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., U n i v e r s i t y o f Massachusetts, 1 9 7 ^  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  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 B r i t i s h 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. D o r c h e s t e r  Department of  Community and R e g i o n a l  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date  May  1977  Planning  ii  ABSTRACT In r e c e n t has  years c o n s e r v a t i o n  become an important concern.  of the n a t u r a l  environment  U n t i l recently, a munici-  p a l i t y w i s h i n g to r e t a i n open space u s u a l l y purchased i t . There are, however, l e s s c o s t l y a l t e r n a t i v e s . explores the a c t u a l and the c o n s e r v a t i o n The use  This  p o t e n t i a l uses of one  alternative -  of open space through s u b d i v i s i o n  objectives  of the  study were f i r s t ,  thesis  control.  to d e s c r i b e  the  of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l devises to conserve open space i n  the GVRD and  then, to suggest ways to i n c r e a s e  their effect-  iveness. In order to i n d i c a t e the range of s u b d i v i s i o n open to B.C. gated.  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the  Under the  controls  l e g i s l a t i v e b a s i s was  investi-  e x i s t i n g system, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have l i m i t e d  powers f o r s e c u r i n g  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 were then interviewed  Four l o c a l  to determine how  sub-  d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s are used i n p r a c t i c e . N e g o t i a t i o n s with the developer were found to  character-  i z e the p r o c e s s . '--.However, because of the weakness of enabling  the  l e g i s l a t i o n , the developer's c o o p e r a t i o n i n p r e s e r v -  i n g open space i s e s s e n t i a l .  In a d d i t i o n , most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  l a c k c l e a r p o l i c i e s to d i r e c t c o n s e r v a t i o n  of open space i n  subdivisions. The  study concludes t h a t c o n t r o l s 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 i n t r o d u c e d  improve 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  position.  In  to .-iaddition,  environmental a n a l y s i s of undeveloped areas would p r o v i d e necessary b a s i s  f o r the a r t i c u l a t i o n of c o n s e r v a t i o n  for subdivision  control.  the  objectives  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Chapter 1  Introduction  I II III IV V  Open S p a c e C o n s e r v a t i o n Definitions The I m p o r t a n c e o f U r b a n Open S p a c e L o c a l Open S p a c e P r o v i s i o n 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 C o n s e r v e Open S p a c e A. P r o b l e m s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h D e v e l o p m e n t 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. Subdivision Opportunities VI Objectives VII Methodology/Organization Chapter 2 I  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  Direct Controls Introduction The M u n i c i p a l A c t The L a n d R e g i s t r y A c t M u n i c i p a l By-Laws The S c o p e o f B.C. S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l Legislation II Indirect Controls A. L a n d Use C o n t r a c t 1. P u r p o s e o f L e g i s l a t i o n 2. Definition 3. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Open S p a c e C o n s e r v a t i o n 4. Limitations 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 S t a n d a r d s A, •B. C. D. E.  Chapter 3 I  Case  Studies  West V a n c o u v e r Background The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s C o n t r o l Techniques 1. L a n d Use C o n t r a c t s 2. O t h e r Methods a. Large L o t Zoning b. C l u s t e r Development c. Taxation d. Gifts D. B a t c h e l o r Cove  A. B. C.  II  III  IV  A. B. C.  D. A. B. C.  D.  Coquitlarrr Background The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s 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. L a n d 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 Eagle Ridge Burnaby Background The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s 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 L e v y 2. Informal Negotiations a. Dedication b. Design Control 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 A C o m p a r i s o n o f Two S u b d i v i s i o n s N o r t h Vancouver D i s t r i c t  Chapter I II III  IV  A. B~. A. B. C. D. E.  A. B. C. D.  Overview Proceedural Constraints Subdivision Process Role of the Approving O f f i c e r C o n s e r v a t i o n Methods Dedication P a r k l a n d A c q u i s i t i o n Fees C l u s t e r Development Design Control Other Techniques 1• Land Exchange 2. L a r g e L o t Z o n i n g 3. Taxation l+. Rights-of-Way 5. CMHC I m p l e m e n t a t i o n and Enforcement Informal Negotiations Development Agreements L a n d Use C o n t r a c t R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants  Chapter 5 I II III  Summary o f C o n t r o l T e c h n i q u e s E m p l o y e d  Conclusion  Introduction The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s Open S p a c e C o n s e r v a t i o n  Bibliography Appendices  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I wish t o express thanks t o my a d v i s o r s , P r o f e s s o r Brahm Wiesman and P r o f e s s o r Henry Hightower, who p r o v i d e d tance and encouragement throughout the p r e p a r a t i o n thesis.  assisof this  I must a l s o acknowledge those i n d i v i d u a l s who  k i n d l y devoted t h e i r time t o the i n t e r v i e w s .  In a d d i t i o n ,  I extend my g r a t i t u d e t o the C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation assistance.  f o r making t h i s t h e s i s p o s s i b l e with  financial  F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Gary, Pat and  L a r r y f o r t h e i r constant  support.  Chapter 1  Introduction  I  Open Space C o n s e r v a t i o n The c o n s e r v a t i o n o f open space " i s becoming a c r i t i c a l  concern i n our m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a - a concern about which there i s p r o b a b l y more consensus than on any o t h e r i s s u e . I n  a  r e c e n t G.V.R.D. study, r e g i o n a l r e s i d e n t s " ' c l e a r l y and by some measure' ranked p r e s e r v a t i o n o f the n a t u r a l h i g h e s t among some 12 r e g i o n a l i s s u e s . "  environment  P u b l i c o p p o s i t i o n to  h i g h d e n s i t y developments a t Boundary Bay, Pidgeon Cove, Burnaby Mountain and elsewhere f u r t h e r demonstrates r e g i o n a l concern over c o n s e r v a t i o n . ^ U n f o r t u n a t e l y , much o f the r e c e n t p u b l i c awareness  o f our  open space requirements r e p r e s e n t s a r e a c t i o n t o environmental losses already sustained.  The G.V.R.D. n o t e s ,  Creeks, such as Lower Mosquito Creek on the North Shore, have been c u l v e r t e d o r covered because n a t u r a l water flows have caused f l o o d damage to homes c o n s t r u c t e d a d j a c e n t t o the water c o u r s e s p e c t a c u l a r views have been b l o c k e d because views have been i g n o r e d as important f a c t o r s i n the s i t i n g o f b u i l d i n g s ; and n a t u r a l areas have been mis-used due to the l a c k o f an environmental a n a l y s i s 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 o f these cases, the damage to the environment c o u l d have been l e s s e n e d o r avoided by s t r i n g e n t over the s u b d i v i s i o n and development  of land.  controls  2  Ii  Definitions 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,  applies to municipal  r e g u l a t i o n o f the e x t e n s i o n  s e r v i c e s t o new developments.  o f roads and  I t s purpose i s t o ensure t h a t  minimum s t a n d a r d s a r e met f o r the h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and w e l f a r e o f the i n h a b i t a n t s .  As i t i s t o 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 o f s t a n d a r d s .  R a t h e r , i t r e f e r s t o r e g u l a t i o n o f a proposed development t o i n s u r e conformance w i t h m u n i c i p a l  objectives.  A number o f  d e v i c e s may be used t o c o n t r o l l a n d use i n t h i s way; i t i s one o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s t h e s i s t o d i s c u s s how t h e s e 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 o f s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l , t h e n , i n  the c o n t e x t o f t h i s paper, extends beyond s i m p l e r e g u l a t i o n o f s e r v i c i n g t o the p o s i t i v e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f p o l i c y . T h i s s t u d y w i l l examine t h e use o f v a r i o u s c o n t r o l d e v i c e s t o conserve open space. only to parks or r e c r e a t i o n areas. used by C h a r l e s E. L i t t l e ,  subdivision  Open space r e f e r s n o t  R a t h e r , t o borrow a d e f i n i t i o n  "What open space means i s the p r e s e n t  t o t a l o f the n a t u r a l environment i n a g i v e n  m u n i c i p a l i t y . " it-  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 s c e n e r y , p l a n t s , w i l d l i f e , and f a r m l a n d .  In a d d i t i o n to providing  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 p r e s e r v e s f r a g i l e ecosystems, and adds beauty and v a r i e t y t o o u r urban l a n d s c a p e . Ill  The Importance o f Urban Open Space Canadian r e s e a r c h e r s  space.  emphasize g r o w i n g demands f o r open  Increasing population,  per c a p i t a disposable  income,  l e i s u r e t i m e , and m o b i l i t y a r e s a i d t o c r e a t e compounded  3  demands f o r r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s . - ' makers and r e s e a r c h e r s  O f t e n , however, p o l i c y -  a l i k e f o c u s on l a r g e t r a c t s o f 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 p a r k s . The  Canada Land I n v e n t o r y  o f open space, F o r example, conducted  by t h e Department o f t h e Environment, does n o t i n c l u d e l a n d w i t h i n municipal boundaries.  I n a paper p r e s e n t e d  Canadian N a t u r a l Resources Conference i n 1962,  t o the  W. M. Baker  commented, "The tremendous park acreage t h a t has been accumulated i n many p r o v i n c e s . . . o b v i o u s l y t e n d s t o a l l a y f e a r s . concerned about problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  Few a r e  distributional  deficiencies."^ Demand f o r open space, however, i s as l i k e l y t o 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 p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e .  The  Conservation  rate of  Council of Ontario notes,  "At the present  u r b a n growth, i t i s p r e d i c t e d t h a t 80% o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n i n N o r t h A m e r i c a w i l l soon be c o n c e n t r a t e d  on lfo o f t h e l a n d .  It  i s i n t h e c i t y t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t need o c c u r s f o r open space and r e c r e a t i o n on a day t o day b a s i s .  Y e t 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 r e s p e c t t o i t s open space  resources  and p o t e n t i a l than have the w i l d e r n e s s and r u r a l a r e a s f u r t h e r afield."  7  Already,  t h e G.V.R.D. , w i t h about 1/4  B.C.'s l a n d , accomodates a l m o s t 1/2  o f If o f  of the province's  population.^ There a r e o t h e r 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 o f m o b i l i t y due t o income, age o r h e a l t h  limit  the u s e f u l n e s s o f l a r g e , remote p a r k s t o many i n n e r - c i t y residents.  I n a d d i t i o n , l e i s u r e time o c c u r s m o s t l y a f t e r  s c h o o l and work, o r on weekends.  As one w r i t e r l a m e n t s , "our  weekend open space demands a l r e a d y cause c r o w d i n g and t r a f f i c jams b o t h w i t h i n t h e r e g i o n and a t i t s highway p o r t a l s .  Surely  these demands - p l u s the l a t e n t demands t h a t a r e n o t now met because many o f us- a r e d e t e r r e d by the p r o s p e c t o f crowded c o n d i t i o n s . . . s h o u l d be met by s t e p s t o guarantee t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o  o f 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 n o t l i m i t e d t o highways; i t extends t o the parks themselves.  I n r e c e n t y e a r s , overuse o f l a r g e p a r k s has  become a major problem.  W i l d l i f e i s disturbed; trees are c u t  f o r f i r e w o o d ; t r a i l s and c a m p s i t e s become muddy bogs; accumulates.  litter  These abuses n o t o n l y d e t r a c t from o u r enjoyment  o f n a t u r a l a r e a s b u t t h e y a r e e x t r e m e l y d e t r i m e n t a l t o the e c o l o g y w h i c h the p a r k s a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r e s e r v e . Second home ownership i s a n o t h e r m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f growing open space demands.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , 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 o r n o t i n c r e a s e d emphasis on the r e t e n t i o n o f open space i n urban r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s would abate the t r e n d t o second homes, i t i s c e r t a i n l y l i k e l y t o r e l i e v e some o f the s t r a i n on o u r e x i s t i n g park f a c i l i t i e s .  Finally, with 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 r e s e r v e s , one might wonder how much l o n g e r any o f 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 t o meet our open space needs. IV  L o c a l Open Space  Provision  The need f o r urban open space t o reduce demand elsewhere and t o p r o v i d e day t o day enjoyment i s c l e a r .  However, p r i m a r y  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 i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of any  open  space program because of the severe b u d g e t a r y r e s t r a i n t s w i t h which municipal  governments a r e f a c e d .  l a r g e l y dependent on the p r o p e r t y  tax.  e x p e n s i v e to a c q u i r e and m a i n t a i n ,  M u n i c i p a l revenue i s Open space i s n o t  but i t does n o t h i n g  only  to  expand the t a x base as would h i g h e r i n t e n s i t y u s e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , the a c q u i s i t i o n of p a r k s and often considered  open space i s  a secondary f u n c t i o n of government, w h i l e  p r i m a r y importance i s g i v e n to the p r o v i s i o n o f p h y s i c a l infrastructure.  One  observer suggests, i n f a c t , that,  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 p a r k system i s the  current  m e n t a l i t y t h a t p l a c e s h i g h e r p r i o r i t y on such s e r v i c e s roads and  expressways than on a m e n i t i e s  "The  that w i l l  as  contribute  10  t o the q u a l i t y o f urban l i f e . " Limited f i s c a l  resources,  a c t i v e open space program.  however, do n o t r u l e out  Rather, they n e c e s s i t a t e  o f a l t e r n a t i v e methods of open space c o n s e r v a t i o n . these a l t e r n a t i v e s do not r e q u i r e m u n i c i p a l land.  an  exploration Many of  ownership of  the  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 R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission c o n c l u d e d t h a t p r i v a t e l a n d use i s as c r i t i c a l as p u b l i c l a n d 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 T o r o n t o , the C o n s e r v a t i o n  C o u n c i l of O n t a r i o m a i n t a i n e d  the c r u x o f the problem was  that  the i n e f f e c t u a l use o f 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 r i g h t s - o f - w a y  or r e s t r i c t i v e  covenants  which prevent d e f o r e s t a t i o n a r e two ways i n which c o n t r o l o f p r i v a t e use may provide may  open space.  In subdivisions, d e n s i t i e s  be i n c r e a s e d i n p a r t o f the p r o j e c t i n o r d e r  to provide  communal open space. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s may a l s o o b t a i n open space without the c o s t o f fee a c q u i s i t i o n .  bearing  T h i s may be done e i t h e r by  p u r c h a s i n g a l e s s e r i n t e r e s t such as an easement o r l e a s e h o l d , o r by r e q u i r i n g the d e d i c a t i o n o f p a r k l a n d a t the time o f s u b d i v i s i o n .  t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y  Many w r i t e r s f e e l t h a t such  c o n t r o l s have wide p o t e n t i a l i n m i n i m i z i n g the impact o f  13 p r i v a t e development upon open space.  J  In i t s recent  report  on r e g i o n a l open space o p p o r t u n i t i e s , the G.V.R.D. recommended, " I n c r e a s i n g p u b l i c open space d e d i c a t i o n should p l a y a l a r g e r Ik p a r t i n the requirements f o r s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l . "  It  would indeed appear t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o c o n t r o l open space w i t h o u t fee a c q u i s i t i o n do e x i s t , which m u n i c i p a l i t i e s should  recognize  The  and use.  importance o f a l t e r n a t i v e s t o fee purchase was  emphasized by c o n s u l t a n t Norman Pearson i n h i s 1973 open space r e p o r t f o r the G.V.R.D.  I n the course o f h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,  Pearson i d e n t i f i e d areas o f c r i t i c a l open space concern t o m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and t o the p u b l i c .  The c o s t o f buying a l l the  l a n d 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 . i f the p r o v i n c i a l government devoted one-half  Even  o f i t s Greenbelt  Funds t o g r e a t e r Vancouver "and even i f the funds were replenished  each year, and even i f l a n d v a l u e s  stabilized,i t  would s t i l l  take kO y e a r s t o buy up a l l t h i s open space."  7  Pearson concludes t h a t we  must not o n l y i n v e s t i g a t e  methods of o b t a i n i n g open space, but should  be  other  t h a t our f i r s t  priorities  "lands o f h i g h open space q u a l i t y , . . . b u t which are  threatened  by i n a p p r o p r i a t e uses."  15 J  At Canada's Resources f o r Tomorrow Conference, Johnson and  T y r e l l reach s i m i l a r conclusions.  researchers  A g a i n , primary  importance i s g i v e n to the need f o r " e f f e c t i v e machinery a t 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  park l a n d s from a l i e n a t i o n o r unwise development." V  The  16  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 to Conserve Open Space  A.  Problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h development  S u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l i s an important way "high open space q u a l i t y " can be p r o t e c t e d uses."  i n which l a n d s  from  "inappropriate  Every year, g r e a t amounts of open space are l o s t  the s u b d i v i s i o n and  development o f l a n d .  of  through  Urban growth consumes  open space both a t the f r i n g e and w i t h i n the urban  area.  Small i r r e g u l a r p a r c e l s l e f t over from l o w - d e n s i t y  subdivisions  are l a t e r developed f o r h i g h e r  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 m u l t i p l e - f a m i l y 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 s c a r c e s t i n areas of population The use  and  need.  highest  17  s u b d i v i s i o n of l a n d f r e q u e n t l y r e s u l t s i n  of n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s .  B u i l d i n g occurs i n areas s u s c e p t i b l e  to f l o o d i n g , o r on steep s l o p e s c a u s i n g o r on prime a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . r a v i n e s , and  wasteful  e r o s i o n and  mudslides,  Areas o f s c e n i c i n t e r e s t ,  f o r e s t s , are destroyed,  and  views are  blocked.  8  These encroachments are o f t e n d e s c r i b e d  as  "inappropriate  l a n d uses", a term which v a s t l y under-emphasizes r e s u l t a n t environmental damage. w r i t e r observes, "but  "Not  o n l y i s the eye  offended...,"  the d o l l a r c o s t i n e n g i n e e r i n g  one  construction  to do n a t u r e ' s work when n a t u r e ' s defenses have been d e s t r o y e d is  high."  1 8  "Urban sprawl", the haphazard spread of urban development i n t o the f r i n g e , i s f r e q u e n t l y  c r i t i c i z e d as a waste o f  land.  I t s random nature r e s u l t s i n space t h a t i s open only i n the sense t h a t i t i s u n b u i l t upon.  Frequently,  i s n e i t h e r usable by the p u b l i c nor ecological significance. s i z e s and  however, t h i s l a n d  i s i t of p a r t i c u l a r  Furthermore, because o f l a r g e l o t  d i s c o n t i n u i t y o f developed areas, s i n g l e  family  s u b d i v i s i o n s are expensive to s e r v i c e . ^ 1  B.  The  r o l e of s u b d i v i s i o n  control  Many of the problems c r e a t e d by the development of c o u l d be a l l e v i a t e d o r e l i m i n a t e d  by s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l .  There are many ways i n which t h i s can be done. b a s i c l e v e l , a s u b d i v i s i o n by-law r e g u l a t e s roads and  s e r v i c e s and  provision. may  regulate  o r p r o h i b i t development which would have  of  be  slopes,  s h o r e l i n e s , o r i n areas prone to  curtailed.  prevented.  detrimental  Thus, b u i l d i n g upon steep  Developments which would  a f f e c t n a t u r a l drainage p a t t e r n s a l s o be  the e x t e n s i o n  A more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s u b d i v i s i o n by-law, however,  near l a k e s , streams, and  may  At i t s most  s e t s minimum standards f o r t h e i r  environmental consequences.  f l o o d i n g may  land  adversely  o r a l t e r water t a b l e l e v e l s  9  Further, and  design  s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l may  extend to the  of a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n .  Requirements f o r l a n d -  s c a p i n g o r r e t e n t i o n o f t r e e - c o v e r may and  h e i g h t o f b u i l d i n g s may  layout  be s e t .  The  siting  be c o n t r o l l e d e i t h e r t o p r e s e r v e  views o r to r e t a i n p r o j e c t open space.  Such c o n t r o l s may  be  r e g u l a t o r y , as i n the s e t t i n g o f standards w i t h which a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s must conform, o r c o n d i t i o n a l , as where i n d i v i d u a l a p p l i c a t i o n s are s u b j e c t to m u n i c i p a l F i n a l l y , s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l may s c h o o l requirements of a new unbuildable  approval. c o n s i d e r the park  development.  f o r e c o l o g i c a l reasons may  example, a n a t u r e r e s e r v e .  and  Land t h a t i s  be  s e t a s i d e , as,  In a d d i t i o n , the d e d i c a t i o n  for of  other l a n d f o r s c h o o l o r park s i t e s , o r other p u b l i c uses a l s o be C.  may  required. Subdivision  Not  o n l y do  Opportunities  s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s have  p o t e n t i a l i n e l i m i n a t i n g the u n d e s i r a b l e  considerable  a s p e c t s o f development,  but they can p l a y a p o s i t i v e r o l e i n the c r e a t i o n o f a more l i v a b l e urban environment. an o p p o r t u n i t y development.  Each new  to i n c o r p o r a t e m u n i c i p a l The  can be preserved.  Recreation  where the need i s g r e a t e s t ,  objectives into a  A s i t e ' s s c e n i c amenities  o p p o r t u n i t i e s can be  i n areas of growing  increasing densification.  design,  represents  environmental concerns o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y  can be accomodated from the o u t s e t .  and  subdivision  provided  population  Through the c o n t r o l o f s u b d i v i s i o n  the h i g h s e r v i c i n g c o s t s and waste of l a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  o f sprawl can be reduced.  Furthermore, these o b j e c t i v e s  be accomplished a t r e l a t i v e l y low  c o s t to the  can  municipality.  10  VI  Objectives Thus f a r , the case f o r open space c o n s e r v a t i o n  l e v e l o f s u b d i v i s i o n has been p r e s e n t e d .  a t the  The p o t e n t i a l use  of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l f o r a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h i s o b j e c t i v e i s i n d i c a t e d and some suggestions as to how such c o n t r o l s may be a p p l i e d are o f f e r e d .  Although 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 may be g r e a t i n theory, p r a c t i c a l problems o f 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 p u b l i c 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 o f s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l  devices  to conserve open space i n s e l e c t e d case s t u d i e s o f lower mainl a n d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and 2.  to suggest ways to i n c r e a s e  the 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 as a means o f open space VII  conservation.  Methodology/Organization In order to accomplish the above o b j e c t i v e s i t was necessary  to determine the scope o f c o n t r o l s a v a i l a b l e to B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Accordingly,  Chapter I I d e s c r i b e s  the l e g a l b a s i s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n  c o n t r o l i n B.C.  D i r e c t c o n t r o l s over l a n d s u b d i v i s i o n are  discussed  i n c l u d i n g c o u n c i l ' s by-law making a u t h o r i t y  and  first,  the r o l e o f the approving o f f i c e r .  description of various  This i s followed  formal and i n f o r m a l  be used t o c o n t r o l s u b d i v i s i o n s i n d i r e c t l y .  devices  by a  which may  Land use c o n t r a c t s ,  r e s t r i c t i v e covenants, and i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s  between  m u n i c i p a l i t y and developer are examples o f some i n d i r e c t c o n t r o l s .  11  Next, i n t e n s i v e  interviews  were conducted with m u n i c i p a l  p l a n n e r s from West Vancouver, Coquitlam, Burnaby, and Vancouver.  The  the a c t u a l use  purpose of the  interviews  of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s ,  - the open space c o n s e r v a t i o n - how those  various  was  to  North  investigate  including:  objectives  of the  muncipality  s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l d e v i c e s are used to achieve  objectives  - the problems and  l i m i t a t i o n s involved  i n employing  the  controls. Chapter I I I p r e s e n t s case s t u d i e s of each use  of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s .  representative The  use  the  study and  discussion  of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s  of v a r i o u s  i n Chapter IV.  The  municipality's  includes  approach to the  examples problem.  s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l d e v i c e s i s summarized  F i n a l l y , Chapter V analyzes the f i n d i n g of suggests ways by which s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l  be made a more e f f e c t i v e t o o l f o r c o n s e r v i n g open space.  could  12  Footnotes - Chapter 1 1  Norman P e a r s o n , O p e r a t i o n Open S p a c e , G.V.R.D.,  B.C., 1973t P.6.  Vancouver,  2  M i c h a e l G-. P o w e r s , R e g i o n a l Open S p a c e O p p o r t u n i t i e s , G.V.R.D., V a n c o u v e r , B.C., 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 t h e L a n d , P e r g a m o n 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 a n d A l l o c a t i n g R e n e w a b l e R e s o u r c e s 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 - C o n f e r e n c e B a c k g r o u n d P a p e r s . Vol.2, Queen's P r i n t e r a n d C o n t r o l l e r o f S t a t i o n e r y , Ottawa, Ont., p.983.  1975*  1961,  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 U r b a n T o r o n t o , O n t . , J u l y 1974, p. 4.  8  Norman P e a r s o n , p_p_ c i t . ,  9  Ibid.,  Landscape.  p.6.  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. W h y t e , C l u s t e r D e v e l o p m e n t . 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 J o n 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 a n d Managmnfint, & £ P r i v a t e Lands f o r Park 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, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., p.113.  1974,  14 M i c h a e l G. P o w e r s , op_ c i t . , 15 Norman P e a r s o n , op_ c i t . ,  p. 4.  p p . 15t  18.  16 J o h n s o n & T y r e l l , " P r o b l e m s & T e c h n i q u e s t i o n , " R e s o u r c e s f o r Tomorrow, p . 1009.  o f Land A c q u i s i -  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 S p a c e & N a t u r a l P r o c e s s , University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp.  1970,  11-15.  18 I b i d , p . 1. 19 J o s e p h J . Shoman, Open L a n d f o r U r b a n A m e r i c a , J o h n Hopk i n s P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e , Md., pp.  1973t  45-47.  13  Chapter 2  The L e g a l B a s i s F o r 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 Controls A.  Introduction The B r i t i s h North America A c t g i v e s p r o v i n c e s  to manage and  s e l l t h e i r own  i n s t i t u t i o n s and o r p r i v a t e nature  the a u t h o r i t y  l a n d s , to e s t a b l i s h m u n i c i p a l  to r e g u l a t e a l l matters of a merely l o c a l i n the p r o v i n c e .  subdivision controls.  The  T h i s , o f course,  f e d e r a l government has  includes  direct  1  c o n t r o l o n l y over i t s own  lands.  T h e o r e t i c a l l y , s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l c o u l d be  entirely  p r o v i n c i a l , e n t i r e l y l o c a l , o r l o c a l s u b j e c t to p r o v i n c i a l direction.  In B. C ,  the p r o v i n c e  authorizes m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  to c o n t r o l s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f s u b d i v i s i o n development w i t h i n their jurisdictions.  The  two main sources  of l e g i s l a t i v e  a u t h o r i t y f o r s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l i n B. C. are the A c t and the Land R e g i s t r y A c t . B. The M u n i c i p a l A c t (Appendix S e c t i o n 711  Municipal  A)  o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t a u t h o r i z e s  municipal  c o u n c i l s to c o n t r o l s u b d i v i s i o n development by e n a c t i n g  by-  laws as f o l l o w s : 1)  To r e g u l a t e the area, shape, and dimensions of p a r c e l s  of l a n d ; dimensions, l o c a t i o n s , alignment, and  gradient  of  14  highways; and t o make d i f f e r e n t r e g u l a t i o n s f o r d i f f e r e n t 2)  To s e t standards f o r the above.  3)  To r e q u i r e t h a t proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e s u i t e d to  the c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f the l a n d , a r e s u i t e d t o t h e i r use,  zones.  intended  do n o t make f u t u r e s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d o r adjacent  land  impracticable. 4) and  To r e g u l a t e and s e t standards f o r highway c o n s t r u c t i o n  street lighting. 5)  To r e g u l a t e  sewage d i s p o s a l systems.  6) To r e q u i r e t h a t the s u b d i v i s i o n be p r o v i d e d adequate water  with  supply.  A l s o under S e c t i o n 711,  the approving o f f i c e r i s s u b j e c t  to the f o l l o w i n g r e g u l a t i o n s : 1) official 2)  He s h a l l g i v e due r e g a r d  t o and take cognizance o f any  community p l a n . He may r e f u s e to approve a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n i f he i s  o f the o p i n i o n t h a t the c o s t t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y o f p r o v i d i n g public u t i l i t i e s  o r other m u n i c i p a l  works o r s e r v i c e s would be  excessive. The  p r o v i s i o n o f open space w i t h i n a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n  i s n o t d e a l t w i t h d i r e c t l y by the M u n i c i p a l A c t . When a s u b d i v i s i o n plan deposited  i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e s e t s  a s i d e a p a r c e l o f l a n d f o r a park, under S e c t i o n m u n i c i p a l i t y has c o n t r o l and p o s s e s s i o n time i t was d e d i c a t e d . so d e d i c a t e d o t h e r lands  Section  may be disposed  627-A  627•  the  o f the l a n d from the  further states that land  o f by C o u n c i l i n exchange f o r  s u i t a b l e f o r a park,^r_Jbhe proceeds may be kept  15 i n a reserve  fund f o r the f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of p a r k l a n d .  a municipality  succeeds i n n e g o t i a t i n g a park w i t h a  developer, t h i s s e c t i o n may program. in  subdivision  be used to implement an open space  There i s , however, no mandatory d e d i c a t i o n o f p a r k l a n d  subdivisions. C.  The  Land R e g i s t r y A c t  Sections and  If  83-98 of  (Appendix  B)  the Land R e g i s t r y A c t cover  the a p p r o v a l of s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n s .  This function i s  a d m i n i s t e r e d by the approving o f f i c e r who as "the M u n i c i p a l  Engineer, o r any  the C o u n c i l of the The  subdivisions  i s d e f i n e d by Sec.  person d u l y a u t h o r i z e d  91  by  municipality."  Act i n c l u d e s requirements f o r t e n d e r i n g  a  subdivision  procedures f o r both the a p p l i c a n t and  the  approving  p l a n , and  o f f i c e r to f o l l o w .  I t a l s o s p e c i f i e s requirements f o r  s u b d i v i s i o n s to p r o v i d e access to highways, and  highway access  to n a v i g a b l e waters, r e s e r v o i r s , or Crown Land. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t are S e c t i o n s  94,  95t  and  p r o v i d e f u r t h e r grounds f o r the d e c i s i o n of the officer.  Under Sec.  94,  96,,  which  approving  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 s u b d i v i s i o n does not conform to municipal  o r r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t by-laws.  he must c o n s i d e r regard  objections  Under Sec.  from any  indicates  s u i t a b i l i t y of highway allowances w i t h  to the nature of the proposed use  o f the l a n d .  the  the  S e c t i o n 95  96,  and  the  configuration  the approving o f f i c e r may  i n t e r e s t e d persons, and  subdivision i f , i n h i s opinion,  refuse  hear  to approve  the a n t i c i p a t e d development  16  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 a m e n i t i e s o f a d j o i n i n g o r a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t i e s o r would be a g a i n s t  the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . "  I f a p l a n f o r a s u b d i v i s i o n has been r e j e c t e d , the a p p l i c a n t may, w i t h i n 21 days o f the r e j e c t i o n , p e t i t i o n the Supreme Court.  A h e a r i n g w i l l be h e l d on the m e r i t s o f the  case, and the Judge may o r d e r t h a t the p l a n be r e g i s t e r e d regardless  o f the o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n o f the a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r .  As i n the M u n i c i p a l  A c t , there  i s no s p e c i f i c mention o f  open space requirements i n the Land R e g i s t r y A c t . D.  Municipal  By-Laws  In conformance w i t h the s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y vested by the M u n i c i p a l the  i n them  A c t , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s adopt by-laws governing  subdivision of land.  scope o f the e n a b l i n g  These by-laws a r e r e s t r i c t e d by the  legislation.  I f a m u n i c i p a l i t y passed  a by-law which exceeded i t s s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y , such a law would be u l t r a - v i r e s and compliance w i t h i t would be h e l d unn e c e s s a r y by the c o u r t s . In a d d i t i o n t o b e i n g l i m i t e d to the a u t h o r i t y vested i n them by the p r o v i n c e ,  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s must f o l l o w three  law r u l e s when drawing up a by-law.  F i r s t , they cannot  common delegate,  by by-law, t h e i r l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y t o another body. cannot, f o r example, empower the p l a n n i n g  department t o enact  l e g i s l a t i o n governing the s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d . however, delegate a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t r o l t o an a p p r o p r i a t e  agency.  They  They may,  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r subdivision Second, m u n i c i p a l  cannot l e g i s l a t e each case on i t s m e r i t s .  councils  A subdivision control  17  by-law must apply u n i f o r m l y  to one category.  l e g i s l a t i v e authority of municipal  F i n a l l y , the  c o u n c i l s cannot be f e t t e r e d  by t i e i n g l e g i s l a t i o n to the performance o f a s p e c i f i c a c t . In o t h e r words, m u n i c i p a l  c o u n c i l may not change a zone i n k  r e t u r n f o r the d e d i c a t i o n o f a park. The m u n i c i p a l  s u b d i v i s i o n by-law, then, c l a r i f i e s the  powers o u t l i n e d by the p r o v i n c i a l government, s e t t i n g standards appropriate  to the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  d e t a i l the s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l  The by-law a l s o o u t l i n e s i n p r o c e s s to be f o l l o w e d .  Since  the wording o f some o f the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n i s r a t h e r vague, a m u n i c i p a l i t y may attempt to s p e c i f y what i s meant, f o r example, by "the p u b l i c 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 a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r to c o n s i d e r  "the demand f o r school o r  park f a c i l i t i e s t h a t would be c r e a t e d by the a n t i c i p a t e d development" o r whether the proposed development would c r e a t e "a p u b l i c o f f e n s e E.  o r nuisance o r a hazard to p u b l i c health."-'  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 Under the present  o f f i c e r i s authorized  s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s , the a p p r o v i n g to r e j e c t an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s u b d i v i s i o n  development on the f o l l o w i n g grounds: 1)  non-conformance w i t h m u n i c i p a l  2)  non-conformance w i t h o f f i c i a l community  3)  excessive  unsuitable  plans  c o s t to the m u n i c i p a l i t y o f p r o v i d i n g p u b l i c  u t i l i t i e s or other municipal 4)  o r d i s t r i c t by-laws  works o r s e r v i c e s  o r i n s u f f i c i e n t p r o v i s i o n o f highways  18  5)  i n j u r i o u s a f f e c t s on the e s t a b l i s h e d a m e n i t i e s o f  a d j o i n i n g or a d j a c e n t 6)  properties  not b e i n g i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .  There are  s e v e r a l problems r e g a r d i n g  these c r i t e r i a . costs".  One  the a p p l i c a t i o n of  a r i s e s from the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  "excessive  I f an o f f i c e r r e f u s e s an a p p l i c a t i o n on t h i s b a s i s  must accompany h i s r e f u s a l w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n c o s t w i l l be,  as to what t h i s  o r the c o u r t s w i l l p r o b a b l y o v e r r u l e  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , c o u n c i l may  attempt to d e f i n e  he  him.  "excessive  cost"  as a matter o f p o l i c y , as some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have attempted to  do.^ Another problem of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r i s e s from Sec.  96  of  the Land R e g i s t r y A c t , which a l l o w s r e f u s a l i f the development would be  "against  the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " .  case, Simpson v s . The brought to a t e s t .  In a r e c e n t  court  C i t y of Vancouver , t h i s matter  Simpson owned a l o t on P o i n t Grey Road i n  Vancouver which C i t y C o u n c i l d e s i g n a t e d as top p r i o r i t y development as a park. buy  the l o t .  for  C o u n c i l made an o f f e r to Simpson to  the l o t ; the o f f e r was  subdivide  was  The  refused.  Simpson then a p p l i e d  to  a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r r e j e c t e d the a p p l i c a t i o n  on the grounds t h a t the s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d intended f o r f u t u r e use  as a p u b l i c park was  against  the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t under  S e c t i o n 96 of the Land R e g i s t r y A c t . i t s way  The  case e v e n t u a l l y made  to the Supreme Court of Canada where the  o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n was  upheld.  approving  19 The  Simpson case i s c o n s i d e r e d  critical  "because i t went  to the Supreme Court and because i t supports the e x e r c i s e o f quite strong municipal rights."  powers i n r e l a t i o n to p r i v a t e  property  The Supreme Court d e c i s i o n maintained t h a t the Land  R e g i s t r y A c t c u r t a i l s the common law r i g h t s to. s u b d i v i d e "The  landowner has no r i g h t to s u b d i v i d e  approval  land.  save s u b j e c t to the  o f the approving o f f i c e r who i s r e q u i r e d by the A c t  to determine i f the contemplated development would be a g a i n s t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . "  7  This i s of s i g n i f i c a n c e not only f o r  the development o f f u t u r e l e g i s l a t i o n r e s t r i c t i n g the f r e e exercise of property  rights.  T h i s does n o t grant the a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers. Re Proposed S u b d i v i s i o n  limitless  I n Re Land R e g i s t r y A c t  (1955) Judge  Coady used the f o l l o w i n g Q c r i t e r i a f o r the l e g i t i m a t e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n : 1.  There must be d i r e c t s t a t u t o r y f o u n d a t i o n grounds g i v e n .  2.  The d e c i s i o n may n o t be made i n bad f a i t h .  3.  The d e c i s i o n may n o t be made w i t h the i n t e n t i o n o f d i s c r i m i n a t i n g a g a i n s t an i n d i v i d u a l .  4.  The d e c i s i o n may n o t be made on specious factual basis.  f o r the  o r inadequate  I f these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e met, then there should be no i n t e r f e r e n c e by the c o u r t w i t h m u n i c i p a l  officials  "honestly  endeavoring to comply w i t h the d u t i e s imposed upon them by the l e g i s l a t u r e i n planning t h e i r area.  the coherent and l o g i c a l development o f  I n s h o r t , the approving o f f i c e r must e x e r c i s e h i s  d i s c r e t i o n j u d i c i a l l y and reasonably.^  20  I t can be seen t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y t o use d i r e c t s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s to p r o v i d e open space i n B. C. i s l i m i t e d . B. C. has no mandatory d e d i c a t i o n o f open space i n proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s as do most o t h e r p r o v i n c e s . however, B. C. i n s t r u c t s i t s approving  U n l i k e many p r o v i n c e s ,  o f f i c e r s t o "give due  r e g a r d to and take cognizance o f any o f f i c i a l  community p l a n . "  1 0  T h i s p r o v i s i o n has some p o t e n t i a l f o r the r e g u l a t i o n o f subdivisions.  Under S e c t i o n 695  o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t , a  c o u n c i l may adopt by by-law a community p l a n d ,  t h a t i s , "an  e x p r e s s i o n o f p o l i c y f o r (a) any use o r uses o f l a n d i n c l u d i n g s u r f a c e s o f water; o r (b) the p a t t e r n o f the s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d ; and e i t h e r o r both may apply t o any o r a l l areas o f the municipality."  1 1  A. m u n i c i p a l i t y c o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , as p a r t o f  an o f f i c i a l p l a n , adopt s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r the r e t e n t i o n o f open space, o r o f c e r t a i n n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s , i n any a r e a t o be subdivided. However, v e r y few m u n i c i p a l i t i e s adopt o f f i c i a l plans.  community  An OCP must pass by a 2 / 3 vote o f c o u n c i l and be 12  approved by the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l . requirement imposes an unwelcome i n f l e x i b i l i t y plans.  This  latter  on o f f i c i a l  Not o n l y 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  p l a n i s s u b j e c t t o the same d e l a y , w i t h no assurance t h a t the d e s i r e d change w i l l  be approved, o r t h a t i t w i l l  on time f o r a c r i t i c a l a c t i o n .  be approved  21  Municipal one  c o u n c i l s , d e s i r i n g a more f l e x i b l e p l a n  and  over which they have the u l t i m a t e c o n t r o l , u s u a l l y adopt  community p l a n s by r e s o l u t i o n r a t h e r than by by-law. p l a n s do not have the f o r c e o f One  law.  p o s s i b l e method o f a v o i d i n g the drawbacks of an  o f f i c i a l plan i s f o r municipal plan.  Such  In t h i s way,  c o u n c i l to adopt a broad  i f the m u n i c i p a l i t y was  concerned w i t h  p r o t e c t i n g s p e c i f i c n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s such as r a v i n e s o r s l o p e s , i t c o u l d designate i t s o f f i c i a l plan. uses.  Other areas c o u l d be d e s i g n a t e d  as urban  More s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s o f a p l a n would be c o n t a i n e d  in  by c o u n c i l .  In r e c e n t y e a r s , the p r o v i s i o n o f parks and the c o n s e r v a t i o n  steep  these areas as open space uses i n  the u n o f f i c i a l community p l a n s accepted  and  category  open space,  of a n t u r a l f e a t u r e s has become an  i n c r e a s i n g l y important concern.  Recognizing  the  insufficiency  o f a v a i l a b l e methods of a t t a i n i n g these o b j e c t i v e s , v a r i o u s o t h e r approaches have been t r i e d .  These i n c l u d e the development  of i n f o r m a l , n o n - l e g i s l a t i v e , measures, as w e l l as a l e g i s l a t i v e i n n o v a t i o n , the l a n d use II  contract.  Indirect Controls A.  The Land Use 1. In  l a n d use  Contract  (Appendix  C)  Purpose o f the L e g i s l a t i o n  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  c o n t r a c t , to the M u n i c i p a l A c t . T h i s  702A,  innovative  d e v i c e arose out o f the d e f i c i e n c i e s o f o t h e r l a n d c o n t r o l measures a v a i l a b l e to B. C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  use  the  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 o f Sec  711  of  the  Municipal Act i n r e g u l a t i n g subdivision c o n t r o l , e s p e c i a l l y 13 w i t h r e s p e c t to the p r o v i s i o n of parks and In employing l a n d use give due  regard  to the  other p u b l i c  contract, municipal  lands.  c o u n c i l s must  following:  1) "the development o f areas to promote g r e a t e r e f f i c i e n c y and q u a l i t y , 2) the impact o f development on p r e s e n t and f u t u r e p u b l i c costs, 3)  the betterment of the  4)  the p r o v i s i o n o f necessary p u b l i c space,  5)  the f u l f i l l m e n t of community g o a l s . "  Land use  c o n t r a c t s blend  environment,  t r a d i t i o n a l zoning and  subdivision  c o n t r o l measures to c r e a t e a more e f f e c t i v e means of d e a l i n g 14 with large scale subdivisions. w i t h i n s u b d i v i s i o n s and  Open space  conservation  the c o s t o f p r o v i d i n g parks n e c e s s i t a t e d  by l a r g e developments are both important concerns to which the l e g i s l a t i o n was i n p a r t addressed. 2. D e f i n i t i o n The enters  l a n d use  c o n t r a c t i s a device whereby a m u n i c i p a l i t y  i n t o an agreement w i t h a landowner to develop and  a t r a c t of l a n d a c c o r d i n g and  conditions.  i n any way  The  to c e r t a i n mutually agreed upon terms  terms and  c o n d i t i o n s are not  restricted  by the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , r a t h e r , they are  arranged e n t i r e l y by n e g o t i a t i o n between the parties.  use  The  opportunities t h i s provides  contracting  for 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 p a r t i e s to agree to the terms o f the  contract.  23  As w i t h any and  l e g a l c o n t r a c t , l a n d use  f u t u r e use and  according Land use  any m u n i c i p a l  c o n t r a c t s have "the f o r c e and  covenant running with the l a n d and  t h e r e f o r e , i s not d i s c h a r g e d c o n t r a c t s may  by-law.  e f f e c t of a  restrictive  s h a l l be r e g i s t e r e d i n the  Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e by the m u n i c i p a l i t y . "  A l a n d use  be used whenever a proposed under the e x i s t i n g  by-law.  to encourage the use  A m u n i c i p a l i t y wishing  c o n t r a c t s i n an a r e a may  i n t e n s i t y use  contract,  by s a l e of the l a n d i n q u e s t i o n .  development would be i m p o s s i b l e  use  binding,  development of the a f f e c t e d a r e a must proceed  to i t s terms, superceding  Land use  c o n t r a c t s are  zoning of land  down-zone the l a n d to a  such as a g r i c u l t u r e .  Any  low  owner o f l a n d  wishing  to develop f o r a h i g h e r i n t e n s i t y use w i l l t h e r e f o r e have to apply f o r a zoning change. o r the developer may  In l i e u o f r e z o n i n g ,  o f f e r to e n t e r a l a n d use  the m u n i c i p a l i t y  contract,  c o n t a i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r the development which c o u l d not  be  s p e c i f i e d by t r a d i t i o n a l zoning o r s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l d e v i c e s . Rather than downzoning l a n d , which r e q u i r e s a p u b l i c hearing,  a m u n i c i p a l i t y may  promote the use o f l a n d  use  c o n t r a c t s by d e s i g n a t i n g areas of l a n d w i t h i n a zone as development a r e a s . hearing.  Such d e s i g n a t i o n does not r e q u i r e a p u b l i c  A person w i s h i n g  to develop l a n d w i t h i n the  development areas may  then be requested  e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use  contract.  designated  by the m u n i c i p a l i t y to  However, i f the  developer  does not e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use  c o n t r a c t w i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y  he may  to the r e l e v a n t zoning  s t i l l proceed a c c o r d i n g  and  s u b d i v i s i o n by-laws p e r t a i n i n g to the area i n q u e s t i o n .  24  Before a l a n d use c o n t r a c t can take e f f e c t , a p u b l i c h e a r i n g must be h e l d . a f f i r m the c o n t r a c t .  A two-thirds  vote o f C o u n c i l must a l s o  The a c t u a l procedure f o r o b t a i n i n g a  l a n d use c o n t r a c t , as w e l l as i t s form and s u b j e c t matter, may be r e g u l a t e d by the m u n i c i p a l 3.  Implications  council.  f o r Open Space  Conservation  Because o f i t s i n h e r e n t f l e x i b i l i t y and scope, the l a n d use  c o n t r a c t is.\a p o t e n t i a l l y important means o f c o n t r o l l i n g  s u b d i v i s i o n s i n B.C.  Before i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n , much s u b d i v i s i o n  c o n t r o l was a matter o f i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n between the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the developer.  In many i n s t a n c e s ,  of t h i s type were the o n l y means o f e n s u r i n g provisions i n subdivisions.  negotiations  open space  Sometimes these agreements took  the form o f development c o n t r a c t s .  These were c o n t r a c t u a l  agreements between m u n i c i p a l i t y and developer, b u t , u n l i k e l a n d use c o n t r a c t s they had 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 . Therefore,  such arrangements had to be used c a u t i o u s l y ,  often  16 with l i m i t e d  success.  Land use c o n t r a c t s were n o t intended "get around" zoning  regulations.  t o be used to  Rather, they were  intended  to enable m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o make s p e c i f i c requirements and to c o n t r o l a s p e c t s o f the development t h a t would be d i f f i c u l t t o 17 achieve under other  s u b d i v i s i o n o r zoning by-laws.  these purposes they have s e v e r a l advantages.  For  The most obvious  i s t h a t the terms and c o n d i t i o n s o f the c o n t r a c t a r e a b s o l u t e l y negotiable.  S i n c e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s can i n t r o d u c e  v i r t u a l l y any  25  requirement, l a n d use and  design.  Land use  c o n t r a c t s accomodate i n n o v a t i v e  Furthermore, d e s i g n  planning  can be s t r i n g e n t l y c o n t r o l l e d .  c o n t r a c t s a l s o permit narrow s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f accepted  uses o f l a n d , r a t h e r than the broad l a n d use t r a d i t i o n a l zoning.  Land use  of  c o n t r a c t s can a l s o s p e c i f y a  completion date f o r the p r o j e c t . not o n l y c o n t r o l the type and  categories  In t h i s way,  design  they ensure t h a t the p r o j e c t occurs,  municipalities  o f the development thereby  but  discouraging  speculation. These advantages can c l e a r l y be used to promote open space conservation  within a subdivision.  the c o n t r a c t , a m u n i c i p a l i t y may s e t a s i d e f o r use  In n e g o t i a t i n g the terms o f  r e q u i r e a number o f a c r e s  as a p u b l i c park.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y  be  may  r e s t r i c t development i n e c o l o g i c a l l y s e n s i t i v e areas o f a t r a c t of land.  I t may  prohibit building within a certain  d i s t a n c e o f streams, ponds, o r r a v i n e s .  The  arrangement t h a t  i s made i s o n l y r e s t r i c t e d by the p e r s p e c t i v e  and  imagination  o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y , and by what the developer i s w i l l i n g  to  accept. Land use  c o n t r a c t s can accomodate open space  i n other, l e s s d i r e c t ways.  conservation  By f a c i l i t a t i n g i n n o v a t i o n s  design,  techniques such as c l u s t e r i n g and  provide  open space i n s u b d i v i s i o n s , can be encouraged.  s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f l a n d uses allows  z e r o - l o t l i n e s , which  of  parkland.  Also,  experimentation w i t h mixed  l a n d uses, where, f o r example, a n o n - o f f e n s i v e be p e r m i t t e d  in  i n d u s t r y might  i n a r e s i d e n t i a l area i n r e t u r n f o r the  dedication  26  To ensure the performance of a p r o j e c t , a l a n d use may  be bonded.  F o r example, the c o n t r a c t may  s c a p i n g requirements.  contract  stipulate  land-  I f the developer does not f u l f i l l  this  o b l i g a t i o n , the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s e n t i t l e d to compensation. A final  advantage of the l a n d use  c o n t r a c t , and  one  that 18  has been f r e q u e n t l y employed, i s the use o f impost f e e s . An  impost fee i s a charge l e v i e d on the d e v e l o p e r to cover the  c o s t o f the development to the m u n i c i p a l i t y . m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are s u b s t a n t i a l , and  i n c l u d e road, u t i l i t y ,  s c h o o l , and park requirements which new The  growing gap  C o s t s borne by  developments n e c e s s i t a t e .  between the c o s t of c a p i t a l improvements  and  the i n c r e a s e i n l o c a l taxes has been a major concern of 19 municipal  governments.  7  Impost f e e s f o r c e the  to bear p a r t , o r a l l , o f these c o s t s .  developer  As a l a r g e s u b d i v i s i o n  w i l l r e q u i r e open space, the m u n i c i p a l i t y can a s s e s s  the  d e v e l o p e r the c o s t o f a c q u i r i n g the d e s i r e d acreage. 4. Limitations In s p i t e of i t s wide scope and l a n d use  general  flexibility,  the  c o n t r a c t i s not u n i v e r s a l l y a p p l i c a b l e nor i s i t  without l i m i t a t i o n s .  As has been p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, a l l  p a r t i e s must be agreeable to the terms o f the c o n t r a c t . m u n i c i p a l i t y may  bargain  concession  f o r concession  The  with a  developer, but i t cannot f o r c e a d e v e l o p e r to accept i t s terms. N e v e r t h e l e s s t h i s i n i t s e l f i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a c o n s t r a i n t upon the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the l a n d use a planning  tool.  serious contract  as  27  A more s e r i o u s drawback i s t h a t a m u n i c i p a l i t y cannot f o r c e a developer to e n t e r a l a n d use  contract at a l l .  P a r t i c u l a r l y where l a n d i s designated  a development area  a zone, the developer always has t r a d i t i o n a l zoning  instead.  the o p t i o n to proceed under  Unless l a n d i s downzoned r a d i c a l l y  t h i s o p t i o n always e x i s t s f o r the developer, and always r e q u i r e s a p u b l i c h e a r i n g . employ l a n d use inexpedient  within  downzoning  A m u n i c i p a l i t y w i s h i n g to  c o n t r a c t s e x t e n s i v e l y may  find i t p o l i t i c a l l y  to rezone l a n d to s u f f i c i e n t l y low  intensity  areas.  Another problem i s the p o t e n t i a l l y time-consuming nature of c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n . Surrey, B.C.,  T h i s problem has been apparent i n  where l a n d use  c o n t r a c t s have been e x t e n s i v e l y  20 employed.  The  requirement o f a p u b l i c h e a r i n g and  a f f i r m a t i o n by c o u n c i l has added to the delay, where the c o n t r a c t must be r e n e g o t i a t e d . must spend a c o n s i d e r a b l e hearing l a n d use  on e n g i n e e r i n g  two-thirds  particularly  In a d d i t i o n , developers  amount of money p r i o r to the p u b l i c 21  and  a r c h i t e c t u r a l plans.  I f the  c o n t r a c t i s not approved, the developer stands to  l o s e t h i s investment. The  p u b l i c h e a r i n g and  c o u n c i l approval  a l s o l i m i t f l e x i b i l i t y o f the l a n d use  requirements  contract.  Since  the  terms o f the c o n t r a c t run i n p e r p e t u i t y w i t h the l a n d ,  any  changes i n the c o n t r a c t n e c e s s i t a t e i t s r e - n e g o t i a t i o n  through  the same time-consuming p r o c e s s .  Narrow s p e c i f i c a t i o n of  l a n d uses can thus be a l i a b i l i t y as w e l l as an advantage.  28  T h i s problem may be minimized by c a r e f u l wording o f the c o n t r a c t to provide  some f l e x i b i l i t y .  However, as the a r t o f - w r i t i n g  l a n d use c o n t r a c t s 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 p u b l i c h e a r i n g / c o u n c i l ; approval  needed to discharge  the terms o f the l a n d use c o n t r a c t ,  a l i m i t e d term has been s p e c i f i e d . process,  procedure i s unless  Again, t h i s may be a l o n g  e s p e c i a l l y i f i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t e d by the l a n d use  c o n t r a c t such as homeowners i n a s u b d i v i s i o n a r e opposed to its  discharge. Because o f the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l a n d use c o n t r a c t s , 22  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s may be r e l u c t a n t to employ them. as they are a r e c e n t i n n o v a t i o n ,  In a d d i t i o n ,  l a c k o f f a m i l i a r i t y and  experience w i t h l a n d use c o n t r a c t s may a l s o discourage use.  their  M u n i c i p a l i t i e s concerned w i t h open space i n s u b d i v i s i o n s  may be wary o f e n t e r i n g complex and time-consuming  negotiations  which c o u l d b i n d them i n an unwanted s i t u a t i o n a t a f u t u r e date.  Instead,  they may p r e f e r to r e l y on the f a m i l i a r  d e v i c e s o f t r a d i t i o n a l s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l o r they may l o o k to i n f o r m a l measures to encourage park p r o v i s i o n . B Municipal Persuasion 1.  Informal  Negotiations  Because o f the l i m i t a t i o n s o f s t a t u t o r y methods o f s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l a v a i l a b l e to B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , much open space p r o v i s i o n i s arranged by i n f o r m a l methods.  The degree to  which i n f o r m a l agreements a r e r e l i e d upon w i l l v a r y between municipalities.  Generally,  an owner o f l a n d who wishes to  29  subdivide  r e q u i r e s the c o o p e r a t i o n  which the l a n d i s l o c a t e d . - ^ 2  o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n  I n the i n t e r e s t o f the f u t u r e  r e s i d e n t s o f the s u b d i v i s i o n , the m u n i c i p a l i t y may persuade the d e v e l o p e r to d e d i c a t e space.  a p o r t i o n o f the l a n d f o r p u b l i c open  I t must be remembered t h a t u l t i m a t e l y , c o n t r o l over  s u b d i v i s i o n approval  i s vested,  n o t i n c o u n c i l , but i n the  a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r , and t h a t a p r o p o s a l may be r e j e c t e d i f i t i s n o t i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . to p r o v i d e  Therefore,  a d e v e l o p e r may wish  such open space as the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n d i c a t e s i s  essential. 2.  Development Agreements  In order t o ensure t h a t agreed-upon arrangements a r e a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d out, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s may request  a developer  to s i g n an agreement t o perform c e r t a i n d u t i e s contingent r e c e i v i n g municipal  s e r v i c e s to h i s s u b d i v i s i o n .  upon  Such agree-  ments a r e sometimes c a l l e d development c o n t r a c t s o r development agreements.  Although there i s no c l e a r l e g a l b a s i s 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 powers.  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , r a t h e r than l e g i s l a t i v e ,  In the performance o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  "housekeeping"  d u t i e s , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s can e n t e r c o n t r a c t s w i t h a w i l l i n g  party  "to do c e r t a i n t h i n g s t h a t perhaps they c o u l d n o t i n s i s t upon under Sec 711 o f the M u n i c i p a l legislating."  A c t when they were  simply  As the use o f the development agreement has  not been t e s t e d i n c o u r t , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s must proceed 2k c a u t i o u s l y when employing t h i s method.  30  3- R e s t r i c t i v e Covenant Another method o f e n s u r i n g  the p r o v i s i o n o f p a r k l a n d i n  an agreement w i t h a developer i s the r e s t r i c t i v e Sec  24A o f the Land R e g i s t r y A c t p r o v i d e s  covenant.  clear statutory  a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r i t s use: There may be r e g i s t e r e d as annexed to any l a n d t h a t i s being o r has been r e g i s t e r e d a c o n d i t i o n o r covenant i n favour o f the Crown o r o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y o r r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t t h a t the l a n d , or any s p e c i f i e d p o r t i o n t h e r e o f , i s n o t t o be b u i l t on, o r i s to be o r not t o be used i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner. 5 2  Therefore,  i f a developer agrees t o p r o v i d e p a r k l a n d w i t h i n a  s u b d i v i s i o n , r a t h e r than i n v i t i n g the c o m p l i c a t i o n s  of a land  use  c o n t r a c t o r a development c o n t r a c t , a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant  may  simply be r e g i s t e r e d i n f a v o r o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  o n l y c o n d i t i o n i s whether o r not the developer i s C  The  agreeable.  CMHC Standards In i t s l o a n insurance  and d i r e c t l o a n program, the C e n t r a l  Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n w i e l d s 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 s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l - money. 10  *?<>  I t i s estimated  that  o f a l l new housing s t a r t s i n B.C. a r e f i n a n c e d i n p a r t by  26 CMHC.  To q u a l i f y f o r CMHC a s s i s t a n c e , however, a developer  must submit p l a n s o f the proposed development f o r a p p r o v a l . These s u b d i v i s i o n plans must s a t i s f y minimum standards.  In  a d d i t i o n , CMHC's design g u i d e l i n e s , while not mandatory, a l s o e x e r t an i n f l u e n c e upon developers  seeking CMHC a s s i s t a n c e .  A c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f a t t e n t i o n i n the CMHC p l a n n i n g handbooks i s focused important  on open space p r o v i s i o n .  The most  requirement s t i p u l a t e s , "For s u b d i v i s i o n s  of development o f more than 5 0 housing  capable  units, a suitable  p a r c e l o f l a n d equal i n a r e a t o a t l e a s t 5% o f 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 space."  2 7  as m u n i c i p a l p u b l i c open  M u n i c i p a l i t i e s have no c o n t r o l over t h i s  process,  however, and the requirement may be r e l a x e d i f the developer can demonstrate e i t h e r adequate e x i s t i n g p u b l i c open space o r adequate proposed open space i n an O f f i c i a l P l a n w i t h municipal  i n t e n t i o n and a b i l i t y t o a c q u i r e i t .  Besides  i t s minimum requirements,  CMHC o f f e r s g u i d e l i n e s  which i t s a d m i n i s t r a t o r s should c o n s i d e r i n r e v i e w i n g an application.  The development should be " w e l l - s e r v e d by community  f a c i l i t i e s such as open space." to  A t t e n t i o n should a l s o be p a i d  such f a c t o r s as topography, drainage,  characteristics.  and s u b s o i l  N a t u r a l f e a t u r e s such as l a k e s and t r e e s  should be p r e s e r v e d where p o s s i b l e .  A l l these  guidelines  are f l e x i b l e and l e f t t o the d i s c r e t i o n o f the a d m i n i s t r a t o r . Although m u n i c i p a l i t i e s may a c q u i r e open space i n some s u b d i v i s i o n s because o f the CMHC standards, has no d i r e c t c o n t r o l over i t s p r o v i s i o n .  the m u n i c i p a l i t y In p a r t i c u l a r , the  m u n i c i p a l i t y cannot i n s u r e t h a t open space p r o v i d e d i s r e l e v a n t t o community g o a l s .  The amount o f 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 CMHC and the developer.  i n t h i s way  by n e g o t i a t i o n between  32  Furthermore, as CMHC standards are a p p l i e d p r i m a r i l y t o low-income h o u s i n g developments,  i t i s q u i t e l i k e l y t h a t the  minimum standards w i l l o n l y be met, n o t exceeded.  Additional  open space o r amenity a r e a r a i s e s the v a l u e o f housing and soon pushes the s e l l i n g p r i c e above the $ 4 7 , 0 0 0 l i m i t p e r m i t t e d under A.H.O.P.  There i s no i n c e n t i v e t o exceed the standards  required. In some cases i t may be l e g i t i m a t e t o r e l a x open space requirements w i t h i n a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n .  In return,  however, the m u n i c i p a l i t y may wish to charge the d e v e l o p e r for  the m u n i c i p a l purchase and development  l a n d a d j a c e n t t o o r near the s i t e . not d i r e c t l y  o f prime  recreation  As the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s  i n v o l v e d i n CMHC n e g o t i a t i o n s ,  such  arrangements  CMHC standards a p p l y o n l y to those  developments  are u n l i k e l y t o m a t e r i a l i z e . Finally, being financed  under the NHA.  F o r o t h e r developments,  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s must r e l y on o t h e r measures t o ensure open space i n s u b d i v i s i o n s .  33  Footnotes - Chapter 2 1  B r i t i s h North America Act 1867. Sec.,91.  2  J.B. M i l n e r , "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 a t i o n " , The C a n a d i a n B a r Review, March 1965» p . 5 8 .  3  Upland Developments v s . Town o f Quesnel  4  W i l l i a m Lane, l e c t u r e , " M u n i c i p a l and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver, B.C., Nov. 1 3 . 1976.  5  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 .  6  J . W i l s o n i n Land Use C o 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 o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver, B.C., S e p t . pp.  Sec. 92 ( 5 ) .  (8), (16), Legis-  (1972).  74-75.  7  Simpson v s . C i t y o f Vancouver ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 65 DLR  8  Re Land R e g i s t r y A c t ; Re Proposed S u b d i v i s i o n  9  Simpson v s . C i t y o f Vancouver (1976).  (3d)  669  1976, (SCC).  (1955).  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.l4.  14 J b i d . , p.11. 15 B r i a n P o r t e r , 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., 1 9 7 3 . p . l l 6 . 16 W i l l i a m Lane i n Land Use C o 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 C o 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 A p p r o v a l P r o c e s s i n Metropolitan"~v"a"ncouver, 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, p.110.  34  21 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.48.  22 B r i a n P o r t e r , 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 , p.120. 23 W i l l i a m Lane i n Land Use C o n t r a c t s , 24 I b i d . ,  pp.14-15.  p.15.  25 B r i t i s h Columbia Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec 26 T. W i l s o n ,  C.M.H.C., Vancouver, B.C., i n t e r v i e w , May 3 ,  27 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 , Handbook, Ottawa, Ont., 1 9 7 5 . p.18. 28 I b i d . ,  p.7.  24A.  Site  Planning  1977.  35 Chapter 3  Case  The  Studies  l e g a l b a s i s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l must be understood  i n order to a p p r e c i a t e  the uses and  l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s  tool,  but the l e g a l r e s e a r c h can h a r d l y be expected to show how works i n p r a c t i c e .  T h i s chapter w i l l d e s c r i b e  control f o r conservation  subdivision  purposes as i t i s a c t u a l l y b e i n g  used i n f o u r Lower Mainland m u n i c i p a l i t i e s :  West Vancouver,  Coquitlam, Burnaby, and North Vancouver D i s t r i c t .  The  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were s e l e c t e d p r i m a r i l y because of i n the problems and  it  o p p o r t u n i t i e s they f a c e .  four  similarities  A l l operate  under the same l e g a l framework, face s i m i l a r development pressures  and  o f t e n d e a l w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the same l a n d  development i n t e r e s t s .  In a d d i t i o n , u n l i k e o t h e r Lower Mainland  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a t the same stage of development, these f o u r have s i m i l a r topography and n a t u r a l v e g e t a t i o n . an i n t e n s i v e i n t e r v i e w was  h e l d w i t h a planner who  involved i n subdivision control. i n t e r v i e w was  In each  one,  i s actively  The main purpose of  the  to d i s c o v e r what approaches are b e i n g used i n  t h a t m u n i c i p a l i t y to d e a l w i t h o b j e c t i v e s and  s i t u a t i o n s found  i n a l l four. T h i s chapter  summarizes those i n t e r v i e w s .  Each s e c t i o n  begins w i t h a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the c o n s e r v a t i o n f a c i n g the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  issues  Next, the s u b d i v i s i o n approval  i s o u t l i n e d as i t r e l a t e s to open space c o n s e r v a t i o n .  process The  36  methods of c o n s e r v a t i o n  are then d e s c r i b e d ,  apparent importance to the m u n i c i p a l i t y . i l l u s t r a t i o n i s given of the way  i n order of  their  F i n a l l y , a representative  v a r i o u s techniques  are used to  conserve open space i n s u b d i v i s i o n s . Although an i n t e r v i e w was  conducted i n North Vancouver  as i n o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , i t was  discovered  t h a t the  District  o f North Vancouver owns most of the undeveloped l a n d w i t h i n i t s boundaries.  Because m u n i c i p a l  a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f problems and c o n t r o l , the techniques discussed.  ownership of l a n d  presents  opportunities for subdivision  employed by North Vancouver are  However, North Vancouver does p r o v i d e  not  an unusual  example o f environmental p l a n n i n g a p p l i c a b l e as a b a s i s f o r subdivision control.  As none of the other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  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 c h a r a c t e r i z e d by mountainous t e r r a i n ,  and a l a r g e expanse of w a t e r f r o n t . developable  There i s very  little  l a n d , r e s u l t i n g i n high l a n d p r i c e s . Because great  p o r t i o n s of the m u n i c i p a l i t y are u n s u i t a b l e f o r development, there i s a c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y present,  2/3  l a r g e amount of open space.  At  of the t o t a l l a n d area i s i n p u b l i c open space,  the most s i z e a b l e h o l d i n g s  i n c l u d i n g Cypress P r o v i n c i a l Park,  the G.V.R.D. watershed, and Lighthouse Park. In s p i t e o f the impressive and  q u a n t i t i e s of open space, past  f u t u r e developments i n West Vancouver e n t a i l s e r i o u s problems.  Shortage of undeveloped l a n d a t low  elevations  increases  p r e s s u r e s f o r b u i l d i n g on hazardous s l o p e s which are  expensive  to s e r v i c e and  A  proportion  of high s c e n i c and  recreation value.  of f u t u r e development i s expected to occur on  l a n d l o c a t e d above the Upper L e v e l s Highway. study o f t h i s a r e a was 1973-74.  large  The  2  An  intensive  conducted by the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n  r e s u l t of t h i s e f f o r t was  the p u b l i c a t i o n of  g u i d e l i n e s , f o r development above the Upper L e v e l s Highway. The  guidelines'; 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  discussed  are  i n depth l a t e r i n t h i s chapter.  Numerous creeks flow from the mountains, c u t t i n g deep ravines  i n t o the h i l l s i d e .  In the past,  building practices  have d r a s t i c a l l y a l t e r e d the d e l i v e r y o f water to the As n a t u r a l v e g e t a t i o n  i s c l e a r e d , the b i n d i n g and  stabilizing  e f f e c t of t r e e s upon creekbeds i s l o s t .  The  impervious s u r f a c e s  driveways  d i r e c t run-off erosion  of roads, r o o f s , and  i n t o creeks,  introduction  a c c e l e r a t i n g flows.  t h r e a t e n s not only l a n d and  creeks.  landscaping  of  increases  Resultant but  also  buildings. Attempts to d e a l w i t h the problem have, i n the past, wasteful and  and  filled,  insensitive.  Many creeks have been c u l v e r t e d  f u r t h e r a l t e r i n g n a t u r a l drainage p a t t e r n s ,  w i t h adverse r e s u l t s .  been  Such p r a c t i c e s not only i n t e n s i f y  drainage problems but d e s t r o y amenity of the watercourses.  the v i s u a l and  aesthetic  often  38  An e x t e n s i v e study o f West Vancouver's creeks was conducted by the e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m , Dayton & K n i g h t . of for  t h e i r recommendations,  As a r e s u l t  s t r i c t new p o l i c i e s have been  developed  the r e g u l a t i o n o f development a d j a c e n t to c r e e k s . Future development upon the c o a s t a l w a t e r f r o n t w i l l a l s o  be s u b j e c t to s t r i c t c o n t r o l s .  Much o f West Vancouver's prime  o c e a n f r o n t p r o p e r t y has been c l o s e d to the p u b l i c through i n t e n s e development.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y i s now  committed to  a c q u i r i n g c o a s t a l p r o p e r t y f o r p u b l i c use and to r e t a i n i n g p u b l i c beach a c c e s s i n w a t e r f r o n t developments. Park i s an example  Ambleside  o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s e f f o r t s to open  ocean f r o n t p r o p e r t y to p u b l i c enjoyment. West Vancouver i s c u r r e n t l y p r e p a r i n g a comprehensive open space p l a n . of  The p l a n i s expected  creekways as the b a s i c framework  open space.  to emphasize the use  for a lattice  work o f  Key m u n i c i p a l a c q u i s i t i o n s w i l l p r o v i d e  connecting  l i n k s i n the c r e a t i o n o f an e x t e n s i v e open space system. Community awareness and p o l i t i c a l  committment  to open  space o b j e c t i v e s create a f a v o r a b l e c l i m a t e f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n . A r e s u l t a n t w i l l i n g n e s s to take necessary a c t i o n i s b e l i e v e d to be a major f a c t o r i n West Vancouver's i n c r e a s i n g success i n r e a l i z i n g some o f i t s g o a l s .  39  B.  The  S u b d i v i s i o n Process  Because West Vancouver r e l i e s l a r g e l y upon l a n d c o n t r a c t s f o r major s u b d i v i s i o n s , the approval not be d e s c r i b e d  i n detail i n this section.  c o n t r a c t i s r e g u l a t e d by Sec described  i n Chapter 2 .  i s discussed  process.  The  land  use  Act,  of t h i s  as  device  i n p a r t C of t h i s Chapter.  A p p l i c a t i o n s to subdivide department.  process w i l l  7 0 2 A o f the M u n i c i p a l  West Vancouver's use  use  are reviewed by the  planning  D i s c u s s i o n and n e g o t i a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e  Although l a n d use  the  c o n t r a c t s are not employed f o r  s m a l l s u b d i v i s i o n s , the i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i n g p r o c e s s u s u a l l y produces p r o j e c t designs which conform to m u n i c i p a l  open space  objectives. The  approving o f f i c e r f o r West Vancouver i s the  engineer.  He  reviews the f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n ,  o f t e n i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the planner. the p l a n n i n g  department and  C o o p e r a t i o n between  the a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r allows  "very s a t i s f a c t o r y " degree o f p l a n n i n g The  municipal  input.  powers of the approving o f f i c e r are d e s c r i b e d  the s u b d i v i s i o n by-law as those granted i n the l e g i s l a t i o n , the M u n i c i p a l  a  in  enabling  A c t and Land R e g i s t r y  Act.  However, r e c e n t concern over drainage problems, as o u t l i n e d hy Dayton & Knight, has  l e d to the i n c l u s i o n of a  special  p r o v i s i o n i n the s u b d i v i s i o n by-law f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of n a t u r a l drainage channels.  In r e v i e w i n g  approving o f f i c e r i s asked to c o n s i d e r  an a p p l i c a t i o n , the  the p r o x i m i t y  of  40  b u i l d i n g s to watercourses.  The  by-law then recommends a  minimum b u i l d i n g setback of 2 5 ' on a l l creeks.  from the 100-year f l o o d mark  As the creeks i n some areas s w i t c h  f r e q u e n t l y , t h i s p r o v i s i o n has  courses  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 i n s t a n c e s . C.  Control 1.  Techniques  Land Use  Contracts  In a l l major developments and the Upper L e v e l s Highway, l a n d use  i n a l l development above c o n t r a c t s are  employed.  Because l a r g e amounts of money are i n v o l v e d , West Vancouver i s wary of u s i n g d e v i c e s tested i n court.  The  of d o u b t f u l l e g a l i t y which c o u l d  l a n d use  c o n t r a c t i s not o n l y  l e g a l , but i t i s b i n d i n g on both p a r t i e s . enforceable  and,  clearly  Hence, i t i s  as a c o n t r a c t , can be bonded.  A major problem w i t h l a n d use  c o n t r a c t s a r i s e s because  the c o n t r a c t runs i n p e r p e t u i t y w i t h the l a n d . even minor changes i n l a n d use may  have to be  Therefore, renegotiated.  A l s o , i n areas i n which l a n d use  c o n t r a c t s have been  e x t e n s i v e l y used, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  f e a r the c r e a t i o n of a  complex and permitted  be  confusing  l a n d use  system.  Under t r a d i t i o n a l  very  zoning,  f o r a s i t e i s under a l a n d use  contract,  however, the terms of the i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r a c t must be thoroughly s t u d i e d i n o r d e r  to determine i f a use  In order to a v o i d these c o m p l i c a t i o n s ,  is  permitted.  West Vancouver i s  i n t r o d u c i n g an experimental s e l f - d e s t r u c t c l a u s e i n l a n d contracts.  A f t e r a s p e c i f i e d number of years,  e x p i r e s and  t r a d i t i o n a l zoning  takes e f f e c t .  the  use  contract  41  When a group o f landowners a r e i n v o l v e d i n a l a n d use c o n t r a c t , the terms f o r the group a r e l i s t e d contract. vague.  i n a master  The p r o v i s i o n s o f the master c o n t r a c t a r e purposely-  Then, i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r a c t s a r e drawn up c o n t a i n i n g  s p e c i f i c a t i o n s regarding  each h o l d i n g .  In t h i s way, i f one  owner wishes t o change the terms o f the c o n t r a c t , the r e s t do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y have to be i n v o l v e d i n the r e n e g o t i a t i o n . West Vancouver p l a n n e r s c o n s i d e r the l a n d use c o n t r a c t e f f e c t i v e i n a c h i e v i n g open space o b j e c t i v e s , d e d i c a t i o n o f open space.  especially  Open space on the w a t e r f r o n t ,  t r a i l s and l i n k a g e s t o e x i s t i n g parks, and r e t e n t i o n o f n a t u r a l drainage channels a r e o f p a r t i c u l a r concern. negotiating dedications, municipal a lattice and  planners attempt t o achieve  o f open space throughout the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  ravines provide  In  Creekbeds  n o r t h - s o u t h c o r r i d o r s and d e d i c a t i o n s  from developers supply  east-west l i n k a g e s .  Above the Upper L e v e l s Highway, d e v e l o p e r s a r e r e q u i r e d to d e d i c a t e persons.  p u b l i c lands p r o p o r t i o n a t e  Where l a n d i s u n s u i t a b l e  a sum e q u i v a l e n t accepted i n l i e u .  to the value  to 10 a c r e s p e r 1,000  f o r municipal  purposes,  o f the r e q u i r e d l a n d w i l l be  When i n c r e a s e d d e n s i t i e s a r e p e r m i t t e d  i n a l a n d use c o n t r a c t , a f e e o f $800 d o l l a r s p e r a d d i t i o n a l u n i t may be r e q u i r e d .  These monies a r e p l a c e d i n an open  space fund which i s used t o purchase o r develop new p a r k s .  42  Before  the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the l a n d use  space concessions  from developers  difficult.  Now,  developers'  cooperation  Recently,  were r a r e and  an oceanfront  i n adhering  to b a s i c open space o b j e c t i v e s .  development i n i t i a l l y approved under r e n e g o t i a t e d under a l a n d  c o n t r a c t to r e g a i n p u b l i c access  to the beach.  Developers have g e n e r a l l y accepted p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g open space and Most o f the l a r g e developers Vancouver, and  negotiations  the m u n i c i p a l i t y u s u a l l y succeeds i n s e c u r i n g  the o l d s u b d i v i s i o n system was use  c o n t r a c t , open  own  West Vancouver's  the use of l a n d use a^great  contracts.  d e a l o f l a n d i n West  r e q u i r e the good w i l l of the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  C o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s u s u a l l y proceed without major c o n f l i c t . 2.  Other Methods a.  Large L o t Zoning  The  steep topography o f the l a n d being developed above  the Upper L e v e l s Highway i s extremely s e n s i t i v e to e r o s i o n and  r u n - o f f , t h r e a t e n i n g the area's e c o l o g i c a l s t a b i l i t y .  Furthermore, r e c e n t s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t above 1200' e l e v a t i o n , h i g h s e r v i c i n g and maintenance c o s t s render development uneconomic. a new 1200'. acre.  In order to p r o h i b i t development i n t h i s  zoning by-law permits one  house per f i v e a c r e s above  T h i s r e p l a c e s the p r e v i o u s The  zoning of one  l a r g e l o t zoning i l l u s t r a t e s the  as an important a s s e t .  house p e r  political  committment to environmental concerns which the department regards  area,  planning  43  b. C l u s t e r Development The g u i d e l i n e s f o r development above the Upper L e v e l s Highway recommend an o v e r a l l d e n s i t y of 2 . 5 u n i t s per a c r e . However, much g r e a t e r d e n s i t i e s are allowed i n areas of l e s s e r slope i n order to permit areas w i t h v e r y steep slope to remain undeveloped.  Panorama V i l l a g e , one  i n t h i s area, has a d e n s i t y of 18.5  of the f i r s t p r o j e c t s u n i t s per acre on  one  of the most " e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e and economic" of the a v a i l a b l e sites.  No p u b l i c l a n d was  d e d i c a t e d because of the  s u i t a b i l i t y f o r b u i l d i n g , but impost used to buy  site's"  f e e s c o l l e c t e d are to be  10 a c r e s of l a n d " f o r m u n i c i p a l  purposes."^  Developed areas are to be separated by g r e e n b e l t s designed  to r e t a i n the f o r e s t c h a r a c t e r of the a r e a and  l i m i t rapid run-off.  to  A r e c e n t development, f o r example,  r e t a i n e d a b u f f e r s t r i p of t r e e s e n c i r c l i n g the b u i l t - u p a r e a . C l u s t e r i n g of housing u n i t s i s recommended "as a means of p r e s e r v i n g green b e l t areas and o b t a i n i n g p u b l i c ownership o f creek zones...."  Where l a n d i s d e d i c a t e d to the  m u n i c i p a l i t y o r preserved from development by cohvenant, the developer may  i n c l u d e the open space lands i n c a l c u l a t i n g  the number of u n i t s p e r m i t t e d .  Because of i t s a d a p t a b i l i t y  to b l u s t e r i n g , townhouse development i s recommended above the Upper L e v e l s Highway.  c.  Taxation  O c c a s i o n a l l y , p r i v a t e open space, l a r g e e s t a t e s recreation f a c i l i t i e s ,  are threatened  of the high taxes on l a n d v a l u e .  or  w i t h s u b d i v i s i o n because  In West Vancouver, t h i s  problem can be severe because of the l a c k i f developable l a n d and  the h i g h p r i c e of raw  land i n desirable l o c a t i o n s .  Because the m u n i c i p a l i t y cannot a f f o r d to buy s u b j e c t to p r e s s u r e s  a l l the  f o r development, much open space i s l o s t .  In some i n s t a n c e s , however, the p r i v a t e open space threatened Such was  land  serves a p a r t i c u l a r l y v a l u a b l e  being  community f u n c t i o n .  the case r e c e n t l y w i t h a g o l f course i n B r i t i s h  P r o p e r t i e s which the owners wished to subdivide h i g h taxes.  Although the g o l f course was  because of  private, i t s loss  would i n c r e a s e demand elsewhere i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y beyond the c a p a c i t y of e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . a b l e to a f f o r d to buy c a t e g o r y under Sec  The m u n i c i p a l i t y ,  not  the g o l f course, c r e a t e d a s p e c i a l tax  328A of the M u n i c i p a l  tax on the g o l f course was  considerably  a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of open space was  A c t so t h a t the lower.  In t h i s  land way  protected.  d.  Gifts  The  d e d i c a t i o n of p r o j e c t open space i s u s u a l l y welcome,  a l t h o u g h a r e c e n t experience may evaluate  the u s e f u l n e s s  Back y a r d rights-of-way dedicated  cause the m u n i c i p a l i t y  of f u t u r e d e d i c a t i o n s more thoroughly. f o r l a n e s i n B r i t i s h P r o p e r t i e s were  to West Vancouver f o r $ 1 . 0 0 .  o f t h i s d e d i c a t i o n was  to  to provide  The  o n l y purpose  a tax deduction f o r the  45 developer. for  However, the r i g h t s - o f - w a y  were found u n s u i t a b l e  meaningful t r a i l s as they were e s s e n t i a l l y  l e a d i n g nowhere.  "left-overs",  Instead o f c o n t r i b u t i n g to m u n i c i p a l  open  space, the d e d i c a t i o n became a burden, not o n l y r e q u i r i n g maintenance but e n t a i l i n g m u n i c i p a l l i a b i l i t y D.  as w e l l .  B a t c h e l o r Cove West Vancouver's w a t e r f r o n t  i s a valuable asset,  but  i t s p r e s e r v a t i o n r e q u i r e s s t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t i o n of f u t u r e development. to  S i g n i f i c a n t amounts of ocean f r o n t were l o s t  the p u b l i c through s u b d i v i s i o n before the i n t r o d u c t i o n of  l a n d use  contracts.  Now,  however, the l a n d use  contract  p r o v i d e s an e f f e c t i v e d e v i s e whereby the m u n i c i p a l i t y can n e g o t i a t e the design o f o c e a n f r o n t p u b l i c access areas  to the beach.  development so as to p r o v i d e  The a c q u i s i t i o n o f p u b l i c beach  i s also of high p r i o r i t y . A r e c e n t s u b d i v i s i o n a t B a t c h e l o r Cove i l l u s t r a t e s  how  open space can s u c c e s s f u l l y be achieved  The  s i t e , an a r e a o f approximately  o f ocean f r o n t a g e .  A trail  by l a n d use  contract.  f i v e acres, contained  666'  through the n o r t h e r n p o r t i o n  o f the s i t e p r o v i d e d p e d e s t r i a n access  to the beach.  Under the zoning by-law, ten d w e l l i n g u n i t s c o u l d c o n s t r u c t e d on h a l f - a c r e l o t s .  The  be  r e l a t i v e l y large l o t s  would provide c o n s i d e r a b l e p r i v a t e open space but p u b l i c access to  the beach would be  eliminated.  46  Instead, a l a n d use c o n t r a c t was  drawn up f o r the a r e a .  Ten u n i t s were s t i l l p e r m i t t e d but the amount of p r i v a t e open space was to 150  c o n s i d e r a b l y reduced.  f e e t deep, was  A s t r i p of l a n d , 30  r e t a i n e d as p r o j e c t open space a l o n g  6 0 0 ' of ocean f r o n t a g e .  T h i s a r e a was  by the p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s .  to be h e l d i n common  Furthermore, a s t r i p of communally-  h e l d l a n d extended to the back of the p r o p e r t y to p r o v i d e p r i v a t e beach access to r e s i d e n t s whose l o t s d i d not  front  on the ocean. In a d d i t i o n , 1.3 including 66'  a c r e s were d e d i c a t e d to the m u n i c i p a l i t y ,  o f ocean f r o n t a g e .  The l a n d , l o c a t e d a t the  extreme n o r t h e r n t i p of the p r o p e r t y , a d j o i n e d the trail  to the beach.  existing  Thus, p u b l i c access to the beach was  not  o n l y r e t a i n e d but enhanced by the p r o v i s i o n o f a park a r e a f o r p i c n i c i n g or o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a l  activities.  Besides the r e t e n t i o n of p u b l i c and s e m i - p u b l i c open the s u b d i v i s i o n was preservation.  designed w i t h r e g a r d f o r views and t r e e  The houses were angled to p r o v i d e each u n i t  w i t h an ocean view.  E x t e r i o r decks were p l a c e d to take  advantage of these views. ever  space,  E x i s t i n g t r e e s were r e t a i n e d when-  feasible. The B a t c h e l o r Cove s u b d i v i s i o n s u c c e s s f u l l y r e a l i z e d  m u n i c i p a l open space o b j e c t i v e s f o r w a t e r f r o n t development. While adhering to the o v e r a l l d e n s i t y of one u n i t per a c r e , a l a r g e amount of p u b l i c open space was 1.3  created.  1/2 The  a c r e s d e d i c a t e d to West Vancouver r e p r e s e n t s a s i z e a b l e  c o n t r i b u t i o n to m u n i c i p a l w a t e r f r o n p r o p e r t y and c o n s t i t u t e s  47  a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n o f the t o t a l s i t e area.  In a d d i t i o n ,  p u b l i c access to the beach was r e t a i n e d f o r r e s i d e n t s o f e i t h e r the s u b d i v i s i o n i t s e l f  o r o f the neighbourhood.  a l l 4 0 % o f the s i t e was l e f t i n open space.  all,  In  Finally,  s i t e d e s i g n showed s e n s i t i v i t y to the e x i s t i n g n a t u r a l character  II.  o f the area, p r o t e c t i n g t r e e s and views.  Coquitlam7 A.  Background Although a v a r i e t y o f p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s may be found i n  Coquitlam, i t i s g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d w i t h some very steep s l o p e s . on s l o p e s  i s considered  by h i l l y  terrain  As r e s t r i c t i o n o f development  d e s i r a b l e , B e l c a r r a and Burke Mountain  are designated f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l development. Coquitlam contains  s e v e r a l l a k e s and major watercourses.  also  Indian Arm  borders on B e l c a r r a to the n o r t h .  The Coquitlam R i v e r  provides  further recreation opportunities.  To the south, the F r a s e r  R i v e r i s c u t o f f from p u b l i c access by the Trans-Canada Highway and  by i n d u s t r i a l development a l o n g i t s shores. Development i n Coquitlam i s unevenly d i s t r i b u t e d .  southwest p o r t i o n o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y In the n o r t h e a s t i n conjunction the o p p o r t u n i t y section.  The  i s heavily built-up.  s e c t o r , however, development i s j u s t b e g i n n i n g  w i t h a planned R e g i o n a l Town Center. e x i s t s f o r extensive  Hence,  pre-planning i n t h i s  A l i n e a r park system i s planned f o r Coquitlam Town  Center i n c o r p o r a t i n g two r a v i n e s and the Coquitlam S e v e r a l major parks are a l s o planned.  River.  48  Elsewhere  i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y , d e s t r u c t i o n o f r a v i n e s  through development brought a t t e n t i o n to the need f o r r a v i n e preservation.  The p l a n n i n g department  now  i n s i s t s on a 2 5 '  minimum b u i l d i n g setback from r a v i n e edges. Coquitlam's community p l a n i n d i c a t e s major park and open space f a c i l i t i e s  f o r the southeast s e c t o r .  When neighbourhood  parks are r e q u i r e d , a standard of 2 . 5 a c r e s per 1 0 0 0 p o p u l a t i o n i s used to determine  the acreage.  Other f a c t o r s such as  a v a i l a b i l i t y , method o f a c q u i s i t i o n o r c o s t , and influence s e l e c t i o n of land. to  location  The m u n i c i p a l i t y i s now  trying  remedy open space d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the o l d e r areas o f the  c i t y which were developed without s u f f i c i e n t r e g a r d f o r the need f o r park  facilities.  No comprehensive for  Coquitlam.  problem  8  open space p o l i c y has been developed  As the r e c e n t concern over r a v i n e s i n d i c a t e s ,  areas are o f t e n d e a l t w i t h as they appear.  space p o t e n t i a l o f each proposed  The open  subdivision i s evaluated  individually. B.  The S u b d i v i s i o n Process The s u b d i v i s i o n p r o c e s s i n Coquitlam d i f f e r s from  u s u a l l y employed by B.C.  that  municipalities i n J t h a t a subdivision  committee handles a l l s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s .  The  committee i s comprised o f two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the p l a n n i n g department, Approving  one o f whom, the m u n i c i p a l engineer, i s a l s o the Officer.  49  A landowner w i s h i n g t o s u b d i v i d e h i s p r o p e r t y  undertakes  i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h the p l a n n i n g department to a s c e r t a i n procedure,  p o s s i b l e m u n i c i p a l concerns,  and r e l e v a n t by-laws.  The p r o s p e c t i v e developer then draws up a s k e t c h p l a n , showing the g e n e r a l f e a t u r e s o f the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n . The s u b d i v i s i o n committee i n d i c a t e s what changes must o c c u r to the p l a n and what c o n d i t i o n s may be a t t a c h e d i n o r d e r f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n to be approved.  I f the p r o p o s a l appears to  p r e s e n t s p e c i a l problems, a p p r o p r i a t e departments o u t s i d e p l a n n i n g o r e n g i n e e r i n g may be n o t i f i e d f o r t h e i r comments. T h i s may i n c l u d e o t h e r m u n i c i p a l departments, o r r e g i o n a l provincial or federal  agencies.  Along w i t h the committee's recommendation and c o n d i t i o n s , the p r o p o s a l i s then forwarded departments.  to the e n g i n e e r i n g and p l a n n i n g  With the h e l p o f these departments, the a p p l i c a n t  draws up the s i t e and e n g i n e e r i n g p l a n s necessary  to make  a formal s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . Formal a p p l i c a t i o n i s made to the s u b d i v i s i o n committee, which reviews  the p r o p o s a l i n view o f m u n i c i p a l p o l i c i e s and  o t h e r concerns.  The p r o p o s a l i s e i t h e r accepted  subject to  s p e c i f i c conditions, or i t i s tabled f o r further consideration. A t t h i s p o i n t i n the p r o c e s s , the a p p l i c a t i o n should n o t need to be t a b l e d u n l e s s s p e c i a l circumstances  are involved. For  example, C o u n c i l a c t i o n may be necessary,  as i n a r e z o n i n g  a p p l i c a t i o n o r a l a n d use c o n t r a c t .  The a p p l i c a t i o n may a l s o  50  be  tabled  i f the approval o f another governmental agency,  such as the Department o f Highways, or the Department o f the Environment, i s r e q u i r e d .  I f i n s u f f i c i e n t information i s  a v a i l a b l e f o r the committee t o decide, the a p p l i c a t i o n may be  t a b l e d pending f u r t h e r  analysis.  When the s u b d i v i s i o n committee approves the a p p l i c a t i o n , " 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 application.  However, i t would be unusual to have an  a p p l i c a t i o n r e j e c t e d a f t e r the e n t i r e process o f n e g o t i a t i o n . The has  s u b d i v i s i o n committee system employed by Coquitlam  s e v e r a l advantages.  Because the committee i s composed o f  s t a f f from both p l a n n i n g and e n g i n e e r i n g departments, i n t e r departmental c o o p e r a t i o n i s f a c i l i t a t e d . input  More important,  from both these departments i s i n c o r p o r a t e d  s u b d i v i s i o n process from the o u t s e t . i s responsible  n o t only  Moreover, the committee  f o r on-going s u p e r v i s i o n  a p p l i c a t i o n , but also, u l t i m a t e l y ,  i n t o the  o f the  f o r the d e c i s i o n .  As the  approving o f f i c e r i s a committee member, the chances o f a r r i v i n g a t a s a t i s f a c t o r y s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n are enhanced. committee system was created and be  by C o u n c i l  The  i n order to s i m p l i f y  expedite the s u b d i v i s i o n approval p r o c e s s .  I t seems to  an e f f e c t i v e improvement. As  i s frequently  the case i n B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Co-  q u i t l a m ' s a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r i s the m u n i c i p a l engineer. s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l by-law i n s t r u c t s the approving to c o n s i d e r  The  officer  a number o f aspects o f a proposed development  51  which might be used to p r o t e c t open space.  F o r example, a l l  s u b d i v i s i o n s must be " s u i t e d to the c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f the Q  land being  subdivided."  7  T h i s s e c t i o n may be used to prevent  s u b d i v i s i o n s on e c o l o g i c a l l y - s e n s i t i v e areas o f a t r a c t o f l a n d . „ F o r example, i t has been used to prevent b u i l d i n g too c l o s e to a r a v i n e . The  by-law f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t the approving  officer  s h a l l n o t approve a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n which " i s n o t s u i t e d to the use to which i t i s intended."  The by-law then attempts  to d e f i n e t h i s phrase and to i d e n t i f y areas o f p a r t i c u l a r concern.  Lands s u b j e c t to e r o s i o n , lands which may s l i p o r  cause a s l i p , lands  s u b j e c t t o f l o o d i n g , and l a n d h a v i n g  inadequate drainage, a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned as u n s u i t a b l e . P r o v i s i o n i s made i n the by-law f o r the c o n d i t i o n a l approval  o f s u b d i v i s i o n s i n s e n s i t i v e areas.  Such s u b d i v i s i o n s  may be approved i f the landowner r e g i s t e r s "a c o n d i t i o n o r covenant pursuant to S e c t i o n 2M-A o f the Land R e g i s t r y A c t i n favour  o f the C o r p o r a t i o n  o f the D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam."  Such a covenant may p r o h i b i t o r r e s t r i c t any use o f o r b u i l d i n g upon a p a r c e l o r p a r t o f a p a r c e l s u b j e c t to 11  environmental hazard. In order to make a knowledgeable assessment o f the c a p a c i t y o f the l a n d to s u s t a i n development, the Approving O f f i c e r may request A topographical i s steep,  c e r t a i n information  from*the developer.  survey may be r e q u i r e d "where the t e r r a i n  i r r e g u l a r , o r otherwise d i f f i c u l t to a p p r a i s e . "  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 e n g i n e e r ' s  estimation  o f t h e 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 o f f l o o d i n g may a l s o be n e c e s s a r y . The s u b d i v i s i o n b y - l a w a u t h o 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 , t o hear o b j e c t i o n s  from any  i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n i n o r d e r t o determine i f t h e p r o p o s a l  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 o r a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t i e s o r would be a g a i n s t  the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .  I f t h e a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r b e l i e v e s t h a t l a n d s a d j a c e n t t o the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n might be a d v e r s e l y  a f f e c t e d he may  require  the s u b d i v i d e r t o n o t i f y nearby landowners o f h i s i n t e n t i o n to s u b d i v i d e ,  and o f t h e scheme o f s u b d i v i s i o n .  consent o f t h e n e i g h b o u r s may be r e q u i r e d to p r o c e e d .  The w r i t t e n  f o r the s u b d i v i s i o n  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r may  himself  n o t i f y t h e a d j a c e n t owners o f t h e 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 t h e e f f e c t o f t h e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n upon a d j o i n i n g o r n e i g h b o r i n g l a n d s 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 t h e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n . "  J  C o q u i t l a m ' s s u b d i v i s i o n by-law i s u n u s u a l i n t h a t i t concentrates, for  n o t upon s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f e n g i n e e r i n g  standards  s e r v i c i n g , b u t upon d e f i n i t i o n o f the r o l e o f the a p p r o v i n g  officer.  Because o f t h e vagueness o f t h e e n a b l i n g  this clarification i s useful.  legislation,  53 C. C o n t r o l 1.  Techniques  Parkland  A Municipal to c o n s i d e r new  "the  a c q u i s i t i o n fee r e s o l u t i o n i n s t r u c t s the a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r excessive  subdivisions e n t a i l .  c o s t s " o f p r o v i d i n g parks which The  developer's payment of a park-  l a n d 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,  per new  l o t , s i n c e November the amount has been $600.00.  As  the parkland  the fee r e q u i r e d was  $100.00  a c q u i s i t i o n fee a p p l i e s to a l l s u b d i v i s i o n s ,  r e g a r d l e s s of s i z e , i t i s the most common method by which Coquitlam addresses open space concern i n s u b d i v i s i o n . money t h a t i s exacted i n t h i s way  i s placed  f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of land. Generally, the e n t i r e m u n i c i p a l i t y , not  parkland  The  i n a fund earmarked aquired w i l l  serve  j u s t the s p e c i f i c development  from which the funds were c o 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 w i t h  regard  to s u b d i v i s i o n s .  The  f i r s t i s that a majority  of  development a p p l i c a t i o n r e c e i v e d are f o r areas too small permit a meaningful d e d i c a t i o n of parkland.  the to  In a d d i t i o n ,  f r e q u e n t l y there i s no l a n d w i t h i n the proposed development which, i f d e d i c a t e d ,  would c o n t r i b u t e to an open space system  by p r o v i d i n g l i n k a g e s o r l i n e a r parks. a severe shortage of parks and areas of the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  A second problem i s  open space i n the o l d e r b u i l t - u p  The more r e c e n t l y developed areas  have been s u b j e c t to more s t r i n g e n t s u b d i v i s i o n controls- w i t h  54 the r e s u l t t h a t these areas o f t e n are generously p r o v i d e d parks r e l a t i v e to o l d e r a r e a s .  I t was considered  with  desirable,  t h e r e f o r e , r a t h e r than to r e q u i r e o u t r i g h t d e d i c a t i o n o f l a n d I n s u b d i v i s i o n s i n new areas,  to exact a f e e which c o u l d 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 s p i t e o f i t s u s e f u l n e s s  i n most cases,  the park  a c q u i s i t i o n f e e i s n o t always the most a p p r o p r i a t e o f o b t a i n i n g open space i n s u b d i v i s i o n s . ments i t i s o f t e n d e s i r a b l e to n e g o t i a t e w i t h the developer.  method  In l a r g e r developspecific  conditions  Often l a r g e developments encompass l a n d  on which the m u n i c i p a l i t y would p r e f e r to l i m i t development. T h i s may i n c l u d e areas w i t h unstable to f l o o d i n g .  s o i l , o r areas  subject  F o r example, p r o t e c t i o n o f Coquitlam's many  r a v i n e s has r e c e n t l y become an important m u n i c i p a l  concern.  Because o f these environmental concerns, development a p p l i c a t i o n s may be approved s u b j e c t to the c o n d i t i o n t h a t no b u i l d i n g i s to o c c u r i n designated Often,  a r e a s o f the s i t e .  l a r g e s u b d i v i s i o n s c o n t a i n l a n d which the  m u n i c i p a l i t y wants f o r r e c r e a t i o n and park purposes.  As l a r g e  s u b d i v i s i o n s c r e a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the demand f o r these f a c i l i t i e s , provide  l a n d w i t h i n the development may be needed to  linkages f o r t r a i l s  m u n i c i p a l i t y may request  to other park f a c i l i t i e s .  t h a t these park and r e c r e a t i o n areas  be landscaped and developed to some extent the  developer.  The  a t the expense o f  55  When a s u b d i v i s i o n i n v o l v e s s p e c i a l circumstances e n t a i l i n g numerous p r o v i s i o n s f o r i t s a p p r o v a l ,  the D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam  e n t e r s a< c o n t r a c t u a l agreement w i t h the developer. development agreement, d e s c r i b e s d e v e l o p e r has agreed to  The  the c o n d i t i o n s which the  fulfill.  Because the development agreement i s a l e g a l l y  binding  c o n t r a c t between the c o r p o r a t i o n of the D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam and  the developer, C o u n c i l approval  i s necessary.  Therefore,  to a v o i d annoying and unnecessary d e l a y s , development agreements are used s p a r i n g l y . b i n d i n g and,  T h e i r advantage i s t h a t they are  as a c o n t r a c t , are bondable.  Thus, the  has a measure o f s e c u r i t y t h a t the developer w i l l ,  legally District  in fact,  f u l f i l l his obligations.  has,  3.  Land Use  Contract  The  l a n d use  c o n t r a c t i s r a r e l y used i n Coquitlam.  i n f a c t , been used approximately f i v e times.  case a l a r g e development r e q u i r i n g r e z o n i n g was Land use  It  In each  involved.  contracts require a p u b l i c hearing.  Because a  development agreement can achieve the same ends as a l a n d  use  c o n t r a c t , w i t h o u t the n e c e s s i t y of a p u b l i c h e a r i n g and i t s a t t e n d a n t delay and p o s s i b l e c o m p l i c a t i o n s , agreements are p r e f e r r e d . p u b l i c hearing.  development  Rezoning, however, r e q u i r e s  Since a p p l i c a t i o n s which n e c e s s i t a t e  w i l l i n v o l v e a p u b l i c h e a r i n g anyway, l a n d use used i n these  cases.  a rezoning  contracts  are  56 Apart  from the p u b l i c h e a r i n g requirement, Coquitlam  a v o i d s l a n d use c o n t r a c t s because they a r e c o n s i d e r e d too inflexible.  Of p a r t i c u l a r concern i s the problem of d i s c h a r g i n g  or changing a l a n d use c o n t r a c t .  As i t runs w i t h the l a n d i t  i s f e a r e d t h a t w i t h the l e a s t change, r e n e g o t i a t i o n o f the c o n t r a c t may be n e c e s s a r y .  A development agreement, on the  o t h e r hand, a p p l i e s o n l y to the c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i e d and i s considered  completed when the terms o f the c o n t r a c t have been  fulfilled. 4.  Other Methods a.  Informal  negotiations  D u r i n g the process frequently attaches  of s u b d i v i s i o n approval,  the m u n i c i p a l i t y  c o n d i t i o n s to the p r o p o s a l which a r e never  formalized i n a c o n t r a c t , but w i t h which the developer must comply i n order to r e c e i v e a p p r o v a l .  Payment o f the parkland  a c q u i s i t i o n f e e i s one example o f such a c o n d i t i o n .  Other  c o n d i t i o n s may i n v o l v e l a y o u t and d e s i g n o f the s u b d i v i s i o n and are achieved  i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the p l a n n i n g  department.  Requirements f o r l a n d s c a p i n g may a l s o be attached.  One r e c e n t  a p p l i c a t i o n to c r e a t e two l o t s from one on an u n u s u a l l y a t t r a c t i v e s i t e was approved s u b j e c t to "the r e t e n t i o n o f as much as p o s s i b l e o f the p r e s e n t p a r k l i k e s e t t i n g and 14 atmosphere. Conditions  o f t h i s s o r t a r e d i f f i c u l t to e n f o r c e .  l a r g e degree, the g o o d w i l l and c o o p e r a t i o n r e l i e d upon.  To a  o f the developer i s  As the m u n i c i p a l i t y would not,  i n a l l likelihood,  57  go to c o u r t , an i n f r a c t i o n of these i n f o r m a l p r o b a b l y be overlooked.  On  agreements would  the o t h e r hand, developers wish to  m a i n t a i n a c o r d i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y because many of them submit s e v e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n s per y e a r f o r  approval.  b. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenant Occasionally,  the m u n i c i p a l i t y r e c e i v e s 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 s m a l l s i t e , but one s p e c i a l circumstances. conforms to the  conditions  imposed by the m u n i c i p a l i t y ,  be r e g i s t e r e d w i t h the  and  a  subdivision.  case i n v o l v e d a s i n g l e l o t s u b d i v i s i o n on a steep  s l o p e , a d j a c e n t to a r a v i n e . to a 2 5 '  involves  In o r d e r to ensure t h a t the development  r e s t r i c t i v e covenant may A recent  which n e v e r t h e l e s s  The  proposal  setback from the p r o p e r t y  was  approved  l i n e bordering  a r e s t r i c t i o n on b u i l d i n g above a given  the  subject  ravine  elevation.  c. Rights-rof-way In r e c e n t y e a r s ,  Coquitlam has  to a c q u i r i n g p u b l i c access to B.C. time of the i n t e r v i e w ,  negotiations  m u n i c i p a l i t y , a developer, and  B.C.  paid increasing attention Hydro r i g h t s - o f - w a y .  the  were underway between the Hydro to a c q u i r e  a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n w i t h i n the B.C. park and  At  lands i n  Hydro r i g h t - o f - w a y " f o r  r e c r e a t i o n purposes as an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f the  Scott  Creek l i n e a r parkway s y s t e m . " ^ 1  D.  Eagle Ridge Eagle Ridge i s a l a r g e s c a l e development on approximately  400  acres.  Located i n Coquitlam's underdeveloped  northeast  s e c t o r , i t i s the f i r s t of a s e r i e s of ^ s u b d i v i s i o n s to take  58 p l a c e i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the development o f the town c e n t e r . In a l l , about 1700  d w e l l i n g u n i t s a r e to be c o n s t r u c t e d .  Now  underway, the development i s proceeding by stages, and i s ; expected Due  to be completed i n  1978.  to the u n u s u a l l y l a r g e s c a l e o f the s u b d i v i s i o n , the  p r o v i s i o n o f open space w i t h i n the development was o f p a r t i c u l a r concern.  In a d d i t i o n , the s i t e had two unusual  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f which both the developers, BACM development c o r p o r a t i o n , and the m u n i c i p a l i t y were anxious advantage.  to take  An o u t s t a n d i n g n a t u r a l f e a t u r e , the S c o t t Creek  r a v i n e , b i s e c t s the e a s t e r n s e c t i o n o f the s i t e from n o r t h to south.  The s i t e i s a l s o c r o s s e d by a BC Hydro  right-of-way,  a g a i n d i v i d i n g the s i t e from n o r t h t o south, s l i g h t l y west o f 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 a l s o s p e c i a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h regard to open The accepted  development concept  space.  i n i t i a l l y proposed by BACM was  i n p r i n c i p l e by the m u n i c i p a l i t y , as p a r t o f the  preliminary application.  T h i s meant t h a t the more  d e t a i l s would be worked out i n time.  specific  A h i e r a r c h y o f parks  w i t h i n the development were t o be e s t a b l i s h e d , based on the a n t i c i p a t e d d e n s i t y o f development.  Neighbourhood parks,  "intended p r i m a r i l y to serve p r e - s c h o o l and elementary c h i l d r e n . . . l o c a t e d w i t h i n 1/2  m i l e o f the r e s i d e n t s to be  served" were to be p r o v i d e d a t a standard o f 1.25 thousand persons.  5,600 persons,  school  acres per  A n t i c i p a t i n g an u l t i m a t e p o p u l a t i o n o f  BACM proposed a t o t a l o f  7 acres  o f park.  T h e r e f o r e , one " f u l l - s i z e d 5 acre park f o r development  a d j a c e n t to the elementary  s c h o o l s i t e " was  suggested,  five  a c r e s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d "the optimum s i z e of the neighbourhood parks.  "The  remaining two  a c r e s would be p r o v i d e d " i n the  form of s m a l l e r t o t - l o t s l o c a t e d i n the Hydro easement and o t h e r g r e e n b e l t spaces where they can be of p a r t i c u l a r b e n e f i t to the h i g h e r d e n s i t y forms of f a m i l y - h o u s i n g . " ^ 1  Community parks and town parks serve an a r e a beyond the development i t s e l f .  P r o v i s i o n was  to  a s p e c i f i c standard but was  of  the s i t e .  The  n o t determined  according  based upon s p e c i a l f e a t u r e s  developer proposed t h a t :  the S c o t t Creek Ravine, w i t h i t s b e a u t i f u l r u s h i n g stream and h e a v i l y wooded banks lends i t s e l f i d e a l l y to t h i s purpose and i t . . . ( s h o u l d ) ...be d e d i c a t e d as a p u b l i c park to be l e f t as much as i s p o s s i b l e i n i t s n a t u r a l wooded condition.*7 The B.C. purposes.  Hydro Easement was  a l s o considered f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l  In a d d i t i o n to the t o t - l o t s mentioned above, a  system of t r a i l s was  suggested.  The Upland p o r t i o n of the  Easement "could be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the Regional  Trail  System proposed to l i n k the f u t u r e Regional Parks a t Burke 18  Mountain and B e l c a r r a . " B.A.C.M. c o r p o r a t i o n designed  the s i t e so t h a t the  development would compliment the n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the l a n d .  In r e s i d e n t i a l l a y o u t , areas of h i g h d e n s i t y were  concentrated a d j a c e n t to the commercial c e n t e r . E x c e p t i o n s to t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e are a s t r i p of l o w - d e n s i t y m u l t i - f a m i l y development proposed f o r the narrow, s t e e p l y s l o p i n g bank below C o r o n a t i o n Heights near the southwest c o r n e r . . . ; and a c l u s t e r of s i m i l a r l o w - d e n s i t y m u l t i -  60  f a m i l y development near the P o r t Moody boundary....The u n i t s i n t h i s area w i l l be arranged to a l l o w f o r a p u b l i c p e d e s t r i a n way to l i n k the S c o t t Creek Ravine to a major park proposed i n the P o r t Moody P l a n ; " ° 1  In a l l , a t o t a l o f about 84 a c r e s , o r approximately  21$  o f the s i t e were l e f t i n open space or o t h e r p u b l i c uses. E x c l u d i n g the B.C.  Hydro right-of-way,  9$ of the t o t a l a r e a . conservation  32.5  a c r e s remain, or  T h i s example i l l u s t r a t e s  that  the  of open space w i t h i n a s u b d i v i s i o n does not  n e c e s s a r i l y p l a c e an u n f a i r burden on e i t h e r the o r the f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s .  Although a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n  t h i s s i t e remains as usable  open space, much of t h i s  would not have been b u i l d a b l e i n any t o t a l s i t e was  case.  The  r a v i n e l a n d , o r easement.  remainder was The  of area  Only Ifo of  o u t r i g h t d e d i c a t i o n o f parkland  recreation f a c i l i t i e s .  developer  the  f o r community  school  site,  commendable aspect  of  Ridge i s t h a t r e c r e a t i o n p o t e n t i a l of the s i t e was  Eagle  considered  and a meaningful system o f usable open space was  created.  T h i s open space..not o n l y serves the r e s i d e n t s of  the  s u b d i v i s i o n , but p r o v i d e s l i n k a g e s w i t h other parks and  trail  systems. The  Eagle  Ridge development was  a development agreement.  negotiated  by means of  In a d d i t i o n to the d e d i c a t i o n to  the m u n i c i p a l i t y of the park and  s c h o o l s i t e s and  other open  spaces such as the S c o t t Creek Ravine, the development agreement r e q u i r e d BACM to c o n s t r u c t s p e c i f i c facilities.  recreation  These i n c l u d e d t e n n i s c o u r t s , a heated outdoor  61  swimming p o o l , b a s e b a l l and s o c c e r f i e l d s , a l a c r o s s e box, and an adventure playground.  The developer a l s o agreed t o :  R e t a i n the s e r v i c e s o f a r e g i s t e r e d Landscape A r c h i t e c t to l a y o u t and design and to c o n s t r u c t and fund the r a v i n e walkway system, the dyke walkway o r b i c y c l e pathway system a l o n g S c o t t Creek w i t h i n the open green space c o n n e c t i n g w i t h the c i t y o f Port Moody - i n c l u d i n g the Hydro r i g h t of-way. . . " 2 0  These p r o v i s i o n s o f the development agreement were bonded, i n stages, as the development progressed. 21 III  Burnaby A. Background Burnaby's n o t a b l e g e o g r a p h i c a l f e a t u r e s i n c l u d e Burnaby  Mountain, Burnaby and Deer Lakes, B u r r a r d I n l e t , and the Fraser River.  The r e c r e a t i o n and open space value o f these  f e a t u r e s i s w e l l r e c o g n i z e d i n Burnaby's open space p l a n s . Burnaby Mountain has r e c e n t l y been designated a C o n s e r v a t i o n Area w i t h no b u i l d i n g to be p e r m i t t e d above the 5 0 0 ' e l e v a t i o n . The d e c i s i o n came i n response to continued p r e s s u r e to develop the  mountain f o r housing. The Burnaby Lake r e g i o n , now undeveloped, i s planned f o r  l i m i t e d development as a major r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t y . conjunction with t h i s ,  In  " p a r k l i k e development" on Deer Lake w i l l  promote the r e t e n t i o n o f the Burnaby C e n t r a l V a l l e y as a 22 recreation area. The key f e a t u r e o f Burnaby's proposed open space p l a n i s the  c r e a t i o n o f an i n t e g r a t e d system o f parks and urban t r a i l s .  The t r a i l concept has been developed over many y e a r s b e g i n n i n g more than 10 y e a r s ago.  P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n i s g i v e n to  p r o v i d i n g p e d e s t r i a n access to B u r r a r d I n l e t and the F r a s e r R i v e r and to c r e a t i n g t r a i l s to connect major parks.  Burnaby's  many creeks and r a v i n e s a r e important components o f the t r a i l system. The G.V.R.D. notes? '  v  Burnaby now has the most comprehensive and c a r e f u l l y thought-out system i n the Region o f m u n i c i p a l and r e g i o n a l parks, w a t e r f r o n t access to B u r r a r d I n l e t and the F r a s e r R i v e r , 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 developed, i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to t r a v e l from B u r r a r d I n l e t t o the F r a s e r R i v e r e n t i r e l y i n major parks, o r through l i n e a r parks o r urban t r a i l s . " 2 3 In d e v e l o p i n g the l i n e a r parks i d e a , economy was an  important v a r i a b l e .  Wherever p o s s i b l e , m u n i c i p a l l a n d , 24  unused s t r e e t allowances, and r i g h t s - o f - w a y a r e u t i l i z e d . Although n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned  i n the concept p l a n , i t  f o l l o w s that open space a c q u i s i t i o n through  subdivision  c o n t r o l c o u l d p l a y a major r o l e . Burnaby has a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e amount o f undeveloped l a n d , e s p e c i a l l y i n the e a s t e r n s e c t o r o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y . In a d d i t i o n , development o f a r e g i o n a l town c e n t e r i s planned f o r the C e n t r a l Park area-.  Many new s u b d i v i s i o n s can t h e r e f o r e  be expected i n Burnaby over the next few y e a r s . In s p i t e o f the e x t e n s i v e p l a n n i n g which has gone i n t o the development o f i t s open space p l a n , Burnaby has, as y e t , no comprehensive  p o l i c i e s governing open space 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 . The urban t r a i l s concept w i t h i t s proposed major parks and c o n n e c t i n g l i n k s guides the s e l e c t i o n o f open space  63  for acquisition i n subdivisions. p r o t e c t e d and  t r e e s preserved  Creeks and  Subdivision  are  where p o s s i b l e to r e t a i n the  f o r e s t atmosphere of Burnaby*s undeveloped B.  ravines  areas.  Process  Burnaby's s u b d i v i s i o n process i s t y p i c a l of t h a t employed' by B.C. palnning  municipalities.  The  department, who  p o l i c i e s and  a p p l i c a t i o n i s handled by  informs the a p p l i c a n t o f  a s s i s t s i n preparation  Upon r e c e i p t of the  a p p l i c a t i o n , the p l a n n i n g  department evaluates  preliminary the proposed  regulations.  be assessed f o r open space p o t e n t i a l .  The  The  r a v i n e s , and  site  may  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 o f stands of mature t r e e s , to creeks and  municipal  of a sketch p l a n f o r  preliminary application.  development i n view of m u n i c i p a l  the  access to r e c r e a t i o n  proximity  facilities.  a p p l i c a t i o n i s then granted t e n t a t i v e a p p r o v a l ,  subject  to c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s of which the developer i s n o t i f i e d . These c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e conformance w i t h the s u b d i v i s i o n by-laws p l u s such other may  deem a p p r o p r i a t e .  r e t e n t i o n of designated  zoning  and  c o n d i t i o n s as the  municipality  A d d i t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s might i n c l u d e  the  t r e e s o r b u i l d i n g setbacks from a r a v i n e .  Having r e c e i v e d c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o v a l ,  the developer prepares  the d e t a i l e d p l a n s which must accompany h i s formal a p p l i c a t i o n . These p l a n s are s t u d i e d by the p l a n n i n g  department and  appears to be i n order the a p p l i c a t i o n i s forwarded to approving o f f i c e r f o r h i s f i n a l  judgement.  ifall the  64  The approving o f f i c e r f o r Burnaby i s the P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r . P l a n n i n g i n p u t appears to be i n c o r p o r a t e d throughout s u b d i v i s i o n approval p r o c e s s .  The powers o f the  the  approving  o f f i c e r are g e n e r a l l y as o u t l i n e d i n the M u n i c i p a l and Land R e g i s t r y A c t s . The  s u b d i v i s i o n by-law l e a v e s the  approving  o f f i c e r a r e l a t i v e l y f r e e hand i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f statutes.  these  However, the by-law s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e s r e f u s a l  o f a s u b d i v i s i o n i f i t c o n t a i n s l a n d s u b j e c t e i t h e r to e r o s i o n o r to f l o o d i n g , "so as to render i t u n s u i t a b l e f o r the use which i t i s intended." s p e c i f i e s engineering  J  to  The r e s t o f the s u b d i v i s i o n by-law  standards.  In c o n s i d e r i n g the s u i t a b i l i t y of the intended use of a site,  the approving o f f i c e r does c o n s i d e r m u n i c i p a l p l a n s .  A  s u b d i v i s i o n presumably would not be approved, t h e r e f o r e , i f i t v i o l a t e d s p e c i f i c open space o b j e c t i v e s . C.  C o n t r o l Techniques 1.  Parkland A c q u i s i t i o n Levy (Appendix  D)  Probably the most g e n e r a l l y a p p l i e d measure to p r o v i d e open space i n r e s i d e n t i a l developments i s Burnaby's p a r k l a n d acquisition levy.  Payment of t h i s l e v y i s one  c o n d i t i o n s , a l o n g w i t h zoning and  servicing  of the  standard  specifications,  f o r the t e n t a t i v e approval of the s u b d i v i s i o n . Many o f Burnaby's r e s i d e n t i a l areas were e x p e r i e n c i n g r a p i d development o r redevelopment to h i g h e r d e n s i t i e s .  The  r a p i d growth of these areas i n c r e a s e d the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l neighbourhood parks.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , s u b d i v i s i o n s i n these  were o f t e n too small to c o n t r i b u t e l a n d s u i t a b l e f o r park  areas purposes.  65 Another m u n i c i p a l  p r i o r i t y was the c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f  community park areas i n t o an open space system. necessitated  This  the a c q u i s i t i o n o f key p r o p e r t i e s as they became  available. The need f o r the park a c q u i s i t i o n l e v y i s e x p l a i n e d  as  follows: Due i n p a r t 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 o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n budgeting f o r p a r k l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n , i t has been deemed a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t the developers o f 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 o f n e c e s s a r y neighbourhood parks. Accordingly,  C o u n c i l approved a l e v y "equal t o 50%  o f the  estimated a c q u i s i t i o n c o s t o f neighbourhood p a r k l a n d . " Because the l e v y was c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g space standard o f 2.0  a c r e s p e r 1,000  of the l e v y v a r i e s a c c o r d i n g development.  to a r e c r e a t i o n a l  persons, the amount  to the d e n s i t y o f the proposed  $521.00 p e r u n i t f o r $1,125.00 p e r u n i t f o r a t h r e e -  The amount ranges from  a single family dwelling  to  s t o r y apartment a t d e n s i t i e s o f 50 u n i t s o r more p e r a c r e . The  l e v y f o r s e n i o r c i t i z e n s developments were reduced to 50%  of the u s u a l The  levy.  l e v y i s used to a c q u i r e  p a r k l a n d i n the immediate  a r e a from which the funds are c o l l e c t e d .  F o r t h i s purpose  the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s d i v i d e d i n t o 36 Neighbourhood P l a n n i n g Areas.  The p a r k l a n d l e v y can o n l y be used w i t h i n the same  Neighbourhood P l a n n i n g a r e a " o r i n any d i r e c t l y area."  abutting  66  A developer may be exempted from the l e v y requirement i f he  dedicates  "appropriate  designated  the l e v y i s n o t an i n f l e x i b l e p o l i c y . d e d i c a t i o n o f s u i t a b l e parkland  parkland"  instead.  Thus,  In p r a c t i c e , the o u t r i g h t  i s a top p r i o r i t y i n reviewing  a subdivision application. 2. Informal N e g o t i a t i o n s * V i r t u a l l y a l l s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l i n Burnaby i s the r e s u l t o f i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s between the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the prospective  developer.  Land use c o n t r a c t s are n o t used, n o r  are development agreements.  In order to bond the p r o v i s i o n  of necessary i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , s e r v i c i n g agreements are arranged w i t h the developer.  Landscaping requirements may be s t i p u l a t e d  i n the s e r v 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 i n c l u d e d .  The m u n i c i p a l i t y d i s t r u s t s the b i n d i n g  n a t u r e o f l a n d use c o n t r a c t s , and attempts to accomplish the same ends by other means.  Development agreements are avoided  a l s o except to enable performance bonding. a.  Dedication  Dedication negotiation.  o f open space i s o f t e n arranged through  informal  U n t i l r e c e n t l y , however, the m u n i c i p a l i t y met  w i t h o n l y l i m i t e d success i n these e f f o r t s .  In d e v e l o p i n g i t s  own l a n d s , Burnaby attempted t o s e t an example f o r p r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r s to f o l l o w . In s i n g l e f a m i l y s u b d i v i s i o n s , f o r example, up to 2 0 $ o f the t o t a l area was l e f t i n open space. T r e e - c u t t i n g was prevented by r e s t r i c t i v e covenant and s i t i n g approval  was r e q u i r e d f o r any f u t u r e  construction.  67  Unfortunately,  i f they were impressed by the  municipality's  example, p r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r s were not i n s p i r e d to the same magnanimity.  The m u n i c i p a l i t y , i n t u r n , c o u l d not f o r c e  d e v e l o p e r s to c o n t r i b u t e  s i g n i f i c a n t l y to p u b l i c open space.  T h i s s t a t e of a f f a i r s has years.  the  altered considerably  i n recent  I n c r e a s i n g l y , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s concerned over l o s s of open  space through development, have experimented w i t h v a r i o u s measures to conserve open space i n new use  contract l e g i s l a t i o n provided  d e d i c a t i o n s achieved  subdivisions.  Land  a l e g a l b a s i s f o r imposts  through n e g o t i a t i o n s .  such as Burnaby, which d i d not use  '  the new  and  Even i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , device,  developers  became much more accomodating to the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s open space concerns. Burnaby's i n t r o d u c t i o n of the park a c q u i s i t i o n l e v y  saw  a marked improvement i n s u c c e s s f u l n e g o t i a t i o n f o r d e d i c a t i o n o f open space i n s u b d i v i s i o n s .  R e a l i z i n g t h a t the a l t e r n a t i v e  to d e d i c a t i o n i s payment of the l e v y , developers are more w i l l i n g to s e t a s i d e such l a n d as the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n d i c a t e s shoudl be conserved.  As mentioned e a r l i e r , the d e d i c a t i o n  of  s u i t a b l e l a n d i s the f i r s t p r i o r i t y i n s u b d i v i s i o n s l a r g e enough to make a n e a n i n g f u l  c o n t r i b u t i o n to community open space.  In s p i t e of t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to accept 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 , Burnaby i s r e l u c t a n t to have the a c q u i r e d r e g i s t e r e d as park. as m u n i c i p a l  Instead,  the d e d i c a t e d  parcel i s indicated  l a n d on the p l a n s to be d e p o s i t e d  Registry Office.  land  i n the Land -  T h i s i s done to a v o i d p o s s i b l e  legal  68  complications  i f , f o r any  i t s mind about the use  reason, the m u n i c i p a l i t y changes  of the l a n d i n q u e s t i o n .  Understandably,  d e v e l o p e r s sometimes i n s i s t t h a t the p a r c e l be designated  as  park. b.  Design c o n t r o l  Through the i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n p r o c e s s ,  the d e s i g n  and  l a y o u t of the s u b d i v i s i o n can o f t e n be i n f l u e n c e d to p r o t e c t p a r t i c u l a r n a t u r a l a t t r i b u t e s o f the s i t e . greenspace a d j a c e n t objective. along may  to water courses i s a major  Accordingly,  r e t e n t i o n of a 5 0 - 1 0 0 '  streambanks i s r e q u i r e d i n new  be d e d i c a t e d  A c q u i s i t i o n of  to the m u n c i p a l i t y  municipal strip  subdivisions. or i t may  of l a n d  The  land  remain as p r o j e c t  open space. P r o t e c t i o n of f o r e s t cover i s a l s o a major concern and d e v e l o p e r may  the  be r e q u i r e d to e i t h e r b u i l d around h e a v i l y t r e e d  a r e a s o r to r e t i a n s e l e c t e d t r e e s . c.  C l u s t e r development  In the event o f r e z o n i n g ,  the c l u s t e r p r i n c i p l e i s  f r e q u e n t l y used to achieve the o b j e c t i v e s mentioned above. Increased  d e n s i t i e s are permitted  r e s t i s l e f t as open space.  on p a r t of the s i t e ;  T h i s technique has been  f u l l y a p p l i e d to r a v i n e c o n s e r v a t i o n . procedure r e q u i r e s a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , achieve an a t t r a c t i v e s i t e design p r o j e c t acceptable  Because the  the success-  rezoning  developers are anxious to  i n order to make the proposed  t o t t h e neighbourhood.  Local residents  are  69  a l s o i n c r e a s i n g l y s e n s i t i v e t o the a d d i t i o n a l burden which new s u b d i v i s i o n s p l a c e on e x i s t i n g parks and s c h o o l s . Municipal  p l a n n e r s can t h e r e f o r e w i e l d c o n s i d e r a b l e  upon open space p r o v i s i o n s and upon the design involving 3.  influence  of a proposal  rezoning. R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants  Covenants a r e f r e q u e n t l y used, e s p e c i a l l y to p r o t e c t trees.  Trees are r e t a i n e d e i t h e r to preserve mature specimens  o r to provide  a b u f f e r s t r i p a l o n g roads.  In a l l r e c e n t  d i v i s i o n s , t r e e covenants are a p p l i e d to p r o p e r t y streets.  sub-  a b u t t i n g major  Recent c o n s t r u c t i o n a l o n g Winston S t r e e t p r o v i d e s an  example o f t h i s  technique.  Tree covenants p r o h i b i t b u i l d i n g and t r e e - c u t t i n g .  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 t r e e s as "no  c u t t i n g permitted"  o r "no c u t t i n g recommended".  I f an  owner wishes t o remove t r e e s i n the former category he must apply  t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y f o r a c u t t i n g p e r m i t .  Such a permit  w i l l g e n e r a l l y be granted f o r the removal o f unhealthy t r e e s o r i n other unusual circumstances. Tree covenants a r e d i f f i c u l t t o e n f o r c e .  Because covenants  o f f e r a p r i v a t e b e n e f i t to i n d i v i d u a l landowners by enhancing the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s ofua neighbourhood, v i o l a t i o n s among r e s i d e n t s are infrequent. occasionally f a i l In most i n s t a n c e s , of p r o t e c t e d  B u i l d i n g c o n t r a c t o r s , however,  to appreciate  the need f o r c o n s e r v i n g  the m u n i c i p a l i t y overlooks  illegal  trees. felling  t r e e s because o f the time and money i n v o l v e d i n  70  b r i n g i n g a case to court.  Occasionally,  s u c c e e d e d i n d e m a n d i n g t h a t t r e e s be  however, C o u n c i l  replanted.  Another problem i n v o l v e s p o t e n t i a l municipal should a protected  tree f a l l  causing  has  liability  i n j u r y o r damaging  property.  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 to c e r t i f y t h a t the 4.  protected  t r e e s are  healthy.  Land Exchange  In i t s p l a n s of undeveloped a r e a s the m u n i c i p a l i t y has  unnecessary road allowances.  bisect property  so a s  e x c h a n g e may  arranged.  be  d e v e l o p m e n t on of land  the  Where m u n i c i p a l  The  municipality w i l l  road allowance i n return  i n exchange.  a p p r o v e s an  land  permit  f o r the  A recent exchange.  u s u a l l y to the  dedication  often achieve quite  i t receives  v a l u e to the  land  land received  desirable seldom  greater by  the  than  developer proposed a s i n g l e f a m i l y  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  a r e a on B u r n a b y M o u n t a i n . a c c e s s to the  However, t h e r e  back l o t s which a d j o i n e d  m u n i c i p a l i t y agreed to dedicate l a n d i f the  I n r e t u r n , the  the  a 15'  no  land  subdivision  official was  or  developer.  s u b d i v i s i o n i l l u s t r a t e s another type of  The  conservation  developer's  I n p r a c t i c e , the m u n i c i p a l i t y  exchange u n l e s s  e q u a l i n a r e a and  The  a  elsewhere.  advantage, the m u n i c i p a l i t y can  two  allowances  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 ,  Because such arrangements are  parcels  road  often  conservation  convenient  conservation  land.  r o a d a l l o w a n c e on  developer would a l s o dedicate  developer a l s o agreed to dedicate  a small  the  15'• park  71  a b u t t i n g h i s s u b d i v i s i o n and  the c o n s e r v a t i o n  area.  an advantageous arrangement f o r the m u n i c i p a l i t y . did  they a c q u i r e  but  the newly c r e a t e d road p r o v i d e d  conservation  This Not  a neighbourhood park i n a d e s i r a b l e  a r e a as w e l l .  The  was  only  location,  community access to  the  developers need f o r a road  gave the m u n i c i p a l i t y a f a v o r a b l e n e g o t i a t i n g p o s i t i o n . D.  A Comparison o f Two The  Subdivisions  f o l l o w i n g examples are o f f e r e d to i l l u s t r a t e  success w i t h which the m u n i c i p a l i t y has n e g o t i a t e d d e d i c a t i o n w i t h developers. ago.  The  The  single family l o t s . p a r c e l was  land  f i r s t case occurred  developer a p p l i e d to subdivide  the  f i v e years  6 a c r e s of l a n d i n t o  However, the ^ e a s t e r n  segment o f  the  cut by a s i g n i f i c a n t r a v i n e which the m u n i c i p a l i t y  wanted to conserve f o r both e c o l o g i c a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes.  Ravine l a n d to the n o r t h of the development  a l r e a d y been a c q u i r e d The  f o r municipal  purposes.  area the m u n i c i p a l i t y wished to p r o t e c t covered  almost 2 a c r e s , 3 0 % of the t o t a l s i t e . was  had  Because l a n d  not an accepted p o l i c y , the m u n i c i p a l i t y d i d not  the developer to donate the p a r c e l .  In any  The  expect  case, i t was  b e l i e v e d t h a t d e d i c a t i o n of 3 0 % of a s i t e would p l a c e u n f a i r burden upon the landowner.  dedication  i s s u e was  r e s o l v e d when the m u n i c i p a l i t y purchased the two  an  finally acre p a r c e l .  More r e c e n t l y the m u n i c i p a l i t y r e c e i v e d an a p p l i c a t i o n to subdivide The  15  a c r e s c o n t a i n i n g l a r g e stands o f mature f o r e s t .  s i t e adjoined  a B.C.  Hydro right-of-way  to the n o r t h ,  an  72  i n t e g r a l l i n k i n a neighbourhood park system. o f the s i t e ,  the m u n i c i p a l i t y decided  Upon examination  t h a t the northwestern  p o r t i o n , c o n t a i n i n g s i g n i f i c a n t mature f o r e s t growth, be preserved  as an important component of the park system  developed a l o n g approval  the right-of-way.  to s u b d i v i d e ,  a f o u r acre p a r c e l .  dedicate  a c q u i s i t i o n levy.  exempted  The  total  site.  examples c i t e d are s i m i l a r i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s .  each case the l a n d i n q u e s t i o n system.  requested to  In r e t u r n , the developer would be  d e d i c a t i o n comprised 30% of the  being  As a c o n d i t i o n o f r e c e i v i n g  the developer was  from the payment of the parkland  The  should  comprised p a r t o f an open space  Both were r e l a t i v e l y small s u b d i v i s i o n s and  open space a c q u i r e d  c o n s i s t e d o f 30% o f the t o t a l  the p u b l i c  area.  In the e a r l i e r example, however, the development of r a v i n e would have had  In  the  s e r i o u s environmental consequences.  Furthermore, as the r a v i n e lands  formed an i n t e g r a l component  o f a n a t u r a l system, l a n d elsewhere could not have been substituted.  The  development n e c e s s i t a t e d r e z o n i n g ,  which  strengthened the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n . the p a r c e l " i n q u e s t i o n was but  i t was  not  not o n l y a key m u n i c i p a l  Thus,  acquisition  buildable.  In the second case, while the m u n i c i p a l i t y 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 d i s a s t r o u s . r e t a i n e d and p r o t e c t e d  Trees c o u l d  from c u t t i n g by covenant.  be  Because  the  l a n d formed p a r t 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. parkland  Nevertheless,  e s t a b l i s h e d open space p o l i c i e s ,  a c q u i s i t i o n l e v y , and  the developers acceptance of  d e d i c a t i o n requirements enabled the m u n i c i p a l i t y to a s u b s t a n t i a l d e d i c a t i o n of e s s e n t i a l l y b u i l d a b l e The  d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s between the two  a major s h i f t i n a t t i t u d e .  negotiate  land.  cases demonstrate  In the f i r s t case, the  municipality  d i d not attempt to arrange a d e d i c a t i o n .  Such a request  have been unacceptable to the developer.  A l s o , the  had no power to f o r c e a d e d i c a t i o n . conclude t h a t the m u n i c i p a l i t y was  Moreover, one  only  less  i n subdivisions.  Property  immediately adjacent  The by  to the r a v i n e  have been s u b j e c t to covenants p r o v i d i n g b u i l d i n g  reduced.  can  of the r a v i n e c o u l d have been accomplished  o t h e r methods.  In t h i s way  would  municipality  l e s s aware of and  committed to open space c o n s e r v a t i o n preservation  the  could  setbacks.  the t o t a l area of the d e d i c a t i o n might have been  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the m u n i c i p a l i t y might have suggested  i n c r e a s i n g d e n s i t i e s on the b u i l d a b l e area i n r e t u r n f o r outright The municipal  dedication. recent  s u c c e s s f u l l y negotiated  determination  development r e f l e c t s  to secure open space i n s u b d i v i s i o n s .  F i n a l l y , the developer's need f o r r e z o n i n g parkland  a c q u i s i t i o n l e v y provided  e f f e c t i v e bargaining p o s i t i o n .  approval  and  the m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t h  the an  74  IV  North Vancouver D i s t r i c t ' ' " The D i s t r i c t o f North Vancouver i s unusual among lower  mainland m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n t h a t a v a s t m a j o r i t y l a n d w i t h i n i t s borders i s p u b l i c l y owned. d i v i s i o n i s an exception small  o f the undeveloped  The p r i v a t e sub-  and those t h a t do occur are r e l a t i v e l y  i n size. Ownership o f the l a n d g i v e s the m u n i c i p a l i t y d i r e c t c o n t r o l  over development.  Therefore,  the s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l techniques  employed are g e n e r a l l y n o t a p p l i c a b l e to o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . While the r o l e o f m u n i c i p a l  l a n d ownership i s beyond the  scope o f t h i s paper, the D i s t r i c t o f North Vancouver's approach to l a n d development deserves c o n s i d e r a t i o n . w i l l soon begin to develop a Seymour area,  t r a c t l o c a t e d i n the  i n the e a s t e r n p o r t i o n o f the d i s t r i c t .  owned by the d i s t r i c t , 1150'  6500-acre  North Vancouver  extends from the w a t e r f r o n t  e l e v a t i o n , and c o n t a i n s  The l a n d ,  to the  a v a r i e t y o f landscapes, many  o f which are n o t amenable to development. Acknowledging a fundamental l a c k o f understanding concerning "the r e l a t i v e t o l e r a n c e  o f North Shore h a b i t a t s . . . t o the  encroachment o f an urban s o c i e t y " , d i s t r i c t p l a n n e r s undertook 27 an i n t e n s i v e study o f the n a t u r a l systems o f the Seymour area. The  e n t i r e s i t e was d i v i d e d i n t o 15 study a r e a s .  was a s s i g n e d a team o f b i o l o g i s t s , g e o l o g i s t s , a r c h i t e c t s , and planners.  Each area  landscape  Each team conducted a landscape  reconnaisance to c o l l e c t data on geology, s o i l s ,  climate,  h y d r o l o g y , f a u n a , and f l o r a .  The o b j e c t i v e s o f the r e c o n -  n a i s a n c e s t u d y were t o i d e n t i f y the b e s t n a t u r a l a r e a s  and  those b e s t s u i t e d f o r development. The p h i l o s o p h y b e h i n d the e n v i r o n m e n t a l  reconnaisance  s t u d i e s i s b e s t e x p l a i n e d i n the r e s u l t a n t r e p o r t i The r o l e o f the e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d y i s t o d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n from the o u t s e t t o 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 o f the l a n d (so) t h a t t h e y can be c o n s i d e r e d i n the c o n t e x t o f o t h e r v a l i d and competing c l a i m s t o the use o f l a n d . I n t h i s way we s h o u l d a v o i d the problem o f h a v i n g t o 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 t o develop has been made. 28 A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e l a n d s c a p e r e c o n n a i s a n c e teams i d e n t i f i e d on maps a r e a s w h i c h , because o f p h y s i o g r a p h i c f e a t u r e s such as s l o p e o r s o i l i n s t a b i l i t y , p r e s e n t e d c o n s t r a i n t s t o development.  Areas o f i m p o r t a n t 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 c o v e r , o r w i l d l i f e were a l s o mapped. the two maps...," the r e p o r t n o t e s , "we  "By  comparing  can i d e n t i f y f o r the  f i r s t time t h o s e a r e a s o f Seymour where t h e r e i s no  conflict  between n a t u r e and development." I n many c a s e s , however, l a n d s u i t a b i l i t y i s not so o b v i o u s .  " I n t h e s e shadow a r e a s ,  we must f i n d out j u s t how much urban development n a t u r e can t o l e r a t e and what types o f development c o u l d e x i s t i n harmony 29 with nature." 7  On the b a s i s o f the e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s , the D i s t r i c t o f North Vancouver proposed c o n s e r v a t i o n g u i d e l i n e s f o r f u t u r e development.  Areas d e s i g n a t e d "Best N a t u r a l A r e a s "  were t o be s e t a s i d e f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n . I n "Good N a t u r a l A r e a s " l i m i t e d development would be p e r m i t t e d , p r o v i d i n g t h a t  a major p o r t i o n of the n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s be conserved.  Finally,  the d i s t r i c t would r e q u i r e t h a t a l l f u t u r e developments designed i n accordance  w i t h environmental  "be  design p r i n c i p l e s , 30  i n c l u d i n g the use of d e t a i l e d environmental P o l i c y implementation problem.  impact s t u d i e s . "  and enforcement was  an acknowledged  From past experience, the planners r e a l i z e d t h a t  v o l u n t a r y c o o p e r a t i o n and enforcement by c i v i l a c t i o n u n r e a l i s t i c and  was  inadequate  The r e p o r t recommended, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t two new  zoning  c a t e g o r i e s be c r e a t e d , a Nature P r e s e r v a t i o n Zone where no development o t h e r than pathways e t c . would be p e r m i t t e d  and  a Nature C o n s e r v a t i o n Zone where a " l i m i t e d amount of compatible  r e s i d e n t i a l development" would be allowed.  the zones,  standards would p r o h i b i t t r e e - c u t t i n g , p r o t e c t  w i l d l i k f e , and p r 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  Within  watercourses.  Development w i t h i n C o n s e r v a t i o n Zones would be s u b j e c t to the i s s u a n c e of a b u i l d i n g permit and a l l plans would be  reviewed  by a C o n s e r v a t i o n Panel, w i t h members drawn from c o n s e r v a t i o n fields.  Zoning r e g u l a t i o n s c o u l d be enforced by the b u i l d i n g  inspector.-^  1  F i n a l l y , b u i l d i n g w i t h i n c o n s e r v a t i o n zones should be s u b j e c t to a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant o f the conservacy."  "to prevent f u t u r e abuses  R e g i s t r a t i o n of a covenant would be a  c o n d i t i o n of s a l e of any p u b l i c l a n d s .  Land Use C o n t r a c t s ,  not c u r r e n t l y used by the d i s t r i c t , were suggested " f o r b e t t e r c o n t r o l d u r i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n stage.  77  The landscape reconnaisance study was n o t intended as a d e f i n i t i v e statement  on the f u t u r e development o f Seymour.  As  the m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r M . Chesworth noted: ...we are a l l too aware t h a t the landscape reconnaissance technique i s o n l y a f i r s t , broad brush step, and must be supplemented by more d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a t the l o c a l level.33 In attempting to base f u t u r e development upon a c l e a r understanding o f the n a t u r a l systems i n v o l v e d , North Vancouver's reconnaisance approach  i s significant.  P u b l i c ownership  o f the  Seymour area does n o t make the technique i n a p p l i c a b l e to. other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . response  Rather, the approach was adopted i n  to problems common t o many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s : To continue w i t h the i n s e n s i t i v e and imposed s u b d i v i s i o n patterns of past years i s n e i t h e r i n t e l l i g e n t n o r economic p l a n n i n g and as development proceeds onto s t e e p e r s l o p e s and i n t o marginal areas, t h i s becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y apparent. We have the o p p o r t u n i t y and the o b l i g a t i o n ...to continue w i t h t h e . . . i n i t i a t i v e of the landscape reconnaisance and to supplement and r e f i n e t h i s technique to the extent t h a t we achieve a l e v e l o f understanding and harmony between the n a t u r a l o r d e r 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, S e c t i o n I i s based on an i n t e r v i e w with Robert C o l l i e r , M u n i c i p a l Planner, West Vancouver, Feb.  11, 1977.  2  Seei D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, Development G u i d e l i n e s f o r Land Above the Upper L e v e l s Highway, Sept. 17, 1973. and A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission, Recommendations and Reports With Respect to Development Above the Upper L e v e l s Highway, D i s t r i c t o f West Vancouver, May 1 5 , 1974.  3  A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission, op_ c i t . , p. 32.  4  Ibid.,  p.32.  5  Ibid.,  p.38.  6  I b i d . . p.40.  7  S e c t i o n I I i s based on an i n t e r v i e w with L a r r y Wolfe, Planner, Coquitlam, Feb. 4, 1977.  8  E r i c T i e s s e n , Planner, Coquitlam, i n t e r v i e w , Feb. 3,  9  D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam, S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l By-Law - By-Law No. 1930, May Sec. (a).  1971,  1977.  5  10 I b i d . . Sec. 5(b), Sec. 6. 11 I b i d . , Sec. 7. 12 I b i d . , Sec. 8-9. 13 I b i d . , Sec. 11. 14 D i s t r i c t Nov.  o f Coquitlam, " S u b d i v s i o n Committee Minutes",  30, 1976.  15 I b i d . , Jan. 18,  1977.  16 B.A.C.M. L i m i t e d , "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 I b i d . ,  p.20.  20 D i s t r i c t o f Coquitlam, "Development Agreement with B.A.C.M. L i m i t e d and Southern Slope Holdings Limited", October 1, 1976.  (1959)  21 S e c t i o n I I I i s based on an i n t e r v i e w with Helen R u s s e l l , S u b d i v i s i o n T e c h n i c i a n , Burnaby, B.C., March 1 0 , 1 9 7 7 . 22  D i s t r i c t o f Burnaby, P l a n n i n g Department, "Burnaby L i n e a r Parks and T r a i l System", memo to Parks 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 4 , p . 2 .  23  G r e a t e r Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , The L i v a b l e Region 1976/1986, Proposals to Manage the Growth of G r e a t e r Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C., 1 9 7 6 , p p . 3 4 - 3 5 .  24 D i s t r i c t o f Burnaby, P l a n n i n g Department, "Burnaby L i n e a r 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. C o n s o l i d a t e d f o r Convenience with By-Laws Nos. 6230} 6 3 5 6 ; 6402 and 6 5 6 ? ; A By-Law to Regulate S u b d i v i s i o n of Land, Sec, 3 . 26  S e c t i o n IV i s based on an i n t e r v i e w with Des Smith, Planner D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver, March 1 6 , 1 9 7 7 .  27 D i s t r i c t of North 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 . ( i ) . 28  Ibid.,  p.7.  29  Ibid.,  p.7.  30 I b i d . . p . 6 7 . 31 I b i d . . P.68. 32  Ibid., pp.68-69.  33 I b i d . , p.  (i).  34 I b i d . , p. ( i i ) .  Chapter 4  Summary of C o n t r o l Techniques Employed  T h i s chapter summarizes the c o n s e r v a t i o n  techniques  employed by the three 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 .  While  f a c i n g s i m i l a r problems, each m u n i c i p a l i t y approaches s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l i n a d i f f e r e n t way.  In f a c t , the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s appear  to r e p r e s e n t a spectrum, from a v e r y formal l e g a l i s t i c approach i n West Vancouver to an i n f o r m a l approach i n Burnaby. assumes a midway p o s i t i o n on the spectrum.  The  different  m u n i c i p a l a t t i t u d e s to c o n t r o l are r e f l e c t e d i n the employed.  In many cases, i n f o r m a l techniques  Coquitlam  techniques  have evolved i n  reponse to d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n . P a r t I o f t h i s chapter d e s c r i b e s the open space p o l i c i e s and o b j e c t i v e s which serve as a framework f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n efforts i n subdivisions.  In the next s e c t i o n , the r o l e of the  a p p r o v a l process i s d i s c u s s e d .  The  t h i r d p a r t summarizes  measures by which c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s are F i n a l l y , methods of implementing and techniques  achieved.  e n f o r c i n g the  conservation  are compared.  North Vancouver, i s f o r the most p a r t , l e f t out of the discussion. reconaissance  The  i m p l i c a t i o n s of North Vancouver's  work w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 5'  landscape  81  I  Overview All  the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s examined have i n common c e r t a i n  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 w i t h r e g a r d to c o n s e r v a t i o n .  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 s l o p e s and the p r o t e c t i o n of r a v i n e s and c r e e k s .  I g n o r i n g these  i n the p a s t has l e d to v i s i b l e environmental each m u n i c i p a l i t y now  factors  degradation,  but  a t l e a s t r e c o g n i z e s the dangers.  The n e g l e c t of o t h e r n a t u r a l a s s e t s have l e s s consequences.  ,  dramatic  As a r e s u l t , c o n s e r v a t i o n of these areas i s not  always a h i g h p r i o r i t y .  F o r example, although a l l the muni-  c i p a l i t i e s have a l a r g e expanse o f ocean o r r i v e r w a t e r f r o n t , e f f o r t s to g a i n p u b l i c access have sometimes been l a c k i n g . West Vancouver i s now i t s new  attempting  waterfront subdivisions.  to remedy p a s t mistakes i n In Coquitlam,  although  the  F r a s e r R i v e r i s l o s t f o r the time being, some e f f o r t i s b e i n g d i r e c t e d to u t i l i z i n g Indian Arm lines.  and the Coquitlam  R i v e r shore-  Burnaby i s f o r t u n a t e i n t h a t the s c e n i c a t t r i b u t e s of  i t s waterfrontage  were r e c o g n i z e d before i n t e n s e development  occurred. Tree p r e s e r v a t i o n a l s o r e c e i v e s v a r y i n g degrees of a t t e n t i o n , and the r o l e of t r e e c o n s e r v a t i o n d i f f e r s between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . In West Vancouver t r e e s are r e t a i n e d , i n p a r t , to housing c l u s t e r s .  separate  Burnaby, on the o t h e r hand, p r o t e c t s  mature specimens f o r t h e i r e c o l o g i c a l value and to preserve the f o r e s t c h a r a c t e r of an a r e a .  Although  i n both i n s t a n c e s ,  82  t r e e s serve a cosmetic  f u n c t i o n , West Vancouver's approach  i s more a r t i f i c i a l and design o r i e n t e d while Burnaby the i r r e p l a c e a b l e c h a r a c t e r of climax  emphasizes  forest.  Besides t h e i r common p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a l l the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are f a c i n g s i m i l a r development p r e s s u r e s . m u n i c i p a l i t i t y c o n t a i n s one i n t e n s e l y developed r e l a t i v e l y open r e g i o n .  Each  r e g i o n and one  Because new development can no l o n g e r  occur i n t h e i r o l d e r areas, the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s must begin to open new areas to developent.  This prospect gives a  m u n i c i p a l i t y a chance to p l a n the development o f the new so as to a v o i d the mistakes of the p a s t .  areas  To d i f f e r e n t e x t e n t s ,  t h i s c h a l l e n g e i s r e c o g n i z e d by a l l the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . As f u t u r e development i n West Vancouver must occur i n p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e environments, a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d to conservation objectives.  In Burnaby and Coquitlam,  however,  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 new development has not been s p e c i f i c a l l y dealt with.  N e v e r t h e l e s s , f r a g i l e areas such as  r a v i n e s and s l o p e s are to be preserved and, i n a d d i t i o n , p l a n s f o r l a r g e s c a l e developments i n c l u d e s u b s t a n t i a l park areas. Only i n North Vancouver, has the p r o s p e c t of new  development  i n s p i r e d a comprehensive study o f the r e g i o n ' s e c o l o g i c a l and p h y s i c a l c a p a c i t y to s u s t a i n development.  No o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t y ,  t h e r e f o r e , has y e t attempted to guide development i n accordance w i t h the n a t u r a l c a p a b i l i t i e s o f the l a n d .  Even i n West  Vancouver, whose Upper L e v e l s g u i d e l i n e s come c l o s e s t to  «3  approximating  North Vancouver's e f f o r t s , a t t e n t i o n i s only  d i r e c t e d to s p e c i f i c areas o f concern; a comprehensive a n a l y s i s o f the e n t i r e area i s not attempted. In the p a s t , most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have not formulated comprehensive open space p l a n .  Burnaby i s a p p a r e n t l y a p i o n e e r  i n t h i s r e g a r d , West Vancouver i s now  a l s o working on an open  space p l a n , based, l i k e Burnaby's on a l i n e a r parks Although Coquitlam  a  concept.  has not d e v i s e d a comprehensive p l a n , a  l i n e a r park system i s proposed f o r Coquitlam  Town Center.  F o r the southwest s e c t o r , major parks are i n c l u d e d i n the Community P l a n . II  Procedural Constraints A.  S u b d i v i s i o n Process In each o f the three m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s t u d i e d , the p l a n n i n g  department has a s i g n i f i c a n t degree of c o n t r o l ,over the s u b d i v i s i o n process.  However, p l a n n i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n  s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l has evolved independently o f e n a b l i n g legislation.  Formal s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l i s v e s t e d by  M u n i c i p a l and Land R e g i s t r y A c t s i n the approving  the  officer.  T h e r e f o r e , the r o l e o f p l a n n i n g i s e s s e n t i a l l y i n f o r m a l . The  e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n and most s u b d i v i s i o n by-laws  r e f l e c t a narrow approach to s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l . concern  i s focused on e n g i n e e r i n g standards f o r the  of roads and  services.  Primary extension  A good example of t h i s a t t i t u d e i s the  s u g g e s t i o n i n the Land R e g i s t r y A c t t h a t the a p p r o v i n g be the m u n i c i p a l  engineer.  officer  84  The  e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n ' s vagueness concerning  planning  i n p u t i n s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l i s d e a l t w i t h d i r e c t l y by Coquitlam. A considerable  amount o f decision-making a u t h o r i t y i s a l l o c a t e d  to the s u b d i v i s i o n committee, f o r m a l i z i n g p l a n n i n g the committee, e n g i n e e r i n g equal  On  and p l a n n i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have  representation. In Burnaby, s u b d i v i s i o n approval  function.  i s primarily a  The p l a n n i n g department handles the s u b d i v i s i o n  a p p l i c a t i o n throughout the process i s the approving o f f i c e r . the m u n i c i p a l i t y may  and  the p l a n n i n g d i r e c t o r  Because i n i t i a l approval  department appears to r e l y upon  a good r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the e n g i n e e r i n g  department.  engineer i s the approving o f f i c e r .  contracts necessitate substantial planning As a r u l e , i n f o r m a l i n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l incorporates planning  i s tentative,  a t t a c h c o n d i t i o n s as needed.  West Vancouver's p l a n n i n g  municipal  planning  However, Burnaby's approach i s l e s s d i r e c t than  Coquitlam's.  B.  input.  The  However, l a n d  i n p u t i n the  use  process.  cooperation s u c c e s s f u l l y  concerns.  Role of Approving O f f i c e r Another problem a r i s i n g from the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n i s  municipal  u n c e r t a i n t y r e g a r d i n g the grounds upon which the  approving o f f i c e r may Coquitlam d e a l s w i t h c o n t r o l by-law.  refuse a s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n .  Again,  t h i s problem d i r e c t l y i n i t s s u b d i v i s i o n  Lands u n s u i t a b l e f o r h i g h i n t e n s i t y uses  i n c l u d e those s u b j e c t to f l o o d i n g , e r o s i o n , s l i p p a g e , or poor drainage.  Simple environmental analyses  may  be r e q u i r e d from  85  developers to a i d the approving o f f i c e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g  the  a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of a given use.  and  the be  "The  public interest"  e f f e c t of a development upon " e s t a b l i s h e d a m e n i t i e s " might determined by n o t i f i c a t i o n of adjacent p r o p e r t y  owners.  A l t h o u g h i t i s not i n c l u d e d i n the s u b d i v i s i o n by-law, "excessive  cost"  i s d e f i n e d by r e s o l u t i o n as the c o s t to  m u n i c i p a l i t y of p r o v i d i n g park and In Burnaby and  the  recreation services.  West Vancouver, the s u b d i v i s i o n by-law  deals p r i m a r i l y with engineering  standards.  Interpretation  of  the a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r ' s powers f o r environmental p r o t e c t i o n i s not attempted to any  extent.  West Vancouver's r e c e n t l y  e s t a b l i s h e d b u i l d i n g setbacks from creeks i s an In Burnaby, f l o o d i n g and intense The  exception,.  e r o s i o n render l a n d u n s u i t a b l e  for  uses. absence o f m u n i c i p a l  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 l e a d s to s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s .  Probably  most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s 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 c o n t r o l over an a p p l i c a t i o n d u r i n g  the  approval  p r o c e s s makes the approving o f f i c e r ' s f u n c t i o n a f o r m a l i t y . Also,  there  i s s a f e t y i n ambiguity.  A s u b d i v i s i o n by-law  which i n t e r p r e t s too much i n the e n a b l i n g ruled ultra-vires.  The  municipal  c o u n c i l may  communicate i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the the approving o f f i c e r .  l e g i s l a t i o n may  be  p r e f e r to  s t a t u t e i n f o r m a l l y to  86  III  Conservation A.  Methods  Dedication 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 s not  authorized  i n subdivisions.  i n the  outright  enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , various  'have b e e n a d o p t e d t o a c h i e v e mentation vary  Since  dedication.  The  contracts.  The  only c l e a r l y l e g a l device  depends upon d e v e l o p e r s '  The basis.  l a n d use  primarily  contract i s , i n fact,  b y w h i c h d e d i c a t i o n may  Implementation of the  Dedications  lattice  be  c o n c e p t o f open space  d e d i c a t i o n of connecting  strips.  are a l s o c r u c i a l i n g a i n i n g small waterfront  a c r e a g e t o be  dedicated  i s d e t e r m i n e d on a n  parks.  individual  Above the Upper L e v e l s Highway, however, l a n d s must  dedicated  equal  t o 10 a c r e s p e r  1,000  open space d e d i c a t i o n .  As  i n West V a n c o u v e r , the  dedication i s negotiated  be  people.  C o q u i t l a m r e l i e s upon development agreements t o  the  imple-  between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  t h r o u g h l a n d use  arranged.  methods  means o f  I n West V a n c o u v e r , d e d i c a t i o n i s a c h i e v e d  the  dedications  f o r each s i t e .  a r e n e i g h b o u r h o o d p a r k a c q u i s i t i o n and,  acquire  amount o f  Some p r i m a r y  more r e c e n t l y ,  concerns  ravine  protection. Burnaby's d e d i c a t i o n s are arranged e n t i r e l y through negotiations. are  preferred.  Lands which c o n t r i b u t e to the ..linear park  informal system  87  There are two regarding  areas where m u n i c i p a l i t i e s e x e r c i s e  dedications.  In West Vancouver recent  w i t h a u s e l e s s d e d i c a t i o n , may of prospective  uses i n the f u t u r e .  Burnaby's  open space not being designated  are d e p o s i t e d B.  unwillingness resulted in  "park" when plans  i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e .  Parkland  A c q u i s i t i o n Fees  In many cases, there are no  experience  l e a d to more c a r e f u l e v a l u a t i o n  to be i n e x t r i c a b l y committed to park uses has dedicated  caution  d e d i c a t i o n of l a n d i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .  s u i t a b l e parcels f o r municipal  i n small s u b d i v i s i o n s .  Often  purposes, e s p e c i a l l y  A l s o o u t r i g h t d e d i c a t i o n 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 h i g h l y developed areas of a municipality. Both Burnaby and  Coquitlam now  require that a l l subdividers  pay  a l e v y f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of m u n i c i p a l  has  e s t a b l i s h e d a f l a t r a t e f o r each new  Burnaby the l e v y i n c r e a s e s a c c o r d i n g proposed development. open space and  open space.  Coquitlam  l o t created.  In  to the d e n s i t y of  the  Presumably because s e n i o r s r e q u i r e l e s s  are l e s s able to bear e x t r a c o s t s , Burnaby  reduces l e v i e s f o r s e n i o r s ' developments. In Burnaby, an attempt i s made to a c q u i r e parkland provides  r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t b e n e f i t s to the r e s i d e n t s of  development from which the l e v y i s c o l l e c t e d . may  which  the  fee  be passed on to the consumer, i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t  the  consumer should cost.  As  the  d e r i v e some t a n g i b l e b e n e f i t from the  Therefore,  the monies are  spent w i t h i n the same  increased  88  neighbourhood as the new hand, uses i t s parkland  subdivision.  Coquitlam, on the  other  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 m u n i c i p a l i t y . Because they apply s i z e , parkland  to a l l s u b d i v i s i o n s r e g a r d l e s s  a c q u i s i t i o n f e e s are the most f r e q u e n t l y  technique i n both Burnaby and increase  Coquitlam.  As  of applied  developments  i n s i z e , however, d e d i c a t i o n of a p p r o b a t e p u b l i c  l a n d s gains  i n p r i o r i t y and  i n l a r g e s c a l e developments assume  primary importance. West Vancouver a l s o uses parkland extent and Municipal  only i n conjunction p o l i c y regarding  imposts, but to a l e s s e r  w i t h l a n d use  contracts.  imposts only a p p l i e s to development  above the Upper L e v e l s where f e e s i n l i e u of d e d i c a t i o n equal to 10 a c r e s per 1,000  population  i s permitted.  As  subdivisions  i n t h a t a r e a must be a t l e a s t 20 a c r e s i n size,, s u i t a b l e l a n d i s l i k e l y to be a v a i l a b l e f o r d e d i c a t i o n . parkland  a c q u i s i t i o n fees apparently  minor r o l e and  In other  areas,  play a r e l a t i v e l y  small s u b d i v i s i o n s , which are not  negotiated  by c o n t r a c t , escape assessment. C.  C l u s t e r Development The  and  c l u s t e r p r i n c i p l e appears to be g a i n i n g acceptance  can be  implemented through l a n d use  c o n t r a c t s or through  i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n of r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s . Of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s t u d i e d , 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 l a n d above the Upper L e v e l s Highway.  Elsewhere  89  i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y , l a n d use c o n t r a c t s a r e s u c c e s s f u l l y used t o permit c l u s t e r i n g , as i n the B a t c h e l o r Cove s u b d i v i s i o n . Burnaby o f t e n n e g o t i a t e s c l u s t e r i n g when an a p p l i c a t i o n r e q u i r e s r e z o n i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y on lands adjacent to r a v i n e s o r other s e n s i t i v e environments.  Increased d e n s i t i e s on p a r t  of the s i t e can c r e a t e s i z e a b l e open areas while 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 . 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 n o t p o s s i b l e . Therefore development agreements, which t r a n s p i r e w i t h i n the framework o f e s t a b l i s h e d zones, can n o t permit  clustering.  Outside o f l a n d use c o n t r a c t s , c l u s t e r i n g can only occur i n rezoning. D.  Design C o n t r o l In the approval process, formal o r i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s  o f t e n r e s u l t i n m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o the s i t e d e s i g n . A l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s e x e r c i s e design c o n t r o l to some extent.  West  Vancouver's use o f the l a n d use c o n t r a c t n e c e s s i t a t e s formal n e g o t i a t i o n s , f a c i l i t a t i n g m u n i c i p a l c o n t r o l over d e s i g n . The  s i t i n g o f b u i l d i n g s to preserve views,  as i n B a t c h e l o r Cove,  i s an example o f d e s i g n m o d i f i c a t i o n . In Coquitlam  and Burnaby, design i s . c o n t r o l l e d  through  informal negotiations r e s u l t i n g i n c o n d i t i o n a l approval of a subdivision application.  Coquitlam  a l s o uses development  agreements, e s p e c i a l l y to ensure l a n d s c a p i n g i s performed.  90  E.  Other Techniques 1.  Land Exchange  As  the  Burnaby example i l l u s t r a t e s ,  r e s u l t i n municipal Because the  a c q u i s i t i o n of d e s i r a b l e  t e c h n i q u e d e p e n d s b o t h on  r i g h t s t o l a n d n e e d e d by owning l a n d  land  Nevertheless,  exchanges can  i s often  be  i n a favorable  on  the  owning  developer limited  circumstances,  e f f e c t i v e l y , as  bargaining  can  open s p a c e .  p u r p o s e s , i t has  i n appropriate  negotiated  exchange  the m u n i c i p a l i t y  a d e v e l o p e r and  suitable f o r municipal  applicability.  land  the  municipality  p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s the  developer. 2.  Large Lot  Zoning  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 to c o n t r o l development  l a r g e l o t z o n i n g i s West V a n c o u v e r . i s yet  t o be  prices,  determined.  i t i s not  deterrent  success of t h i s  In s p i t e of extremely high  c l e a r t h a t the  to future  The  f i v e acre l o t s w i l l  construction.  Furthermore, the  3.  increased  i f such low  density  be  a  cost  development d i d  to  the  uneconomic, occur.  Taxation  R e d u c e d t a x a s s e s s m e n t s on  undeveloped land, 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 open space.  the  encourage i t s r e t e n t i o n  I n West V a n c o u v e r , t h e  s p e c i a l o p e n s p a c e t a x a t i o n was received  technique  land  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 w o u l d be  by  benefit.  only m u n i c i p a l i t y i n which  mentioned, a g o l f  However, n o t  as  course  a l l undeveloped land  is  91  u s e f u l open space. be  assessed  Determination  o f open l a n d s w h i c h  a t lower r a t e s and lands  i n which lower taxation  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 4.  should  difficulty.  Rights-of-way Both Coquitlam 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 rights-of-way. past,  rights-of-way  provide  Although i n the  have been l a r g e l y unused, t h e y  often  convenient l i n k s i nthe creation o f a l i n e a r  park  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  parkland  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 .  C.M.H.C. p l a y s a m i n o r r o l e i n o p e n s p a c e  Inpractice,  conservation.  B u r n a b y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e 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 with regard  to municipal  policy.  I n most  cases,  t h e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i m p o s e d t h e i r own s t a n d a r d s o v e r t h o s e o f CMHC. IV  Implementation and Enforcement A.  Informal  Negotiation  Because o f t h e n a t u r e all  of the subdivision approval  process,  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e l y o n i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s t o some  extent.  The s u c c e s s o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s d e p e n d s o n t h e  cooperation  o f t h e d e v e l o p e r a n d t h e commitment o f t h e  92  municipality. be  negotiations,  Of entirely  from t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y , as i n a l a n d the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s interviewed, on i n f o r m a l  granting  negotiations  grants c o n d i t i o n a l  the Land R e g i s t r y  C o q u i t l a m has adopted a also  the nature of the conditions F o r example, a p l a n  and t h e d e d i c a t i o n  On t h e o t h e r h a n d , c o n d i t i o n s  tree r e t e n t i o n are not enforceable  imposed  deposited  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  from a r a v i n e  enforceable.  applications,  t h e s u b d i v i s i o n committee  t h e i r performance.  a distance  f o rsubdivision control.  approval.  I n some i n s t a n c e s , insures  o n l y Burnaby depends  becomes c o n d i t i o n a l u p o n t h e 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 . s i m i l a r approach i n that  s p e c i a l conexchange.  tentative approval to preliminary  permission to subdivide  and  the m u n i c i p a l i t y can  m o s t d e m a n d i n g when t h e d e v e l o p e r r e q u i r e s  cessions  By  In informal  in  located at  of parkland i s f o r landscaping  i n t h i s way.  the 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  Either devices  must b e a d o p t e d . B. D e v e l o p m e n t A g r e e m e n t s One s u c h d e v i c e i s t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a g r e e m e n t .  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 t h e agreements a r e c o n t r a c t s the  b e t w e e n t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ,and  d e v e l o p e r , t h e i r performance c a n be bonded.  Landscaping  r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e u s u a l l y bonded through 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 of c o n d i t i o n s  i n addition to landscaping  requirements.  As  i l l u s t r a t e d by the E a g l e 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 recreation  facilities.  U n l i k e l a n d use c o n t r a c t s , development agreements o c c u r 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 z o n i n g .  Therefore,  f u t u r e changes i n l a n d use are s u b j e c t t o the  appropriate  zoning r e g u l a t i o n s .  I t i s therefore impossible to  enforce  such c o n d i t i o n s as t r e e r e t e n t i o n which a r e not c o v e r e d by z o n i n g , once the s u b d i v i d e d l o t s have been s o l d . G. Land Use  Contracts  Because l a n d use c o n t r a c t s r e p l a c e z o n i n g 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 e n f o r c e d .  Land  use c o n t r a c t s can a c c o m p l i s h  a l l of the o b j e c t i v e s  by o t h e r methods, and more.  O f t e n , l a n d use c o n t r a c t s are used  i n areas t h a t have been i d r a s t i c a l l y downzoned.  acheived  Therefore,  the  d e v e l o p e r i s much more dependent on m u n i c i p a l g o o d w i l l , as breakdown o f n e g o t i a t i o n s w i l l mean no development can The  l a n d use c o n t r a c t thereby  occur.  g i v e s the m u n i c i p a l i t y the  a b l e b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n which i s so i m p o r t a n t  favor-  i n negotiations.  I n s p i t e o f i t s advantages, the l a n d use c o n t r a c t i s not w i d e l y used.  Most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e s a t i s f i e d 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 methods.  the  I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y f e a r the  d i f f i c u l t i e s of c h a n g i n g c o n t r a c t terms and want t o a v o i d time-consuming p u b l i c  hearings.  West Vancouver a l o n e uses l a n d 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 t o be i l l e g a l y e t want an e n f o r c e a b l e  system of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l .  9-4-  To  increase  the f l e x i b i l i t y  o f l a n d u s e 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 m a s t e 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. sometimes s u b j e c t applies.  I n a d d i t i o n , the land use c o n t r a c t i s  t o a f i v e year time l i m i t ,  a f t e r which  However, t h e f i v e y e a r t i m e l i m i t p r e s e n t s  difficulties  as t h e development agreement.  regarding b u i l d i n g setbacks  zoning  t h e same  That i s , c o n d i t i o n s  and t r e e r e t e n t i o n a r e  unenforceable,  D. R e s t r i c t i v e C o v e n a n t s R e s t r i c t i v e covenants a r e enforceable in and in  devices,  registered  t h e Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e , which c a n be used t o p r o t e c t limit  development.  informal negotiations  subject  t o a time l i m i t ,  They a r e e m p l o y e d t o g u a r a n t e e o r development agreements.  trees  conditions  Unless  l a n d u s e c o n t r a c t s make c o v e n a n t s  unnecessary. C o q u i t l a m uses r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s i n a v a r i e t y o f ways, particularly extensive are  i n smaller subdivisions.  u s e o f c o v e n a n t s i s i n B u r n a b y , where t r e e  f r e q u e n t l y employed.  protected  However, t h e most  tree f a l l ,  Municipal  i s one p r o b l e m .  l i a b i l i t y , should  a  A n o t h e r p r o b l e m , common  to a l l a v a i l a b l e implementation techniques, involved i n bringing v i o l a t o r s to court. almost never taken.  covenants  i s t h e expense  Formal a c t i o n i s  O c c a s s i o n a l l y , however, i n f o r m a l  f r o m C o u n c i l h a s r e s u l t e d i n some r e p a r a t i o n s .  pressure  95 Chapter 5 Conclusion I,.  Introduction As a r e s u l t of the i n t e r v i e w s , i t became apparent t h a t 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 n a t u r e o f the p r o c e s s , uponi l,  1  the a r t i c u l a t i o n of m u n i c i p a l  open space and  conservation  objectives, 2.  the v a u l e s , knowledge, and  i n v o l v e d i n the p r o c e s s , 3. the c o o p e r a t i o n , The  s k i l l of m u n i c i p a l  officials  and  v a l u e s , and  o b j e c t i v e s of the  developer.  n a t u r e o f the s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l p r o c e s s 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 e v a l u a t e o f the c o n t r o l s based upon performance. c l e a r conservation measured. cooperative  The  effectiveness  M u n i c i p a l i t i e s lacked  o b j e c t i v e s a g a i n s t which s u c c e s s c o u l d  atmosphere of the n e g o t i a t i o n s  and  the  spontaneous.  was  W r i t t e n r e c o r d s of  be  usually negotiations  were not k e p t , as major agreements were made v e r b a l l y , p r i o r t o t e n t a t i v e approval.  A l s o , as c o n s e r v a t i o n  become an i m p o r t a n t m u n i c i p a l  i n subdivisions  o b j e c t i v e l a r g e l y w i t h i n the  f i v e y e a r s , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are s t i l l  has last  experimenting.  I t must be noted t h a t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were b o t h o p t i m i s t i c about the use  o f s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s to c o n s e r v e 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 a c h e i v e d under the current  system.  No m u n i c i p a l i t y acknowledged any major problems.  However, a l l a d m i t t e d t h a t the scope of the e n a b l i n g needs e n l a r g i n g .  legislation  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  a planning  t o o l w h i c h a m u n i c i p a l i t y s h o u l d be  r e a l i z e open space o b j e c t i v e s . i n nature nor its  dependent upon the  effectiveness.  s u g g e s t e d as trol  I t s h o u l d be  as  t o use  to  able  neither  negative  developer's cooperation  Accordingly,  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f an  following criteria  are  effective subdivision  The  m u n i c i p a l i t y s h o u l d be  authorized  a t i t s d i s c r e t i o n , whether or not 2.  The a.  site,  con-  3.  the  controls should provide  to apply  controls  developer i s agreeable.  flexibility  -  t o r e f l e c t t h e 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 and  b.  to encourage i n n o v a t i v e  The  The  able  to prevent  i f open space o b j e c t i v e s  are  not  development met.  present 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  several respects.  t e c h n i q u e s s u c h as  As  many o f t h e  dedication  not  s p e c i f i c a l l y authorized,  the  developer's cooperation.  d e v e l o p e r can  commonly u s e d  t o use  This  conservation  or park a c q u i s i t i o n fees the m u n i c i p a l i t y  Even u n d e r l a n d use  clearly  limits  subdivision controls  the  contracts,  z o n i n g r a t h e r i.  municipality's  are  not  met,  m u n i c i p a l i t y cannot always prevent a development from  o f f i c e r , and officials,  he  a s u b d i v i s i o n i s v e s t e d i n the  a l t h o u g h he  consults  must e x e r c i s e  the  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  power t o r e f u s e  are  i s dependent upon  e l e c t to proceed under t r a d i t i o n a l  than under c o n t r a c t . ability  solutions.  m u n i c i p a l i t y s h o u l d be  from o c c u r r i n g  The  for  systemi  1.  in  defined  with  other  a occurring.  approving  municipal  h i s d i s c r e t i o n w i t h i n the  narrow  limits  of the  On  the  s t a t u t e s , or r i s k  p o s i t i v e s i d e , the  municipalities with essential  conserving 1.  e x i s t i n g system  a considerable  element i n d e a l i n g with  In conclusion, in  litigation.  the  expansion of the  amount o f f l e x i b i l i t y , environmental  effectiveness  o p e n s p a c e w o u l d be  provides  scope of the  concerns.  of s u b d i v i s i o n  improved  controls  by»  enabling  legislation  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 t o a t t a i n open space o b j e c t i v e s , 2,  a r t i c u l a t i o n of municipal  upon an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the  T h e s e two  suggestions are  to  positively  and open space o b j e c t i v e s  inherent  landscapes to s u s t a i n v a r y i n g  an  capacity  degrees of  d e t a i l e d i n the  of  based  various  development. remainder of  this  chapter. II-. The  Subdivision  Process  Regardless of which approach to s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l m u n i c i p a l i t y adopts, the T h e r e f o r e , the negotiations o f , and  process i s characterized  v a l u e s of the  is a critical  variable.  k n o w l e d g e o f a v a i l a b l e t o o l s and  As  the  relies  outcome.  A planner's  on  not  conflict.  in  the  the  understanding w e l l as  his  negotiating,  p r o c e e d i n an a t m o s p h e r e The  smooth o p e r a t i o n  the m u t u a l dependence o f n e g o t i a t i n g  Developers require extension  skill  in  ,  a rule, negotiations  cooperation,  negotiation.  i n d i v i d u a l planner involved  commitment t o , open s p a c e o b j e c t i v e s , as  influence  by  a  good w i l l  o f s e r v i c e s and  subdivision applications.  the As  of  of the  system  parties.  of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r  expedient processing most l a r g e  developers  of  their  process  the  98  several 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 t o encourage a  good r e l a t i o n s h i p . On t h e o t h e r hand, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e e q u a l l y dependent upon t h e d e v e l o p e r ' s c o o p e r a t i o n  t o conserve open space.  In  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 a r e most s u c c e s s f u l when t h e d e v e l o p e r r e q u i r e s a p a r t i c u l a r concession.  F o r example, l a n d use c o n t r a c t s , r e z o n i n g  appli-  c a t i o n s , and l a n d exchanges a l l i n c r e a s e d t h e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' chances o f s e c 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 a r e n o t backed by e n a b l i n g  legis-  l a t i o n , they a r e unable t o f o r c e t h e d e v e l o p e r t o p r o v i d e  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 a d a p t a b l e t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l concerns o f an individual site.  However, s i n c e t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f open space  i s enhanced when t h e 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 s i m p l e  e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n s h o u l d be i n t r o d u c e d .  In  s p i t e o f t h e w i d e s p r e a d a c c e p t a n c e o f mandatory d e d i c a t i o n o r f e e s - i n - l i e u r e q u i r e m e n t s elsewhere i n Canada and t h e U n i t e d 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 t o impose such r e q u i r e m e n t s . conservation  I f open space  i s a c c e p t e d as a n e c e s s i t y i n u r b a n a r e a s ,  then  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s h o u l d n o t o n l y be a u t h o r i z e d b u t encouraged t o adopt t h e r e g u l a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y t o 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 o f such d e v i c e s as p a r k l a n d  a c q u i s i t i o n fees  i s a d e b a t a b l e q u e s t i o n , one which i s l i k e l y t o be s e t t l e d i n court.  Nevertheless  only  t h e i r f r e q u e n t use i n d i c a t e s t h e e x i s -  99  tence of a problem which r e q u i r e s a t t e n t i o n . w h i l e a l l are f a c e d w i t h c o n s e r v a t i o n  Furthermore,  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 d e v i c e s of d o u b t f u l  legality.  In  fact,  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 t o the s u g g e s t i o n of e n a b l i n g  l e g i s l a t i o n , was  most r e l u c t a n t to experiment w i t h u n a u t h o r i z e d d e v i s e s .  the This  s u g g e s t s t h a t w h i l e problems e x i s t , the s e a r c h 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 p r e s e n t l e g i s l a t i o n . longer  Unfortunately,  the  the s e a r c h f o r answers i s d e l a y e d , the more oppor-  t u n i t i e s are The  lost.  type o f l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r e d s h o u l d a l l o w the  munici-  p a l i t i e s t o t a k e s t r i n g e n t a c t i o n when n e c e s s a r y , but s h o u l d be general  enough t o p e r m i t m o d i f i c a t i o n s .  Fixed  dedication  r e q u i r e m e n t s e x p r e s s e d as p e r c e n t a g e s of the t o t a l s i t e a r e a 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  t a k e 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  site  t o s u s t a i n development, nor do they r e l a t e park acreage t o  the  d e n s i t y o r 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 s u r r o u n d i n g neighborhood.  the  F u r t h e r m o r e , depending upon the  w o r d i n g of the l e g i s l a t i o n , s t a n d a r d s c o u l d be  i n t e r p r e t e d as- the  maximum p e r m i s s a b l e by d e v e l o p e r s , whereas m u n i c i p a l i t i e s would p r e f e r to r e g a r d  them as the minimum a c c e p t a b l e .  In addition, i f  a low p e r c e n t a g e r e q u i r e m e n t were e s t a b l i s h e d , i t would  not  s e r v e the purpose o f 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 position.  F o r 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 t h a t CvM.H.C#'s 5% r e q u i r e m e n t s were i n s u f f i c i e n t to achieve municipal  objectives.  The  g r e a t e r amounts of open  space arranged through m u n i c i p a l  negotiations  support  this  assertion. A s u p e r i o r method w o u l d he  to enable m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to  r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n of environmentally site.  As A p p e n d i x E . , i l l u s t r a t e s ,  adopted e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n A l b e r t a ' s new  planning 2  s e n s i t i v e areas of  several provinces  a u t h o r i z i n g such  act provides  Under the A l b e r t a law,  approval  a u t h o r i t y may  r e q u i r e the  reserves  a t the  - creeks, courses,  or  gullies,  - a s t r i p o f l a n d no lake, river,  the  natural  drainage  subdivision  approval  i n i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e f o r development", l e s s t h a n 20'  a b u t t i n g the bed  and  stream, o r o t h e r body of water, f o r  shore  the  of preventing  pollution,  Thus, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are toward p r o t e c t i n g f r a g i l e inflexible  separate  l i m i t to  include:  o p i n i o n of the  2) p r o v i d i n g p u b l i c  The  environmental  to f l o o d i n g ,  authority i s "unsuitable  1)  subdivision  T h e r e i s no  r a v i n e s , swamps, c o u l e e s ,  - l a n d which, i n the  purpose  the  this  creekbeds,  - land subject  o f any  dedications.  d e d i c a t i o n of  time of s u b d i v i s i o n .  a c r e a g e o f t h e r e s e r v e , w h i c h may  have  a good e x a m p l e o f  type of l e g i s l a t i o n .  a  and  or  access. encouraged to take  positive action  environments without  often inappropriate  b e i n g bound  standards.  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 problem from t h a t of s e c u r i n g environmental  In 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 developed areas are severe pressure  on  e x i s t i n g p a r k and  to  a  reserves. facing  open s p a c e f a c i l i t i e s  due  J.U1  increasing densification.  I t i s important,  therefore,  o p e n s p a c e o r f e e s - i n - l i e u be  secured  s u b d i v i s i o n does n o t p o s e any  problems e c o l o g i c a l l y .  Alberta recognizes  t h i s p r o b l e m and  require dedication of parkland the  environmental  o f t h e f e e , may  Another area l a n d use  area  increased i n high  new Again,  allows m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to  or f e e s - i n - l i e u  r e s e r v e s . The  be  even i f the  that  i n a d d i t i o n to  of parkland, density  or the  amount  developments.  t h a t appears to warrant r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the  contract.  I t provides  considerable  flexibility  and  g i v e s the 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 apparent r e l u c t a n c e of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to u t i l i z e s u g g e s t s some m a j o r p r o b l e m s . c o n t r a c t s may in  be  U n f a m i l i a r i t y with land  a f a c t o r , although  which to gain experience.  The  s i x years  circumstances.  w o u l d r a t h e r be  content  illegal is are  use  seems a m p l e t i m e that  u n a b l e t o change i n  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  with r e s u l t s achieved  by  methods, t h a n t o e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use  i n d i c a t i v e of the  device  m a j o r f e a r a p p e a r s t o be  o f b e c o m i n g " l o c k e d i n " t o t h e c o n t r a c t and r e s p o n s e t o new  the  other,  perhaps  contract.  d i s t r u s t w i t h which l a n d use  This  contracts  regarded. However, t h e r e  conserving  i s one  device which i s i n s t r u m e n t a l  open s p a c e w h i c h t h e l a n d u s e  in  contract permits  where  i n f o r m a l n e g o t i a t i o n s do n o t - c l u s t e r d e v e l o p m e n t . C l u s t e r i n g housing  u n i t s can  f r e e l a r g e areas of a s i t e  purposes while m a i n t a i n i n g same t i m e , enhanced.  t h e same o v e r a l l  the v i s u a l amenity of the  for  conservation  density.  d e v e l o p m e n t may  At even  the be  1UZ  B e c a u s e o f i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r open s p a c e c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d its  suitability  for sites  i n scenic or f r a g i l e  c l u s t e r development s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d . except  environments,  Unfortunately,  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 order to f a c i l i t a t e  subdivisions or other innovative techniques,  cluster  the l a n d use con-  t r a c t s h o u l d b e r e v i s e d o r r e p l a c e d b y a more a c c e p t a b l e F l e x i b i l i t y would be o f p r i m a r y technique.  device.  i m p o r t a n c e i n any p r o p o s e d  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,  then  t h e y 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 b e n e g o t i a t e d 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  using exper-  ience w i t h the 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  partici-  p a t i o n i n t h e 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 . III.  Open S p a c e Although  Conservation  t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new e n a b l i n g  legislation  would i n c r e a s e the p o t e n t i a l of s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s , t h e i r effective  implementation  servation objectives.  depends u p o n t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f c o n -  Decisions regarding the designation of  open s p a c e 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 necessary  space a t the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l s i t e . understanding would guide  o f what i s t o b e a c h e i v e d  planners  to deal with However, a  open clear  a t the municipal  level  i n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f open s p a c e f o r e a c h  subdivision. It develop  i s n o t e n o u g h , a s some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s h a v e d o n e , t o l i n e a r open s p a c e p l a n s  ural features.  or to preserve  The m e r i t s o f t h o s e  individual  open s p a c e p l a n s  which  nat-  e n v i s i o n m e a n i n g f u l and space are not  t o be  underestimated.  nized that conservation if  r e l a t e d , set of  comprehensive systems of usuable  i n subdivisions presents  definition,  u r b a n i z a t i o n upon a s i t e .  quitlam  subdivided  and  H o w e v e r , i t must be a  recog-  different,  problems.  S u b d i v i s i o n , by  are b e i n g  open  When v a s t  f o r the  Burnaby, the  Undeveloped l a n d i s not  imposes a g r e a t e r  first  degree  segments o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y  time,  as  i n northeast  i m p o s i t i o n of urban uses i s unused l a n d .  n a t u r a l systems which i t supports.  of  The And  Co-  significant.  land i s used by  man,  the  as p a r t o f the  system, i s a major b e n e f i c i a r y of the n a t u r a l processes of  ecothe  land. Yet, state.  not  a l l land i s equally valuable  left  I a n McHarg, i n D e s i g n With N a t u r e ,  i n an  open  explains,  "... c e r t a i n t y p e s o f l a n d a r e o f s u c h 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 hazards to development t h a t they 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 , there are other areas, that f o r s p e c i f i c reasons, are 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 uses." Therefore,  when c o n t e m p l a t i n g t h e  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  land.  ysis,  shape o f f u t u r e  devel-  the n a t u r a l p r o c e s s e s  '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  should  p r e c e e d any  land performs are  subdivision.  seldom s u p e r f i c i a l l y  The  functions  of anal-  which  the  apparent.  "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 w h i c h t o b a s e 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 unforestedt one m u s t e x a m i n e ... f a c t o r s o f f o u n d a 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 g r o u n d w a t e r r e s o u r c e s . " The by  purpose of environmental a n a l y s i s i s best  explained  McHargi "Rather than propose a b l a n k e t  standard  of  open  /  space, we w i s h t o f i n d d i s c r e t e a s p e c t s of n a t u r a l p r o c e s s e s t h a t c a r r y t h e i r own v a l u e s 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 s h o u l d be s e l e c t e d , i t i s these t h a t s h o u l d p r o v i d e the p a t t e r n , not o n l y 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 t o those a r e a s b e s t a b l e t o t a i n i t , and a m e a n i n g f u l , created.  sus-  f u n c t i o n a l system of open space i s  Open space i t s e l f becomes a c r e a t i v e f o r c e , not  s i m p l y 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 w i t h  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 r e q u i r e m e n t s i n s u b d i v i sions.  As  i t would g i v e the a p p r o v i n g  officer  defensible  grounds upon which to. r e f u s e 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 ability  t o n e g o t i a t e w i t h the d e v e l o p e r would be  Furthermore, environmental a n a l y s i s supports concept on a l a r g e s c a l e .  strengthened. the c l u s t e r  Areas capable of supporting  devel-  opment can be b u i l t i n t e n s i v e l y , w h i l e s e n s i t i v e a r e a s can 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 . d e n s i t y , d e s i g n , and  I n o r d e r t o determine the  type of development t h a t the l a n d  will  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 One  be  site.  might c o n c l u d e from t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , t h a t the l a c k of  e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s w i l l c r e a t e major problems.  Fortunately,  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 f e a t u r e s such as c r e e k s and w a t e r f r o n t s , s i n c e the a r e a s b e s t 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 w i t h the c o n s e r v a t i o n v a l u e . As McHarg n o t e s ,  greatest  i t i s also fortunate  that  the areas o f most c r i t i c a l c o n s e r v a t i o n v a l u e 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,  ecological  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  cost  both  t o t h e 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 t h e 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 nature overshadow t h e i n i t i a l Finally, sion controls formulate  expense o f a s e n s i t i v e s i t e  layout.  j u s t as t h e e f f e c t i v e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  of subdivi-  depends u p o n t h e u s e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l  conservation objectives,  depends upon t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n  so e f f e c t i v e  analysis to  conservation  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 , or unconcerned about, the e c o l o g i c a l sions.  Rather,  implications  the r e s t r i c t i v e nature  l e g i s l a t i o n may d i s c o u r a g e  analysis  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 . notes,  "Frequently i t i s f a reasier  g o a l s on p a p e r t h a n  of the present  municipalities  admittedly c o s t l y environmental  of subdivi-  from u n d e r t a k i n g an i f they l a c k the  A s t h e Seymour to outline  i t i s t o achieve  enabling  study  conservation  them i n e v e r y d a y p r a c t i c e • Q  unless there i s provision  f o rlegal  enforcement."  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 , t h e province  should  environmental facilitate behind.  encourage l o c a l governments t o c o n s i d e r t h e  aspects  o f development.  While other  provinces  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 ,  What i s n e e d e d i s n o t o n l y g r e a t e r s t a t u t o r y  to c o n t r o l  development, b u t a s h i f t  i n provincial  B.C. l a g s authority  attitude  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  environmental  municipal action.  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 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 guide  published by the  Manitoba 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 A p p e n d i x F.  IUD  Footnotes - Chapter 5 1  Sees Mary E. Brooks, "Mandatory D e d i c a t i o n of Land or Feesi n - L i e u of Land f o r Parks 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 , Chicago, 111., Feb.,1971, pp.27-28.  2  A l b e r t a B i l l #15  3  Seet W i l l i a m Graham C o n s u l t a n t s , "Improving Land Use Cont r a c t s " , Research Report to the B.C. Real E s t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n , Vancouver, B . C l , Feb. 1977, pp. 8-10.  4  Ian McHarg, Design With Nature, 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., T 9 T 9 , p . 1 5 4 .  5  I b i d . , p.154.  6  Ibid.,  p.57.  7  Ibid.,  p.64.  8  D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver, P l a n n i n g Department, The N a t u r a l Environment. p . 6 7 .  - Planning Act  1977.  Seymourt  BIBLIOGRAPHY I . Books and  Articles  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 R e s o u r c e s 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 - C o n f e r e n c e B a c k g r o u n d 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., 1961. B r o o k s , M a r y E., " M a n d a t o r y D e d i c a t i o n o f L a n d 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, A m e r i c a n 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 , Chicago, 111., F e b r u a r y 1971. J o h n s o n , Norah and J o y c e T y r r e l l , "Problems and T e c h n i q u e s o f L a n d A c q u i s i t i o n " , R e s o u r c e s f o r Tomorrow - C o n f e r e n c e B a c k g r o u n d P a p e r s , Volume 2 , Queen's P r i n t e r a n d 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 , J o n 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 , Madison, Wis., 1974. 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 t h e L a n d , Pergamon P r e s s , New Y o r k , N.Y., 1968. 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 G a r d e n C i t y , N.Y., 19W.  Press,  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 C a n a d i a n B a r R e v i e w . 4 3 1 49 - 9 8 , March 1965. P o r t e r , B r i a n , The L a n d Use C o n t r a c t ! I t s V a l i d i t y a s a Means o f Use a n d D e v e l o p m e n t 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 , V a n c o u v e r , B.C., 1973. Shomon, J o s e p h J . , Open L a n d f o r U r b a n A m e r i c a , J o h n H o p k i n s 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 S p a c e a n d N a t u r a l U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania, P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pa., Whyte, W i l l i a m H,, C l u s t e r D e v e l o p m e n t , New Y o r k , N.Y., 1964.  Process, 1970.  Woodhaven P r e s s ,  Y o u n g , G a r y , 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 of B r i t i s h Columbia, V a n c o u v e r , B.C., 1974.  xuo  II.  Government S o u r c e s  B.A.C.M. L i m i t e d ,  " R e p o r t 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 B u r n a b y , P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t , "B'urhaby L i n e a r P a r k s a n d T r a i l S y s t e m " , memo t o P a r k s a n d 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 e v y " , September  C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , S i t e Handbook, O t t a w a , 1975.  2 8 , 1976.  Planning  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 U r b a n L a n d s c a p e , T o r o n t o , Ontario, July 197 . k  D i s t r i c t o f C o q u i t l a m , " D e v e l o p m e n t A g r e e m e n t 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 c t o b e r 1, 1 9 7 6 . / ' S u b d i v i s i o n Committee and J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1977.  M i n u t e s " , November 3 0 , 1976  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 L a n d U s e C o n t r a c t s " , R e s e a r c h R e p o r t t o t h e B.C. R e a l E s t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n , V a n c o u v e r , B.C., F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 7 . G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r 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 t h e G r o w t h o f G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r , V a n c o u v e r , B.C., 1 9 7 6 . 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 t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a n d L a n d U s e C o m m i t t e e , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1 9 7 6 . L o w e r 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", V a n c o u v e r , B.C., i 9 6 0 . Manitoba 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 A p p r o a c h t o D e v e l o p m e n t " , P l a n n i n g G u i d e No. 2 , 1 9 7 6 . D i s t r i c t o f North Vancouver, P l a n n i n g Department, The N a t u r a l E n v i r o n m e n t , J u n e 1 9 7 5 . P e a r s o n , Norman, O p e r a t i o n Open S p a c e , G r e a t e r R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , V a n c o u v e r , B.C., 1 9 7 3 .  Seymour:  Vancouver  P o w e r s , M i c h a e l G., R e g i o n a l Open S p a c e O p p o r t u n i t i e s , G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , V a n c o u v e r , B.C.,1975.  D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver, Development G u i d e l i n e s f o r Land Above the Upper L e v e l s Highway, September 1 ? , 1973. , A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission, Recommendations and Reports With Respect to Development Above the Upper L e v e l s Highway, May 1 5 , 1974. III.  Legislation  P r o v i n c e of A l b e r t a , B i l l  No.  1J>, P l a n n i n g A c t -  1977.  P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia, M u n i c i p a l A c t . C o n s o l i d a t e d f o r Convenience Only, J u l y 1, 1973* , Land R e g i s t r y A c t , C o n s o l i d a t e d f o r Convenience Only, J u l y 1, 1973. D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, By-Law No. 5953, C o n s o l i d a t e d f o r Convenience with By-Laws Nos. 6230j 6 3 5 6 j 6402 j and 6 5 6 7 ; A By-Law to Regulate S u b d i v i s i o n of Land. Dominion of Canada, B r i t i s h North America A c t ,  1867.  D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam, S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l By-Law - By-Law No. 1930. May 1971. IV. Court Cases Re Land R e g i s t r y A c t t Re Proposed S u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 9 5 5 ) . Simpson v s . C i t y of Vancouver ( 1 9 ? 6 ) ,  65 DLR  Upland Developments v s . Town of Quesnel V.  (3d)  669  (SCC).  (1972),  Lectures  Lane, W i l l i a m , " M u n i c i p a l and Regional P l a n n i n g 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., November 1 3 , 1976. Woodsworth, K.C., ed., Land Use C o n t r a c t s , l e c t u r e t r a n s c r i p t s Centre f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y 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, M u n i c i p a l Planner, D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver February 1 1 , 1977. R u s s e l l , Helen, March 1 0 ,  S u b d i v i s i o n T e c h n i c i a n , D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, 1977.  S m i t h , Des,  Planner, D i s t r i c t  Tiessen, E r i c ,  of North Vancouver,  Planner, 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,  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 M o r t g a g e a n d C o r p o r a t i o n , V a n c o u v e r , B.C., May 3 , 1977. Wolfe, L a r r y , Planner, D i s t r i c t  M a r c h 16,  1977. 1977.  Housing  of Coquitlam, February 4,  1977.  Appendix A - M u n i c i p a l A c t S e c t i o n 711  Division (4).—Subdivision  RepiiMiotu concerning zoncs'.wd highways.  '  t h a t  of Land  711. (!) The Council may regulate the subdivision of laud, and for \s J & * P Posc may by by-law (#) 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 contained in clauses (a) and (ci); (c) require that a proposed subdivision (i) be suited to the configuration of the land being subdivided; 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 sewagedisposal 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. ur  (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 cognizance 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, including 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 sanitary 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 municipality 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 83 -  98  Subdivision Plans  S3. (1) Except in the case of a subdivision for (lie purpose of lcasrurpmeoT '"6 P °f 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 Mio'8ub.' "' c  s  art  a  Requirements (2) No person shall subdivide land for the purpose of a mortgage or OS to subdivision for other dealing which may be registered under the provisions of this Act purpose of charge. 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. Effect of (3) No instrument executed by any person in contravention of this contravention of section. section confers upon the party claiming thereunder any right to registration. R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 83; 1965, c. 22, s. 4. Method of defining new parcel.  84. A new parcel created by subdivision or a parcel for which-a certificate 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. ;  Certain desig- 85. No subdivision plan shall be deposited which designates the land nations prohibited on subdivision subdivided as beir.3 a city, town, townsite, port, borough, or village, or plans. as a separate part thereof or an addition thereto. R.S. 1948J c. 171, s. 85. Requirements 86. All subdivisions shall comply with the following requirements, as to subdivisions. 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 subdivision plans of adjoining latids or otherwise legally established 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 2246  luim imini.-ipal hunts.  «)•> (i) I,, .;,. (| l.nuls subili viclcd arc not within a "municipality, i J' the approving officer may, al the cost of the owner of the hinds, personally 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 installations; (c) the deposit of the plan is against the public interest; (rf) the plan does not comply with the provisions of this Act relative to access and sufficiency of highway allowances shown within the plan, and with all regulations of the LieutenantGovernor 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. a regional district, the approving officer may refuse to approve the subdivision if it does not conform to the respective by-laws of the municipality or the regional district regulating the subdivision .of land. 1970, Basis of con- c. 19, s. 6. / sideration of highway 95. In considering the sufficiency of the highway allowances shown allowances. 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 question 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. Grounds for 96. In considering an application before him for subdivision approval, rcfuslnc approval of tubdivision. the approving officer may hear objections from any interested persons, and may refuse to approve the subdivision if in his opinion the anticipated development oi the subdivision would injuriously afTcct the established 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. t  ; c  ]C  0  RPrtov"i  1  J  When P' ' approved, the approving officer shall write thereon "Approved under the Land Registry Act," with the date of ap2249 , n c  an  s  proval, and shall sign the same and append his official designation, for example, " City Engineer, City of ," or " Chief Engineer, Department of Highways." R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 97; 1961, c. 33, s. 13. Sifp mni° jiTd'se P  x  If the plan has been rejected by the approving officer or has keen P P d 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 may seefit.R.S. 1948, c. 171, s. 98; 1950, c. 36, s. 5.  n o t  a  r0Vc  116  Appendix C - M u n i c i p a l Act. S e c t i o n 7 0 2 A  Development 702A. (1) In exercising the provisions of this section, tlic Council areas. 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 designate areas of land within a zone as development areas, but a public hearing 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 bylaw of the municipality, or section 712 or 713, enter into a land use contract containing such terms and conditions for the use and development 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 affirmative 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 purposes 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  A p p l i e d t o 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 p a r t of C o u n c i l as t o the adequacy o f p a r k s and open g r e e n space i n s p e c i f i c a r e a s o f 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 t o h i g h e r 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 c o s t o f 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 s h o u l d be borne by the d e v e l o p e r s o f 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 P a r k s A c q u i s i t i o n Programme w h i c h has been developed j o i n t l y by the P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n Commission and Department and the P l a n n i n g Department, the m u n i c i p a l i t y has a method t o a c q u i r e p r o p e r t y 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 o r as f i n a n c e s p e r m i t . However, the e x p e n d i t u r e of funds f o r parkl a n d a c q u i s i t i o n emphasizes the m a j o r c o n s o l i d a t i o n of community park a r e a s and systems. The i n c r e a s e i n d e n s i t i e s i n a number of d e s i g n a t e d d e v e l o p i n g r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s has r e s u l t e d i n a concomit a n t hee_d f o r _addijtjLonai neighbourhood p a n t s . Due i n p a r t t o 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 b u d g e t i n g f o r p a r k l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n s , i t has been deemed a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t the d e v e l o p e r s o f new r e s i d e n t i a l developments s h o u l d bear some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n of n e c e s s a r y 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 P a r k l a n d 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 d e v e l o p ment i n Burnaby. The  adopted Recommendations a r e :  1.  The P a r k l a n d A c q u i s i t i o n Levy a p p l i e s t o s p e c i f i c community p l a n a r e a s where the p l a n i s e x p r e s s e d i n maps, p l a n s , and r e p o r t s o r any c o m b i n a t i o n t h e r e o f , and i s t o be d e p o s i t e d 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 corr e s p o n d i n g t o Neighbourhood P l a n n i n g A r e a s . Note:  a)  A d e v e l o p e r may d e d i c a t e a p p r o p r i a t e p a r k l a n d i n l i e u of l e v y deposits..  designated  b)  The l e v i e s which are c o l l e c t e d are t o be u t i l i z e d t o a c q u i r e neighbourhood p a r k l a n d w i t h i n the p r e c i n c t o f the Neighbourhood P l a n n i n g A r e a o r i n any d i r e c t l y a b u t t i n g a r e a .  c)  The d e t e r m i n e d l e v i e s f o r a g i v e n r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p o s a l are t o be s u b m i t t e d by the d e v e l o p e r i n the form of a c e r t i f i e d cheque i n f a v o u r of the C o r p o r a t i o n o f Burnaby.  no  2.  The P a r k l a n d A c q u i s i t i o n Levy a p p l i e s i)  Subdivision  i n the f o l l o w i n g  instances:  Approval -  A p e r u n i t l e v y f o r each a d d i t i o n a l s u b d i v i d e d s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g l o t c r e a t e d from t h e o r i g i n a l l o t ( s ) . ii)  Preliminary  Plan Approval -  A p e r u n i t l e v y f o r any r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p o s a l w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n o f a pre-zoned s i t e zoned p r i o r t o 1970 a c c o r d i n g t o t h e RM1, RM2, RM3 o r RM5 z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s b u t which h a s not been developed t o i t s designated zoning category. iii)  Rezoning Approval A p e r u n i t l e v y f o r any r e s i d e n t i a l r e z o n i n g p r o p o s a l .  3.  C o u n c i l approved a l e v y e q u a l t o 50% o f t h e e s t i m a t e d a c q u i s i t i o n c o s t o f neighbourhood p a r k l a n d r e s u l t i n g i n t h e 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 t h e recommendation t h a t t h e P a r k l a n d 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 d e v e l o p ments be reduced t o 50% o f the p e r 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 Per Unit  H o u s i n g Type  Senior C i t i z e n s Levy P e r U n i t  Single Family Dwelling  $  521  per u n i t  (applicable to subdivision)  Townhouse (12 upa-)  $  528  per u n i t  $ 264 p e r u n i t  Garden Apartment  $  630  per u n i t  $ 315 p e r u n i t  (20 upa±)  3 - S t o r e y Apartment  (50 upa±)  $ 1, 125 per  unit  $ 562 p e r u n i t  950  RM4 H i g h R i s e  (80 upa±)  $  per  unit  $ 47 5 p e r u n i t  RM5 H i g h R i s e  (100 upa±)  $ 1, 080 per  unit  $ 540 p e r u n i t  Note:  a)  The Burnaby r e c r e a t i o n a l space s t a n d a r d employed f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f neighbourhood p a r k s i s 2.0 a c r e s p e r 1,000 p e r s o n s . -  Appendix  SUBDIVISION  v  DEDICATION AND IIAZAIUJ PROVISIONS  JMLl<W^mMLAth?MD British|  - s u b d i v i s i o n a l o n g water r e q u i r e s p u b l i c highway a c c e s s e v e r y CGO f e e t o r 1,320 f e e t where i n unor<jani :• c<l t e r r i t o r y and ^ p a r c e l s one-acre p l u s  Col u;nbia!  - park, highway, shore, area under water e t c . deemed t o he d e d i c a t e d t o p u b l i c when n o t s u b d i v i d e d i n r e g i s t e r e d p l a n .  Alberta Current  j— d e d i c a t i o n w i t h o u t compensation o f r o a d ways and p u b l i c u t i l i t y r i g h t s o f way - r e s e r v e s up t o 10* and a u t h o r i t y may r e q u i r e swamps, g u l l i e s , d r a i n a g e c o u r s e s e t c . i n i a d d i t i o n t o 10%  PROVISION  E r o s i o n , c l i p , f l o o d i n g and poor d r a i n a g e grounds f o r r e f u s a l . A p p r o v a l where c o v e n a n t signed. F l o o d i n g l a n d s u b d i v i s i o n r e q u i r e s Water Resources a p p r o v a l tnay r e f u s e o u t s i d e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s where d r a i n a g e i n a d e q u a t e and " a g a i n s t p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " .  I n d u s t r i a l s u b d i v i s i o n 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 , r a v i n e s , n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e c o u r s e s and u n s u i t a b l e a r e a s d e d i c a t e d a t d i s cretion of authority W a t e r f r o n t s t r i p and 10% p a r c e l  .1  required  j— w a t e r f r o n t r e q u i r e s 10 f o o t - p l u s s h o r e l i n e , i and 104 r e s e r v e f r o n t i n g o n bed and s h o r e - Reserve n o t r e q u i r e d where i n i t i a l p a r c e l l e s s than 2 a c r e s 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 r e q u i r e s t r e e b u f f e r s 20 f e e t plus. Alberta Proposed  D e d i c a t i o n w i t h o u t compensation o f up t o 30% f o r p u b l i c roadway and m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s P u b l i c r e s e r v e , w i t h o u t compensation, 5% o r more; up t o 10% i n a d d i t i o n D e d i c a t i o n when l a n d s occupants  l i k e l y t o be used by  Kot r e q u i r e d when p a r c e l s 20 a c r e s p l u s , money i n l i e u o r adequate r e s e r v e i n p r e - • vious subdivision  Approval o f p r e l i m i n a r y s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n r e f u s e d u n l e s s adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l , s o i l e r o s i o n , r e s o u r c e and w i l d l i f e preservation. Where s u b d i v i s i o n a d j o i n s water body, may require dedication of s t r i p s u f f i c i e n t t o pre vent p o l l u t i o n -  D e d i c a t i o n o f swamp, g u l l y , r a v i n e , d r a i n a g e course o r areas unsuitable f o r b u i l d i n g as c o n d i t i o n o f approval S t r i p a l o n g water a s may be r e q u i r e d t o p r e vent p o l l u t i o n  Saskatchewan i - I n a d d i t i o n t o s t r e e t s and l a n e s , 5 t o 10% t o be d e d i c a t e d e x c e p t where each p a r c e l l a r g e r than 10 a c r e s , RK, d i t c h , c a n a l e t c . - L o c a t i o n o f p u b l i c r e s e r v e d e t e r m i n e d by . approving a u t h o r i t y - R u f f c r s t r i p s may be r e q u i r e d : i n c l u d e d i n reserve for non-residential ij  Manitoba  Shoreline, right)  slopes, g u l l i e s ,  e t c . (see a t  I n l a n d a d j a c e n t t o water, a u t h o r i t y may r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n o f a) s h o r e s t r i p i n w i d t h s u f f i c i e n t f o r bank p r e s e r v a t i o n and f l o o d protection b) a c c e s s A u t h o r i t y may r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n o f s l o p i n g l a n d s , r a v i n e s , swamps, n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e c o u r s e s and a : c a s u n s u i t a b l e f o r b u i l d i n g . Land f o r s u b d i v i s i o n t o be " e m i n e n t l y s u i t a b l e " c o n s i d e r i n g danger o f f l o o d i n g , s u b s i dence, l a n d s l i d e and e r o s i o n and p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t a i r , water o r s o i l p o l l u t i o n  - D e d i c a t i o n o f l a n d f o r highways and s e r v i c e s I n amount d e t e r m i n e d by c o u n c i l may be condition of approval.  Land " u n s u i t a b l e f o r d c v e l o p m o n f a s d e t e r m i n e d by c o u n c i l , may. be r e q u i r e d t o be d e d i c a t e d  - P u b l i c l a n d d e d i c a t i o n may be one a c r e p e r 100 o c c u p a n t s , p l u s u n s u i t a b l e l a n d s and sliotcl.ind (sec a t r i g h t ) which a r c n o t calculated i n reserves  S h o r e l a n d t o bo d e d i c a t e d i n amount determined by a u t h o r i t y t o p r o t e c t and p r e s e r v e shore and provide p u b l i c access. May be c o n d i t i o n o f approval. Waiving r e q u i r e s M i n i s t e r ' s approval on recommendation o f a u t h o r i t y .  - S c h o o l c i t e may be r e q u i r e d a t one a c r e per 100 p e r s o n s - No d e d i c a t i o n where p a r c e l s 10 a c r e s - p l u s - A l l d e d i c a t i o n i s w i t h o u t compensation and niiy be waived.  120  SUDOIVJSION  - DEDICATION AMD HAZARD PROVISIONS (Cont'd...)  PJiBlCAXia^iiJAtja_t.uiOuj.siotjs  :  M i n i s t e r o r o t h e r c o n s e n t a u t h o r i t y may impose c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d i n g : d e d i c a t i o n o f uI> t o 5% l o r park purpose;;, highways and h i g h way widening a l l o t m e n t s  KNVJJ^0J«lIM'AIUIA2AJcriau<OVXSIOlS Consent g r a n t i n g a u t h o r i t y s h a n _ h a v o j r e g a r d to c o n s e r v a t i o n o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s arid " f l o o d control  Cash payment nay be made i n l i e u o f l a n d con*veyance f o r p a r k  Quebec Current  M u n i c i p a l i t y may r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n o f 10% p r i o r t o a p p r o v a l o r i n l i e u , make payment I n t o s p e c i a l fund  Quebec Proposed  M u n i c i p a l i t y may r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n o f l a n d s f o r s t r e e t s and p u b l i c p a r k s  New Brunswick  - D e d i c a t i o n may be r e q u i r e d o f up t o 10% p l u s s t r e e t a l l o t m e n t s o r , i n l i e u , payment o f up t o C% o f market v a l u e  Nova S c o t i a  - With M i n i s t e r ' s a p p r o v a l 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 o f up t o 5% a s p u b l i c lands.  L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l ' s r e g u l a t i o n s may p r o h i b i t s u b d i v i s i o n where danger o f f l 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 asters. M u n i c i p a l i t y may p r e s c r i b e t h e same.  S e p t i c t a n k i n s t a l l a t i o n r e q u i r e s s o i l t e s t and m e d i c a l o f f i c e r o r e n g i n e e r ' s o p i n i o n a t 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 p r o h i b i t e d pending Department o f Environment a p p r o v a l : c o n s i d e r s e r o s i o n p r e v e n t i o n , p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t r e e cover, s i l t a t i o n o f water b o d i e s - M u n i c i p a l development p l a n s h a l l c o n t a i n p o l i c i e s f o r p r o t e c t i o n o f s t e e p s l o p e s , wetl a n d s , f l o o d p l a i n s , views and s c e n e r y , v e g e t a t i o n and w i l d l i f e s a n c t u a r i e s , p r o t e c t i o n o f water s u p p l i e s a n d e c o l o g i c a l l y s e n s i t i v e areas.  P r i n c e Edward Island  M i n i s t e r may r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n o f n o t l e s s than 10% o f l a n d where s u b d i v i s i o n l a r g e r than 5 l o t s o r 10 a c r e s  M o b i l e home c o u r t o p e r a t o r must p r o v i d e approved garbage r e c e p t a c l e s , water s u p p l y and sewerage d i s p o s a l systems  Newfoundland  May r e q u i r e d e d i c a t i o n o f up t o 10% f o r p u b l i c u s e i n p r o t e c t e d road a r e a s  S t r i p o f l a n d s h a l l be r e s e r v e d undeveloped a l o n g t h e banks o f every r i v e r , brook or pond.  M o b i l e home s u b d i v i s i o n s may r e q u i r e d e d i cation of buffers  * E x c e r p t from an u n p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t by Bruce Heavn f o r t h e E n v i r o n m e n t and Land Use Committee, " C o m p a r a t i v e C a n a d i a n Planning L e g i s l a t i o n " , 1976. • 0  c  i  n  d  a  i  a  n  121  A p p e n d i x 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 p l a n n i n g in h a r m o n y with nature that we c a n a c h i e v e a s e n s e of stability.  I  This environmental p h i l o s o p h y has b e e n the missing element in M a n i t o b a ' s d e v e l o p m e n t — i t is w h a t w e n e e d to g u i d e o u r a c t i o n s in the u s e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of o u r natural r e s o u r c e s . A l l too often w e h a v e substituted short-term e c o n o m i c gains, self-interest, and the s a c r e d g o a l of " p r o g r e s s at a l l c o s t s " w h e r e a n 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 a d v a n c e m e n t has far outstripped o u r ability to think as r e s p o n s i b l e h u m a n b e i n g s . T h e environmental p h i l o s o p h y c a n be translated into two s i m p l e w o r d s c o m m o n sense! H a n d in a n d with the e n v i r o n m e n t a l ethic is what might be t e r m e d a " p e o p l e e t h i c . " S i n c e o u r 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 o n l y r e a s o n a b l e that both present and future public recreational requirements for use of M a n i t o b a ' s waterways a n d their s h o r e l a n d s be fulfilled. Ideally, there is no reason why water-oriented public parks, c a m p g r o u n d s , or o p e n s p a c e s h o u l d be c r o w d e d . L a c k of p u b l i c s h o r e l a n d merely indicates poor p l a n n i n g a n d the p l a c i n g of private interests a h e a d of public requirements. h  j i i. | I '  '  T h e lack of public water frontage in p l a c e s like Ontario, British C o l u m b i a , a n d m a n y p a r t s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s h o u l d s e r v e as a w a r n i n g to u s . C o n f r o n t a t i o n s between cottagers a n d the public over w h o may use the b e a c h e s has given rise to p o l i c e intervention in Ontario.* W e in M a n i t o b a have the opportunity to profit from the mistakes of o t h e r s — l e t ' s use it. T h e c o n c e p t of d e v e l o p m e n t b e i n g g o o d at all c o s t s must be u n a c c e p t a b l e to M a n i t o b a n s . T h e waterways of M a n i t o b a are a p u b l i c r e s o u r c e , a n d any d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h e n d a n g e r s the quality or beauty of that r e s o u r c e s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d u n d e s i r a b l e . At the s a m e time it is n e c e s s a r y to r e c o g n i z e that in order for p e o p l e to use these r e s o u r c e s in an o p t i m u m m a n n e r , s o m e d e v e l o p m e n t will be n e c e s s a r y . It is the way in which this development  takes place that makes the difference. Development blended with nature can be very pleasing.  T h u s c o m m o n s e n s e dictates a three-fold a p p r o a c h to the d e v e l o p m e n t of • our s h o r e l a n d r e s o u r c e s :  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 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 G u i d e 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