / 95. In considering the sufficiency of the highway allowances shown upon the plan, the approving officer shall take into consideration whether the land subdivided is (a) business property within cities or towns; (b) residential properly within cities or towns or the suburbs thereof; or -(c) country lands; and he shall also consider the configuration of the land, the relation of the highway allowances to any existing main highway or approach, whether by land or water, and any local circumstances, and on the ques-tion of width, whether the respective highways shown are likely to be required or used as main roads or as secondary roads, or merely as roads of access to a few parcels, or as lanes. R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 95. 96. In considering an application before him for subdivision approval, the approving officer may hear objections from any interested persons, and may refuse to approve the subdivision if in his opinion the antici-pated development oi the subdivision would injuriously afTcct the estab-lished amenities of adjoining'or adjacent properties or would be against the public interest.. R.S. 194S, c. 171, s. 96; 1954, c. IS, s. 6. RPrtov"i When , n c P'an 's approved, the approving officer shall write thereon "Approved under the Land Registry Act," with the date of ap-2249 Basis of con-sideration of highway allowances. Grounds for rcfuslnc approval of tubdivision. proval, and shall sign the same and append his official designation, for example, " City Engineer, City of ," or " Chief Engineer, De-partment of Highways." R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 97; 1961, c. 33, s. 13. SifpPmni° If the plan has been rejected by the approving officer or has jiTd'se n o t keen aPP r 0 V cd by him within the time limited by section 91, the owner of the land covered by the plan may, within twenty-one days after receipt by the person who tendered the plan for approval of the notice of the approving officer's refusal to approve the plan, or in a case where the plan has not been approved within the lime limited by section 91, within twenty-one days after the expiration of that time, appeal to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers in a summary way by petition, which shall be supported by an affidavit of the owner or his solicitor or agent, stating fully and fairly all the materia! facts of the case, and that to the best of the information, knowledge, and belief of the deponent all facts and things material to the application for approval have been fully and fairly disclosed. (2) The approving officer shall be served with the petition, together with copies of all material and exhibits proposed to be used on the hearing. (3) At least ten days' notice shall be given of the time and place of hearing, and at that time and place all parties interested (whether served with the petition or not) may appear and be heard. (4) The Judge may make any order he sees fit as to the notification of other parties of the hearing, and upon the hearing he may make such order in the premises as the circumstances of the case require, and may order that the plan be deposited if it is otherwise in order, and may make such order as to costs of the parties appearing on such petition as he x may see fit. R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 98; 1950, c. 36, s. 5. 116 Appendix C - Mu n i c i p a l Act. S e c t i o n 7 0 2 A areas. Development 702A. (1) In exercising the provisions of this section, tlic Council shall have due regard to the following considerations in addition to those referred to in subsection (2) of section 702:— (a) The development of areas to promote greater efficiency and quality: (fc) The impact of development on present and future public costs: (c) The betterment of the environment: (d) The fulfilment of community goals: and (e) The provision of necessary public space. (2) The Council may, by by-law, amend the zoning by-law to desig-nate areas of land within a zone as development areas, but a public hear-ing under sections 703 and 704 is not required. ' (3) Upon the application of an owner of land within the development area, or his agent, the Council may, by by-law, notwithstanding any by-law of the municipality, or section 712 or 713, enter into a land use contract containing such terms and conditions for the use and develop-ment of the land as may be mutually agreed upon, and thereafter the use and development of the land shall, notwithstanding any by-law of the municipality, or section 712 or 713, be in accordance with the land use contract. (4) A contract entered into under subjection (3) shall have the force and effect of a restrictive covenant running with the land and shall be registered in the Land Registry Office by the municipality. (5) The Council may, by by-law, prescribe the procedure by which the municipality may enter into a land use contract and the form and consideration of the contract. 3249 (6) The Council shall not enter into a land use contract until it has held a public hearing, notice of which has been published in the manner prescribed in subsection (1) of section 703, and except upon the affirma-tive vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Council. (7) The provisions of section 703 apply, with the necessary changes and so far as are applicable, to a hearing under this section. (8) Nothing in this section restricts the right of an owner to develop his land in accordance with the regulations of the municipality applying to the zone in which the land is situate who does not enter into a land use contract with the Council. (9) A land use contract is deemed to be a zoning by-law for the pur-poses of the Controlled Access Higliways Act. 1971, c. 3S, s. 52; 1972, c. 36, s. 2S; 1972 (2nd Sess.), c. 9, s. 1. Appendix D THE PARKLAND ACQUISITION LEVY Appli e d to r e s i d e n t i a l development in. Burnaby (Updated September 28, 1976) There has been a concern on the part of C o u n c i l as to the adequacy of parks and open green space i n s p e c i f i c areas of Burnaby which are now e x p e r i e n c i n g a r a p i d r a t e of development or redevelopment to higher d e n s i t y r e s i d e n t i a l uses. A second major concern i s whether the cost of p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l park space n e c e s s i t a t e d by i n c r e a s i n g r e s i d e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n should be borne by the developers of r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s or by the community at large„ Through the Parks A c q u i s i t i o n Programme which has been developed j o i n t l y by the Parks and Recreation Commission and Department and the Planning Department, the m u n i c i p a l i t y has a method to acquire property s u i t a b l e f o r park purposes as i t becomes f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e or as f i n a n c e s permit. However, the expenditure of funds f o r park-land a c q u i s i t i o n emphasizes the major c o n s o l i d a t i o n of community park areas and systems. The increase i n d e n s i t i e s i n a number of designated developing r e s i d e n t i a l areas has r e s u l t e d i n a concomi-tan t hee_d f o r _addijtjLonai neighbourhood pants. Due i n part to the' f i n a n c i a l p r i o r i t i e s and c o n s t r a i n t s of the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n budgeting f o r parkland a c q u i s i t i o n s , i t has been deemed appropriate that the developers of new r e s i d e n t i a l developments should bear some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p r o v i s i o n of necessary neighbourhood parks. On December 29, 1975, C o u n c i l adopted the f o l l o w i n g recommendations e s t a b l i s h i n g a Parkland A c q u i s i t i o n Levy on new r e s i d e n t i a l develop-ment i n Burnaby. The adopted Recommendations are: 1. The Parkland A c q u i s i t i o n Levy a p p l i e s to s p e c i f i c community plan areas where the p l a n i s expressed i n maps, plans, and r e p o r t s or any combination thereof, and i s to be deposited i n i n t e r e s t -bearing reserve accounts w i t h record accounts e s t a b l i s h e d cor-responding t o Neighbourhood Planning Areas. Note: a) A developer may dedicate appropriate designated parkland i n l i e u of levy deposits.. b) The l e v i e s which are c o l l e c t e d are to be u t i l i z e d t o acquire neighbourhood parkland w i t h i n the p r e c i n c t of the Neighbourhood Planning Area or i n any d i r e c t l y a b u t t i n g area. c) The determined l e v i e s f o r a given r e s i d e n t i a l pro-posal are to be submitted by the developer i n the form of a c e r t i f i e d cheque i n favour of the Corporation of Burnaby. no 2. The Parkland A c q u i s i t i o n Levy a p p l i e s i n the f o l l o w i n g i n s t a n c e s : i ) S u b d i v i s i o n Approval -A per u n i t l e v y f o r each a d d i t i o n a l subdivided s i n g l e -f a m i l y d w e l l i n g l o t created from the o r i g i n a l l o t ( s ) . i i ) P r e l i m i n a r y Plan Approval -A per u n i t l e v y f o r any r e s i d e n t i a l proposal which corresponds to the zoning r e g u l a t i o n of a pre-zoned s i t e zoned p r i o r t o 1970 according to the RM1, RM2, RM3 or RM5 zoning r e g u l a t i o n s but which has not been developed to i t s designated zoning category. i i i ) Rezoning Approval -A per u n i t l e v y f o r any r e s i d e n t i a l rezoning proposal. 3. C o u n c i l approved a l e v y equal to 50% of the estimated a c q u i s i t i o n cost of neighbourhood parkland r e s u l t i n g i n the f o l l o w i n g l e v i e s . . On September 27, 1976, C o u n c i l adopted the recommendation that the Parkland A c q u i s i t i o n Levy f o r s e n i o r c i t i z e n s r e s i d e n t i a l develop-ments be reduced to 50% of the per u n i t l e v y e s t a b l i s h e d f o r standard r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s . Standard Levy Senior C i t i z e n s Housing Type Per Unit Levy Per Unit S i n g l e Family Dwelling $ 521 per u n i t ( a p p l i c a b l e to s u b d i v i s i o n ) Townhouse (12 upa-) $ 528 per u n i t $ 264 per u n i t Garden Apartment (20 upa±) $ 630 per u n i t $ 315 per u n i t 3-Storey Apartment (50 upa±) $ 1, 125 per u n i t $ 562 per u n i t RM4 High Rise (80 upa±) $ 950 per u n i t $ 47 5 per u n i t RM5 High Rise (100 upa±) $ 1, 080 per u n i t $ 540 per u n i t Note: a) The Burnaby r e c r e a t i o n a l space standard employed f o r the p r o v i s i o n of neighbourhood parks i s 2.0 acres per 1,000 persons. -A p p e n d i x SUBDIVISION v DEDICATION AND IIAZAIUJ PROVISIONS B r i t i s h | Col u;nbia! Alberta Current JMLl<W^mMLAth?MD PROVISION - s u b d i v i s i o n along water requires p u b l i c highway access every CGO feet or 1,320 feet where in unor<jani :• c<l t e r r i t o r y and ^ pa r c e l s one-acre plus - park, highway, shore, area under water etc. deemed to he dedicated to pub l i c when not subdivided i n re g i s t e r e d p l a n . j— dedication without compensation of road-ways and p u b l i c u t i l i t y r i g h t s of way - reserves up to 10* and aut h o r i t y may require swamps, g u l l i e s , drainage courses e t c . i n i a d d i t i o n to 10% .1 j— waterfront requires 10 foot-plus s h o r e l i n e , i and 104 reserve f r o n t i n g on bed and shore - Reserve not required where i n i t i a l p a r c e l l e s s than 2 acres j - Reserve may be waived, payment i n l i e u , o r I deferred - I n d u s t r i a l requires tree b u f f e r s 20 f e e t p l u s . Erosion, c l i p , flooding and poor drainage grounds for r e f u s a l . Approval where covenant signed. Flooding land subdivision r e q u i r e s Water Resources approval tnay refuse outside m u n i c i p a l i t i e s where drainage inadequate and "against p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . I n d u s t r i a l subdivision r e q u i r e s " s u i t a b l e and adequate" water and sewers Swamps, g u l l i e s , ravines, natural drainage courses and unsuitable areas dedicated at d i s -c r e t i o n of a u t h o r i t y Waterfront s t r i p and 10% p a r c e l required Alberta Proposed Dedication without compensation of up to 30% f o r p u b l i c roadway and municipal s e r v i c e s P u b l i c reserve, without compensation, 5% or more; up to 10% i n a d d i t i o n Dedication when lands l i k e l y to be used by occupants Kot required when parcels 20 acres plus, money i n l i e u or adequate reserve i n pre- • vious s u b d i v i s i o n Dedication o f swamp, g u l l y , ravine, drainage course or areas unsuitable f o r b u i l d i n g as condi t i o n of approval S t r i p along water as may be required to pre-vent p o l l u t i o n Approval of preliminary s u b d i v i s i o n plan refused unless adequate p r o v i s i o n for f l o o d c o n t r o l , s o i l erosion, resource and w i l d l i f e preservation. Where su b d i v i s i o n adjoins water body, may require d e d i c a t i o n of s t r i p s u f f i c i e n t to pre vent p o l l u t i o n -Saskatchewan i - In a d d i t i o n to s t r e e t s and lanes, 5 to 10% to be dedicated except where each p a r c e l l a r g e r than 10 acres, RK, d i t c h , canal e t c . - Location of p u b l i c reserve determined by . approving a u t h o r i t y - Ruffcr s t r i p s may be required: included i n reserve for n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l i - Shoreline, slopes, g u l l i e s , e t c . (see a t j r i g h t ) In land adjacent to water, a u t h o r i t y may require dedication of a) shore s t r i p i n width s u f f i c i e n t f o r bank preservation and fl o o d p r o t e c t i o n b) access Authority may require d e d i c a t i o n of slo p i n g lands, ravines, swamps, natural drainage courses and a:cas unsuitable for b u i l d i n g . Land for s u b d i v i s i o n to be "eminently s u i t -a ble" considering danger of flo o d i n g , s u b s i -dence, l a n d s l i d e and erosion and p r o t e c t i o n against a i r , water or s o i l p o l l u t i o n Manitoba - Dedication of land f o r highways and s e r v i c e s In amount determined by c o u n c i l may be condi t i o n of approval. - P u b l i c land d e d i c a t i o n may be one acre per 100 occupants, plus unsuitable lands and sliotcl.ind (sec at righ t ) which arc not cal c u l a t e d i n reserves - School c i t e may be required at one acre per 100 persons - No ded i c a t i o n where parcels 10 acres-plus - A l l dedication i s without compensation and niiy be waived. Land "unsuitable for dcvelopmonfas determined by c o u n c i l , may. be required to be dedicated Shoreland to bo dedicated i n amount determined by authority to protect and preserve shore and provide p u b l i c access. May be c o n d i t i o n of approval. Waiving requires M i n i s t e r ' s approval on recommendation of au t h o r i t y . 1 2 0 SUDOIVJSION - DEDICATION AMD HAZARD PROVISIONS (Cont'd...) PJiBlCAXia^iiJAtja_t.uiOuj.siotjs : Minister or other consent authority may impose conditions i n c l u d i n g : dedication of uI> to 5% l o r park purpose;;, highways and high-way widening allotments Cash payment nay be made i n l i e u o f land con*-veyance f o r park KNVJJ^0J«lIM'AIUIA2AJcriau<OVXSIOlS Consent granting authority shan_ havojregard to conservation of natural resources arid "flood c o n t r o l Quebec Current Quebec Proposed M u n i c i p a l i t y may require dedication of 10% p r i o r to approval or i n l i e u , make payment Into s p e c i a l fund M u n i c i p a l i t y may require dedication of lands f o r s t r e e t s and p u b l i c parks Lieutenant Governor i n Council's r e g u l a t i o n s may p r o h i b i t subdivision where danger of fl o o d i n g , r o c k f a l l , l a n d s l i d e or other d i s -a s t e r s . M u n i c i p a l i t y may pre s c r i b e the same. New Brunswick - Dedication may be required of up to 10% plus s t r e e t allotments or, i n l i e u , payment of up to C% of market value Nova Scotia - With Mi n i s t e r ' s approval c o u n c i l may pass bylaw, r e q u i r i n g d e d i c a t i o n of up to 5% as p u b l i c lands. Septic tank i n s t a l l a t i o n requires s o i l t e s t and medical o f f i c e r or engineer's opinion at time of a p p l i c a t i o n S i t e c l e a r i n g prohibited pending Department of Environment approval: considers erosion preven-t i o n , p r e s e r v a t i o n of tree cover, s i l t a t i o n of water bodies - Municipal development plan s h a l l contain p o l i c i e s f o r p r o t e c t i o n of steep slopes, wet-lands, f l o o d p l a i n s , views and scenery, vegetation and w i l d l i f e sanctuaries, protec-t i o n o f water supplies and e c o l o g i c a l l y sen-s i t i v e areas. Prince Edward Island M i n i s t e r may re q u i r e dedication of not l e s s than 10% of land where subdiv i s i o n larger than 5 l o t s or 10 acres Mobile home court operator must provide approved garbage r e c e p t a c l e s , water supply and sewerage d i s p o s a l systems Newfoundland May require d e d i c a t i o n of up to 10% f o r pu b l i c use i n protected road areas Mobile home subdivisions may require dedi-c a t i o n of b u f f e r s S t r i p of land s h a l l be reserved undeveloped along the banks of every r i v e r , brook or pond. * Excerpt from an unpublished r e p o r t by Bruce Heavn f o r the Environment and Land Use Committee, "Comparative Canadian P l a n n i n g L e g i s l a t i o n " , 1 9 7 6 . • - 0 c i n d a i a n 121 Appendix F* ANi Man is a part of nature—not apart from it, and not its conqueror. It is our duty to use the land wisely during our tenure on earth and then pass it on u n i m p a i r e d to future generations. \ It is only through planning in harmony with nature that we c a n achieve a | sense of stability. I This environmental phi losophy has been the missing element in Mani toba 's d e v e l o p m e n t — i t is what we n e e d to g u i d e our a c t i o n s in the u s e a n d development of our natural resources . A l l too often we have substituted short - term e c o n o m i c gains, self - interest, and the sacred goal of " p r o g r e s s at a l l c o s t s " w h e r e an e n v i r o n m e n t a l e t h i c . s h o u l d h a v e p r e v a i l e d . Unfortunately our t e c h n i c a l - e c o n o m i c advancement has far outstr ipped our ability to think as responsible human beings. The environmental phi losophy can be translated into two s imple w o r d s -c o m m o n sense! H a n d in h a n d with the envi ronmental ethic is what might be termed a " p e o p l e e th ic . " S i n c e our w a t e r w a y s c a n be t e r m e d a p u b l i c r e s o u r c e it is on l y reasonable that both present and future publ ic recreational requirements for use of Mani toba 's waterways and their shore lands be fulfil led. Ideally, there is no reason why water -or iented publ ic parks, campgrounds , or open s p a c e shou ld be c rowded . Lack of publ ic shore land merely indicates poor p lanning and the p lac ing of private interests ahead of publ ic requirements. j The lack of publ ic water frontage in p laces like Ontario, Brit ish C o l u m b i a , i ' a n d m a n y par ts of the U n i t e d S t a t e s s h o u l d serve as a w a r n i n g to us . i. Confrontat ions between cottagers and the publ ic over who may use the | b e a c h e s has given rise to pol ice intervention in Ontario.* We in Mani toba have the opportunity to profit from the mistakes of o t h e r s — l e t ' s use it. I The concept of development being good at all costs must be unacceptab le ' to Mani tobans . The waterways of Mani toba are a publ ic resource , and any development which endangers the quality or beauty of that resource shou ld be cons idered undesirable. At the same time it is necessary to recognize that in order for people to use these resources in an opt imum manner , some development will be necessary . It is the way in which this development takes place that makes the difference. Development blended with nature can be very pleasing. Thus c o m m o n sense dictates a three-fold approach to the development of • our shore land resources: 1. Most important, the resource itself must be protected and preserved. 2. The long-range needs of the general public for parks, open space, and public reserves must be fulfilled. 3. The demands of individuals for private cottages and commercial establishments must be considered and planned for in harmony with the environment. • M a n i t o b a Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , "Shoreland Recreation -An Environmental Approach to Development", Pla n n i n g Guide No.2, 

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.831.1-0094190/manifest

Comment

Related Items