Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Rural land use control : an alternative to the standard zoning by-law 1985

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1985_A8 A43_3.pdf [ 7.94MB ]
UBC_1985_A8 A43_3.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0096361.json
JSON-LD: 1.0096361+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0096361.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0096361+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0096361+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0096361+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0096361.ris

Full Text

RURAL LAND USE CONTROL:. AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE STANDARD ZONING BY-LAW By THOMAS ROBERT ANDERSON B.A., The University of Victoria A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1985 © Thomas Robert Anderson, 1985 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October 7 t h , 1985 DE-6 (3/81) i i ABSTRACT This analysis i s based on a s i t u a t i o n which has evolved i n E l e c t o r a l Area "G" within the Regional D i s t r i c t of Okanagan-Similkameen located i n the south c e n t r a l sector of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. The spread of urbanization i n t o t h i s unzoned r u r a l area i n the form of a large block s u b d i v i s i o n created a land use c o n f l i c t with e x i s t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l uses. The Regional D i s t r i c t responded by proposing t o zone the e n t i r e e l e c t o r a l area with a standard zoning by-law. Rural residents reacted to oppose t h i s idea saying the standard zoning by-law i s too s t r i n g e n t . The Regional D i s t r i c t eventually spot zoned the property i n question which l i m i t e d the development to that which was i n i t i a l l y proposed. While t h i s measure solved the immediate problem, i t d i d l i t t l e to prevent future land use c o n f l i c t s . The s i t u a t i o n j u s t described h i g h l i g h t s the two issues which form the purpose of t h i s study. F i r s t , that some form of land use c o n t r o l i s neces- sary i n r u r a l areas because e x i s t i n g residents and land users should be protected from p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t i n g or undesirable land uses; and second, an a l t e r n a t i v e land use c o n t r o l should be developed to replace the standard zoning by-law which residents are so strongly opposed t o . To obtain more information on what the main p a r t i c i p a n t s i n r u r a l land use planning think about the standard zoning by-law; Regional Planners were asked why they f e l t the implementation of the standard zoning by-law was important; and residents were asked why i t should not be implemented? The statements by both groups were analyzed f o r t h e i r v a l i d i t y . Research showed that most of the planners statements were true but that e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l land use controls have more of an e f f e c t on development than i s r e a l i z e d . Analysis of residents statements showed that some are based on rumours and emotions rather than f a c t . However, regardless of f a c t the way i n which the p u b l i c perceive a s i t u a t i o n i s important and must be considered. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Development Permit, Flood P l a i n Zones, Spot Zones, Contract Zones and Conditional Zones as a l t e r n a t i v e s to the standard i i i zoning by-law revealed t h e i r p o s i t i v e and negative aspects along with t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r implementation i n E l e c t o r a l Area "G". Incorporating what had been learned i n previous chapters, a Rural Maintenance By-law proposes two important d i f f e r e n c e s . F i r s t , i s a l i s t of p r o h i b i t e d uses rather than the usual permitted uses. A l i s t of p r o h i b i t e d uses i s f e l t to better s u i t the two zoning d i s t r i c t concept being proposed. I t a l s o presents a more p o s i t i v e image of a land use re g u l a t i o n to the p u b l i c . Second, f l e x i b i l i t y i s b u i l t i n t o the concept by way of a c o n d i t i o n a l zoning technique. In t h i s way, developments w i l l not be r e s t r i c t e d by the stringent regulations found i n a standard zoning by-law. I t w i l l a l s o encourage resident p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the development process of t h e i r area. And f i n a l l y , i t w i l l require the planner to work at the grass roots l e v e l with developers and residents to negotiate the best p o s s i b l e development f o r future generations. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE L i s t of Tables v i L i s t of Figures v i i L i s t of Appendices v i i i Acknowledgements i x 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Problem Statement 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Description of the Study 4 2.0 ANALYSIS OF STATEMENTS 5 2.1 Regional Planners Statements 6 2.1.1 Without Zoning, the Character of the Neighborhood Can Not Be Preserved 6 2.1.2 Without Zoning, O f f i c i a l Settlement Plans Can Not Be Implemented 22 2.1.3 I t i s More Expensive to Service Sprawl Development Than Clustered Development 27 2.1.4 Without Zoning, Development Can Take Place On Hazard Lands 30 2.1.5 Without Zoning, Residents Health and Safety Can Not Be Protected 36 2.1.6 Unzoned Areas Become Melting Pots For Undesirable Land Uses 42 2.2 Residents Statements 49 2.2.1 Increased Governmental Regulation W i l l Result i n Loss of the Rural Lifestyle 49 2.2.2 Increased Bureaucracy Means Increased Taxes 52 2.2.3 Zoning Regulations Are Designed For Urban Areas and Do Not Consider Rural Values 56 3.0 REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE STANDARD ZONING BYLAW 60 3.1 Development Permit 61 3.2 Floodplain Zones 63 3.3 Spot Zones 65 3.4 Contract Zones 68 3.5 Conditional Zones 70 3.6 Suitability of Alternatives i n Electoral Area 'G* 72 4.0 AN ALTERNATIVE: THE PROPOSED RURAL MAINTENANCE BYLAW 75 4.1 Introduction 75 4.2 Factors Affecting the Design 76 4.3 General Overview of the Alternative 78 4.3.1 Adndnistration of the Alternative 78 4.3.2 Relationship of the Alternative to the Standard Zoning Bylaw 78 V TABLE OF CONTENTS CX1JTINUED 4 .4 D e t a i l e d /Analysis o f the A l t e r n a t i v e 80 4 .4 .1 P r o h i b i t e d Uses 80 4 .4 .2 F l e x i b i l i t y o f the A l t e r n a t i v e 83 4 .4 .3 The Standards 84 4 .5 Method o f Process ing C o n d i t i o n a l Zoning 94 4 .6 P o l i c i n g the /Al ternat ive 96 4.7 The Uncer ta in ty Created By the A l t e r n a t i v e 97 4 .8 Review the A l t e r n a t i v e 97 4 .9 Rura l Maintenance Bylaw 98 5.0 CONCLUSION 105 5.1 L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study 105 5.2 L i m i t a t i o n s o f the A l t e r n a t i v e 106 5.3 The V a l i d i t y o f the Proposed A l t e r n a t i v e 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES v i LIST OF TABLES Analysis of Regional D i s t r i c t 1983 r e q u i s i t i o n for functions f o r each municipality and e l e c t o r a l area. L i s t of standards. v i i LIST OF FIGURES 1. E l e c t o r a l Area 'G' within the Regional D i s t r i c t of Okanagan-Sirnilkarneen. 2. Keremeos settlement plan area. 3. Okanagan F a l l s settlement plan area. 4. Locations of undesirable land uses (Keremeos). 5. Locations of undesirable land uses (Okanagan F a l l s ) . 6. Locations of undesirable land uses (Okanagan F a l l s ) , with zoning overlay. 7. E l e c t r a l T^rea 'F' within the Regional D i s t r i c t of Okanagan-Similkameen. v i i i APPENDICES A . Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-SirniLkarrieen b u i l d i n g bylaw no. 688. B. Example o f M i n i s t r y o f Environment f l o o d p l a i n covenant. C . A g r i c u l t u r a l / R e s i d e n t i a l Zoning D i s t r i c t o f E l e c t o r a l Area 'D ' zoning bylaw no. 100. D. General requirements o f E l e c t o r a l /Area 'D ' zoning bylaw no. 100. E . F o r e s t r y - G r a z i n g Zoning D i s t r i c t , E l e c t o r a l Area 'D ' zoning bylaw no. 100. ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish t o extend my sincere gratitude t o professor Brahm Weisman for h i s guidance, c r i t i c i s m and enthusiasm throughout the duration of t h i s project. Without i t the process would have taken much longer. Appreciation i s also extended t o B i l l Lane for h i s assistance and Erik Karlsen for h i s comments. Most of a l l , I thank my wife, Yvonne, for without her patience, encouragement and being crazy enough to go along with t h i s adventure, I would never have survived. Special thanks also goes to my daughters Brynn (2 1/2) and Megan (8 months) for to l e r a t i n g my absence while studying. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT The purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s i s t o i d e n t i f y a land use c o n t r o l technique which w i l l prov ide r u r a l res idents w i th a s u i t a b l e method o f c o n t r o l l i n g undesi rable land uses r e s u l t i n g from the spread o f u r b a n i z a t i o n . A t the same t ime, t h i s land use c o n t r o l technique w i l l be designed t o respect the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an environment which i s e s s e n t i a l l y r u r a l . 1.2 BACKGROUND T h i s study w i l l concentrate on a s i t u a t i o n which has a r i s e n as a r e s u l t o f the spread o f u rban iza t ion i n t o a r u r a l area which i s not zoned. An example o f such a s i t u a t i o n i s when a smal l l o t r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n i s developed adjacent t o an a g r i c u l t u r a l opera t ion . As the r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s are b u i l t upon, the adjacent farmer may r e c e i v e complaints about h i s normal a g r i c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s such as h i s use o f chemical sprays , e a r l y morning plowing and the l i k e . T h i s study w i l l focus on a s i t u a t i o n which has a r i s e n i n the south c e n t r a l p o r t i o n o f B r i t i s h Columbia, commonly descr ibed as the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okaragan-Similkameen. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the study w i l l concentrate on the south c e n t r a l sec tor o f the Regional D i s t r i c t l e g a l l y descr ibed as the E l e c t o r a l Area ' G 1 . T h i s E l e c t o r a l Area surrounds the V i l l a g e o f Keremeos and encompasses the unincorporated areas o f Hedley and O l a l l a . (See F igure 1) E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' i s composed o f a v a r i e t y o f land uses . A g r i c u l t u r a l lands fo l low the v a l l e y bottoms o f the Sijrdlkameen R iver and Keremeos Creek. Pockets o f r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial and l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l land l i e w i t h i n the unincorporated areas o f Hedley and O l a l l a . The major i ty o f land c o n s i s t s o f h i l l s i d e graz ing and mountain ranges.  3 Over the pas t severa l years E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , which i s not zoned, has experienced c o n f l i c t s r e s u l t i n g from the spread o f u r b a n i z a t i o n . One o f the most notable occurred i n 1980 when a developer proposed t o subdiv ide a 360 acre p a r c e l i n t o 10 acre h o l d i n g s . T h i s land which i s loca ted jus t north o f the V i l l a g e o f Keremeos, i s adjacent t o a number o f ranching opera t ions . The ranchers became concerned when they r e a l i z e d that without zoning r e g u l a t i o n s , these 10 acre l o t s cou ld be fu r ther subdiv ided i n t o p a r c e l s as smal l as the P r o v i n c i a l L o c a l S e r v i c e s A c t would a l low. The minimum p a r c e l s i z e a l lowable under these regu la t ions i s 7,500 square fee t i f connected t o a cormiunity water system, which was the case f o r t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n . As a r e s u l t , the ranchers demanded that the Board o f the Regional D i s t r i c t impose some form o f land use c o n t r o l t o p r o t e c t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . The Regional Board had, on prev ious occas ions , put forward proposals t o res idents t o zone the E l e c t o r a l Area us ing a Standard Zoning Bylaw. On each- occas ion res idents responded expressing the view that they d i d not want t o be r e s t r i c t e d by such a s t r i n g e n t form o f land use r e g u l a t i o n . Undaunted by the meetings o f the p a s t , the Regional Board responded t o the ranchers request f o r p r o t e c t i o n by once again proposing that the e n t i r e E l e c t o r a l Area be zoned. A p u b l i c meeting was h e l d wi th the Regional D i s t r i c t c i t i n g the p l i g h t o f the ranchers as the reason f o r wanting a se t o f comprehensive regu la t ions such as are found i n the Standard Zoning Bylaw be ing proposed. Unmoved by the s i t u a t i o n o f a few, the major i ty o f those i n attendance a t the meeting remained vehemently opposed t o the impos i t ion o f these s t r i n g e n t regu la t ions over the e n t i r e E l e c t o r a l a rea . The r e s u l t was that the Regional Board adopted a zoning bylaw l i m i t i n g the p a r c e l s i z e s i n the 360 acre b l o c k t o 10 a c r e s . 4 While the s i t u a t i o n which as been descr ibed , ended t o the r e l a t i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the ranchers, the f a c t remains that such spot zoning i s not a s o l u t i o n f o r prevent ing fu ture land use c o n f l i c t s which may a r i s e . While a more indepth a n a l y s i s o f spot zoning as a land use c o n t r o l technique w i l l be undertaken i n a l a t e r chapter , i t should be s a i d that spot zoning i s normal ly i n i t i a t e d a f t e r a s u b d i v i s i o n has be proposed. Because o f t h i s , i t can only l i m i t the developer t o the p a r c e l s i z e a l ready proposed. T h i s , a long w i th the f a c t that spot zoning can be in te rp re ted by the courts as be ing d i s c r i m i n a t o r y against the developer, l i m i t s the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h i s technique i n unzoned a reas . The s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' o f the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen h i g h l i g h t s the two i ssues which form the purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s ; F i r s t l y , that some form o f land use c o n t r o l i s necessary i n r u r a l areas because e x i s t i n g res iden ts and land users should be pro tec ted from p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t i n g o r undesi rab le land uses; Secondly, an a l t e r n a t i v e land use c o n t r o l should be developed t o rep lace the Standard Zoning Bylaw which res idents are so s t r o n g l y opposed t o . 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY Chapter two i s designed t o obta in more in format ion on what the main p a r t i c i p a n t s i n r u r a l land use zoning th ink about the Standard Zoning Bylaw. To t h i s end, statements by Regional Planners on why they f e l t the implementation o f a Standard Zoning Bylaw was important i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , and statements made by res idents on why the Standard Zoning Bylaw should not be implemented, w i l l be analyzed f o r t h e i r v a l i d i t y . In other words, when a planner g ives a reason f o r the implementation o f a Standard Zoning Bylaw, are these simply stock r e p l i e s o r do they a c t u a l l y apply i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' ? Or , on the other hand, when res iden ts make statements aga inst the implementation o f the Standard Zoning Bylaw, are t h e i r 5 reac t ions based on rumours and emotions o r on ascer ta inab le f a c t s . The research requ i red i n the a n a l y s i s o f these statements w i l l invo lve d e f i n i n g what p r o v i n c i a l and o r l o c a l land use regu la t ions now e x i s t i n a l l unzoned areas and assess ing t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Chapter three w i l l i nves t iga te a number o f a l t e r n a t i v e s to the Standard Zoning Bylaw. A review o f the l i t e r a t u r e on the Development Permit , F l o o d p l a i n Zone, Spot Zone, Contract Zone and C o n d i t i o n a l Zone w i l l prov ide i n s i g h t s i n t o the var ious d e f i n i t i o n s o f each a long wi th t h e i r p o s i t i v e and negat ive aspects . The chapter w i l l conclude wi th a d i s c u s s i o n on the s u i t a b i l i t y o f implementing these a l t e r n a t i v e s as a land use c o n t r o l technique i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . Incorporat ing what has been learned i n the prev ious chapters , Chapter four w i l l propose the "Rural Maintenance Bylaw", as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o the Standard Zoning Bylaw. I t w i l l be designed t o be a p p l i c a b l e to other r u r a l areas o f the province besides E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . The f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the des ign o f t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e and procedures f o r i t s amendment w i l l be presented . The f i n a l chapter i s a c r i t i c a l review o f t h i s study and o f the a l t e r n a t i v e i t proposes. A d i s c u s s i o n o f the v a l i d i t y o f the a l t e r n a t i v e and how i t would be considered concludes the t h e s i s . 2.0 ANALYSIS OF STATEMENTS ON STANDARD ZONING T h i s chapter w i l l analyze and v a l i d a t e statements made about the standard zoning bylaw by Regional Planners and E l e c t o r a l /Area ' G ' r e s i d e n t s . Regional p lanners f o r the Reg. D i s t . o f Ok.-Similkameen were asked t o l i s t t h e i r reasons f o r the implementation o f a standard zoning bylaw i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . S i m i l a r l y , res idents who had s t r o n g l y opposed the impos i t ion o f zoning a t the p u b l i c meeting, were interv iewed and asked t o l i s t t h e i r reasons on why the standard zoning bylaw should not be implemented. A f t e r in terv iewing the r e g i o n a l p lanners and res idents o f 6 E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' # the fo l low ing statements emerged. Regional P lanners Statements 1) Without zoning, the character o f the neighbourhood can not be p reserved . 2) Without zoning, o f f i c i a l sett lement p lans can not be implemented. 3) I t i s more expensive t o s e r v i c e sprawl development than c l u s t e r e d development. 4) Without zoning, development can take p l a c e on hazard lands . 5) Without zoning, res idents h e a l t h and sa fe ty can not be p r o t e c t e d . 6) Unzoned areas become mel t ing pots f o r undes i rab le land uses . Residents Statements 1) Increased governmental r e g u l a t i o n w i l l r e s u l t i n l o s s o f the r u r a l l i f e s t y l e . 2) Increased bureaucracy means increased taxes . 3) Zoning regu la t ions are designed f o r urban areas and do not consider r u r a l va lues . /analyzing these statements w i l l , on the one hand, show whether the standard zoning bylaw r e a l l y accomplishes what the r e g i o n a l p lanners say i t w i l l , and on the other hand, i t w i l l v e r i f y whether r u r a l res idents percept ions o f a standard zoning bylaw are v a l i d . T h i s research w i l l a l s o cover two fu r ther s u b j e c t s . F i r s t , the e x i s t i n g land use regu la t ions governing E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' are descr ibed , and second, the r a t i o n a l e i f any, f o r r u r a l land use regu la t ions beyond what c u r r e n t l y e x i s t s . Examination o f each o f the statements has the p o t e n t i a l f o r a major research p r o j e c t . The scope o f the a n a l y s i s here i s l i m i t e d t o v e r i f y i n g whether r e a d i l y ascer ta inab le evidence i s a v a i l a b l e t o support or d isprove t h e i r v a l i d i t y . 2.1 REGIONAL PLANNERS STATEMENTS 2.1.1 Without zon ing , the character o f the neighborhood can not be p reserved . P r i o r t o examining t h i s statement, i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o recognize who has the c o n t r o l over land use i n B . C . The B r i t i s h North America A c t o f 1867 assigned powers t o the f e d e r a l government under S e c t i o n 91 and t o the p r o v i n c i a l government under S e c t i o n 92. With respect o f land, 7 S e c t i o n 92 (13) ass igns the a u t h o r i t y over land t o the p r o v i n c e s . In t u r n , the prov inces can delegate s p e c i f i c au thor i ty t o subordinate government bodies o r government departments. /As w i l l be seen throughout t h i s s e c t i o n , the de legat ion o f s p e c i f i c au thor i ty over land through p r o v i n c i a l s ta tu tes has been common. The M i n i s t r y o f Lands, Parks and Housing, "Land A l l o c a t i o n Terminology" b u l l e t i n , provides a compi la t ion o f a l l p r o v i n c i a l and F e d e r a l A c t s p r e s e n t l y i n fo rce i n the p r o v i n c e . By not ing a number o f these A c t s and the powers contained i n them t o e f f e c t land use, i t w i l l be seen that zoning regu la t ions are not the only ones c o n t r o l l i n g land use . A) E l e c t r i c a l Sa fe ty A c t - e s t a b l i s h e s the standards f o r e l e c t r i c a l sa fe ty w i t h i n the the prov ince . S e c t i o n 5.2 s ta tes tha t no e l e c t r i c a l equipment s h a l l be used unless i t has been inspected by a p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t r i c a l i n s p e c t o r . B) Environment and Land Use A c t - g i v e s the P r o v i n c i a l Cabinet powers t o make orders and regula t ions t o dea l w i th any matter i n v o l v i n g land use , as long as i t ac ts w i t h i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r s i d i c t i o n o f the p r o v i n c e . C) F i r e Serv ices A c t - a u t h o r i z e s the Lieutenant Governor i n C o u n c i l t o make regu la t ions p e r t a i n i n g t o f i r e sa fe ty w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e . With respect t o E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , the admin is t ra t ion becomes somewhat tenuous. Problems a r i s e concerning the Chimney, F i r e p l a c e , Smokepipe and Furnace Regulat ion (B.C. Reg. 492/59) . Sec t ion 3 o f the r e g u l a t i o n , requ i res that persons obta in a permit p r i o r t o the const ruc t ion o f such s t r u c t u r e s . Sec t ion 59 ( 2 ) ( h ) ( i ) ( i ) o f the F i r e Serv ice A c t s ta tes that one o r more persons i n an area can be designated as 8 respons ib le f o r en forc ing these r e g u l a t i o n s . While i n most p a r t s o f the p rov ince , the area b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r i s respons ib le f o r en fo rc ing the A c t , E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' has no b u i l d i n g inspec tor because i t i s not governed by a b u i l d i n g bylaw. Therefore , lands and s t ruc tures w i t h i n the Keremeos F i r e P r o t e c t i o n D i s t r i c t are administered by the l o c a l f i r e c h i e f . Problems a r i s e over the admin is t ra t ion o f lands outs ide the f i r e p r o t e c t i o n area . In d i s c u s s i o n wi th B r i t i s h Columbia F i r e Commission s t a f f , i t was learned tha t the l o c a l detachment o f the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e are l e f t w i th en forc ing t h i s r e g u l a t i o n . F i r e Commission s t a f f concede tha t the p o l i c e are too busy t o enforce t h e i r regu la t ions and that u s u a l l y no one enforces them i n s i t u a t i o n s such as t h i s . D) F o r e s t A c t - g i v e s the P r o v i n c i a l Cabinet powers t o modify e x i s t i n g and fu ture f o r e s t tenure agreements t o ob ta in more e f f e c t i v e f o r e s t management. E) Greenbel t A c t -governs the p r o v i n c i a l government a c q u i s i t i o n o f p r i v a t e lands and r e s e r v a t i o n o f p r o v i n c i a l crown lands which are s u i t a b l e f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n as greenbe l ts . F) Her i tage Conservat ion A c t - g i v e s the M i n i s t e r o r a designated person or body (municipal c o u n c i l ) the r i g h t t o des ignate , p r o t e c t and conserve h e r i t a g e p r o p e r t i e s . G) Highway A c t - s e c t i o n 401 o f B . C . Regula t ion 822/74 amended by B . C . Regulat ion 15/78 o f the Highways A c t , requ i res that a l l s t ruc tures be set back from the road r ight -o f -way by 15 f e e t . Unless an area i s governed by a zoning bylaw, which takes precedence over t h i s p r o v i n c i a l 9 r e g u l a t i o n , the setback i s enforced by the Department o f Highways. Land A c t - r e g u l a t e s the d i s p o s i t i o n o f p r o v i n c i a l crown land and e s t a b l i s h e s procedures by which p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s can acqui re and use p u b l i c l ands . N a t i o n a l Parks A c t - g i v e s powers t o the F e d e r a l Cabinet t o regula te a l l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n an area designated as a n a t i o n a l park . Park A c t - g i v e s powers t o the P r o v i n c i a l Cabinet t o c o n t r o l the occupancy, use , development, e x p l o r a t i o n , o r e x t r a c t i o n o f a na tu ra l resource on o r i n a park . Range A c t - g i v e s the P r o v i n c i a l Cabinet power t o regula te the graz ing o f animals o r c u t t i n g o f hay on p r o v i n c i a l crown lands . Regional Parks A c t - g i v e s a r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t power t o acqu i re , develop and aclminister r e g i o n a l parks and t r a i l s . Water A c t - a b o l i s h e s the p r i n c i p l e o f r i p a r i a n r i g h t s h e l d under common law and has vested the proper ty i n and the r i g h t t o use a l l water i n any "stream" i n the p rov ince ; except where p r i v a t e r i g h t s have been e s t a b l i s h e d under l i c e n c e s i s s u e d or approvals g iven under t h i s o r some former A c t . Whi le the preceding A c t s do c o n t r o l land use , t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n i s p r i m a r i l y l i m i t e d t o p r o v i n c i a l crown lands or p a r t i c u l a r p r o p e r t i e s . The fo l low ing l e g i s l a t i o n p e r t a i n s t o the c o n t r o l o f p r i v a t e l y owned land and thus a f f e c t s a greater number o f peop le . 10 For t h i s reason, a more indepth a n a l y s i s w i l l be presented . Munic ipa l A c t - t h e Mun ic ipa l A c t delegates extensive l e g i s l a t i v e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e powers t o the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s . T h i s inc ludes the power t o c o n t r o l zon ing , s u b d i v i s i o n , and b u i l d i n g . i ) Zoning D i v i s i o n (3), Sec t ion 716 (1) o f the A c t s ta tes that C o u n c i l may by a zoning bylaw: (a) d i v i d e a l l o r p a r t o f the area o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n t o zones and def ine each zone e i t h e r by map, p lan or d e s c r i p t i o n , or any combination o f them; (b) regula te the use o f l and , b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s , i n c l u d i n g the sur face o f water, w i t h i n the zones, and the regu la t ions may be d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t zones and fo r d i f f e r e n t uses w i t h i n a zone, and f o r the purposes o f t h i s paragraph the power t o regulate inc ludes the power to p r o h i b i t p a r t i c u l a r uses i n s p e c i f i e d zones. (c) regula te the s i z e , shape and s i t i n g o f b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s w i th in the zones, and the regu la t ions may be d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t zones and wi th respect t o d i f f e r e n t uses w i t h i n a zone; (d) without l i m i t i n g the genera l i t y o f paragraph (b), r e q u i r e the owners o r occupiers o f any b u i l d i n g i n a zone t o p rov ide o f f s t r e e t park ing and load ing space fo r the b u i l d i n g , and may c l a s s i f y b u i l d i n g s and d i f f e r e n t i a t e and d iscr i ro inate between c l a s s e s wi th respect t o the amount o f space t o be prov ided , and may exempt any c l a s s o f b u i l d i n g o r any b u i l d i n g e x i s t i n g a t the time o f adoption o f the bylaw from any requirement o f t h i s paragraph. I t can be seen that the power o f a zoning bylaw can be q u i t e ex tens ive . However, the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen h a s , t o t h i s t ime, not opted t o use t h i s i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ; ( i i ) S u b d i v i s i o n D i v i s i o n (4) o f the A c t s ta tes that C o u n c i l may by bylaw regu la te the s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d . Sec t ion 729 (1) t o (14) p e r s c r i b e how the lands t o be subdiv ided can be regu la ted . The Regional 11 D i s t r i c t o f Okariagan-Sirnilkameen S u b d i v i s i o n Bylaw No. 300 regulates s u b d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n the e n t i r e r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t i n c l u d i n g E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . The powers vested i n t h i s bylaw are l i m i t e d . Sec t ion 4 (1) o f the bylaw s ta tes tha t "where a p a r c e l i s served by a corrorunity water system but not a community sewer system, that p a r c e l s h a l l not be smal ler than 9,000 square f e e t " . S e c t i o n 4 (2) requ i res tha t every proposed s u b d i v i s i o n which i s not w i t h i n the boundaries o f an i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t o r an improvement d i s t r i c t s h a l l e s t a b l i s h that each p a r c e l has a proven source o f potable water, o f which the source must be capable o f p r o v i d i n g 500 imper ia l g a l l o n s o f water per p a r c e l per day. S e c t i o n 4 (3) requ i res tha t any new s u b d i v i s i o n which creates more than two a d d i t i o n a l p a r c e l s and which i s w i t h i n a f i r e p r o t e c t i o n d i s t r i c t , s h a l l p rov ide f i r e hydrants which are no more than 500 f e e t from the proposed p a r c e l s . F i n a l l y , Sec t ion 4 (4) s ta tes tha t every proposed p a r c e l i n a s u b d i v i s i o n which i s w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d sewer area s h a l l be connected t o the san i ta ry sewerage system i n tha t a rea . S e c t i o n 729 (1) t o (14) o f the Munic ipa l A c t , d e t a i l s the au thor i t y which c o u n c i l s may l e g i s l a t e i n a s u b d i v i s i o n bylaw. The powers l e g i s l a t e d i n the bylaw descr ibed above are l i m i t e d . T h i s i s not t o say tha t subd iv is ions are t o t a l l y unregulated because what i s not covered under the s u b d i v i s i o n bylaw i s regula ted under the p r o v i n c i a l L o c a l Serv ices A c t . The L o c a l Serv ices A c t , which w i l l be descr ibed l a t e r , i s the b a s i c s u b d i v i s i o n regu la tory l e g i s l a t i o n i n the p rov ince . A l o c a l government s u b d i v i s i o n bylaw simply prov ides more s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t i o n t o adapt a s u b d i v i s i o n t o an areas p a r t i c u l a r needs and concerns. 12 i i i ) B u i l d i n g Regulat ions D i v i s i o n (5) o f the Mun ic ipa l A c t s ta tes tha t c o u n c i l may, f o r the h e a l t h , sa fe ty and p r o t e c t i o n o f persons and proper ty , adopt b u i l d i n g regu la t ions i n the form o f a b u i l d i n g bylaw. Sec t ion 734 (a) t o (k) l e g i s l a t e what regu la t ions may be adopted. Sec t ion 739 s p e c i f i c a l l y empowers the c o u n c i l t o adopt regu la t ions cons is ten t w i th supplementary regu la t ions made under t h i s d i v i s i o n . For example, regu la t ions found i n the E l e c t r i c a l Safe ty A c t , Gas Act or F i r e Serv ices A c t can be adopted. Here aga in , the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen has chosen not t o adopt a b u i l d i n g bylaw f o r E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . (0) A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t The Revised S ta tu tes , Chapter 9, 1979, more commonly r e f e r r e d t o as the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t , serves as a method o f p r e s e r v i n g farmland and p o t e n t i a l a g r i c u l t u r a l lands from the encroachment o f n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l development. The use o f the land w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve (ALR) i s l i m i t e d to a g r i c u l t u r a l and other uses tha t do not d imin ish the c a p a b i l i t y o f the land t o produce c rops . G e n e r a l l y , lands wi th a s o i l c a p a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f 1 to 4 i n c l u s i v e l y on the 7 c l a s s Canada Land Inventory (CT.T) a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y maps are inc luded i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Nonetheless, lands s u i t a b l e f o r g raz ing , such as found wi th s o i l ra ted as c l a s s e s 5 and 6, have a l s o been inc luded i n c e r t a i n areas . I t should be noted that the CLI s o i l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s on ly used as a genera l guide i n d e c i d i n g which land should be i n the land reserve . Vary ing a g r i c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s and c l imate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s make i t impossib le t o say e x a c t l y what s o i l c l a s s e s are inc luded and which are no t . 13 The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve f o r E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' and the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen, was designated on February 13, 1974. The t o t a l area o f land now w i th in the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve f o r E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' has not been measured. However, when the land reserves were f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d , over 213,600 acres or 7.8 percent o f the e n t i r e area o f the Regional D i s t r i c t was i n the land reserve . A l l lands designated as a g r i c u l t u r a l on the cons t i tu ten t maps are subject t o regula t ions contained i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t . Sect ion 15 (2) o f the A c t s t a t e s ; (2) no person s h a l l use a g r i c u l t u r a l land f o r any purpose other than farm use, except as permit ted by t h i s A c t , the regula t ions or an order o f the Commission, on terms the Commission may impose. Thus, any landowner wanting t o use the land f o r a use other than a g r i c u l t u r a l must apply t o the Land (Commission f o r approva l . An a p p l i c a n t may apply under S e c t i o n 20 (1) f o r permiss ion t o change the use o f the land whi le s t i l l remaining i n the land reserve o r under S e c t i o n 12 (1) t o exclude the land from the reserve . Lands excepted from these regu la t ions are lands which meet the requirements o f Sect ion 19 o f the Land Commission A c t , which s t a t e s ; 19. (1) R e s t r i c t i o n s on the use o f a g r i c u l t u r a l land do not apply t o land tha t , on December 21, 1972, was, by separate c e r t i f i c a t e o f t i t l e i s s u e d under the Land Reg is t ry A c t , l e s s than 2 acres i n a rea . (2) The r e s t r i c t i o n s on the use o f a g r i c u l t u r a l land do not apply t o land l a w f u l l y used f o r other than a farm use, e s t a b l i s h e d and c a r r i e d on cont inuously f o r a t l e a s t 6 months immediately p r i o r t o December 21, 1972 un less and u n t i l (a) the use i s changed, other than t o farm use, without permiss ion o f the ccmrussion: (b) an enactment made a f t e r December 21, 1972, p r o h i b i t s the use ; o r (c) permission f o r the use granted under an enactment i s withdrawn or e x p i r e s . 14 Lands w i t h i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' that f a l l w i t h i n S e c t i o n 19 of the A c t and are excepted from the Land Commission A c t as w e l l as lands which are not s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r e and are not w i t h i n the Land Reserve, are not subject t o any land use r e g u l a t i o n contained w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t . P o l i c i n g o f lands w i t h i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve i n B . C . has always been a problem. Land Commission s t a f f confess tha t they have never had the number o f s t a f f needed t o do t h e i r own p o l i c i n g . As a r e s u l t , they r e l y h e a v i l y on Regional D i s t r i c t s f o r in format ion on i n f r a c t i o n s . In p a r t i c u l a r , r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t b u i l d i n g inspectors are noted as the most cons is ten t source, because they t r a v e l t o a l l pa r ts o f the d i s t r i c t look ing f o r b u i l d i n g i n f r a c t i o n s on a weekly b a s i s . Accord ing t o the Land Commission s t a f f , there i s no w r i t t e n agreement between Regional D i s t r i c t s and the Land Commission on p o l i c i n g the A . L . R . Nor i s there any fee p a i d t o the D i s t r i c t s f o r t h i s s e r v i c e . There i s , however, an arrangement whereby Regional D i s t r i c t s r e t a i n the e n t i r e a p p l i c a t i o n fee requ i red f o r an a p p l i c a t i o n t o the Land Corrtnission as remuneration f o r the p a r t they p l a y i n the p r o c e s s . In areas , such as E l e c t o r a l /Area ' G ' , p o l i c i n g poses an even greater problem, because t h i s E l e c t o r a l Area i s not covered by a b u i l d i n g bylaw, thus there are no b u i l d i n g inspectors a v a i l a b l e t o spot i n f r a c t i o n s . As a r e s u l t , the Land Commission must r e l y on other sources f o r in format ion on i n f r a c t i o n s t o the A c t . A t b e s t , sources such as f i e l d inspectors from other government agencies and the general p u b l i c , supply in te rmi t tan t in format ion . The reason government inspec tors do not l i k e t o repor t i n f r a c t i o n s i s twofo ld . The f i r s t i s tha t i t i s not t h e i r job . Secondly, i t may jeopardize 15 t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th the person committing the i n f r a c t i o n . The p u b l i c i s an i n c o n s i s t e n t source o f in format ion f o r two reasons as w e l l . F i r s t l y , many people w i l l on ly repor t neighbors they do not l i k e . Secondly, e n t i r e areas may be so adamently against government r e g u l a t i o n that no one w i l l repor t any i n f r a c t i o n s fo r f ea r o f government imposing more regu la t ions on them. The enforcement powers o f the Land Commission are found under S e c t i o n 34 o f the A c t which s ta tes tha t "where the Commission b e l i e v e s present o r future a c t i v i t y o r use o f land i n the land reserve may contravene t h i s A c t , the Cortmission (a) may order the owner o r occupant t o r e f r a i n from the a c t i v i t y o r use f o r a p e r i o d not exceeding 60 days, and t o make w r i t t e n o r o r a l submissions t o the commission as i t requ i res t o determine any l i k e l y impairment o f the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y o f the land; (b) may apply t o the Supreme Court f o r an order r e s t r a i n i n g the owner o r occupant from commencing o r cont inu ing the a c t i v i t y o r use o f land i n contravent ion o f t h i s A c t , the regu la t ions o r an order o f the commission." S e c t i o n 35 o f the A c t e s t a b l i s h e s the extent and the powers o f the Land Commission t o impose a pena l ty upon landowners where i t has been determined that an a c t i v i t y , o r use o f land would l i k e l y impair a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y , o r where no submission i s made, the commission may, by order (a) impose on the owner o r occupant the terms f o r a c t i v i t y or use o f the land i t considers a d v i s a b l e ; o r (b) requ i re that the land be res tored t o i t s former c o n d i t i o n as a g r i c u l t u r a l l and , t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the commission; o r (c) requ i re a bond t o ensure compliance. In the case o f d e f a u l t under paragraph (b), the expromission may perform the work, and the c o s t i s a debt due t o the commission by the owner o r occupant i n d e f a u l t . In d i s c u s s i o n s wi th Land Commission s t a f f i t was learned that they on ly seek t o have the land returned t o i t s o r i g i n a l s ta te a t the minimum expense t o the land owner and the Commission. 16 A p a r t i c u l a r case i s found i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G 1 where i n December o f 1981 the Regional D i s t r i c t informed the Land Ccrardssion tha t a landowner was s t o r i n g wrecked cars on a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n contrevent ion o f Sec t ion 15 (2) o f the A c t . The landowner was informed o f t h i s by the Land Commission and he i n tu rn app l i ed under Sec t ion 20 (1) f o r permission t o continue t o use the property f o r the storage o f these c a r s . The Land Commission denied t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n s t a t i n g that the land had h i g h c a p a b i l i t y fo r a g r i c u l t u r e and that the cars should be removed. In January o f 1983, the Land Commission requested Regional D i s t r i c t s t a f f t o view the property t o see whether the landowner had complied w i th t h e i r d e c i s i o n . The landowner had not complied, so , i n February, 1983, the Land Commission sent a l e t t e r t o the landowner g i v i n g him 2 months t o r e s t o r e the property t o i t s o r i g i n a l c o n d i t i o n f a i l i n g which cour t a c t i o n would be taken. The landowner f i n a l l y c lea red h i s proper ty w i t h i n the s p e c i f i e d time and no fu r ther a c t i o n was r e q u i r e d . Land T i t l e A c t The Revised S ta tu tes , Chapter 219, 1979 commonly r e f e r r e d t o as the Land T i t l e A c t , provides the core 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 land i n B r i t i s h Columbia (Ince, 1977, 48) . The A c t s p e c i f i c a l l y l e g i s l a t e s aspects concerning the procedure which must be adhered t o by an approving o f f i c e r . S e c t i o n 77 (2) (a) o f the Land T i t l e A c t s t a t e s ; (2) The approving o f f i c e r s h a l l be , i n the case o f lands s i t u a t e d i n (a) a r u r a l a rea ; ( i ) the Deputy M i n i s t e r o f T ranspor ta t ion and Highways; o r ( i i ) a person appointed by the L ieutenant Governor i n C o u n c i l i n respect o f a l l or p a r t o f the land s i t u a t e d i n a r u r a l a rea ; 17 For most p a r t s o f r u r a l B r i t i s h Columbia, the Deputy M i n i s t e r o f T ranspor ta t ion and Highways has delegated the s u b d i v i s i o n approving a u t h o r i t y t o a reg iona l approving o f f i c e r . For E l e c t o r a l /Area ' G ' the approving o f f i c e r i s loca ted wi th the M i n i s t r y o f T ranspor ta t ion and Highways r e g i o n a l o f f i c e i n Kamloops. With regard t o maintaining the character o f an area , the approving o f f i c e r , i s empowered t o re fuse t o approve a p l a n o f s u b d i v i s i o n f o r a number o f reasons. Under S e c t i o n 85 (3) he has the au thor i ty t o re fuse t o approve a s u b d i v i s i o n i f he f e e l s the p l a n i s "against the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . " Accord ing t o reg iona l approving o f f i c e s t a f f , t h i s reason i s very r a r e l y used because i t s g e n e r a l i t y makes i t very d i f f i c u l t t o defend i n c o u r t . S e c t i o n 86 (1) (c) l i s t s seven more s p e c i f i c reasons fo r r e f u s i n g t o approve a s u b d i v i s i o n on lands outs ide m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . ( i ) the a n t i c i p a t e d developement o f the s u b d i v i s i o n 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 amenit ies o f ad jo in ing or reasonably adjacent p r o p e r t i e s ; ( i i ) the p l a n does not comply w i th the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s A c t r e l a t i n g t o access and the s u f f i c i e n c y o f highway allowances shown i n the p l a n , and w i th a l l r egu la t ions o f the L ieutenant Governor i n C o u n c i l r e l a t i n g t o s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n s ; ( i i i ) the highways shown i n the p l a n are not c l e a r e d , dra ined , constructed and sur faced t o h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , or u n l e s s , i n circumstances he cons iders proper , s e c u r i t y i n an amount and i n a form acceptable t o him i s p rov ided; ( iv) the land has inadequate drainage i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; (v) the land i s subject , or cou ld reasonably be expected to be sub jec t , t o f l o o d i n g , e r o s i o n , land s l i p o r avalanche; (v i ) a f t e r due cons idera t ion o f a l l a v a i l a b l e environmental impact and p lanning s t u d i e s , the a n t i c i p a t e d development o f the s u b d i v i s i o n would adverse ly a f f e c t the na tu ra l environment t o an unacceptable l e v e l ; o r ( v i i ) the c o s t t o the Province 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 o r other works o r serv ices would be e x c e s s i v e . The reasons f o r r e f u s i n g t o approve a s u b d i v i s i o n lean h e a v i l y toward s o l v i n g problems assoc ia ted w i th the engineer ing aspects o f 18 s u b d i v i s i o n . A res iden t concerned about the e f f e c t a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n w i l l have on the character o f an area , has on ly one a r t i c l e on which t o base a complaint . Subsect ion ( i ) s ta tes that i f the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n 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 amenit ies or adjacent p r o p e r t i e s the s u b d i v i s i o n cou ld be re fused . In a d i s c u s s i o n w i th reg iona l approving o f f i c e personnel i n Kamloops, the impression was g iven that t o prove i n j u r i o u s a f f e c t i o n , adjacent property owners would have t o prov ide d e t a i l e d in format ion o u t l i n i n g the p h y s i c a l damage which t h e i r property would s u f f e r . F o r example, i f res idents f e l t tha t the s u b d i v i s i o n would undermine the l a t e r a l support o f t h e i r proper ty , they would have t o support t h i s a l l e g a t i o n wi th a geotechnica l study which would be both d i f f i c u l t and c o s t l y t o o b t a i n . The s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n r e f e r r a l process employed by the approving o f f i c e r o f f e r s l i t t l e hope f o r res idents wanting t o maintain the character o f t h e i r a rea . Wi th in E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s are r e f e r r e d t o ; the M i n i s t r y o f Hea l th , Regional D i s t r i c t , Keremeos I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , M i n i s t r y o f Environment, M i n i s t r y o f Fores ts and M i n i s t r y o f Lands, Parks and Housing. Each agency reviews the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n wi th respect t o t h e i r own l e g i s l a t i o n . T h e i r recommendations are then forwarded t o the approving o f f i c e r . He must then review the recommendations and make a d e c i s i o n based upon the s ta tu to ry requirements by which he i s bound. F o r example, i f the M i n i s t r y o f Environment i n d i c a t e s tha t a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n i s subject t o f l o o d i n g , S e c t i o n 86 (1) (v) o f the Land T i t l e A c t s ta tes tha t the s u b d i v i s i o n may be r e f u s e d . I f , however, the Regional D i s t r i c t recommends that the s u b d i v i s i o n be re fused f o r the reason tha t i t does not comply wi th 19 a proposed sett lement p l a n , the approving o f f i c e r w i l l not refuse the s u b d i v i s i o n . The reason be ing tha t the sett lement p l a n must be " o f f i c i a l " before i t can be used as a reason f o r r e f u s i n g a s u b d i v i s i o n . There fore , on ly l e g i s l a t e d regu la t ions can be employed t o re fuse a s u b d i v i s i o n . /As a r e s u l t , most recommendations are t e c h n i c a l l y o r i e n t e d because they can be up h e l d i n c o u r t . I f an approving o f f i c e r approves a s u b d i v i s i o n , the d e c i s i o n can be appealed t o the Supreme Court under S e c t i o n 89 o f the Land T i t l e s A c t . However, pas t l e g a l d e c i s i o n s i n d i c a t e tha t as long as the approving o f f i c e r has acted i n good f a i t h and has not used d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n h i s d e c i s i o n , the cour t w i l l uphold h i s d e c i s i o n (Gray v s . C i t y o f Vancouver, 1977). L o c a l S e r v i c e s A c t The Revised S ta tu tes , Chapter 247, 1979, more commonly known as the L o c a l S e r v i c e s A c t , regulates the s u b d i v i s i o n o f a l l land except lands w i t h i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , those regula ted by a Regional D i s t r i c t s u b d i v i s i o n bylaw, and those c o n t r o l l e d under Planning Area Number 24 (The Gu l f I s l a n d s ) . As a l ready noted i n the s e c t i o n under the "Municipal A c t , " a Regional D i s t r i c t s u b d i v i s i o n bylaw takes precedence over the regu la t ions found i n the L o c a l Serv ices A c t . Thus, the regu la t ions found i n t h i s A c t on ly apply where Regional D i s t r i c t regu la t ions do no t . The L o c a l Serv ices A c t three headings; Genera l , Highway and P a r c e l s . These provide the b a s i c c r i t e r i a f o r s u b d i v i s i o n approva l . Under the "General" heading, s e c t i o n 4.04 l e g i s l a t e s that a s u b d i v i s i o n may be re fused i f i t i s subject t o e r o s i o n , l a n d s l i d e s , f l o o d i n g o r has inadequate drainage. However, S e c t i o n 4.05 al lows 20 a developer t o circumvent the above regu la t ions i f he agrees to r e g i s t e r a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant i n favour o f the crown l i m i t i n g the use o f the subject proper ty . In Sect ions 5.01 t o 5.11 under the heading o f "Highways", proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s are regulated w i th respect t o highway widths (s . 5.02) , lanes (s . 5.07), i n t e r s e c t i n g highways (s . 5.05) , turnarounds (s . 5.07) and i n t e r s e c t i o n s (s . 5.08 t o 5 .10) . Sect ions 6.01 t o 6.11 f a l l under the heading o f "Parce ls" which provides f o r s p e c i f i c regu la t ions concerning the minimum p a r c e l s i z e s a l lowable i n an unorganized a rea . There are numerous v a r i a b l e s which a f f e c t the al lowable l o t s i z e . S e c t i o n 6.01 s ta tes tha t where water and sewer serve a p a r c e l and where both b u i l d i n g and zoning regu la t ions are i n fo rce the minimum l o t s h a l l be 5,000 square fee t i n areas where there are no zoning or b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s , the itunimum s h a l l be 6,000 square f e e t . T h i s s e c t i o n i s not a p p l i c a b l e t o E l e c t o r a l /Area ' G ' because there are no p a r c e l s connected t o a sewer system. S e c t i o n 6.02 regulates proposed subd iv is ions which are served by a coiiitiunity water system. Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Sirnilkameen s u b d i v i s i o n bylaw No. 300 takes precedence over t h i s s e c t i o n and requ i res a 9,000 square foot l o t s i z e . The s e c t i o n o f the L o c a l Se rv ices A c t most a p p l i c a b l e to E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , i s Sec t ion 6.03 which requ i res an 18,000 square foot minimum l o t s i z e f o r p a r c e l s not s e r v i c e d by a cormmjnity water or sewer system. The major i ty o f lands w i t h i n t h i s area are governed by t h i s r e g u l a t i o n . Sect ions 6.04 and 6.05 regulate the d i s p o s i n g o f waste on p a r c e l s which are l e s s than 5 acres and are not served by a community sewer system. Appendix B o f the A c t e s t a b l i s h e s a 21 procedure f o r conducting a p e r c o l a t i o n t e s t f o r a d i s p o s a l f i e l d . Longer ra tes o f p e r c o l a t i o n and vary ing degrees o f s lope o f the land cou ld requi re tha t the s i z e o f the p a r c e l be increased t o ensure adequate drainage f o r the e f f l u e n t . I f t e s t r e s u l t s do not meet the requ i red standard, Sec t ion 6.06 of the A c t prov ides the Medica l Hea l th O f f i c e r wi th the au thor i ty t o deny s u b d i v i s i o n approva l . In c o n c l u s i o n , the Regional D i s t r i c t p lanners statement tha t the character o f the area can not be preserved without zoning, i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y t r u e . However, t h i s a n a l y s i s o f e x i s t i n g land use and s u b d i v i s i o n l e g i s l a t i o n shows tha t desp i te the lack of zoning, there are many c o n t r o l s r e s u l t i n g from l e g i s l a t i o n imposed by the Federa l and P r o v i n c i a l governments. The l e g i s l a t i o n having the most e f f e c t over land use i s the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t . T h i s A c t requ i res tha t landowners w i t h i n the A . L . R not h inder the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y o f t h e i r proper ty . While i t can be argued tha t the land reserve on ly covers a smal l p o r t i o n o f the t o t a l land w i t h i n the p rov ince , i t must a l s o be remembered that these are the lands exper iencing the greates t development p r e s s u r e . Therefore , the Land Commission A c t must be considered as a major c o n t r o l o f land use i n the p rov ince . The s u b d i v i s i o n o f land w i t h i n E l e c t o r a l Area 'G* i s governed by three instruments. The Land T i t l e A c t e s t a b l i s h e s the process o f s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l w i t h i n 22 the p rov ince . The L o c a l Serv ices A c t and the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-S im i lkameen s u b d i v i s i o n bylaw e s t a b l i s h the c r i t e r i a f o r the approval o f a s u b d i v i s i o n . 2 .1 .2 Without zoning, o f f i c i a l sett lement p lans can not be implemented. Before ana lyz ing t h i s statement, some i n s i g h t i n t o what a sett lement p l a n i s and the l e g i s l a t i v e powers i t has , should be d i s c u s s e d . A sett lement p l a n i s de f ined i n the 1979, M i n i s t r y o f Munic ipa l A f f a i r s and Housing, "Technica l Guide For The Preparat ion Of O f f i c i a l Sett lement Plans" a s ; " a document embodying a statement o f the intended future development o f a p a r t i c u l a r a r e a . I t should be a f l e x i b l e t o o l , responsive t o change, which w i l l serve as a guide t o day- to-day d e c i s i o n making on the p a r t o f Regional Boards, p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s and p u b l i c agencies such as School Boards . " (p. 9) The p r o v i n c i a l governments d e s i r e t o maintain the sett lement p l a n as a guide i s l e g i s l a t e d i n S e c t i o n 810 (1) o f the Munic ipa l A c t . T h i s subsect ion s ta tes tha t i t s h a l l be the b a s i s f o r the prepara t ion and adoption o f land use r e g u l a t i n g bylaws and amendments t o them. With regard t o s p e c i f i c powers contained i n a sett lement p l a n , S e c t i o n 809 (8) would seem t o r u l e that without s p e c i f i c land use bylaws implementing i t s p o l i c i e s , the o f f i c i a l sett lement p l a n cannot d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the r i g h t s o f landowners (Ince, 1977, 45) . In cont ras t t o sett lement p l a n s , a zoning bylaw empowers a C o u n c i l w i th d i r e c t c o n t r o l over proper ty r i g h t s over land i n a zoned area . S e c t i o n 716 ( l ) (a ) t o (d) o f the Munic ipa l A c t l e g i s l a t e s tha t C o u n c i l may by zoning bylaw: (a) d i v i d e a l l or p a r t o f the area o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n t o zones and def ine each zone e i t h e r by map, p l a n o r d e s c r i p t i o n , o r any combination o f them; 23 (b) regulate the use of land, buildings and structures, including the surface of water, within the zones, and the regulations may be different for d i f f e r e n t zones and for d i f f e r e n t uses w i t h i n the zone, and for the purposes of t h i s paragraph the power t o regulate includes the power to p r o h i b i t p a r t i c u l a r uses i n specified zones; (c) regulate s i z e , shape and s i t i n g of buildings and structures w i t h i n the zones, and the regulations may be d i f f e r e n t for d i f f e r e n t zones and with respect to d i f f e r e n t uses within a zone; and (d) without l i m i t i n g the generality of paragraph (b), require the owners or occupiers of any building i n a zone to provide o f f street parking and loading space for the building, and may c l a s s i f y buildings and d i f f e r e n t i a t e and discrijidnate between classes with respect to the amount of space to be provided, and may exempt any class of building or a building e x i s t i n g at the time of adoption of the bylaw from any requirement of t h i s paragraph. The settlement plan i t s e l f i s l e g a l l y empowered to contain a great deal of information pertojjiing t o the physical development of an area. Section 810 (2) (a) to (1) of the Municipal Act authorizes the documentation of; (a) the location, amount and type of major commercial, i n d u s t r i a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l , recreational and public u t i l i t y uses; (b) the location, amount, type and density of r e s i d e n t i a l development required t o meet the anticipated housing needs over a period of at least 5 years i n the area covered by the plan; (c) the protection of land areas subject to hazardous conditions; (d) the preservation, protection and enhancement of land and water areas of special importance for scenic or recreational value or natural, h i s t o r i c a l or s c i e n t i f i c interest; (e) the preservation and continuing use of a g r i c u l t u r a l land for present and future food production; (f) the proposed sequence of urban development and redevelopment, including, where ascertainable, the proposed timing, location and phasing of trunk sewer and water services; (g) the need for and provision of public f a c i l i t i e s , including schools, parks and s o l i d waste disposal s i t e s ; (h) the location i n schematic form of a major road system for the plan area; 24 ( i ) the l o c a t i o n , amount and type o f development t o be permit ted w i t h i n 1 km o f a c o n t r o l l e d access highway designated under Par t 6 o f the Highway A c t ; ( j) the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f major land use areas and concentrat ions o f a c t i v i t y i n r e l a t i o n t o the p r o v i s i o n o f e x i s t i n g o r p o t e n t i a l p u b l i c t r a n s i t s e r v i c e s ; (k) a program i d e n t i f y i n g the ac t ions requ i red by the r e g i o n a l board t o implement the o f f i c i a l sett lement p l a n ; and (1) other matters that may be requ i red by the m i n i s t e r . A sett lement p l a n can on ly be deemed an " o f f i c i a l " sett lement p l a n once i t has been adopted as a bylaw. An a f f i r m a t i v e vote o f a major i ty o f the d i r e c t o r s present a t a meeting h e l d i n accordance w i t h S e c t i o n 809 ( 3) o f the Munic ipa l A c t , i s r e q u i r e d . The p r o v i n c i a l government has ensured that a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s be g iven an opportuni ty t o examine and comment on the proposed p l a n . S e c t i o n 810 (4) and 811 o f the A c t requ i res that the p l a n be prepared i n c o n s u l t a t i o n wi th the member m u n i c i p a l i t i e s o f r eg iona l d i s t r i c t s , e lec ted e l e c t o r a l areas representa t ives , the M i n i s t e r and the p u b l i c . The Land T i t l e A c t and the B . C . A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t are other sources o f l e g i s l a t i o n which w i l l now be considered i n r e l a t i o n t o the planners second statement. Th is w i l l determine whether they can be used t o implement a sett lement p l a n i n areas without zon ing . With respect t o the s u b d i v i s i o n o f lands, the Land T i t l e A c t s ta tes a number o f matters an approving o f f i c e r must consider p r i o r t o making a d e c i s i o n on an a p p l i c a t i o n . S e c t i o n 87 (c) o f the Land T i t l e A c t s p e c i f i c a l l y r u l e s that a l l subd iv is ions must conform t o an o f f i c i a l sett lement p l a n i f one e x i s t s . An example o f the use o f t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n e x i s t s w i t h i n the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-SimiLkameen when the approving 25 o f f i c e r re fused t o approve a s u b d i v i s i o n because the sett lement p l a n designated the land f o r park purposes (R.D.O.S. F i l e D-82-24). Whi le a new s u b d i v i s i o n must conform t o the sett lement p l a n , as f a r as l o t s i z e i s concerned, the Land T i t l e A c t does not empower the c o n t r o l o f land use . In cases where a sett lement p l a n had been adopted but the e x i s t i n g zoning bylaw had not been amended t o r e f l e c t i t s i n t e n t i o n s the zoning bylaw would take precedence over the Sett lement P lan Bylaw. Thus, i f a p p l i c a t i o n was made fo r a s u b d i v i s i o n which was i n conformity wi th the Sett lement Plan but not the Zoning Bylaw, the s u b d i v i s i o n would have t o be h e l d i n abeyance. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t , governing areas wi th a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y , does a s s i s t i n the enforcement o f a sett lement p l a n . Th is comes i n a form u n l i k e tha t found i n the Land T i t l e s A c t , f o r the sett lement p l a n i s subordinate to the Land Commission A c t . For example, S e c t i o n 16 (a) o f the Land Commission A c t s ta tes that "a m u n i c i p a l i t y or r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t may not permit a g r i c u l t u r a l land t o be used f o r other than farm u s e " . Fur ther , Sec t ion 31 (1) o f the A c t r u l e s that no l e g i s l a t i o n be contrary t o the Land Cortimission A c t may be adopted. The end r e s u l t i s that the M i n i s t r y o f Mun ic ipa l A f f a i r s requi res a l l Sett lement Plans t o be approved by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission p r i o r t o f i n a l adopt ion o f the Sett lement Plan Bylaw. I t must be remembered that the Land Commission Act does not govern lands which are unsu i tab le f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l product ion nor does i t govern lands which comply wi th S e c t i o n 19, exempting lands 26 from the reserve . I t exempts lands which meet the fo l lowing requirements. (1) R e s t r i c t i o n s on the use o f a g r i c u l t u r a l land do not apply t o land tha t , on December 21, 1972, was, by separate c e r t i f i c a t e o f t i t l e i ssued under the Land R e g i s t r y A c t , l e s s than 2 acres i n a rea . (2) The r e s t r i c t i o n s on the use o f a g r i c u l t u r a l land do not apply t o land l a w f u l l y used f o r other than farm use, e s t a b l i s h e d and c a r r i e d on cont inuously f o r a t l e a s t 6 months immediately p r i o r t o December 21, 1972, un less and u n t i l (a) the use i s changed, other than t o farm use, without the permission o f the cxDmmission; (b) an enactment made a f t e r December 21, 1972, p r o h i b i t s the use , o r (c) permission f o r the use granted under enactment i s withdrawn or e x p i r e s . As a r e s u l t o f the l e g a l exemptions and the vast amount o f land tha t does not f a l l w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve, the Land Commission A c t prov ides extensive power but o n l y over l i m i t e d a r e a s . In c o n c l u s i o n , the o f f i c i a l sett lement p l a n bylaw by i t s e l f does not have the l e g i s l a t i v e power to ensure i t s implementation. I t has been shown that f o r a sett lement p l a n t o be most e f f e c t i v e i t should be implemented i n conjunct ion wi th a zoning bylaw. Such a bylaw has the l e g i s l a t i v e au thor i ty t o r e q u i r e landowners to comply w i th the p r o v i s i o n s f o r the zoning d i s t r i c t s i n which they are l o c a t e d . The Land T i t l e A c t and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t both o f f e r l i m i t e d amounts o f enforcement power o f the Settlement P l a n . The Land T i t l e A c t , dea l ing s p e c i f i c a l l y wi th the s u b d i v i s i o n o f land, requ i res tha t a l l new s u b d i v i s i o n s adhere t o an o f f i c i a l sett lement p l a n i f one e x i s t s . However, c o n t r o l l i n g s u b d i v i s i o n l o t s i z e i s o n l y one aspect o f the o v e r a l l concept o f 27 a sett lement p l a n . /Another major aspect i s the c o n t r o l o f land use , over which the Land T i t l e A c t has no l e g i s l a t i v e power. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t does o f f e r l e g i s l a t i o n au thor i ty over land use t o implement a sett lement p l a n . However, t h i s author i ty a p p l i e s on ly t o lands w i t h i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve and those not exempted by the A c t . Thus, t h i s au thor i ty i s extensive but l i m i t e d i n scope. 2 .1 .3 I t i s more expensive t o s e r v i c e sprawl development than c l u s t e r e d developments. Planners and government o f f i c i a l s a l i k e are becoming more concerned over the economic, s o c i a l and environmental cos ts o f sprawl (Counci l on Environmental Q u a l i t y , 1975,266). Before ana lyz ing the s p e c i f i c costs a t t r i b u t a b l e t o urban sprawl i t i s necessary t o determine what urban sprawl i s and the reasons f o r i t . Ottensmann de f ines urban sprawl as "the s c a t t e r i n g o f new development on i s o l a t e d t r a c t s , separated from other areas by vacant land" (1977,389). Harvey and C l a r k , on the other hand, de f ine urban sprawl as " a heterogeneous p a t t e r n , w i th an o v e r a l l dens i ty g r e a t l y l e s s than that found i n mature compact segments o f the c i t y " (1965,2). As d e f i n i t i o n s vary s l i g h t l y , so do the p o s s i b l e forms o f urban sprawl . Harvey and C l a r k (1965,3) d i s t i n g u i s h three forms o f urban development. F i r s t , low dens i ty continuous urban development i s descr ibed as be ing a gluttonous use o f l a n d . Secondly, r ibbon development i s composed o f segments which extend a x i a l l y and leave the i n t e r s t i c e undeveloped. F i n a l l y , l e a p - f r o g development i s the sett lement o f compact patches o f urban u s e s . 28 The causes o f sprawl vary accord ing t o the p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f any p a r t i c u l a r reg ion . Harvey and C l a r k (1965) advance a number o f causes o f sprawl i n c l u d i n g ; (1) The independence o f d e c i s i o n among monopol is t ic compet i tors: the r a p i d expansion o f the economic base o f a housing area prompts many developers t o respond t o the demand f o r hous ing . T h i s independent response produces a v a r i e t y o f d iscont inuous unre la ted developments. (2) Specu la t ion : Specu la t ion produces both the premature s u b d i v i s i o n o f some lands and the w i t h - h o l d i n g o f other l a n d . I t i s the lack o f c o - o r d i n a t i o n o f the d e c i s i o n t o speculate which produces sprawl and not the s p e c u l a t i o n i t s e l f . (3) P h y s i c a l t e r r a i n : The p a t t e r n o f development tends t o u t i l i z e land which i s most r e a d i l y and economical ly a v a i l a b l e . (4) P u b l i c r e g u l a t i o n s : Government l e g i s l a t i o n cont r ibu tes t o sprawl by imbalancing the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f competing a reas . For example, d i f f e r e n c e s i n land use c o n t r o l s i n s i d e and outs ide the corporate l i m i t s o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y make the l e s s e r c o n t r o l l e d area more a t t r a c t i v e (Harvey and C l a r k , 1965,4). (5) T ranspor ta t ion networks: The l o c a t i o n o f highways or t r a n s i t routes w i l l a f f e c t the spread o f urban sprawl . (6) P u b l i c P o l i c y : Property taxes accentuate urban sprawl because as scon as farmland i s scheduled f o r development, i t i s immediately taxed a t the h igher va lues normally a t t r i b u t e d t o urban areas. E m p i r i c a l data concerning the a c t u a l costs o f urban sprawl has been l i m i t e d . One o f the most comprehensive s tud ies conducted on t h i s subject i s the 1974, Rea l E s t a t e Research a n a l y s i s , "The 29 Costs o f Urban Sprawl" . The study compared three types o f community development pa t te rns : low dens i ty sprawl, h i g h dens i ty planned, and a combination o f the two. The developments were analyzed by the fo l low ing v a r i a b l e s : land use, economic c o s t s , environmental e f f e c t s , and persona l e f f e c t s . Resu l ts from the land use a n a l y s i s show tha t quar ter acre l o t s i n a low dens i ty sprawl oommunity may consume over h a l f an acre per dwel l ing u n i t i f land f o r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e such as roads, i s inc luded ( R . E . R . , 1974,2). T h i s i s more than twice as much land as i n a h i g h dens i ty planned community. Another noteable f a c t o r i s that h i g h dens i ty areas use on ly h a l f as much land f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n as low dens i ty areas f o r the same number o f people . There i s evidence that economic costs are s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d by development p a t t e r n s . The study i n d i c a t e s that o v e r a l l costs t o p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n v e s t o r s were 44 percent l e s s i n h i g h dens i ty developments as compared t o low dens i ty developments ( R . E . R . , 1974,3). The l a r g e s t savings came from the c o s t s o f cons t ruc t ing roads and u t i l i t i e s . An a n a l y s i s o f the environmental costs showed tha t a i r p o l l u t i o n i s s t rong ly a f f e c t e d by the development p a t t e r n . Two major sources o f p o l l u t i o n s tud ied were: automobiles and h e a t i n g . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that a h i g h dens i ty planned community generates approximately 45 percent l e s s a i r p o l l u t i o n than a low dens i ty sprawl community housing the same number o f people ( R . E . R . , 1974,8). The c l u s t e r i n g o f houses alone can reduce a i r p o l l u t i o n from automobiles by 20 t o 30 percent . ( R . E . R . , 1974,8). While persona l e f f e c t s are very d i f f i c u l t t o q u a n t i f y , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o measure such aspects as commuting time and maintenance 30 t ime requi red f o r the d i f f e r i n g res idence types . As expected, when l i v i n g i n a h i g h dens i ty development c l o s e t o the c i t y center , commuting time i s shor ter than i f l i v i n g i n the suburbs. A l s o , maintenance o f an apartment requ i res l e s s t ime than maintenance o f a house, which i s no s u r p r i s e e i t h e r . The study concludes that "higher d e n s i t i e s r e s u l t i n lower economic c o s t s , environmental c o s t s and some persona l cos ts f o r a g iven number o f dwe l l ing u n i t s " ( R . E . R . , 1974,6). The study shows tha t these cos ts can be reduced by b e t t e r p lanning and increased d e n s i t y . However, the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y , notes tha t t h i s study has f a i l e d t o take i n t o account the cos ts and b e n e f i t s o f persona l preferences and those r e l a t e d t o the revenues generated by d i f f e r e n t development types (1975,272). Without ana lyz ing s p e c i f i c economic, environmental or persona l data from E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , i t can s a f e l y be s a i d that the planners statement i s t r u e ; i t i s more expensive t o s e r v i c e sprawl development than c l u s t e r e d developments. From t h i s a n a l y s i s comes another q u e s t i o n : What are the costs o f e i t h e r not s e r v i c i n g sprawl development or simply p r o v i d i n g low l e v e l s e r v i c i n g ? To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n would invo lve research on us ing a lower standard o f s e r v i c i n g than i n the above a n a l y s i s . Fur ther i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l be l e f t t o fu ture r u r a l development p lanners . 2 .1 .4 Without zoning, development can take p l a c e on hazard l ands . I t i s e s s e n t i a l t o exp la in jus t what the term "hazard lands" means. For the purpose o f t h i s statement, the d e f i n i t i o n s h a l l i n c l u d e : 31 - l a n d which i s subject t o e r o s i o n ; - l a n d which may s l i p when developed, used o r occup ied; - l a n d , which when developed, used o r occupied may cause adjacent p a r c e l s t o s l i p ; - l a n d which may be inundated by a l a n d s l i p i f land above another p a r c e l s l i p s ; - l a n d which i s subject t o f l o o d i n g ; - l a n d which has inadequate dra inage. Before ana lyz ing the extent t o which e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l regu la t ions c o n t r o l development on hazard lands i t i s important t o know what l o c a l c o n t r o l s such as zoning and b u i l d i n g bylaws cou ld p l a y i f they were i n e f f e c t . The degree t o which zoning can e f f e c t development on hazard land i s governed by S e c t i o n 716 ( l ) (b ) and (c) o f the Mun ic ipa l A c t . T h i s s e c t i o n s ta tes tha t a c o u n c i l may by a zoning bylaw (b) regulate the use o f land , b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s , i n c l u d i n g the sur face o f water, w i t h i n the zones, and the regu la t ions may be d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t zones and f o r d i f f e r e n t uses w i t h i n a zone, and f o r the purposes o f t h i s paragraph the power t o regu la te inc ludes the power t o p r o h i b i t p a r t i c u l a r uses i n s p e c i f i e d zones; (c) regula te the s i z e , shape and s i t i n g o f b u i l d i n g s and s t ruc tures w i t h i n the zones, and the regula t ions may be d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t zones and w i th respect t o d i f f e r e n t uses w i t h i n a zone; A l s o , Sec t ion 716 (2)(a) requ i res tha t c o u n c i l , when making r e g u l a t i o n s , have due regard t o (a) the promotion o f h e a l t h , s a f e t y , convenience and wel fare o f the p u b l i c . The above sec t ions o f the Mun ic ipa l A c t provide Munic ipa l C o u n c i l s o r Regional D i s t r i c t Boards wi th the l e g i s l a t i v e au thor i t y t o inc lude c o n t r o l s governing the development o f hazard lands w i t h i n t h e i r zoning bylaws. T y p i c a l l y , c o u n c i l s o r boards inc lude f l o o d p l a i n hazard r e g u l a t i o n which s p e c i f y ; 32 (a) the d is tance a s t r u c t u r e must be from any n a t u r a l boundary o f a l ake , swamp or pond and from any na tu ra l watercourse, (b) the e l e v a t i o n a s t r u c t u r e s f loorboards must be above the 200 year f l o o d l e v e l , where e s t a b l i s h e d by the M i n i s t r y o f Environment, o r the n a t u r a l boundary o f a lake , swamp, pond and watercourse. Furthermore, i f c o u n c i l deems an area t o be hazardous t o the p u b l i c , S e c t i o n 716 ( l ) (b) o f the Munic ipa l A c t empowers them t o zone the proper ty t o a use which i s l e a s t hazardous. For example, a c o u n c i l cou ld zone an area subject t o l a n d s l i p t o an a g r i c u l t u r a l zone. Such a zone would e l iminate the p o s s i b i l i t y o f l o c a t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e s on i t . The s ta tu tory au thor i ty empowering the Regional D i s t r i c t s t o regulate the cons t ruc t ion o f s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n t h e i r area i s found i n Sec t ion 734 (a) t o (k) o f the Munic ipa l A c t . From t h i s de legat ion o f au thor i t y , the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-SimiLkameen has adopted B u i l d i n g Bylaw No. 688 governing b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n . (See Appendix A) With regard t o the c o n t r o l o f development on hazard lands, Sec t ion 8 (b) o f the Bylaw, a l lows the b u i l d i n g inspector t o demand that a g e o - t e c h n i c a l study be completed i f he f e e l s the development i s loca ted on unstable l and . I f the r e s u l t s o f the study are not t o h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , the inspector may re fuse the b u i l d i n g permi t . E l e c t o r a l Area ' G 1 has no zoning or b u i l d i n g bylaw, so , the c o n t r o l development on hazard lands f a l l s s o l e l y under the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l government r e g u l a t i o n s . There are two p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n s which present oppor tun i t ies f o r the c o n t r o l o f devlopment on hazard lands. With respect t o the Heal th A c t , S e c t i o n 2:06 o f the Sewage D i s p o s a l Regulat ions 33 (B.C. Reg. 577/75), requ i res that a developer apply fo r a s e p t i c tank permit p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n . Sec t ion 5:01 demands that before apply ing f o r a permi t , a p e r c o l a t i o n t e s t be completed on the s i t e by the owner o f the proper ty . Subsect ions (a) and (b) o u t l i n e the method f o r conduct ing these t e s t s . In shor t , a p e r c o l a t i o n t e s t determines whether the s o i l i s capable o f absorbing the volume o f e f f l u e n t t o be disposed o f . Sec t ion 6:16 o f the Sewage D i s p o s a l Regula t ions , s ta tes that a convent ional absorpt ion f i e l d s h a l l not be loca ted i n an area where the ground water t ab le i s l e s s than 4 f e e t below the na tu ra l ground l e v e l . Where the Medical Heal th O f f i c e r i s concerned about a h i g h water t a b l e , S e c t i o n 5:02 o f the r e g u l a t i o n s , l i s t s the methods fo r determining the ground water t a b l e . The one l a s t source o f l e g i s l a t i v e means o f c o n t r o l l i n g development i n the Heal th A c t i s found i n S e c t i o n 6:19 o f the r e g u l a t i o n s , which requ i res that an absorpt ion f i e l d be loca ted no l e s s than "100 fee t from the na tura l boundary o f a lake o r other o r other body o f n o n - t i d a l water". I f , i n the op in ion o f the Medica l Heal th O f f i c e r , a proposed sewage d i s p o s a l system may a f f e c t the q u a l i t y o f any ground water or surface water t o the extent tha t i t may be hazardous t o human h e a l t h , S e c t i o n 2:16 al lows f o r the r e f u s a l o f a permi t . The second s i t u a t i o n which presents an opportuni ty fo r the c o n t r o l o f development on hazard lands i s when a developer app l ies f o r s u b d i v i s i o n approva l . The Land T i t l e A c t conta ins s p e c i f i c regu la t ions p e r t a i n i n g t o the subd iv is ions o f land subject t o f l o o d i n g . S e c t i o n 82 (1) s t a t e s : 34 (1) Where land w i t h i n a p l a n o f s u b d i v i s i o n i s sub jec t , or cou ld reasonable be expected t o be sub ject , t o f l o o d i n g , no approving o f f i c e r s h a l l approve the s u b d i v i s i o n without the p r i o r consent o f the Deputy M i n i s t e r o f Environment who may requ i re , as a c o n d i t i o n o f h i s consent , that the subdiv ider enter i n t o such covenants r e g i s t e r a b l e under S e c t i o n 215 as the deputy m i n i s t e r considers a d v i s a b l e . The M i n i s t r y o f Environment covenants are s p e c i f i c . (See Appendix B) They regu la te ; - the d is tance requ i red between a home or a mobile home and the n a t u r a l boundary o f the watercourse; - the e l e v a t i o n o f the underside o f the f loorsystem; - the means o f a c q u i r i n g the necessary e l e v a t i o n . The key aspect o f t h i s covenant, which must be s igned before the s u b d i v i s i o n i s approved, waives the r i g h t o f the owner t o c l a i m damages from the prov ince or r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t . The covenant p rov ides an important source o f c o n t r o l o f development on hazard l ands . Sect ion 86 ( l ) ( c ) ( v ) o f the Land T i t l e A c t empowers the Approving O f f i c e r t o re fuse t o approve a s u b d i v i s i o n on hazard lands i f he cons iders that (v) the land i s subject , o r cou ld reasonably be expected t o be sub jec t , t o f l o o d i n g , e r o s i o n , l a n d s l i p or avalanche. The more s p e c i f i c , L o c a l S e r v i c e s A c t , contains a number o f regu la t ions which can and are be ing used i n the c o n t r o l o f development on hazard lands. S e c t i o n 4.04 o f the A c t , s ta tes that land which i s subject t o e r o s i o n , l a n d s l i p , avalanche or inadequate drainage may not be subd iv ided . Sec t ion 4.05 o f the A c t , au thor izes the approving o f f i c e r t o approve a s u b d i v i s i o n but , by covenant, r e s t r i c t or p r o h i b i t the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f b u i l d i n g s on any p a r t o f a p a r c e l which i s subject 35 t o the condi t ions c i t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.04 o f the A c t . T h i s regu la t ion over laps S e c t i o n 82 (1) and 86 ( l ) ( c ) ( i ) o f the Land T i t l e A c t , p r e v i o u s l y noted. In order that a p l a n o f s u b d i v i s i o n can be d e a l t w i th comprehensively, the approving o f f i c e r may requ i re that an owner prov ide fu r ther informat ion which w i l l h e l p determine the r i s k o f p o t e n t i a l hazards. S e c t i o n 4.06 o f the L o c a l Serv ices A c t , g ives the approving o f f i c e r the r i g h t t o demand that an owner provide any o f the f o l l o w i n g : (a) Topographic survey where the t e r r a i n i s s teep, i r r e g u l a r , o r otherwise d i f f i c u l t t o appraise i n respect o f the s u b d i v i s i o n s u i t i n g the c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f the land be ing subdiv ided: (b) Spot e l e v a t i o n s : (c) A p r o f e s s i o n a l eng ineer ' s repor t on ( i ) the e f f e c t on s o i l s t a b i l i t y o f d i s t u r b i n g na tu ra l growth, o r changing the moisture content o f the s o i l by developing, u s i n g , o r occupying the l and : ( i i ) groundwater l e v e l s and cond i t ions f o r as much o f the year as i s considered necessary: ( i i i ) the depth and extent o f f l o o d i n g and the l i k e l y frequency o f i t s o c c u r r i n g . S e c t i o n 6.04 o f the A c t , requ i res that where a p a r c e l i n a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n i s l e s s than 5 acres , a p e r c o l a t i o n t e s t must be completed f o r each l o t . S e c t i o n 6.06 requi res tha t the t e s t r e s u l t s be forwarded t o the Medica l Heal th O f f i c e r f o r approva l . And the O f f i c e r s recomrnendation, based on the waste d i s p o s a l c a p a b i l i t i e s o f the s o i l , must then be forwarded t o the approving o f f i c e r . In c o n c l u s i o n , the power t o c o n t r o l development on hazard lands w i t h i n an area w i th no l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n s , when the land i s 36 not being subdiv ided , i s l i m i t e d t o the st rength o f h e a l t h r e g u l a t i o n s . C o n t r o l l i n g development o f hazard lands when a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n has been proposed i s ertiminantly more s u c c e s s f u l . For r e g i o n a l p lanners t o s t a t e tha t without zoning, development on hazard lands can not be c o n t r o l l e d , i s p a r t i a l l y t r u e . Cons ider ing that any new s u b d i v i s i o n w i l l be adequately c o n t r o l l e d and on ly e x i s t i n g p a r c e l s remain r e l a t i v e l y u n c o n t r o l l e d , the planners statement might be somewhat overs ta ted . 2 .1 .5 Without zoning, r e s i d e n t s h e a l t h and s a f e t y can not be p r o t e c t e d . Rather than r e - a n a l y z i n g regu la t ions which have a l ready been d i s c u s s e d , an attempt w i l l be made t o determine the v a l i d i t y o f statement no. 5 by examining an e x i s t i n g Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Siirdlkameen zoning bylaw t o see which regu la t ions promote the h e a l t h and s a f e t y o f r e s i d e n t s . I t w i l l a l s o be noted whether these regu la t ions are dup l ica ted i n any p r o v i n c i a l A c t s . The words "heal th" and "safety" are i d e n t i f i e d i n the Mun ic ipa l A c t as key elements when prepar ing a zoning bylaw. S e c t i o n 716 (2)(a) s t a t e s : (2) In making regu la t ions under t h i s s e c t i o n the c o u n c i l s h a l l have due regard t o (a) the promotion o f h e a l t h , s a f e t y , convenience and we l fa re o f the p u b l i c ; Unfor tunate ly , the Munic ipa l A c t f a i l s t o def ine what "heal th" and "safety" mean. Because t h i s a n a l y s i s w i l l attempt t o i d e n t i f y regu la t ions which promote both , i t i s e s s e n t i a l tha t a d e f i n i t i o n f o r each, be a r t i c u l a t e d . For the purpose o f planners statement no. 5, the promotion o f "hea l th" , i n the context o f a zoning bylaw, w i l l be de f ined as the 37 irrplementation o f regu la t ions which; a) p r o t e c t aga inst no ise and s m e l l , and b) p r o t e c t against the spread o f d i s e a s e . The meaning o f "safety" i s much more d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e , because that what c o n s t i t u t e s a safe s i t u a t i o n f o r one person may be looked on as being unsafe by another. The concept o f r i s k a n a l y s i s i s one which w i l l not be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study. Nonetheless, f o r the purpose o f t h i s statement, the promotion o f "sa fe ty" , i n the context o f a zoning bylaw, w i l l be def ined as the implementation o f regu la t ions which; a) p r o t e c t aga inst the spread o f f i r e , b) p r o t e c t aga inst the l o c a t i o n o f land uses which could be hazardous t o humans, and c) p r o t e c t against i n j u r y or acc ident on highways through improper l o c a t i o n or c o n s t r u c t i o n o f developments. An a n a l y s i s w i l l now be made o f the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen, E l e c t o r a l /Area 'D' Zoning Bylaw No. 100 t o i d e n t i f y the regu la t ions which promote the "health" and "safety" o f the r e s i d e n t s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the a n a l y s i s w i l l focus on a zoning d i s t r i c t normal ly found on the f r i n g e areas ou ts ide m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . T h i s d i s t r i c t was s e l e c t e d because i t i s the one which should conta in the greatest number o f "health" and "safety" r e l a t e d regu la t ions r e l a t e d t o the pressures o f h igher dens i ty development. There w i l l a l s o be an a n a l y s i s o f the General Requirements s e c t i o n because i t p e r t a i n s t o a l l lands governed under t h i s Bylaw. The A g r i c u l t u r a l / R e s i d e n t i a l (A/R) D i s t r i c t o f E l e c t o r a l Area 'D ' Zoning Bylaw No. 100 i s a zoning d i s t r i c t normally found cover ing the f r i n g e areas o f communities w i t h i n the Regional D i s t r i c t . (See Appendix C) Subsect ion (2 ) (a) ( i ) and ( i i ) a long 38 wi th subsect ion (11) are seen as h e a l t h r e l a t e d r e g u l a t i o n s . By l i m i t i n g the spec ies o f animal and the n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l based opera t ions , the D i s t r i c t has recognized tha t both people and animals requ i re adequate space f o r a hea l thy c o - e x i s t a n c e . A t the present t ime there are no p r o v i n c i a l regu la t ions which l i m i t the number o f animals s i m i l a r t o those found i n the A / R zoning d i s t r i c t . Subsect ion (6) (d) , under Yards and Setbacks, regula tes the d is tance s t ruc tu res housing l i v e s t o c k s h a l l be away from a proper ty l i n e and dwel l ing u n i t . Here aga in , increased d e n s i t i e s i n the f r i n g e areas increase the l i k e l i h o o d o f both h e a l t h and s a f e t y problems. Dr . L . Copland, Med ica l Heal th O f f i c e r f o r the Boundary Heal th U n i t i n the Greater Vancouver a rea , s ta ted that there i s l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d o f any d isease r e s u l t i n g from the c l o s e prox imi ty o f humans t o animals. He d i d , however, note tha t he • considered both smel l and noise o f animals as a h e a l t h problem and suggested that t h i s was the reason tha t setbacks had been e s t a b l i s h e d f o r l i v e s t o c k opera t ions . The sa fe ty o f humans becomes more o f a problem as d e n s i t i e s increase because the p r o b a b i l i t y o f someone be ing scra tched , k i c k e d o r b i t t e n increases p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y . The p r o v i n c i a l San i ta ry Regulat ions (B.C. Regulat ion 149/59), adopted pursuant t o the Heal th A c t , p rov ides a s i m i l a r r e s t r i c t i o n t o tha t found i n the l o c a l bylaw. S e c t i o n 44 o f the r e g u l a t i o n r e s t r i c t s hogs t o a s p e c i f i e d d is tance from a highway, house, w e l l o r stream. I t a l s o a l lows the Medica l Heal th O f f i c e r t o increase the i s o l a t i o n d is tance t o 500 f e e t , i f found necessary t o prevent a nuisance o r a menace t o the p u b l i c h e a l t h . Dr . Copland s ta ted 39 that the reason hogs have been regulated i s because hog operations are very smelly and are consistently the most complained about farm operation i n the province. Overall, zoning regulations concerning the separation of livestock or animals from humans are more comprehensive than are the provincial regulations. The primary reason for this i s that the zoning regulations are more related to problems specific to a particular area. Subsection (6) (a) and (b) regulate the Yards and Setbacks required for principal and accessory buildings from the lot lines and each other. These regulations are designed to promote uniformity of structures for maintaining property values and to prevent the spread of f i r e from one building to another. Similar regulations are found under the Br i t i s h Columbia Building Code which requires that structures be varying distances apart depending on their f i r e resistance. Subsection (4 ) regulates the Minimum Site Area and Minimum Site Width of properties within the A/R d i s t r i c t . These regulations help promote the health of the residents i n the area. Subsection (4 ) (a) legislates irdjiumum parcel sizes which are designed to ensure that residents can dispose of their sewage and obtain water i n a manner which i s not harmful to their health. In the case of subsection ( 4)(a)(i), where both water and sewage are piped on and off the property, the minimum l o t size i s established to maintain the character of the area rather than for health reasons. Subsection ( 4)(a)(ii) requires a larger minimum lot size when the sewage i s disposed of on the property to provide for a satisfactory absorption f i e l d . Subsection ( 4 ) ( a ) ( i i i ) requires an 40 even l a r g e r area when water i s obtained and sewage i s disposed o f on the same s i t e . In order t o prevent h e a l t h problems adequate land i s requ i red t o ensure tha t the sewage does not contaminate the d r i n k i n g water. P r o v i n c i a l regu la t ions found i n the L o c a l Serv ices A c t , v i r t u a l l y d u p l i c a t e the rrdnimum l o t s i z e r e s t r i c t i o n s found i n the zoning bylaw. The on ly d i f f e r e n c e between the two i s found i n the r e g u l a t i o n concerning areas s e r v i c e d by a community water system and not a coirmunity sewage system. In these a reas , the zoning bylaw permits a p a r c e l s i z e o f 9,000 square f e e t whi le the L o c a l Se rv ices A c t requi res 7,500 square foot minimum l o t s i z e . S e c t i o n 28, the General Requirements s e c t i o n o f E l e c t o r a l Area 'D ' Zoning Bylaw No. 100, i s a p p l i c a b l e t o land w i t h i n a l l d i s t r i c t s o f the zoning bylaw. (See Appendix D) Subsect ion (1) i s designed t o promote the s a f e t y o f motor is ts a t highway i n t e r s e c t i o n s . I t r e s t r i c t s the growth or cons t ruc t ion o f any o b s t r u c t i o n between the l e v e l s o f 3 and 10 fee t above ground l e v e l and up t o 15 fee t back from the i n t e r s e c t i o n the r i g h t o f way. A p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n contained w i t h i n the Highway A c t prov ides a s i m i l a r r e s t r i c t i o n t o that found i n the zoning bylaw. The o n l y d i f f e r e n c e i s that the p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n requi res a 20 foot setback from the i n t e r s e c t i o n o f the r i g h t o f way. T h i s i s more s t r i n g e n t than the zoning bylaw. Subsect ion (3), o f the zoning bylaw, e s t a b l i s h e s s p e c i f i c regu la t ions governing park ing f o r the var ious land uses found i n the E l e c t o r a l Area . The r e g u l a t i o n not on ly l e g i s l a t e s the number o f spaces requ i red but a l s o the c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l . 41 A p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n found i n the L o c a l Serv ices A c t prov ides a s i m i l a r requirement, but one which i s not as comprehensive. F o r example, s e c t i o n 4.15 on ly requ i res tha t f o r any p a r c e l i n a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n , there s h a l l be an area on the p a r c e l s u i t a b l e f o r park ing two v e h i c l e s . The L o c a l Serv ices A c t r e g u l a t i o n i s on ly enforceable when a proper ty i s be ing subdiv ided . Whereas, the r e g u l a t i o n contained w i t h i n the zoning bylaw i s a p p l i c a b l e a t a l l t imes. Therefore , i f a proper ty i s developed without s u b d i v i s i o n there i s no r e g u l a t i o n t o ensure adequate park ing on the s i t e . T h i s would leave v e h i c l e s no p lace t o park but on the roadway, c r e a t i n g a sa fe ty problem. Subsect ion(7) o f the zoning bylaw e s t a b l i s h e s s p e c i f i c f l o o d p l a i n regu la t ions designed t o promote the sa fe ty o f the p u b l i c . L e g i s l a t i o n governing the e l e v a t i o n above and the d is tance back that s t ruc tu res must be from a n a t u r a l watercourse or highwater mark are covered by two s i m i l a r p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n s . The f i r s t i s the Heal th A c t which, under the Sewage D i s p o s a l Regula t ions , e s t a b l i s h e s l i m i t s t o the prox imi ty o f an absorpt ion f i e l d t o a water tab le , a na tura l watercourse or a body o f water. S e c t i o n 6:16 requ i res tha t the ground watertable not be l e s s than 4 fee t below the n a t u r a l ground sur face i n an area where an absorpt ion f i e l d i s l o c a t e d . Sec t ion 6:19 (e) regulates the d is tance an absorpt ion f i e l d must be from the n a t u r a l boundary o f a lake o r other body o f water. While these regu la t ions are o r ien ted toward the promotion o f h e a l t h , they a l s o serve t o promote the sa fe ty o f the p u b l i c by f o r c i n g b u i l d i n g s away from low l y i n g areas . The second p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n i s the Land T i t l e A c t . S e c t i o n 82 (1) o f the A c t a l lows the Approving O f f i c e r t o request 42 the p r i o r consent o f the Deputy M i n i s t e r o f Environment before approving a s u b d i v i s i o n i f the land i s subject t o f l o o d i n g . I t i s then the perogat ive o f the Deputy M i n i s t e r t o request that the subd iv ider enter i n t o a covenant r e g u l a t i n g setbacks from watercourses and e leva t ions o f s t ruc tures above f l o o d l e v e l s , s i m i l a r t o those contained i n the zoning bylaw. These r e g u l a t i o n s , however, on ly p e r t a i n to lands be ing subdiv ided and do not apply t o lands be ing developed. In c o n c l u s i o n , t h i s a n a l y s i s has shown tha t zoning provides more s p e c i f i c and comprehensive c o n t r o l i n the form o f smal l animal , l i v e s t o c k , b u i l d i n g , and f l o o d p l a i n r e g u l a t i o n than those enforced by the prov ince . The l o c a l c o n t r o l s have been developed as a r e s u l t o f s p e c i f i c problems which have a r i s e n i n the E l e c t o r a l A r e a , whereas P r o v i n c i a l r egu la t ions are designed t o c o n t r o l h e a l t h and sa fe ty hazards on a p rov ince wide b a s i s . There fore , they can not be expected t o c o n t r o l area s p e c i f i c problems. O v e r a l l , one would have t o d isagree w i th the planners statement tha t the h e a l t h and sa fe ty o f E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' r e s i d e n t s can not be p ro tec ted without zon ing . Perhaps i f d e n s i t i e s were greater , the threa t t o h e a l t h and sa fe ty would be o f greater concern. The on ly r e g u l a t i o n the zoning bylaw has tha t would be great b e n e f i t t o E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' i s the f l o o d p l a i n r e g u l a t i o n . Otherwise, the p r o v i n c i a l r egu la t ions seem t o provide adequate h e a l t h and sa fe ty c o n t r o l s . 2 .1 .6 Unzoned areas become mel t ing pots f o r undes i rab le land uses In order t o t e s t the v a l i d i t y o f t h i s statement, the land use  44 pat te rn o f the unzoned Keremeos f r i n g e area w i l l be compared t o a zoned f r i n g e area w i th a s i m i l a r popula t ion s i z e . T h i s w i l l show the extent t o which undes i rab le land uses are c o n t r o l l e d by zon ing . The Keremeos f r i n g e area i s taken as the Sett lement P lan Area shown i n the "Technica l Supplement t o the Keremeos Sett lement P l a n " . (See F i g u r e 2) The land use pa t te rn i n the Keremeos area w i l l be compared t o the Okanagan F a l l s f r i n g e a r e a . While there are no munic ipa l boundaries t o l e g a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h the urban area from the f r i n g e , i t would seem appropr iate t o accept the lands i n s i d e the Okanagan F a l l s Sewage C o l l e c t i o n D i s t r i c t as urban and land outs ide i t as the f r i n g e . The outer boundaries o f the f r i n g e area are taken as the boundaries o f the Okanagan F a l l s Sett lement P lan Area i n the "Technica l Supplement t o the Okanagan F a l l s Sett lement P l a n " . (See F i g u r e 3) P r i o r t o attempting the land use a n l a y s i s , i t i s important that the term "undesirable " be de f ined . For the purpose o f t h i s study, the term undes i rab le inc ludes land uses which f a l l under the heading o f Commercial i n the land use coding system o f the Regional D i s t r i c t "Technica l supplement Maps". Under t h i s heading are found i n d u s t r i a l , commercial and t o u r i s t commercial uses . The reason these uses were chosen i s because they genera l l y create a nuisance i n the form o f t r a f f i c congest ion, no ise and s m e l l . Granted, there are other land uses which create the same nuisance, however, t h i s study simply attempts t o sample a smal l c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f land uses i n order t o t e s t the v a l i d i t y o f the p lanners statement. A problem which a r i s e s when conducting any comparison i s that  46 there are l i m i t a t i o n s which l i m i t the v a l i d i t y o f the study. Some l i m i t a t i o n s which a f f e c t t h i s study a r e : - t h e extent t o which the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land reserve has a f f e c t e d development i n both f r i n g e a r e a s ; - the extent t o which the abundance or l a c k o f space i n the urban areas has a f f e c t e d the development pa t te rn i n the f r i n g e a reas ; - t h e extent t o which the land use pat tens e s t a b l i s h e d p r i o r t o the establ ishment o f the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve and E l e c t o r a l Area 'D ' Zoning Bylaw have a f f e c t e d the development p a t t e r n i n the f r i n g e a reas . F i g u r e s 4 and 5 show the s p e c i f i c use and l o c a t i o n o f the undes i rab le land uses . I t can be seen tha t the Okanagan F a l l s f r i n g e area has 12 undesi rab le land uses (not i n c l u d i n g grave l p i t s ) . The Keremeos f r i n g e , on the other hand, has a t o t a l o f 23 undes i rab le land uses (not i n c l u d i n g g rave l p i t s ) . To take the a n a l y s i s a step fu r ther , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o say tha t i f the land uses are covered by a p r o v i n c i a l A c t , then, they can not be deemed u n d e s i r a b l e . For example, f r u i t stands i n the Keremeos f r i n g e are are a l e g a l use under B . C . Regulat ion 7/81 o f the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t . S e c t i o n 2(1) (a) o f the A c t a l lows produce grown on the proper ty t o be s o l d from the proper ty . Thus, the number o f undesi rab le uses i n the Keremeos f r i n g e on t h i s b a s i s on ly numbers 10. A t the present t ime, there are no p r o v i n c i a l Ac ts which a l t e r the number o f undes i rab le designat ions o f the land uses i n the Okanagan F a l l s f r i n g e a r e a . In c o n c l u s i o n , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o say whether unzoned areas become mel t ing pots f o r undes i rab le land u s e s . In circumstances such as those examined h e r e , there are numerous undesi rable land uses preva lan t i n both the zoned and unzoned areas s t u d i e d . A map i l l u s t r a t i n g the zoning d i s t r i c t s and the undesirable 47 48 49 land uses i n the Okanagan F a l l s f r i n g e area shows a l l but 4 o f the land uses are s p e c i f i c a l l y permit ted under the zoning bylaw. (See F igure 6) I t should be noted that one was i n ex is tence p r i o r t o the adopt ion o f the zoning bylaw and i s thus l e g a l l y non-conforming. Being l e g a l l y zoned has the e f f e c t o f changing undes i rab le land uses t o d e s i r a b l e ones. The reasons be ing t h a t : A) the zoning process provides the p u b l i c w i th the opportuni ty t o be heard i f the land use i s not a d e s i r a b l e one, and B) zoning prov ides regu la t ions concerning the s i t i n g , shape and s i z e o f s t ruc tu res which makes l i v i n g next t o a commercial o r i n d u s t r i a l use not q u i t e as undes i rab le as i f there were no r e g u l a t i o n s . Whether the number o f undesi rab le land uses would be fewer i f zoning were i n e f f e c t i n the Keremeos f r i n g e area i s subject t o con jec ture . The l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s make i t impossible t o come t o any f i r m conc lus ions about t h i s statement. 2.2 RESIDENTS STATEMENTS 2.2.1 Increased governmental r e g u l a t i o n w i l l r e s u l t i n a l o s s o f the r u r a l l i f e s t y l e For the purpose o f ana lyz ing t h i s statement, i t i s necessary t o review the r u r a l s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e because f i r s t - h a n d e m p i r i c a l evidence i s not a v a i l a b l e . S ince World War II the d i f f e r e n c e s between urban and r u r a l environments have d imin ished . Changes which are s a i d t o have produced the d e c l i n e i n the r u r a l environments e f f e c t s on values inc ludes i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n (kerr e t a l , 1960), o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e v o l u t i o n (Boulding, 1968; Har t and S c o t t , 1975), and development o f post i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y ( B e l l , 1968). 50 51 Mass cotimunication systems and modern t r a n s p o r t a t i o n methods are examples o f how these changes have caused a l e v e l l i n g e f f e c t on the d i f f e r e n c e s between urban and r u r a l l i f e s t y l e s ( W i l l i t s e t a l , 1973,36). T e l e v i s i o n , r a d i o , newspapers, magazines and movies provide a common experience t o persons throughout the l a n d . W i l l i t s e t a l (1973), argues that i s o l a t i o n , which h i s t o r i c a l l y permit ted the development o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n l i f e s t y l e s , has been replaced by a continuous interchange throughout the c u l t u r e . T h i s has r e s u l t e d i n the e l i m i n a t i o n o f d i s t i n c t i v e s u b c u l t u r a l pat terns w i t h i n s o c i e t y . While improved modes o f t ranspor ta t ion make i t e a s i e r f o r farmers t o t r a v e l t o the urban areas , i t has a l s o made access t o r u r a l areas e a s i e r f o r u r b a n i t e s . Glenn and H i l l (1977) note that there are now two types o f r u r a l r e s i d e n t ; those tha t l i v e and work i n a r u r a l area and those who l i v e i n a r u r a l area but work and s o c i a l i z e i n urban a reas . The e f f e c t o f t h i s u r b a n - r u r a l migrat ion has fur thered the e l i m i n a t i o n o f the r u r a l - u r b a n d i f f e r e n c e s (Glenn and H a l l , 1977; Smith and Petersen, 1980). In c o n c l u s i o n , a review o f the r u r a l s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e would i n d i c a t e that the res iden ts statement i s wrong. Increased governmental r e g u l a t i o n does not b r i n g about a l o s s o f the r u r a l l i f e s t y l e . However, i t i s very d i f f i c u l t t o conclude that a person o r group o f persons are wrong when d e a l i n g wi th human p e r c e p t i o n s . There fore , regard less o f the f a c t u a l in format ion c i t e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s , one can not d isprove the way the r u r a l res idents o f E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' perce ive t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . Residents simply respond t o the r e s u l t i n g e f f e c t s . 52 2 .2 .2 Increased bureaucracy means increased taxes . To b e t t e r conceptua l ize t h i s statement a comparison w i l l be made o f the cos ts o f p r o v i d i n g reg iona l governmental s e r v i c e s t o E l e c t o r a l /Area ' G 1 , which has very few s e r v i c e s , w i th another E l e c t o r a l Area which uses most s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d by the Regional D i s t r i c t . Before ana lyz ing the costs o f the funct ions a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the process used t o acqui re the opera t ing funds f o r the i n d i v i d u a l funct ions i s i n order . S ince the Regional D i s t r i c t i s not a t ax ing a u t h o r i t y , the normal procedure used t o acqui re the funds f o r p a r t i c u l a r funct ions i s as f o l l o w s . The Regional D i s t r i c t must f i r s t f i n a l i z e i t s budget f o r the coming year which must inc lude s p e c i f i c c o s t breakdowns f o r the i n d i v i d u a l funct ions i n each e l e c t o r a l a rea . They then submit t h i s r e q u i s i t i o n t o the M i n i s t r y o f Munic ipa l A f f a i r s . The r e q u i s i t i o n i s then forwarded t o the Surveyor o f Taxes who combines the amount needed f o r r e g i o n a l funct ions wi th that requ i red f o r other p r o v i n c i a l government f u n c t i o n s . A t o t a l i s then e s t a b l i s h e d f o r each e l e c t o r a l a rea . The Surveyor o f Taxes then f i x e s a tax ra te f o r r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, i n d u s t r i a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l lands s p e c i f i c t o each e l e c t o r a l a r e a . The taxes are then c a l c u l a t e d f o r each proper ty . The Regional D i s t r i c t i s then a l o t t e d the funds which i t requested. Of course, t h i s i s a s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n , but i t does g ive an i n d i c a t i o n o f the process which i s fo l lowed. Tab le 1 i temizes the est imated costs f o r each func t ion w i t h i n the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen f o r 1983. For the purpose o f ana lyz ing t h i s statement, the cos ts requi red t o A N A L V S u OF 1983 REQUISITION BASED OH 1983 ASSESSMENT M u n i c ' p a I i t i e s Pen t i c ton Summer l a n d P r i n c e t o n 01 i v e r O s o y o o s Keremeos T o t a l E l e c t o r a l A r e a s A B C D T o t a l GRAND TOTAL H o s p i t a l Genera 1 Admi n. E l e c t . Admin . F i re P r o t . B u i l d i n q l n s p . R e c y c l i n ? Re fuse D i s p o s a l P Iann i ng Z o n i n g Economic l eve l opren O . K . F a l l s Sewer & t Knapweed P e s t C o n t r o l A r e n a s t e c r e a t i o n OBWB F i s c a 1 T r a n s i t 1 S e r v i c e s R00S O f f i c e TOTAL 2 9 2 , 2 4 0 64 ,407 161,847 86 ,037 16,685 2 . 7 8 2 $ 3 1 . 8 3 3 V t s ) 122 ,750 1 ,810 ,436 20 ,715 2 , 6 0 9 , 7 3 4 72 ,605 16,003 21 ,376 4 ,146 5 ,915 30 ,496 562 ,033 5 ,147 717.721 3 6 , 7 7 5 8 ,109 11,720 10,833 2 ,100 500 21,241 144,872 2 , 6 0 8 238.75F 24,501 5 ,400 7,806 25,944 •1 7,214 I 1,398 t I 4 . 2 8 3 79 .553 10,292 2 5 , 1 7 9 1.737 193.307 4 0 , 2 9 5 8,884 11,868 ! 1 7 ,046 8 2 . 6 9 3 16 ,926 5 5 , 6 8 9 4 5 7 , 8 9 9 2 . 8 5 8 684,15£ 10,241 2 ,263 25,854 11,092 3,022 590 1,794 273 ,757 728 329,341 4 7 6 , 6 5 7 105,056 25 ,854 19,526 198.883 140,350 24 ,919 5 4 , 1 5 3 183 ,487 180,464 3 , 3 2 9 , 8 6 7 33 ,793 4 , 7 7 3 , 0 1 ! 1 9 . 9 i D 4 ,393 3 ,175 6 , 3 4 9 23 ,100 5 ,868 3 ,484 4 0 , 8 8 5 30 ,224 1 ,413 138 .80 ' 7 ,157 1,585 1,146 2,291 2 ,118 410 1 ,258 - 2 , 3 0 0 510 18,775 4 2 , 0 9 8 9,281 6 ,708 x 13 ,415 44 ,590 12,398 2 ,405 7 ,360 ^162 .519 17 ,679 8 ,044 2 ,985 329,482 6 7 , 3 1 0 14,830 10 ,718 21 ,436 19,810 3 ,842 11 .762 4 1 , 7 2 6 4 , 7 7 0 196.204 19 ,088 4,211 3 ,043 6 ,087 5.626 1,090 3 .340 8 ,022 3 .246 2 8 , 9 9 0 1,354 84 ,097 16 ,177 3 .567 2 , 5 7 8 5,156 4 ,766 924 2 . 8 2 9 6 , 7 9 5 20 ,832 1.147 64,771 16,351 3,600 2 ,602 5,204 4 ,809 932 2 , 8 5 6 1,158 37 ,512 8 4 , 3 9 7 18,612 13 ,450 26 ,902 13,400 24 ,863 4 ,822 120 4 8 , 7 5 5 1 ,808 5 ,986 243,1 15 175,900 69,491 2 6 , 8 2 8 34 ,744 8 7 , 2 6 3 0 394,226 1 .506,983 2 7 2 , 4 8 8 60 ,079 4 3 , 4 2 0 175,900 86 ,840 150,581 80 ,258 14,425 2 6 , 8 2 8 3 3 , 0 0 9 2 5 2 , 1 5 9 6 7 , 2 4 0 3 ,246 2 2 1 . 1 8 7 19 ,323 749 ,145 165,145 43 ,420 201,754 106,366 349,464 220 ,608 39,344 2 6 . 8 2 8 8 7 . 1 6 2 4 3 5 , 6 4 6 247 ,704 3 ,246 3,551 ,054 5 3 , 1 1 6 6 ,280 .002 i-3 54 maintain the funct ions o f E l e c t o r a l /Area ' F ' w i l l be compared t o those o f E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . F igure 7 shows tha t E l e c t o r a l Area ' F ' i s loca ted just west o f the C i t y o f Pent ic ton and the D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y o f Summer l a n d . E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' has been s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s f o r the reasons that i t has a popu la t ion s i m i l a r t o tha t o f E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' and because i t i s governed by both a zoning and b u i l d i n g bylaw, which according t o E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' r e s i d e n t s , w i l l increase taxes . A f t e r reviewing Table 1 i t can be seen tha t the amount o f money needed t o maintain most funct ions w i t h i n both e l e c t o r a l areas i s s i m i l a r . There a r e , however, four aspects o f the t a b l e which are i n need o r fu r ther explanat ion . F i r s t l y , i t should be noted that E l e c t o r a l Area ' F ' i s a p a r t o f the Okanagan Bas in Water Board (OBWB) and taxpayers must cont r ibu te $6,795 towards t h i s f u n c t i o n . E l e c t o r a l Area ' G 1 i s not a p a r t o f t h i s func t ion and thus , does not con t r ibu te . Secondly, the same i s t rue f o r the F i s c a l Serv ices f u n c t i o n . Included under t h i s fu nc t ion are the con t r ibu t ions the res idents o f e l e c t o r a l Area ' F 1 make t o the Pent ic ton Recreat ion Centre , the Pen t ic ton and D i s t r i c t Retirement Centre and the Pent ic ton Dog C o n t r o l s e r v i c e . E l e c t o r a l ' G ' does not cont r ibu te to these s e r v i c e s . T h i r d l y , i t i s q u i t e s u r p r i s i n g that c o n s i d e r i n g E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' does not have a b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n bylaw and thus no b u i l d i n g inspector , they cont r ibu te approximately the same amount as E l e c t o r a l Area ' F 1 , f o r t h i s f u n c t i o n . Upon fur ther i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t employee s a i d that the Supplementary L e t t e r s Patent f o r the Regional D i s t r i c t s tates that Ul 56 a l l areas must cont r ibute t o c e r t a i n funct ions regard less o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n them. There fore , a sum determined by the assessed va lue o f land and iirprovements i s l e v i e d on E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . F i n a l l y , the same quest ions are r a i s e d regard ing the amounts requ i red f o r the Planning and Zoning f u n c t i o n s . E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' does not maintain a zoning bylaw but cont r ibu tes more to t h i s f u n c t i o n than does E l e c t o r a l Area ' F 1 . A g a i n , fu r ther i n v e s t i g a t i o n found that the Supplementary L e t t e r s Patent f o r the Regional d i s t r i c t requ i res that every e l e c t o r a l area cont r ibute t o t h i s f u n c t i o n regardless o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n i t . O v e r a l l , the res idents statement tha t " increased bureaucracy means increased t a x e s , " i s genera l l y t r u e . However, i n t h i s case when d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i th E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' and the costs o f mainta in ing the zoning and b u i l d i n g f u n c t i o n s , the statement i s f a l s e . 2 .2 .3 Zoning regu la t ions are designed f o r urban areas and do not cons ider r u r a l va lues . To determine whether r u r a l res idents are c o r r e c t i n t h e i r assumption, I w i l l analyze an e x i s t i n g Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen Zoning Bylaw. Because most Regional D i s t r i c t bylaws conta in both urban and r u r a l zoning d i s t r i c t , I w i l l analyze the most r u r a l zoning d i s t r i c t w i t h i n the bylaw. I t should be noted that there i s no one d i s t i n c t i v e boundary between what i s an urban or r u r a l zone. However, by o f f e r i n g an exp lanat ion o f the purpose o f the r e g u l a t i o n , some i n s i g h t w i l l be gained i n t o i t s urban or r u r a l o r i e n t a t i o n . Before ana lyz ing a s p e c i f i c bylaw, a b r i e f overview o f the 57 h i s t o r y o f zoning i n North /America i s i n important e s t a b l i s h i n g the context o f zoning today. New York adopted the f i r s t comprehensive munic ipa l zoning ordinance i n 1916, which regula ted he igh t , area and land use (Contemporary Studies P r o j e c t , 1983, 1091). T h i s enactment had a profound e f f e c t because soon a f t e r , most major American c i t i e s adopted some form o f zoning bylaw (Contemporary Stud ies P r o j e c t , 1983,1094). Zoning q u i c k l y became an instrument o f munic ipa l land use c o n t r o l but gained r e l a t i v e l y slow acceptance i n r u r a l , unincorporated areas . I t wasn ' t u n t i l 1929 tha t Wisconsin became the f i r s t s ta te t o author ize county zoning (Contemporary Study P r o j e c t , 1983,1094). Zoning was designed t o preserve e x i s t i n g or evo lv ing neighborhoods and prevent the d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f urban l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s . As a r e s u l t , l i v e a b i l i t y regu la t ions o r regu la t ions designed t o c o l l e c t i v e l y cont r ibu te t o the q u a l i t y o f l i v i n g , have become a major concern (Goodman and Freund, 1968,429). Rura l r e s i d e n t s , however, quest ion the need fo r these l i v e a b i l i t y regu la t ions because t o them, d is tance i s the b u f f e r which p ro tec ts t h e i r q u a l i t y o f l i v i n g (Getzel and Thurow, 1979,54). T h i s a n a l y s i s w i l l now s h i f t t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f whether an e x i s t i n g r u r a l zoning d i s t r i c t o f the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okariagan-Similkameen conta ins any l i v e a b i l i t y regu la t ions which are quest ionable as t o t h e i r r u r a l p r a c t i c a l i t y . The bylaw which w i l l be s tud ied i s E l e c t o r a l Area 'D' Zoning Bylaw No. 100, adopted i n J u l y o f 1971. The most r u r a l o r i e n t e d land use d i s t r i c t i n the bylaw i s the F o r e s t r y - G r a z i n g D i s t r i c t . (See Appendix E) T h i s d i s t r i c t has the l a r g e s t ndnimum p a r c e l s i z e (50 58 acres) o f a l l the land use d i s t r i c t s and u s u a l l y a p p l i e s t o lands f a r t h e s t from the urban c e n t r e s . Those aspects o f the bylaw which 1 r u r a l res idents c i t e d as urban o r i e n t e d w i l l now be i d e n t i f i e d . S e c t i o n 12 (2)(e) deserves some ccmment. I t regulates the establ ishment o f a "Home Occupat ion" and s t a t e s : (e) Home occupat ions, p rov ided that ( i ) a home occupat ion s h a l l be conducted whol ly w i t h i n a b u i l d i n g o r accessory b u i l d i n g ; ( i i ) there s h a l l be no e x t e r i o r d i s p l a y o r advert isement, except as prov ided by subsect ion (10); ( i i i ) there s h a l l be no e x t e r i o r storage o f ma te r i a ls , commodities, o r f i n i s h e d products ; ( iv ) the use s h a l l not generate t r a f f i c o r park ing problems w i t h i n the D i s t r i c t ; (v) the use s h a l l not produce p u b l i c o f fense o r nuisance o f any k i n d , by any means; These are the same regu la t ions which apply t o a home occupat ion i n a s i n g l e fami ly r e s i d e n t i a l zone and i s quest ionable why these regu la t ions d o n ' t change i n accordance wi th the c loseness or remoteness o f a home occupat ion t o an adjacent property or dwe l l ing . In that way regu la t ions governing home occupations i n r u r a l areas would take account o f the s i z e o f the p r o p e r t i e s , and be l e s s s t r i n g e n t than that requ i red f o r smal ler s i z e d p r o p e r t i e s i n urban areas . S e c t i o n 12 (6) r e g u l a t i n g the "Yards and Setbacks" o f a l l b u i l d i n g s const ructed on land w i t h i n t h i s zoning d i s t r i c t , has b a f f l e d many a r u r a l r e s i d e n t . Subsect ion (a) i n p a r t i c u l a r , se ts t h i s out as an urban o r i e n t e d r e g u l a t i o n . (1) in format ion obtained whi le employed by the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen 59 (a) On any l o t or s i t e , a l l b u i l d i n g s s h a l l be setback from the f r o n t and rear l o t l i n e s a d is tance equal t o the he ight o f the b u i l d i n g , o r t h i r y (30) f e e t , whichever i s greater , and not l e s s than f i f t e e n (15) f ee t from an i n t e r i o r or e x t e r i o r s ide l o t l i n e . While such a regu la t ion may be worthwhile i n an urban a rea , so that a l l houses are uriiforrruy p l a c e d on the proper ty , res idents ques t ion the need f o r un i fo rmi ty when the l o t s are 50 acres i n area and over . S e c t i o n 12 (7), r e g u l a t i n g "S i te Coverage" i s a l s o quest ioned. T h i s regu la t ion s t a t e s : (7) On any l o t o r s i t e , p r i n c i p a l and accessory b u i l d i n g s together s h a l l not occupy more than twenty (20) percent o f the l o t o r s i t e a rea . R e a l i s t i c a l l y , 20 percent o f 50 acres i s 10 acres and g iven the permit ted uses c i t e d w i t h i n subsect ion (2) o f t h i s zoning d i s t r i c t , i t i s u n l i k e l y that a s t ruc ture tha t b i g would ever be b u i l t . S e c t i o n 12 (8), r e g u l a t i n g "Height L i m i t a t i o n s " i s another r e g u l a t i o n which i s more urban o r ien ted than r u r a l . I t s t a t e s : (8) On any l o t o r s i t e , no b u i l d i n g s h a l l exceed a he ight equal t o twenty - f ive (25) percent o f the l o t or s i t e depth, or s i x t y (60) f ee t , whichever i s l e s s , except tha t i n no case s h a l l dwel l ings exceed a he igh t o f t h i r t y - f i v e (35) f e e t . A g a i n , we see a regu la t ion which i s more s u i t e d t o an urban, s i t u a t i o n where conformity o f s t ruc tures may be p r e f e r r e d . As f a r as a r u r a l r e g u l a t i o n , r u r a l res iden ts quest ion i t s p r a c t i c a l i t y . They say tha t people have good reasons f o r b u i l d i n g s t ructures the s i z e and shape they do, so why regulate them. Furthermore, the s i z e o f r u r a l l o t s u s u a l l y a l lows enough space between neighbors so that the he ight o f someones s t ruc ture w i l l not i n t e r f e r e wi th 60 an adjacent property owners right to light or a i r . The f i n a l regulation of this zoning d i s t r i c t to be questioned i s subsection (9) which regulates the "IXLinimum Floor Area". I t states: (a) No dwelling unit, other than a mobile home, shall have floor area of less than seven hundred f i f t y (750) square feet. (b) No mobile home shall have a floor area of less than two hundred forty (240) square feet. This uniformity seeking regulation i s more urban oriented than rural. Rural residents have noted that i f a person wants to build a small house, why shouldn't i t be allowed? In an urban area, a smaller than average house could have a negative effect on the value of adjacent houses. However, i n an area where the iruriimum parcel size i s 50 acres i t i s unlikely that the size of one house w i l l affect the a value of a neighboring parcel. Overall, one would have to agree with the residents statement that "zoning regulations are designed for urban areas". After studying the most rural zoning d i s t r i c t of Electoral Area 'D1, Zoning Bylaw No. 100, i t can be said that there were numerous reulations which could be questioned for their practical application i n a rural area. But this does not necessarily invalidate any form of zoning i n rural areas. 3.0 REVIEW QF ALTERNATIVES TO THE STANDARD ZONING BYLAW This chapter w i l l investigate five alternatives to the standard zoning bylaw. A review of the literature on each alternative w i l l provide insights on their various definitions along with their positive and negative aspects. The chapter w i l l conclude with a discussion of the s u i t a b i l i t y of implementing each alternative as a land use control i n 61 E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . One important l i m i t i n g f a c t o r which should be mentioned a t the outset i s tha t many o f the repor ts c i t e d i n the reviews have been w r i t t e n from the p e r s p e c t i v e o f American land use law. T h i s can make a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n how these a l t e r n a t i v e land use c o n t r o l s are d e s c r i b e d . The reason f o r t h i s , i s that i n Canada, land owners are viewed as tenants o f the crown, whereas, i n the Uni ted S t a t e s , the B i l l o f R ights has he lped entrench the a t t i t u d e that land owners are o u t r i g h t owners o f t h e i r proper ty . There fore , throughout t h i s chapter , an attempt w i l l be made t o i d e n t i f y aspects which are on ly a p p l i c a b l e i n the Uni ted S t a t e s . 3.1 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The development permit has had an o f f and on h i s t o r y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t was f i r s t in t roduced i n 1968 as S e c t i o n 702A o f the Munic ipa l A c t and was t o prov ide f o r more innovat ive munic ipa l land use and development c o n t r o l s (Porter , 1973,104). But the concept f a i l e d t o ga in the a c t i v e i n t e r e s t as expected due t o some confusion and doubt as t o what i t was (Porter , 1973,106). So, i n the spr ing o f 1971 the government repealed the development permit l e g i s l a t i o n and rep laced i t w i th the land use c o n t r a c t . A f t e r on ly s i x y e a r s , l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g land use cont rac ts was rep laced by new development permit l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1977 which remains i n fo rce today, S ince 1977, a number o f repor ts have been w r i t t e n which descr ibe the p o s i t i v e and negat ive aspects o f the development permit as a land use c o n t r o l technique. The development permit has been def ined by a number o f authors . Gary Harkness (1973,43) descr ibes i t as a supplementary r e g u l a t i o n which a l lows v a r i a t i o n s t o be made t o the e x i s t i n g development c o n t r o l bylaw. T h i s a l lows C o u n c i l s t o b e t t e r accomodate p r o j e c t s r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l treatment, cons ider ing such elements as s i t i n g , des ign , s e r v i c i n g o r environmental 62 features (Harkness, 1979,43). Wi lson (1979) and Urban Land Management L t d . (1979) descr ibe two types o f development permits which may be used i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The f i r s t i s the vo luntary o r s i t e development permit which a l lows the developer , a t h i s o p t i o n , t o apply f o r the wa iv ing , changing o r augmenting o f c e r t a i n aspects o f the zoning o r s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l bylaws (Urban Land Management L t d . , 1979,19). Whi le the development permit may a l low more f l e x i b i l i t y than the zoning bylaw, i t may not vary the permit ted uses or d e n s i t i e s o f the land use p e r s c r i b e d by the zoning (Wilson, 1979,39). The second type o f development permit i s the compulsory o r area development permi t . In t h i s case, C o u n c i l designates areas w i th s p e c i a l environmental , des ign o r s i t i n g condi t ions as development permit areas (Urban Land Management L t d . , 1979,19). In development permit a reas , property owners must apply t o c o u n c i l t o ob ta in a development permit i n a d d i t i o n t o the normal b u i l d i n g permit o r s u b d i v i s i o n approval (Urban Land Management L t d . , 1979,19). Once again , the development permit can on ly regulate design and s i t i n g and can not vary use o r dens i ty p e r s c r i b e d by the a p p l i c a b l e zoning o r s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l bylaw (Wilson, 1979,39 and Urban Land Management L t d . , 1979,19). As w i th a l l forms o f land use c o n t r o l , there are p o s i t i v e and negat ive aspects . The most o f ten c i t e d b e n e f i t o f the development permit i s i t s f l e x i b i l i t y . Goldberg and Horwood (1980,96) p r a i s e t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e f o r i t s f l e x i b i l i t y i n a l lowing proposa ls t o be evaluated on t h e i r own m e r i t s . While Harkness (1979,43) i s encouraged that imaginat ive and innovat ive p roposa ls , which might not have been acceptable under the standard zoning bylaw, may be approved. Wi lson (1979,41) sees the development permit l e g i s l a t i o n as a step i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n because i t a l lows minor var iances that do not a f f e c t the use and dens i ty regu la t ions o f a zoning bylaw without the n e c e s s i t y o f p u b l i c hear ings . 63 I t i s rare tha t when a land use c o n t r o l confers a b e n e f i t on .some that others d o n ' t view i t nega t ive ly . Such i s the case w i th the development permi t . Harkness (1979,43) recognizes that f l e x i b i l i t y can lead t o uncer ta in ty which c rea tes delay and h igher c o s t s . T h i s problem i s expanded on by Urban Land Management L t d . (1979,20) who s ta te that d e t a i l s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n always vary from o r i g i n a l p l a n s . Thus, w i th the Munic ipa l A c t r e q u i r i n g tha t the development be " s t r i c t l y i n accordance wi th the development p e r m i t , " i t may be necessary f o r the developer t o re turn t o c o u n c i l on numerous occas ions t o obta in permiss ion t o change minor i tems. The f a c t that no p u b l i c hear ing i s requi red f o r each development permit i ssued has been noted as a p o s i t i v e aspect o f the l e g i s l a t i o n . However, Urban Land Management L t d . (1979,19) quest ions i t s l e g a l v a l i d i t y cons ider ing tha t i t i s a form o f zon ing . The f i n a l negat ive aspect noted p e r t a i n s t o the f a c t tha t r e g i s t e r i n g the development permit des ignat ion on the p r o p e r t y ' s t i t l e i s not requ i red . Urban Land Management L t d . (1979,20) c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o the f a c t that development permits may a f f e c t the value o f the l and . There fore , a l l p a r c e l s governed by a development permit should have t h i s f a c t l i s t e d on the land t i t l e . O v e r a l l , o f those who have s ta ted an o p i n i o n , most look favourably upon development permits as a form o f land use c o n t r o l . Goldberg and Horwood (1980,96) even go as f a r as t o say that "of a l l the zoning a l t e r n a t i v e s , we advocate t h i s one". 3.2 FLOODPLAIN ZONING S ince the beginning o f recorded t ime, f loods have been reported wi th r e g u l a r i t y . E a r l y c i v i l i z a t i o n s used t o depend on f loods t o depos i t new, r i c h s o i l on the f l o o d p l a i n i n order t o grow t h e i r c rops . Over the y e a r s , 64 man has converted these a g r i c u l t u r a l and open space uses t o r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial and i n d u s t r i a l uses . In the p a s t , the most corrtron method o f p r o t e c t i n g these f l o o d p l a i n uses was t o b u i l d dams, channels and l evees . Unfor tunate ly , these schemes are very c o s t l y and are not always e f f e c t i v e (Burnett and Hansen, 1982,3). Lauf (1970,69) expands on t h i s aspect by s t a t i n g that not on ly i s the cos t o f f l o o d c o n t r o l p r o j e c t s very h i g h , but so are the costs a s s o c i a t e d w i th rescue and r e l i e f e f f o r t s , p e r i o d i c c e s s a t i o n o f bus iness , p o l l u t i o n and contamination hazards and d i s r u p t i o n s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Today, adixdnistrators are t u r n i n g t o zoning ordinances as the method o f prevent ing l o s s e s t o people and proper ty from f l o o d i n g . Hinds e t a l (1979,34) s ta te that there are three broad purposes which f l o o d p l a i n zoning w i l l accompl ish. 1) To prevent obs t ruc t ions t o the f low o f f l o o d waters a long f r e s h water streams. 2) To prevent l o s s e s o f l i f e and proper ty from: a) f r e s h water f l o o d i n g , b) t i d a l f l o o d i n g , and c) storm d r i v e n waves along exposed coasts 3) To rrujiimize governmental expenditures f o r p r o t e c t i v e works, rescue, r e l i e f and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . There are two techniques employed i n f l o o d p l a i n zoning t o p ro tec t aga inst f l o o d damages. The f i r s t i s a s t r u c t u r a l technique. The Rhode Is land Statewide P lanning Program "Technica l Paper" (1979,4) notes that t h i s technique requ i res houses and other s t ruc tures t o be b u i l t on p i l i n g s . The second technique i s n o n - s t r u c t u r a l , i t encourages development away from areas suscept ib le t o f l o o d i n g . In t h i s way, excess water can run o f f wi thout endangering proper ty o r human l i f e (Crawford, 1969,148). Crawford (1969,148) and the Rhode Is land Statewide Planning Program (1979,4) support the n o n - s t r u c t u r a l method o f f l o o d p l a i n zoning and suggest 65 the f l o o d p l a i n areas be designated as a g r i c u l t u r a l , r e c r e a t i o n a l and conservat ion zones. In t h i s way, the uses would on ly s u s t a i n l i m i t e d damage from h i g h waters. The Uni ted States Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (1977) see n o n - s t r u c t u r a l methods as a p o s i t i v e measure but not from the p o i n t o f p r o t e c t i n g people and s t r u c t u r e s . They view i t from the p e r s p e c t i v e tha t without b u i l d i n g s , f l o o d waters w i l l not be b locked ( U . S . E . P . A . , 1977,3.10) . A negat ive aspect o f the n o n - s t r u c t u r a l technique i s that some ordinances i n the Uni ted S ta tes , have been h e l d t o depr ive the property owner o f any reasonable use o f h i s land ( U . S . E . P . A . , 1977,3.10) . O v e r a l l , the l i t e r a t u r e c i t e d i n t h i s review has i n d i c a t e d that the n o n - s t r u c t u r a l zoning technique i s the method that i s espoused. Burnett and Hansen (1982,4) conf i rm that n o n - s t r u c t u r a l technique are the favoured and most c o s t e f f e c t i v e measures f o r prevent ing f l o o d damage. Hinds e t a l (1979,34) do cau t ion tha t government f l c o d p l a i n regu la t ions should vary according t o : 1) the l o c a l importance p laced on f l o o d hazard , and 2) the extent o f e x i s t i n g development i n the f l o o d p l a i n . 3) f l o o d p l a i n regu la t ions should represent a compromise between goals and r e a l i t i e s . 3.3 SPOT ZONES There i s a considerable amount o f l i t e r a t u r e on spot zoning as a method o f land use c o n t r o l . Most d e f i n i t i o n s o f the technique are s i m i l a r . However, two d i s t i n c t d e f i n i t i o n s c o n t i n u a l l y a r i s e which provide an i n d i c a t i o n o f whether the authors view spot zoning favourably or not . F i r s t l y , Crawford (1969,92) and Hinds et a l (1979,53) def ine t h i s technique as an ac t which creates an i s l a n d or a d i s t r i c t o f a smal l p a r c e l when i t i s zoned i n a manner s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the land which 66 surrounds i t . Secondly, Ra fe r t (1982,457) and the Uni ted States Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (1977,3.7) take a more opin ionated view o f spot zoning when they def ine i t as the rezoning o f a smal l p a r c e l o f land done f o r the b e n e f i t o f the proper ty owner ra ther than f o r the b e n e f i t o f the neighbors o r the p u b l i c as a whole. There have been reports w r i t t e n which note both the advantages o f the technique and reasons f o r j u s t i f y i n g i t s use as a land use c o n t r o l . Goldberg and Horwood (1980,97) i n d i c a t e d four advantages o f spot zoning as a land use c o n t r o l . 1) By rezoning i n d i v i d u a l p a r c e l s as i n t e r e s t i n g and h i g h q u a l i t y development proposals come forward, we a l low f o r innovat ion and experimentat ion, whi le moderating the negat ive e f f e c t s that accompany unsuccessfu l attempts. 2) To conta in r i s k , rezoning i n d i v i d u a l p a r c e l s al lows f o r smal l s c a l e experiments wi th rrdriimal d is rup t ions t o surrounding p r o p e r t i e s and neighbourhoods. 3) Spot zoning erodes the quasi-monopoly p o s i t i o n that zoning has bestowed on property owners and al lows f o r competi t ions among innovators . 4) The experiment i s w i t h i n w e l l def ined boundaries so that the entrepeneurs not s o c i e t y s u f f e r s i f the experiment proves u n s u c c e s s f u l . The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed c i t e d f i v e reasons f o r j u s t i f y i n g the use o f spot zoning as a land use c o n t r o l technique. Perhaps the most b a s i c reason was supp l ied by both P i a t t (1969,249) and Hughes (1982,34) who s ta ted tha t spot zoning i s an important t o o l f o r d e c i s i o n makers because i t adds f l e x i b i l i t y t o the zoning p r o c e s s . Hinds e t a l (1979,54), Crawford (1969,92), Ra fe r t (1982,458), Mandelker (1970,83) and Wright and Webber (1978,115) agree that spot zoning i s a va luable instrument i n b r i n g i n g about zoning changes i n compliance wi th the Coitrmunity P l a n s . Hughes (1982,35) agrees and s ta ted tha t the courts i n the Uni ted States are more recept ive t o spot zoning i f the zoning i s r e l a t e d t o something broader , 67 such as the cormunity p l a n . Almost a l l f e l t that spot zoning was j u s t i f i e d i f i t i s proposed t o f u r t h e r p u b l i c h e a l t h , sa fe ty and we l fa re (Crawford, 1969,92; Ra fe r t , 1982,459; P i a t t , 1969,249; Mandelker, 1979,83; Wright and Webber, 1978,116). The four th reason was supp l ied by P i a t t (1969,250) and Wright and Webber (1978,116) who f e l t that i t was a u s e f u l technique prov ided that a zoning i s s u e had been f a i r l y debated. In other words, that p u b l i c hear ings had been h e l d and that the p u b l i c was g iven ample opportuni ty t o be heard . An f i n a l l y , P i a t t (1969) and Mandelker (1970) note tha t the s i z e o f the area t o be rezoned has a bear ing on the j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f spot zoning by the c o u r t s . I t would appear tha t U .S . Courts are more favourably i n c l i n e d t o approve rezoning when the p a r c e l i s la rge (P ia t t , 1969,250). Mandelker (1970,83) expla ins tha t the s i z e o f the s i t e i s perc ieved as u s e f u l i n p r o t e c t i n g neighbours from any harmful consequences. The negat ive aspects have rece ived about as much a t t e n t i o n from the authors as have the p o s i t i v e . One o f the primary c r i t i c i s m s o f the technique i s tha t i t i s abused. Hinds e t a l (1979,54) s t a t e that spot zonings are sometimes motivated by those who want persona l ga in or p o l i t i c a l power. S i m i l a r l y , Wright and Webber (1978,115) and Crawford (1969,92) complain tha t spot zoning s i n g l e s out a p a r c e l f o r s p e c i a l treatment and se ts up a monopoly s i t u a t i o n . Goldberg and Horwood (1980,97) argue that spot zoning i s the u l t imate bane o f the zoners ex is tence . They view i t as a carpromise o f the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f zoning and land use c o n t r o l s (Goldberg and Horwood,1980,97). Hinds et a l (1979,53) agree and s ta te that spot zoning f l i e s i n the face o f the b a s i c U .S . C o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f zoning as a dev ice f o r c l a s s i f y i n g s i m i l a r p r o p e r t i e s and uses and r e g u l a t i n g development i n a s i m i l a r manner w i t h i n each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Spot zoning obv ious ly represents anything but uni form 68 treatment (Hinds e t a l ,1979 ,53) . F i n a l l y , Hughes (1982) and Rafer t (1982) c r i t i c i z e spot zoning f o r i t s approach t o p lann ing . Rafer t (1982,457) notes that /American cour ts have condemned spot zoning as the a n t i t h e s i s o f planned development, as the proposed use i s e i t h e r i n c o n s i s t e n t wi th the surrounding uses o r does not conform wi th the comprehensive p l a n . Hughes (1982,34) on the other hand, denounces spot zonings piecemeal approach t o p l a n n i n g . O v e r a l l , the p r a c t i c e o f spot zoning has been perc ieved as a method o f avo id ing r i g i d i t y and has even been espoused by Canadian cour ts as being necessary (Mi lner , 1962b,47). Whereas, i n the Uni ted S t a t e s , the courts have not achieved un i formi ty i n d e f i n i n g spot zoning and thus , view i t w i th s i n i s t e r connotat ions (Rafert , 1982,465; Hinds e t a l , 1979,53). Regardless o f i t s seeming acceptance by the Canadian j u d i c i a l system, p lanners have genera l l y been h e s i t a n t i n recommending i t s use (Mi lner , 1962b, 47) . 3.4 CONTRACT ZONES Contract zoning was introduced i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n e a r l y 1971 a f t e r the government rec inded l e g i s l a t i o n au thor i z ing an e a r l y form of development permi t . T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n gave Counc i l s the au thor i ty t o enter i n t o cont rac ts w i th developers which contained cond i t ions which may be mutual ly agreed upon. Meshenberg (1976,40) notes that the community u s u a l l y agrees not t o change the zoning e i t h e r i n pe rpe tu i ty or fo r a c e r t a i n p e r i o d o f t ime. Hinds e t a l (1979,108) c i t e tha t the developers p a r t i n the cont rac t u s u a l l y invo lved r e s t r i c t i n g usage, o r he igh t , or the p r o v i s i o n a d d i t i o n a l setbacks over and above what i s requ i red i n the t e x t o f the bylaw. The expected r e s u l t i s a cooperat ive e f f o r t between a p r i v a t e par ty and the munic ipa l zoning au thor i t y t o accommodate the needs 69 and d e s i r e s o f the l o c a l government, the proper ty owner and the neighboring land owners (Ba i ley , 1965,914). Of a l l the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed, there have been o n l y a smal l number o f p o s i t i v e aspects noted. Meshenberg (1976,41) has observed tha t the U .S . Courts are now upholding more cont rac t zones than ever be fo re . There are three reasons f o r t h i s : 1) tha t the agreement was between the developer and the p lanning commission ra ther than the governing body, 2) that the cont rac t pro tec ted the i n t e r e s t s o f the neighbors as w e l l as the developers , and 3) that the cont rac t was f o r good purpose (Meshenberg, 1976,41). B a i l e y (1965), on the other hand, sees cont rac t zoning as a way o f saving time f o r deve lopers . I t accomplishes t h i s i n two ways. F i r s t , i t avoids the lengthy and confus ing s ta tutes which would be requ i red i f a s p e c i f i c use c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were t o be set up f o r each p a r c e l which needed t o be t rea ted d i f f e r e n t l y from the norm (Ba i ley , 1965,914). Secondly, i t would a l low the needs and des i res o f a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s to be expressed and accommodated a f t e r a p u b l i c hear ing (Bai ley ,1965,914) . While the l i t e r a t u r e has o u t l i n e d the p o s i t i v e aspect o f t h i s technique, the o v e r a l l tone o f the d i s c u s s i o n has g e n e r a l l y been negat ive . One o f the most ser ious a l l e g a t i o n s l e v e l l e d aga inst t h i s technique i s that i t bargains away the c o u n c i l s p o l i c e power (mesheriber, 1976,41). Crawford (1969,150) and B a i l e y (1965,903) both note that a l e g i s l a t i v e body any not s e l l i t s r i g h t t o l e g i s l a t e . Land use cont rac ts were on ly i n ex is tence f o r a shor t p e r i o d o f time i n B r i t i s h Columbia. In 1977, the P r o v i n c i a l government repealed land use cont rac t l e g i s l a t i o n i n the Munic ipa l A c t and rep laced i t wi th Sec t ion 702AA a u t h o r i z i n g a new form o f development permi t . Reasons f o r the repea l are v a r i e d , however, Wi lson (1979,42) imp l ied that the key reason was tha t 70 the P r o v i n c i a l government was unhappy wi th the wide ranging negot ia t ion o f development permi t ted by the land use c o n t r a c t s . 3.5 CONDITIONAL ZONING In reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , c o n d i t i o n a l zoning has rece ived a great dea l o f a t t e n t i o n from American authors through the 1970's . D e f i n i t i o n s o f t h i s land use c o n t r o l tend t o vary on ly s l i g h t l y and i s bes t descr ibed by Por te r (1973,78) as "the munic ipal p r a c t i c e o f grant ing rezoning subject t o cond i t ions as agreed between the p a r t i e s " . I n d i v i d u a l d e f i n i t i o n s tend t o s t r e s s c e r t a i n aspects o f the technique. For example, M i l l e r (1972,99) and McGrath (1978,11) emphasize that the cond i t ions imposed are uniquely a p p l i c a b l e t o one p i e c e o f property and vary from the regu la t ions f o r the surrounding l ands . The Uni ted Sta tes Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (1977,3.6) h i g h l i g h t s the f a c t tha t the owner does not r e c e i v e a b ind ing promise from the l e g i s l a t i n g body s t a t i n g tha t they w i l l not rezone t h i s proper ty as i n cont rac t zoning. Crawford (1969,151) fu r ther emphasizes t h i s i s a one-way agreement by not ing tha t i f the cond i t ions are not met w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c t ime, the zoning change cou ld be reversed , o r vo ided. While every author had p o s i t i v e comments about t h i s technique, they can be ca tegor ized under two b a s i c thoughts. F i r s t , c o n d i t i o n a l zoning i s considered a u s e f u l and f l e x i b l e t o o l f o r land use c o n t r o l . Wright and Webber (1978,125) and M i l l e r (1972,105) concur tha t c o n d i t i o n a l zoning prov ides a source o f f l e x i b i l i t y which a f fo rds a middle ground between absolute d e n i a l and complete approval o f an a p p l i c a t i o n . Meshenberg (1976,36) laudes t h i s technique because the comprehensive p l a n can be used as the source o f p o l i c i e s on which t o base s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s . McGrath (1978,11) sees c o n d i t i o n a l zoning as a f l e x i b l e land use t o o l , p a r t i c u l a r l y ; 71 1) i n r u r a l areas f a c i n g new and s i g n i f i c a n t development pressures e s p e c i a l l y i f the area has few other s o p h i s t i c a t e d t o o l s a v a i l a b l e , and 2) f o r review o f s i g n i f i c a n t , l a r g e , and complex development proposals Secondly, c o n d i t i o n a l zoning i s looked upon favourably f o r i t s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t adjacent p r o p e r t i e s . Wright and Webber (1978,126) p o i n t o p t i m i s t i c a l l y t o the f a c t that a c o n d i t i o n a l agreement requ i res the owner t o make improvements which w i l l j u s t i f y a d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and avo id harm t o neighbouring proper ty o r t o the planned use o f the surrounding a rea . Meshenberg (1976,36) goes even f a r t h e r t o say that the condi t ions at tached t o the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s create a b u f f e r i n g e f f e c t which w i l l p r o t e c t adjacent p roper t i es from negat ive impact and l o s s o f value which cou ld r e s u l t from a rezon ing . /As can be imagined when cond i t ions are at tached t o land use c o n t r o l mechanisms, there are a l s o negat ive aspects . One noted by Crawford (1969,151), McGrath (1978,22), Meshenberg (1976,38) and S c o t t (1973,94) i s that the cour ts are s k e p t i c a l o f c o n d i t i o n a l zoning because by the very nature o f the process the rezoning lacks un i formi ty , c o n s t i t u t i n g spot zoning and thus , v i o l a t e s the Euc lud ian concept. Another obstac le t o v a l i d a t i n g c o n d i t i o n a l zoning i s the threa t that l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c e powers are be ing bargained away by c o l l a t e r a l agreements w i th p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s (McGrath, 1978,20; M i l l r t , 1972 ,100 ; and Scot t ,1973,95) . A t h i r d negat ive aspect i s that s i n c e a rezoning may invo lve considerable negot ia t ion over exact condi t ions t o be a p p l i e d , the oppor tun i t ies f o r abuse are severe (Meshenberg, 1976,38). Thus, the l ack o f standards, both procedura l and substant ive , c o n t r o l l i n g c o n d i t i o n a l rezoning creates considerable d i f f i c u l t y w i th the use o f t h i s technique (McGrath, 1978,23 and Meshenberg,1976,38). 72 O v e r a l l , i t appears that the general concensus i s tha t c o n d i t i o n a l zoning i s a land use c o n t r o l which has mer i t . The pr imary obstac le t o hav ing t h i s technique accepted as a v i a b l e land use c o n t r o l appears to be the c o u r t s . As most o f the l i t e r a t u r e on c o n d i t i o n a l zoning i s w r i t t e n by /American authors a t rue percept ion o f how t h i s technique would fend i n Canada i s not known. However, i n view o f the way spot zoning and development permits have been accepted by the Canadian j u d i c i a l system, c o n d i t i o n a l zoning would l i k e l y f a i r w e l l . 3.6 SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AS LAND USE CONTROL TECHNIQUES IN ELECTORAL AREA ' G ' . As the l i t e r a t u r e review has i n d i c a t e d , a l l o f the land use c o n t r o l techniques c i t e d have numerous p o s i t i v e and negat ive aspects . The quest ion which must now be addressed i s whether any are s u i t a b l e as a land use c o n t r o l technique f o r E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . The fo l low ing d i s c u s s i o n should prov ide h e l p f u l i n s i g h t i n t o which, i f any, are the most s u i t a b l e . As a l ready noted i n the review o f the l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to development permi ts , p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n au thor i z ing t h i s technique i s a l ready i n p l a c e . The l e g i s l a t i o n , however, conta ins a number o f sect ions which l i m i t the use o f t h i s c o n t r o l technique i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . S e c t i o n 717 (3) and (5) o f the Munic ipa l A c t author izes development permits t o be used as a supplementary r e g u l a t i o n t o an e x i s t i n g zoning bylaw. As a r e s u l t , a zoning bylaw which i s acceptable t o the r e s i d e n t s o f E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' would f i r s t have t o be adopted and then the development permit process cou ld be i n s t i t u t e d as p a r t o f the zoning bylaw. S e c t i o n 717 (3) o f the Munic ipa l A c t , r e s t r i c t s the use o f development permit areas t o areas where s p e c i a l cond i t ions p r e v a i l w i th respect to the p h y s i c a l environment o r i n design o r s i t i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h i s p r o h i b i t s the o u t r i g h t des ignat ing o f the e n t i r e e l e c t o r a l area or l a rge p o r t i o n 73 t h e r e i n as a development permit a rea . E x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n i f i t i s accepted as a c o n s t r a i n t , l i m i t s the a p p l i c a t i o n o f development permits as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o the standard zoning bylaw i n E l e c t o r a l /Area ' G ' . F l o o d p l a i n zoning i s seen as necessary r e g u l a t i o n i n a l l o f the l i t e r a t u r e tha t was reviewed. The n o n - s t r u c t u r a l c o n t r o l o f land uses was considered t o be the most e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t technique f o r prevent ing damage and i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g from f l o o d s . As can be seen on the area map o f E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' (Map 1) , there are numerous creeks and two r i v e r s which flow i n the through t h i s a r e a . Of note i s the f a c t that the Similkameen and Ashnola r i v e r s a long w i t h the Keremeos Creek are a l l prone t o f l o o d i n g . A t the present t ime, p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n e x i s t s under the Land T i t l e s A c t r e q u i r i n g that a l l new subd iv is ions adhere t o f l o o d p l a i n regu la t ions imposed by the M i n i s t r y o f Environment. These r e g u l a t i o n s , however, are not a p p l i c a b l e t o developments on e x i s t i n g p a r c e l s . Therefore , f l o o d p l a i n zoning should be considered as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o the standard zoning bylaw or i n con junct ion wi th another a l t e r n a t i v e . The l i t e r a t u r e has i n d i c a t e d tha t the Canadian j u d i c i a l system i s r e l a t i v e l y recep t ive t o spot zon ing . However, i n most cases , spot zoning has been i n i t i a t e d i n areas tha t are governed by an e x i s t i n g zoning bylaw. The use o f spot zoning as an a l t e r n a t i v e i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , presents a somewhat d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n . As descr ibed i n chapter I, spot zoning was used t o r e s t r i c t the fu r ther s u b d i v i s i o n o f the 360 acre b l o c k o f land j u s t nor th o f the V i l l a g e o f Keremeos. The important f a c t o r here i s that the r e s t o f the E l e c t o r a l Area i s unzoned. As a r e s u l t , the developer d i d not have t o comply w i th o r apply f o r zon ing , i t was imposed on him by the Regional D i s t r i c t . The imp l i ca t ions o f t h i s f a c t are s i g n i f i c a n t because 74 when zoning i s imposed on one proper ty wh i le the adjacent p r o p e r t i e s remain unzoned, the developer has a reasonable c l a i m tha t he has been d iscr i i rdnated a g a i n s t . Another l i m i t a t i o n t o the use o f spot zoning i n an unzoned area i s tha t i t i s always imposed a f t e r the f a c t . As i n the example c i t e d above, spot zoning was on ly imposed a f t e r the developer has submitted h i s s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n t o the Department o f Highways f o r approva l . S ince the s u b d i v i s i o n was proposed p r i o r t o the i n i t i a t i o n o f the zoning bylaw, the s u b d i v i s i o n does not have t o comply w i th the proposed r e g u l a t i o n s . O v e r a l l , spot zoning i n an unzoned area , such as E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' f would not appear t o be reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e . As o u t l i n e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e review, cont ract zoning was l e g i s l a t e d i n t o use i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1971 but was repealed i n 1977 when the p r o v i n c i a l government wanted t o s top the wide ranging negot ia t ion over developments. As a r e s u l t , i n s t i t u t i n g the land use cont rac t technique i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' would requ i re a r e - i n t r o d u c t i o n o f land use cont rac t l e g i s l a t i o n i n the Munic ipa l A c t . A l s o , cons ider ing the b ind ing committments c o u n c i l s are requi red t o endorse, when u s i n g such a land use c o n t r o l technique, t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i s not considered s u i t a b l e . The l i t e r a t u r e i s q u i t e p o s i t i v e i n i t s review o f c o n d i t i o n a l zon ing . The f a c t that i t i s mentioned as a technique which i s f l e x i b l e and s u i t e d t o r u r a l areas f a c i n g growing development pressure make i t appear even more s u i t a b l e . However, much l i k e the development permit , o v e r a l l zoning would have t o e x i s t i n the area p r i o r t o implementation o f a c o n d i t i o n a l zoning p r o c e s s . U n l i k e development permi ts , no p r o v i n c i a l enabl ing l e g i s l a t i o n e x i s t s fo r c o n d i t i o n a l zoning, t h e r e f o r e , i f t h i s technique were to be implemented, p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n would have t o be amended. O v e r a l l , from the p o s i t i v e aspects noted i n the review, t h i s land use 75 c o n t r o l technique should be considered as an a l t e r n a t i v e f o r E l e c t o r a l /Area • G ' . 4 .0 AN ALTERNATIVE: THE PROPOSED RURAL MMNTENANCE BYLAW 4.1 INTRODUCTION The r u r a l maintenance bylaw has been designed t o provide r u r a l res iden ts w i th a s u i t a b l e method o f c o n t r o l l i n g undes i rab le land uses r e s u l t i n g from the spread o f u r b a n i z a t i o n . A t the same t ime, t h i s c o n t r o l technique w i l l respect the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an environment which i s e s s e n t i a l l y r u r a l . In an e f f o r t t o make the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw as e a s i l y understood as p o s s i b l e , the chapter has been d i v i d e d i n t o seven s e c t i o n s . Fol lowing t h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n , the second s e c t i o n w i l l o u t l i n e the f a c t o r s which have molded the des ign o f the Bylaw. The t h i r d s e c t i o n w i l l prov ide a general overview o f the a l t e r n a t i v e which w i l l d i s c u s s who w i l l administer i t and what the major d i f f e r e n c e s are between i t and the Standard Zoning Bylaw. The four th s e c t i o n i s perhaps the most important because i t provides a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s and j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f the proposed bylaw. The f i f t h s e c t i o n descr ibes the method by which an amendment bylaw would be processed . The next s e c t i o n d e t a i l s how the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw w i l l be p o l i c e d . The chapter w i l l conclude wi th a sample o f an a c t u a l Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. P r i o r t o d e l v i n g i n t o the t e c h n i c a l aspects o f the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw i t i s important t o understand the concept behind the a l t e r n a t i v e which i s proposed. As we have seen i n Chapter I, the r e a c t i o n o f both planners and p o l i t i c i a n s t o the f i r s t s igns o f land use c o n f l i c t s i s t o impose a very r e s t r i c t i v e Standard Zoning Bylaw. The r e a c t i o n o f r u r a l res idents shows tha t they would ra ther l e t a few proper ty owners s u f f e r the e f f e c t o f land 76 use c o n f l i c t s ra ther than subject the e n t i r e E l e c t o r a l Area t o s t r ingent regu la t ions which they b e l i e v e are more s u i t e d t o an urban a r e a . Chapter II, the "Ana lys is o f Statements" shows that even without l o c a l land use c o n t r o l s , p r o v i n c i a l regu la t ions provide a c e r t a i n amount o f c o n t r o l over land use but not enough t o c o n t r o l urban type developments. The f o l l o w i n g graph i l l u s t r a t e s the s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n E l e c t o r a l Area L i n e 'A ' on the graph shows that as the r u r a l area experiences the urban iza t ion p r o c e s s , there should be incremental increases i n the land use regu la t ions which are requ i red t o adequately c o n t r o l p o t e n t i a l urban-type c o n f l i c t s . L i n e ' B ' on the graph dep ic ts the quantum leap t o urban s t y l e land use regu la t ions proposed i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' a f t e r o n l y the f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t s r e s u l t i n g from urban iza t ion . Whi le i t i s impossible t o p l o t where the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw would be s i t u a t e d on the graph, i t has been designed t o increase land use regu la t ions on an incremental b a s i s ra ther than i n quantum leaps . 4.2 FACTORS AFFECTING THE DESIGN There are four f a c t o r s which w i l l guide the design o f t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e land use c o n t r o l technique. F i r s t l y , the a n a l y s i s o f statements made by the Regional Planners and E l e c t o r a l Area res idents i n chapter two, w i l l be cons idered . While the statements made by the planners and res idents were 77 i n response t o quest ions p e r t a i n i n g t o a s p e c i f i c e l e c t o r a l a rea , i t i s considered that the views expressed would be s i m i l a r t o those which would be obta ined i n other e l e c t o r a l areas o r Regional D i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Thus, the i n t e n t i o n i s t o draw from what has been learned i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' and apply i t t o the des ign o f ,an a l t e r n a t i v e which would be a p p l i c a b l e i n r u r a l areas throughout the p rov ince . Secondly, the informat ion obta ined from the review o f the l i t e r a t u r e on a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f land use c o n t r o l i n chapter three w i l l be used. The review has i l l u s t r a t e d both the p o s i t i v e and negat ive aspects o f the a l t e r n a t i v e s a long w i t h aspects o f the t e c h n i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y o f each i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Thus, the i n t e n t i o n i s t o draw from what has been learned i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' and apply i t t o the design o f an a l t e r n a t i v e which would be a p p l i c a b l e i n r u r a l areas throughout the p r o v i n c e . Secondly, the informat ion obta ined from the review o f the l i t e r a t u r e on a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f land use c o n t r o l i n chapter three w i l l be used. The review has i l l u s t r a t e d both the p o s i t i v e and negat ive aspects o f the a l t e r n a t i v e s a long wi th aspects o f the t e c h n i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y o f each i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The t h i r d f a c t o r i s Sec t ion 716 (2) o f the Mun ic ipa l A c t . In order tha t the a l t e r n a t i v e may be t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e w i t h i n t h i s prov ince , the a l t e r n a t i v e must have due regard f o r (a) the promotion o f h e a l t h , s a f e t y , convenience and wel fare o f the p u b l i c ; (b) prevent ion o f the overcrowding o f land and p r e s e r v a t i o n o f the amenit ies p e c u l i a r t o any zone; (c) the secur ing o f adequate l i g h t , a i r and a c c e s s ; (d) the value o f the land and the nature o f i t s present and prospec t ive use and occupancy; (e) the character o f each zone, the character o f the b u i l d i n g s a l ready erected and the p e c u l i a r s t a b i l i t y o f the zone f o r p a r t i c u l a r u s e s ; and 78 ( f ) the conservat ion o f proper ty v a l u e s . The four th f a c t o r i s the w r i t e r s own p lanning exper ience. Years o f both p r a c t i c a l and academic experience w i l l prov ide a s u b j e c t i v e f a c t o r which w i l l a f f e c t what i s inc luded and what does n o t . 4 .3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVE P r i o r t o the d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f the a l t e r n a t i v e , i t i s important tha t a number o f b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw be presented . T h i s b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f the a l t e r n a t i v e should provide a b e t t e r understanding o f the s t ruc ture o f the bylaw. There w i l l be three po in ts d iscussed i n t h i s s e c t i o n . F i r s t , who w i l l administer the bylaw, who w i l l have the decis ion-making power, and f i n a l l y , what i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the a l t e r n a t i v e t o the standard zoning bylaw. Due t o the f a c t tha t the s t ruc ture o f the standard zoning bylaw i s w e l l known, i t prov ides a good reference f o r cons t ruc t ing a mental image o f what the a l t e r n a t i v e w i l l e n t a i l . 4 .3 .1 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the A l t e r n a t i v e The Regional D i s t r i c t s are f e l t to be bes t su i ted fo r admin is te r ing the a l t e r n a t i v e . Due t o the f a c t tha t most Regional D i s t r i c t s p resen t l y oversee the admin is t ra t ion o f the standard zoning bylaw, i n some or a l l o f t h e i r E l e c t o r a l Areas , t h e i r experience should be used i n the admin is t ra t ion o f the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. 4 .3 .2 R e l a t i o n s h i p o f the A l t e r n a t i v e t o the Standard Zoning Bylaw A knowledge o f the b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e s between the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw and the Standard Zoning Bylaw w i l l provide an important reference f o r those t r y i n g t o understand the s t ruc ture o f the a l t e r n a t i v e . 79 F i r s t , u n l i k e the standard zoning bylaw, where numerous zoning d i s t r i c t s are the norm, the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw i s designed around on ly a two d i s t r i c t concept . Rura l D i s t r i c t I i s comprised o f lands loca ted w i t h i n the sett lement p l a n area or lands which encompass the f r i n g e area jus t outs ide a m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s boundar ies. I t a l s o inc ludes land which i s made up o f low dens i ty r e s i d e n t i a l areas which are not incorpora ted . Examples o f areas such as t h i s would be Hedley and O l a l l a w i t h i n E l e c t o r a l /Area ' G 1 . Rura l D i s t r i c t II i s comprised o f lands outs ide the sett lement o r f r i n g e areas. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , these areas conta in l a r g e r l o t s and r e c e i v e l e s s pressure f o r smal l l o t development. The second major departure from the s t ruc tu re most o f ten found i n the standard zoning bylaw i s the use o f a l i s t o f "proh ib i ted uses" ra ther than a l i s t o f "permitted u s e s " . While a more d e t a i l e d explanat ion f o r the use o f p r o h i b i t e d uses w i l l be found i n the "Deta i led A n a l y s i s o f the A l t e r n a t i v e " , i t can be s a i d tha t the use o f a l i s t o f p r o h i b i t e d uses more adequately s u i t s the r u r a l bylaw concept and the " p o s i t i v e " image t h i s land use c o n t r o l i s t r y i n g t o c rea te . T h i r d l y , the primary form o f f l e x i b i l i t y b u i l t i n t o the standard zoning bylaw i s the development permi t . P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n c u r r e n t l y l i m i t s the use o f t h i s technique t o areas o r s i t e s where s p e c i a l condi t ions i n the p h y s i c a l environment or i n des ign o r s i t i n g cons idera t ions e x i s t . As w e l l , the development permit may not vary the permi t ted uses o r d e n s i t i e s o r the land use. The Rura l Maintenance Bylaw, however 80 proposes t o incorporate a c o n d i t i o n a l zoning technique t o provide f l e x i b i l i t y . While the d e t a i l s o f t h i s technique are expla ined i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n , i t can be s a i d tha t i t w i l l a l low f o r the vary ing o f land uses and d e n s i t i e s on some p a r c e l s prov ided the s i t e s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s s a t i s f y a l l concerned. F i n a l l y , wh i le a major d e v i a t i o n from the use o f Standards i n the Bylaw i s not proposed, i t should be noted that there w i l l be a l t e r a t i o n s made t o the standards normally found i n a zoning bylaw. The a n a l y s i s o f statements i n chapter 2 has h i g h l i g h t e d the f a c t tha t r u r a l areas are regula ted by numerous p r o v i n c i a l A c t s and regu la t ions which are o f ten dupicated i n Regional D i s t r i c t zoning bylaws. The s t reaml in ing o r e l i m i n a t i n g o f some standards, forms an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. 4 .4 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE T h i s s e c t i o n expla ins and j u s t i f i e s the three major components o f the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. The f i r s t component i s the use o f a l i s t o f p r o h i b i t e d uses , the second i s the method o f p r o v i d i n g f l e x i b i l i t y , and t h i r d i s the standards which are t o be inc luded i n the Bylaw. I t should be noted that a Rura l Maintenance Bylaw has been developed f o r E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' t o serve as an example o f how the fo l low ing components would appear i f w r i t t e n i n bylaw form. The Rura l Maintenance Bylaw can be viewed i n the l a s t s e c t i o n o f t h i s chapter . 4 .4 .1 P r o h i b i t e d Uses The b a s i c in ten t o f the proposed land use c o n t r o l i s t o permit a l l uses except those which are seen t o need s p e c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s . By incorpora t ing a l i s t o f p r o h i b i t e d uses , proper ty owners w i l l , on one hand, be al lowed t o develop t h e i r 81 proper ty w i th l i m i t e d r e s t r i c t i o n s . Whi le on the other hand, they can be assured tha t an adjacent proper ty owner w i l l be r e s t r i c t e d i n the development o f any undes i rab le land use which cou ld adverse ly a f f e c t neighbouring proper ty . The Proh ib i ted use r e s t r i c t i o n i s designed wi th two o f the Regional Planners statements i n mind. The f i r s t i s tha t , "without zoning, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o preserve the character o f the neighborhood or a rea" . By p r o h i b i t i n g land uses which are markedly d i f f e r e n t from tha t which e x i s t s a t the present t ime, i t w i l l a l low f o r the c o n t i n u i t y o f the area t o be preserved. Secondly, the planners fear t h a t , "unzoned areas would become mel t ing pots f o r undesi rable land uses" , would be q u e l l e d . The a n a l y s i s o f t h i s statement i n chapter two showed tha t r u r a l areas which are zoned, a l s o conta in undesi rable land u s e s . However, by r e q u i r i n g the developer t o go through the zoning process , ob jec t ions are heard and i f the a p p l i c a t i o n i s considered too undes i rab le then i t can be re fused . I f there are no major o b j e c t i o n s , obv ious ly the land use i s not g e n e r a l l y viewed as undes i rab le and w i l l be permi t ted . Two res idents statements have a l s o been considered i n the d e c i s i o n t o irnplement a l i s t o f p r o h i b i t e d uses ra ther than a l i s t o f permit ted uses . The f i r s t i s tha t " increased governmental regu la t ions w i l l r e s u l t i n a l o s s o f the r u r a l l i f e s t y l e " . While the a n a l y s i s , i n chapter two, showed that there are other f a c t o r s which have a greater r o l e i n the l o s s o f the r u r a l l i f e s t y l e , the p u b l i c s t i l l pe rce ives tha t government r e g u l a t i o n i s a lead ing f a c t o r . Regardless o f the r e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s i s , what the p u b l i c perce ives must be taken i n t o account . There fore , by not ing tha t " a l l uses are permi t ted except the 82 following", i t may have a more po s i t i v e impact than i f they are t o l d that "no other uses except the following are allowed" as i s often found under l i s t s of permitted uses. The fact that, while i n unzoned areas, the proposal w i l l increase the amount of government regulation, i t i s hoped that t h i s approach w i l l help people perceive i t i n a p o s i t i v e manner. The second resident statement which has been considered i n the design of t h i s land use concept was that "zoning regulations are designed for urban areas and do not consider r u r a l values". While the prohibited uses and permitted uses techniques are s i m i l a r i n many ways, there are differences which promote the prohibited uses technique as the one which i s best suited to the r u r a l area. Perhaps the best method of noting these aspects i s to i d e n t i f y why the permitted uses technique i s urban oriented. For one, a l i s t of permitted uses would appear to be better suited to a zoning bylaw that has numerous land use d i s t r i c t s . In urban areas where the pressure to develop a property to i t s most l u c r a t i v e use i s more intense than i n r u r a l areas, zoning bylaws contain numerous zoning d i s t r i c t s . Many of these d i s t r i c t s are created with only minor differences. For example, there could be a multi-family zoning d i s t r i c t which permits only row houses, whereas, another multi-family zoning d i s t r i c t might not. In such cases, l i s t i n g the permitted uses i s shorter and less confusing than i f the prohibited uses were l i s t e d . In the r u r a l areas, where there i s less pressure to develop the same number of wide-ranging land uses, i t i s more p r a c t i c a l to l i s t the prohibited uses. 83 As f o r the method s e l e c t i n g p r o h i b i t e d uses t o be inc luded on the l i s t , the planner should e n l i s t the h e l p o f the Area D i r e c t o r , the Area Adv isory Planning Commission and a l l other groups wi th an i n t e r e s t i n land use . In t h i s way, the res idents themselves p l a y an important p a r t i n the fu ture development o f t h e i r a r e a . The r e a l i t y o f compi l ing any l i s t , e s p e c i a l l y one l i s t i n g the p r o h i b i t e d uses , i s that i t i s almost impossib le t o note a l l p o t e n t i a l undesi rable land uses . There fore , one or two " c a t c h - a l l " phrases must be inc luded t o p r o t e c t area res idents from any " s u r p r i s e s " . 4 .4 .2 F l e x i b i l i t y o f the A l t e r n a t i v e F l e x i b i l i t y w i l l be b u i l t i n t o the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw i n the form o f c o n d i t i n a l zoning. As noted i n the l i t e r a t u r e review i n chapter 3, the c o n d i t i o n a l zoning technique provides f l e x i b i l i t y but does not barga in away a c o u n c i l s l e g i s l a t e d powers. The onus i s on the devloper t o abide by the condi t ions imposed by the c o u n c i l or the rezoning i s not approved. C o n d i t i o n a l zoning prov ides even more f l e x i b i l i t y than the technique p r e s e n t l y used i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the development permi t . The reason i s that s e c t i o n 717 (3) o f the Munic ipa l A c t s ta tes that the development permit can on ly be used when c o u n c i l b e l i e v e s s p e c i a l cond i t ions p r e v a i l i n the p h y s i c a l environment o r i n des ign or s i t i n g cons idera t ions o f an a p p l i c a t i o n . As w e l l , s e c t i o n 717 (4) o f the A c t , s ta tes tha t the development permit s h a l l not vary the permit ted uses or d e n s i t i e s . 84 The c o n d i t i o n a l zoning technique would be a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l land w i t h i n Rura l D i s t r i c t I and II o f the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw, f o r i t deems a l l p a r c e l s as " s p e c i a l " . While the development permit can not vary a permit ted use , t h i s i s exac t ly what the c o n d i t i o n a l zoning i s meant t o do. I t s expressed purpose i s t o be used as a dev ice which w i l l h e l p f i n d a way t o a l low even the most undesi rable uses on a p roper ty . In t h i s way i t can be considered as be ing both f l e x i b l e and a p o s i t i v e land use c o n t r o l technique. U n l i k e the development permi t , c o n d i t i o n a l zoning can vary d e n s i t i e s . As w i l l be expla ined l a t e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n , lands w i t h i n the Rura l D i s t r i c t II zoning d i s t r i c t , w i l l have a very h i g h irdjiimum s i t e area requirement i n order t o c o i n c i d e wi th the la rge acreages that e x i s t i n the d i s t r i c t a t the present t ime. The c o n d i t i o n a l zoning technique w i l l prov ide the o n l y method f o r proper ty owners t o reduce the minimum p a r c e l s i z e i n order t o subdiv ide t h e i r proper ty . 4 . 4 .3 The Standards The Standards which w i l l be inc luded i n the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw are d iscussed i n t h i s s e c t i o n . The standards, i n t y p i c a l zoning bylaws, inc ludes sec t ions such as Minimum Lot S i z e s , Minimum Lot Widths and Minimum F l o o r Areas t o name a few. D i s c u s s i o n here w i l l focus on j u s t i f y i n g the i n c l u s i o n or e x c l u s i o n o f c e r t a i n standards from the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. A d e c i s i o n on whether a s p e c i f i c standard w i l l be inc luded or excluded from the bylaw w i l l a r i s e out o f the a n a l y s i s which took p l a c e i n chapter two. The a n a l y s i s o f e x i s t i n g P r o v i n c i a l A c t s and Regulat ions which a f f e c t the use o f land along wi th the 85 analysis of a standard zoning bylaw, provide the basis for deciding what standards are needed and which are not, in a rural area. As alluded to in the analysis of statements in chapter two, many of the standards in a standard zoning bylaw are also found in a number of provincial Acts and Regulations. Table 2 lists the standards which are found in a typical zoning bylaw. It also indicates whether these standards or sirnilar ones found in a Provincial land use. As this table provides quick and easy reference to the relationship between the standards and Acts, i t will be referred to frequently. While the table may give the appearance that there is duplication of standards, this is not necessarily true. It was found that local zoning bylaws can be more or less stringent than a similar provincial regulation. This difference can be explained by the fact that the local bylaw takes into consideration the needs and desires of the local population, whereas, provincial regulations are established to control only the most pressing situations in the province. The standards will now be commented upon. a. Minimum Site Area and Minimum Site Width Table 2 shows that the ndnimum site areas and minimum site widths of lots are governed in rural areas by two provincial Acts. The Agricultural Land Commission Act can, through section 20 (1), impose the terms that i t considers advisable. This regulation, however, only applies to lands which are within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Local Services Act is the other 86 p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n which c o n t r o l s s i t e area and s i t e w idth . As descr ibed i n chapter two, the regu la t ions contained w i th in s e c t i o n s 6.01, 6.02 and 6.03 c l o s e l y mi r ror those found i n a f r i n g e area d i s t r i c t i n a standard zoning bylaw. I t i s proposed that t h i s standard be incorpora ted i n t o the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. However, the a c t u a l minimum requirements can be v a r i e d depending on the l o t s i z e s which are d e s i r e d by the area res idents i n each d i s t r i c t . The sample bylaw which has been designed f o r E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , shows that the r u r a l D i s t r i c t I minimum s i t e area and minimum s i t e width are the same as found i n the L o c a l Serv ices A c t . Whereas, Rura l d i s t r i c t II minimum s i t e area has been set a t 50 a c r e s , as d e s i r e d by the ranchers i n tha t a r e a . F l e x i b i l i t y has been b u i l t i n t o the bylaw by incorpora t ing the c o n d i t i o n a l zoning process as a method o f a l t e r i n g the irdnimum s i t e area and width which are requ i red i n Rura l D i s t r i c t II o n l y . Any developer wish ing t o reduce the minimum s i t e area or s i t e width f o r h i s proper ty would have t o enter i n t o the c o n d i t i o n a l zoning process t o do s o . Sect ions 4 (c) and (d) o f the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw are housekeeping measures t o cover l o t s created p r i o r t o the adoption o f the bylaw and A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission approva ls . b . B u i l d i n g s per L o t The r e g u l a t i o n concerning the number o f b u i l d i n g s al lowed on a s i n g l e p a r c e l o f land i s governed by one p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n . Table 2 shows that when there i s no zoning i n an a rea , the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t i s the o n l y r e g u l a t i o n which can r e s t r i c t the number o f dwel l ings per p a r c e l . S e c t i o n 16 (a) o f 87 Table 2 PROVINCIAL ACTS AG RI CU LT UR AL  L AN D CO M M IS SI ON  A C T LO CA L SE RV IC ES  A C T LA ND  TI TL E A C T HE AL TH  A C T HI GH W AY  A C T FI RE  SE RV IC ES  A C T EL EC TR IC AL  SA FE TY  A C T B . C . BU IL DI NG  C OD E M OT OR  VE HI CL E A C T MIN. SITE AREA X X BUILDINGS PER LOT X YARDS & SETBACKS X HEIGHT LIMITATIONS MIN. FLOOR AREA X SIGNS X LIVESTOCK X FLOODPLAIN REGS. X X PARKING X FENCING X X WRECKED CARS X SITE COVERAGE X 88 the A c t p r o h i b i t s a m u n i c i p a l i t y or Regional d i s t r i c t from permi t t ing a b u i l d i n g on a g r i c u l t u r a l l and , except f o r farm use or as permit ted by A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Ccmrnission r e g u l a t i o n s . Thus, second dwel l ings must be approved by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land commission. Of course , these regu la t ions on ly p e r t a i n t o lands that f a l l w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Lands which are unzoned and are outs ide the land reserve are not r e s t r i c t e d i n the numbers o f dwel l ings which can be const ructed on a p a r c e l . T h i s w r i t e r s experience i n dea l ing w i th more than one res idence on a p a r c e l has shown tha t second dwel l ings are u s u a l l y const ructed t o house r e l a t i v e s . Due t o the f a c t that c o n s t r u c t i n g a d d i t i o n a l dwel l ings on a s i n g l e p a r c e l o f land u s u a l l y h inders the s a l e o f the proper ty , most res idents are q u i t e prudent about dec id ing t o b u i l d more than one. Regardless, i n order t o p r o t e c t the r u r a l character o f the a rea , the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw w i l l a l low f o r two dwel l ings t o be constructed on one p a r c e l provided that the proper ty i s over two acres i n a rea . T h i s r e g u l a t i o n w i l l apply to both Rura l D i s t r i c t I and II . P a r c e l s w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve, o f course , are o n l y al lowed one house per p a r c e l except that where permit ted by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Ctornmission. c . Yards and Setbacks Table 2 notes there i s one p r o v i n c i a l A c t which regulates these standards. Sec t ion 4.01 o f the Highway A c t p r o h i b i t s the "p lac ing o f a b u i l d i n g w i t h i n a d is tance o f f i f t e e n (15) f ee t from the proper ty l i n e f r o n t i n g on any highway i n an unorganized t e r r i t o r y except that where a p u b l i c lane or a l l e y provides secondary access t o the proper ty the d is tance i s reduced t o ten 89 (10) f e e t " . While i t i s not the i n t e n t i o n t o increase standards which are a l ready e s t a b l i s h e d , i t i s f e l t that i n the name o f " future p l a n n i n g " , the Highway A c t requirements are not s t r ingent enough. In many cases , r u r a l roads are o n l y 50 fee t wide and wi th a 15 foo t setback from the dwel l ing t o the proper ty l i n e , i t can h a r d l y provide enough room f o r fu ture widening without hampering the usefu lness o f the d w e l l i n g . For t h i s reason, i n both Rura l D i s t r i c t I and II a setback o f 25 f e e t from any highway i s proposed. As w e l l , f o r the convenience o f future s u b d i v i s i o n and p o s s i b l y increased d e n s i t i e s , there i s a "good neighbor" setback o f 10 feet on the s ide l o t l i n e s f o r dwel l ing u n i t s . d . S i t e Coverage There i s one p r o v i n c i a l A c t which l i m i t s the s i t e coverage on a p a r c e l o f l a n d . Table 2 shows tha t the Heal th A c t can l i m i t s i t e coverage, but i t does so i n a round about way. What t h i s means i s tha t the area consumed by b u i l d i n g s can be l i m i t e d on ly by the amount o f ground necessary f o r an adequate absorpt ion f i e l d when there i s no community sewer i n the a r e a . R e a l i s t i c a l l y , when d e a l i n g w i th r u r a l areas where l o t s are g e n e r a l l y l a r g e , i t i s f e l t tha t there i s no need t o incorporate t h i s standard i n t o the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. Experience has shown that most problems concerning s i t e coverage take p lace i n urban areas where l o t s are sma l le r . e . Height L i m i t a t i o n s Table 2 i n d i c a t e s that there are no p r o v i n c i a l A c t s r e g u l a t i n g the he ight o f s t r u c t u r e s . The r e g u l a t i o n i s p r i m a r i l y designed t o ensure adequate l i g h t access t o adjacent p r o p e r t i e s . 90 T h i s i s f e l t t o be more o f a concern i n urban areas where l o t s are sma l le r . For t h i s reason, no he ight l i m i t a t i o n s are inc luded i n the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. f . Minimum F l o o r /Area The B r i t i s h Columbia B u i l d i n g Code, which i s the same as the Na t iona l B u i l d i n g Code, i s shown on Table 2 as the on ly p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n which c o n t r o l s t h i s s tandard. While many zoning bylaws e s t a b l i s h minimum f l o o r areas f o r dwe l l ings , i t i s f e l t that the requirements l e g i s l a t e d under the B u i l d i n g Code are adequate. In urban areas where houses are more c l o s e l y s i t u a t e d , there may be a need f o r dwel l ings t o be o f s i m i l a r s i z e that an adjacent l a rge house would not be devalued. However, i n r u r a l areas where there are la rge l o t s , t h i s i s not f e l t t o be o f major concern. There fore , the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw does not conta in regu la t ions governing the minimum f l o o r a r e a . In areas such as E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , where there i s no b u i l d i n g bylaw and thus , no b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n , i t i s l e f t t o the i n d i v i d u a l t o comply w i th the Nat iona l B u i l d i n g Code. g . S igns The r e g u l a t i o n o f s igns f a l l s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the P r o v i n c i a l Motor V e h i c l e A c t . Sec t ion 213 (4) and (5), o f the A c t , " p r o h i b i t s the e r e c t i o n o f any s ign w i t h i n 300 metres from the boundary l i n e o f a highway i n the r u r a l areas o f the province without the w r i t t e n consent o f the M i n i s t e r o f Highways and T ranspor ta t ion or a person author ized by h im" . Some Regional D i s t r i c t s incorporate s i g n regu la t ions i n t o the standards s e c t i o n o f t h e i r zoning bylaws. For the purposes o f the r u r a l Maintenance Bylaw, regu la t ions concerning s igns w i l l 91 not be i n c l u d e d . The reason i s t h a t , most s igns that would t y p i c a l l y be found i n a r u r a l area are a l lowed. Problems can be foreseen w i th commercial s i g n s , however, a developer would normal ly be appr ised o f the p r o v i n c i a l s i g n regu la t ions when he a p p l i e s f o r an access permit f o r a business use . In an e f f o r t t o minimize confus ion , i t i s b e t t e r that a p r o v i n c i a l government agency regu la te s igns so that c o n t i n u i t y can be maintained throughout the p r o v i n c e . h . l i v e s t o c k To p r o t e c t adjacent proper ty owners from obnoxious sme l ls , the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw proposes tha t s h e l t e r and cages f o r l i v e s t o c k be setback from the proper ty l i n e s a d is tance o f twenty - f ive f e e t i n both Rura l d i s t r i c t I and II . I t w i l l a l s o requ i re tha t a l l l i v e s t o c k be p roper ly caged and housed. T h i s would o n l y seem f a i r t o adjacent proper ty owners. i . Park ing As noted i n Table 2, park ing requirements are l e g i s l a t e d under the L o c a l Serv ices A c t . S e c t i o n 4.15 requ i res that i t be p o s s i b l e t o ac(X>mmodate two v e h i c l e s on every p a r c e l i n a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n . One weakness o f t h i s r e g u l a t i o n i s that i t i s on ly a p p l i c a b l e when a p a r c e l i s be ing subd iv ided . I t does not a f f e c t p a r c e l s that are be ing developed without s u b d i v i s i o n . Most zoning bylaws expand on these regu la t ions t o inc lude park ing requirements f o r a l l uses i n c l u d i n g commercial and r r u l t i - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l developments. But , even though these regu la t ions e x i s t they are very d i f f i c u l t t o en force . A f t e r a l l , i f i t i s more convenient t o park on the road, t h a t ' s where people w i l l park . 92 As f o r the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw, no park ing regu la t ions are proposed beyond what a l ready e x i s t i n the L o c a l Serv ices A c t . There are two reasons f o r t h i s , f i r s t , the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw i s designed t o govern a r u r a l area where l o t s are l a r g e r and an access can u s u a l l y be found on a l l p a r c e l s which w i l l meet the L o c a l Serv ices A c t requirements. R e a l i s t i c a l l y , on ly a few people would ever b u i l d a s t ruc tu re on a l a rge l o t without any access o f f a roadway. Secondly, i f a commercial o r m u l t i - f a m i l y use i s ever app l i ed f o r , i t would have t o be approved by c o n d i t i o n a l zoning which would take the park ing requirements i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . j . Fenc ing Table 2 notes that fenc ing regu la t ions can be found i n two p r o v i n c i a l A c t s . The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission can impose fenc ing r e s t r i c t i o n s i n t h e i r approva ls . S e c t i o n 15 (2) o f the A c t author izes the Land Commission t o impose terms on the use o f the a g r i c u l t u r a l land when i t i s not being used f o r farm use . Of course , t h i s on ly a p p l i e s t o lands which are governed by the A g r i c u t u r a l Land Commission A c t . The other p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n governing fenc ing i s found i n the Highway A c t . As noted i n a prev ious chapter , s e c t i o n 4.03, o f the A c t , p r o h i b i t s the p l a c i n g o f a fence "within h o r i z o n t a l dimension exceeding two (2) f ee t w i t h i n the s i t e t r i a n g l e above an e l e v a t i o n such tha t an eye three (3) fee t above the sur face e l e v a t i o n o f one highway cannot see an ob jec t three (3) f ee t above the sur face e l e v a t i o n o f the other highway". The fo l low ing diagram taken from the Highway A c t i l l u s t r a t e s what i s meant by the above r e g u l a t i o n . 93 ROAD LOT Often, zoning bylaws expand upon these regulations by limiting the height of a fence to 6 feet overall and 4 feet along the front yard line and back to 25 foot along the side lot lines. The Rural Maintenance Bylaw does not proposes any fencing restrictions. In rural areas, where large lots are the norm, there i s no need to impose further restrictions above and beyond what already exist i n the Highway Act. k. Floodplain Regulations Table 2 indicates that flcodplain regulations are provincially legislated i n the Local Services Act and the Land T i t l e Act. I t also notes that these regulations may only be imposed at the time of subdivision. As alluded to i n the analysis of the planners statement about development on hazard lands, the Ministry of Environment can impose floodplain regulations i n the form of a restrictive covenant on lands being subdivided. In areas where there i s no zoning, and development i s taking place without subdivision, structures may be b u i l t without regard to any floodplain regulations. Most zoning bylaws include a section on floodplain regulations so that a l l new structures, must conform to the floodplain requirements. An example of such regulations i s found 94 i n Appendix D, the General Requirements S e c t i o n , which inc lude the f l o o d p l a i n regu la t ions found i n a l l the Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen E l e c t o r a l Area Zoning Bylaws. As i t i s f e l t that f l o o p l a i n regu la t ions p l a y an i n t e g r a l p a r t i n the promotion o f a safe environment, i t i s proposed that they be inc luded i n the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw. The f l o o d p l a i n regu la t ions i n the Sample Rura l Maintenance Bylaw are the same as those found i n a l l Regional D i s t r i c t o f Okanagan-Similkameen Zoning Bylaws. 1. Wrecked Cars The o n l y p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n t o c o n t r o l the s t o r i n g o f wrecked cars i s the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t . S e c t i o n 15 (2) o f the A c t , empowers the Commission to c o n t r o l the use o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l ands . Zoning bylaws o f ten inc lude sec t ions governing the use o f land f o r the wrecking or s t o r i n g o f d e r e l i c t automobi les. These regu la t ions are incorporated i n t o the zoning bylaws t o p ro tec t adjacent proper ty owners from having t o l i v e next t o an unsafe and u n s i g h t l y premises. The Rura l Maintenance Bylaw proposes t o implement s i m i l a r r e g u l a t i o n s . Experience has shown that d e r e l i c t cars on p r o p e r t i e s r a i s e the i r e o f adjacent proper ty owners i n both urban and r u r a l a reas . 4 .5 METHOD OF PROCESSING CONDITIONAL ZONING The method o f p r o c e s s i n g the c o n d i t i o n a l zoning a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from tha t used f o r p rocess ing the development permit or standard rezon ing . 95 The a p p l i c a t i o n form w i l l requ i re tha t the developer prov ide both a w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n o f the proposed development along wi th a s i t e p l a n . A p p l i c a t i o n s t o amend the ixunimum l o t s i z e w i t h i n the r u r a l D i s t r i c t II would have t o inc lude a s i t e p l a n showing the l o c a t i o n o f proposed l o t l i n e s as i s normal ly requ i red f o r a s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . The a p p l i c a t i o n would then be processed by Regional D i s t r i c t s t a f f and forwarded i n bylaw form t o the Regional Board f o r f i r s t read ing . I f the Board f e e l s the p roposa l has meri t o r i s i n t e r e s t e d i n detenrdning i t s f e a s i b i l i t y , they w i l l g ive i t f i r s t read ing . The bylaw w i l l then be d i s t r i b u t e d t o other government agencies who may have an i n t e r e s t . By the time the next board meeting takes p l a c e , the government agencies w i l l have responded. I f the proposed use i s t o t a l l y opposed by the government agencies , the Regional Board may decide t o deny the rezoning a t t h i s p o i n t . I f the comments are somewhat favorable and the Board i s i n t e r e s t e d i n ob ta in ing p u b l i c inpu t , they w i l l g ive the bylaw second reading and set a date f o r a p u b l i c h e a r i n g . I t i s a t t h i s p o i n t i n the c o n d i t i o n a l zoning process that p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n becomes a key f a c t o r . Copies o f the bylaw, i n c l u d i n g d e t a i l s o f the development, would be mai led t o adjacent proper ty owners and other in te res ted p a r t i e s . Not ices would be p laced i n the appropr ia te newspapers i n the manner requ i red by s e c t i o n 720 of the Munic ipa l A c t i n c l u d i n g a map so that a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s w i l l c l e a r l y understand the l o c a t i o n o f the proposed rezoning. T h i s procedure i s c u r r e n t l y not requ i red by the Munic ipa l A c t . I t i s f e l t tha t i f maps were r e q u i r e d , more people would understand the whereabouts o f the proper ty and respond a c c o r d i n g l y . The e lec ted d i r e c t o r f o r the area i n which the p roposa l i s loca ted would ask h i s Adv isory Planning Commission f o r comments and recommendations. In a l l i t i s hoped tha t a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s w i l l be informed o f the p roposa l so that t h e i r input can be obta ined . 96 The p u b l i c hear ing would focus on two main i s s u e s . The f i r s t would be t o determine the p u b l i c acceptance o f the p r o p o s a l . Secondly, any ob jec t ions would be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o two types ; a) those which cou ld be reso lved by apply ing c o n d i t i o n s such as b u f f e r s , setbacks and the l i k e , or b) those which cannot be reso lved through the implementation o f c o n d i t i o n s . I f most o f the o p p o s i t i o n could not be reso lved by s p e c i a l condi t ions and were vo iced by adjacent property owners, then the bylaw would probably be denied. I f , however, most o f the ob jec t ions were o f the type which c o u l d be reso lved by s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s , then the planner would negot iate a s o l u t i o n . I t i s a t t h i s p o i n t that the c o n d i t i o n a l zoning technique t r u l y comes i n t o p l a y . For the bylaw, as negot ia ted by the p lanner w i th a l l concerned, would be presented t o the Regional Board f o r t h i r d read ing . The developer would then have t o agree t o the development package p r i o r t o f i n a l adopt ion. I t i s f e l t tha t the process would proceed smoothly because the developer would be invo lved i n the negot ia t ion process from the s t a r t . In t h i s way, he would be aware o f the s p e c i a l cond i t ions and the reasons f o r them. While i t i s f e l t tha t the M i n i s t r y o f Munic ipa l A f f a i r s p lays an important r o l e i n p r o v i d i n g c o n t i n u i t y on zoning matters throughout the p r o v i n c e , i t i s not neccessary f o r them t o be invo lved beyond the i n i t i a l contact a f t e r f i r s t read ing . Therefore , they would s imply be sent a copy o f the f i n a l bylaw so tha t they are kept abreast o f the rezoning tak ing p l a c e throughout the p r o v i n c e . 4 .6 POLICING THE ATLERNATIVE The p o l i c i n g o f a c o n d i t i o n a l rezoning o f a p r o h i b i t e d use i s 97 e s s e n t i a l f o r the Rura l Maintenance Bylaw t o succeed as a p o s i t i v e and f l e x i b l e land use c o n t r o l . Therefore , i n areas where there i s no b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n , such as i n E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' , i t would be necessary that the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s t ruc tu res on p a r c e l s which have been c o n d i t i n a l l y rezoned or are i n a f l o o d p l a i n , be p o l i c e d by a Regional D i s t r i c t b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r . T h i s would ensure that a l l aspects o f the c o n d i t i o n a l rezoning are adhered t o . Const ruc t ion o f s t ruc tures o f land uses which are not on the l i s t o f p r o h i b i t e d uses o r are not i n f l o o d p l a i n areas would not be subject to p o l i c i n g by the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r . U n l e s s , o f course, the area res idents wanted b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n and adopted a b u i l d i n g bylaw. 4.7 THE UNCERTAINITY CREATED BY THE ALTERNATIVE While a l i s t o f p r o h i b i t e d uses i s f e l t t o be more a p p l i c a b l e to r u r a l areas than a l i s t o f permit ted uses , i t s l e g a l c e r t a i n t y can be c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . A l i s t o f permit ted uses ensures the p u b l i c tha t those uses and no others w i l l be a l lowed. While a l i s t o f p r o h i b i t e d uses does not prov ide the same k i n d o f c e r t a i n t y , i t does provide a s u f f i c i e n t degree o f c e r t a i n t y . For example, the p u b l i c w i l l know tha t the undes i rab le uses on t h i s l i s t w i l l on ly be al lowed i f c o n d i t i o n s , which they h e l p e s t a b l i s h , are agreed t o by the deve lopers . 4 .8 REVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVE The a l t e r n a t i v e should be reviewed p e r i o d i c a l l y w i th a view towards i n c r e a s i n g land use regu la t ions i f development pressures warrant i t . Rather than reviewing on s p e c i f i c t ime per iods such as every f i v e y e a r s , i t would seem s e n s i b l e t o simply have the r e g i o n a l p lanners monitor the growth o f development and i n i t i a t e changes when necessary . 98 4 .9 SAMPLE RURAL MAINTENANCE BYLAW RURAL DISTRICT I (1) PURPOSE: To provide development c o n t r o l regu la t ions which ensure the s a f e , hea l thy and convenient development o f E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . (2) PROHIBITED USES; The fo l low ing uses are p r o h i b i t e d unless s p e c i f i c a l l y approved by C o n d i t i o n a l zon ing . (a) Amusement Parks (b) Dude Ranches (c) Horse and Auto Racing C i r c u i t s (d) R id ing Academies (e) Commercial Kennels (f) Mink Farms (g) Feedlots (h) P igger ies or other n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l , product-based operat ions ( i ) M u l t i - f a m i l y Dwel l ings (j) Mobile Home Parks (k) Motels (1) Hote ls (m) Resorts (n) Campsites (o) Serv ice S t a t i o n s (p) Restaurants (q) R e t a i l Stores (r) Commercial or P r o f e s s i o n a l Business O f f i c e s (s) Museums (t) Industr ies w i th over 10,000 square fee t o f f l o o r area (u) Indust r ies which are obnoxious by reason o f smoke, fumes, dust , v i b r a t i o n , no ise o r odour Automobile Wrecking and Storage Yards I n d u s t r i a l uses on p a r c e l s over 2 acres i n area (v (w (3) STANDARDS Every use o f land and every b u i l d i n g o r s t ruc ture i n the E l e c t o r a l Area s h a l l comply w i th the p r o v i s i o n s o f Subsect ions (4) t o (9) i n c l u s i v e . (4) MINIMUM SITE AREA AND MINIMUM SITE WIDTH: (a) Where both an approved community or munic ipal water system and a munic ipa l sewage c o l l e c t i o n system are prov ided , the muiiJBjm s i t e area s h a l l be Seven Thousand and F i v e Hundred (7,500) square f e e t and the irdnimum s i t e width s h a l l be F i f t y (50) f e e t ; 99 (b) Where an approved community or munic ipal water system i s prov ided , but a munic ipa l sewage c o l l e c t i o n system c o l l e c t i o n system i s not p rov ided , the minimum s i t e area s h a l l be Nine Thousand (9,000) square f e e t and the minimum s i t e width s h a l l be Seventy (70) f e e t ; (c) Where ne i the r an approved p u b l i c water system nor a community o r munic ipal sewage c o l l e c t i o n system i s prov ided , the minimum s i t e area s h a l l be E ighteen Thousand (18,000) square fee t and the mLnimum s i t e width s h a l l be Seventy (70) f e e t . (d) Lots c rea ted p r i o r t o the adopt ion o f t h i s Bylaw, regard less o f area or dimensions, may be used prov ided the method by which sewage i s d isposed o f i s s a t i s f a c t o r y t o the Medica l Heal th O f f i c e r . (e) Notwithstanding the above, where permission f o r a HOMESITE SERVERENCE has been granted by the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l land Commission, the area and dimensions o f such HOMESITE s h a l l be as permit ted by the Ccmmission. BUILDINGS PER LOT: (a) A nHximum o f two (2) dwel l ing u n i t s on each p a r c e l over two (2) acres i n a r e a . YARDS, SETBACKS: (a) On any l o t o r s i t e , dwel l ing u n i t s s h a l l be twenty - f i ve (25) fee t from the f r o n t y a r d l i n e and ten (10) fee t from any s ide l o t l i n e . (b) A l l b u i l d i n g s housing l i v e s t o c k s h a l l be setback twenty - f ive (25) fee t from any proper ty l i n e . LIVESTOCK: (a) A l l l i v e s t o c k other than household pets s h a l l be p r o p e r l y caged and housed. WRECKED CARS: (a) No p a r c e l s h a l l be used f o r the wrecking or storage o f d e r e l i c t automobiles o r as a junk y a r d . FLOOD CONTROLS: (a) Notwithstanding any other p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s Bylaw, on f loadable land no b u i l d i n g or any p a r t thereof s h a l l be const ructed , reconst ruc ted , moved or extended nor s h a l l any mobile home or u n i t , modular home o r s t ruc ture be l o c a t e d ; ( i ) w i t h i n seven p o i n t f i v e (7.5) metres o f the n a t u r a l boundary o f a l a k e , swamp or pond; w i t h i n t h i r y (30) metres o f the na tu ra l boundary o f the Similkameen o r Tulameen R i v e r s ; 100 w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) metres o f the design water l e v e l boundary o f the Okanagan River channel ; w i t h i n f i f t e e n (15) metres o f the n a t u r a l boundary o f any other nearby watercourse; ( i i ) w i th the underside o f the f l o o r system o f any area used f o r h a b i t a t i o n , bus iness , or storage o f goods damageable by f loodwaters, o r i n the case o f a mobile home or u n i t the ground l e v e l on which i t i s l o c a t e d : lower than zero p o i n t s i x (0.6) metres above the 200 year f l o o d l e v e l where i t have been determined by, o r t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f , the M i n i s t r y o f Environment; nor lower than three (3) metres above the n a t u r a l boundary o f the Similkameen or Tulameen R i v e r s ; nor lower than one p o i n t f i v e (1.5) metres above the design water sur face p r o f i l e o f the Okanagan River channel ; nor lower than one p o i n t f i v e (1.5) metres above the na tu ra l boundary o f any other watercourse, l ake , swamp or pond, wi th the except ion o f Okanagan, Osoyoos, Skaha, Tug u l Nui t and Vaseux Lakes, where the minimum e l e v a t i o n a t which a b u i l d i n g may be const ructed or mobile u n i t loca ted s h a l l be : Okanagan Lake 343. Osoyoos Lake 280. Skaha Lake 339. Tug u l Nu i t Lake 299. Vaseux Lake 329. 66 metres G . S . C . datum 70 metres G . S . C . datum 24 metres G . S . C . datum 50 metres G . S . C . datum 49 metres G . S . C . datum (b) Clause (a) ( i i ) s h a l l not apply t o : ( i ) a renovat ion o f an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g o r s t r u c t u r e used as a res idence tha t does not i n v o l v e an a d d i t i o n t h e r e t o : ( i i ) tha t p o r t i o n o f a b u i l d i n g o r s t ruc ture t o be used as a carpor t o r garage; ( i i i ) farm b u i l d i n g s other than dwel l ing u n i t s and c l o s e d - s i d e d l i v e s t o c k hous ing . Farm dwe l l ing u n i t s on p a r c e l s i z e s 8.1 hectares o r greater and w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve are exempted from the requirements o f Clause (b) ( i i ) but i f i n a f loodab le area s h a l l be e levated one (1) metre above the na tura l ground e l e v a t i o n . C l o s e d - s i d e d l i v e s t o c k housing behind 1 i n 200 year standard dykes as approved by the M i n i s t r y o f Environment i s exempted from the requirement t o f loodproof but i f not behind 200 year standard dykes s h a l l a l s o be e levated on (1) metre above the na tu ra l ground e l e v a t i o n ; ( iv) l i g h t o r heavy i n d u s t r i a l development which i s requi red t o f loodproof t o an e l e v a t i o n zero p o i n t s i x (0.6) metres l e s s than 101 the F l o o d Const ruc t ion L e v e l as determined by the M i n i s t r y o f Environment ; (v) heavy indus t ry behind 1 i n 200 year standard dykes as approved by the M i n i s t r y o f Environment. Heavy i n d u s t r y inc ludes such uses as manufacturing o r process ing o f wood and paper products , meta l , heavy e l e c t r i c a l , non-metal ic minera l products , petroleum and c o a l products , i n d u s t r i a l chemicals and by-products and a l l i e d products ; (v i ) the requ i red e l e v a t i o n may be achieved by s t r u c t u r a l e l e v a t i o n o f the s a i d h a b i t a b l e , bus iness , o r storage area or by adequately compacted l a n d f i l l on which any b u i l d i n g i s to be cons t r e t ed o r mobile home l o c a t e d , or by a combination o f both s t r u c t u r a l e l e v a t i o n and l a n d f i l l . Where l a n d f i l l i s used t o achieve the r e q u i r e d e levat ions s ta ted i n Clause ( b ) ( i i ) above, no p o r t i o n o f the l a n d f i l l s lope s h a l l be c l o s e r than the d is tances i n Clause (b ) ( i ) from the na tu ra l boundary, and the face o f the l a n d f i l l s lope s h a l l be adequately p ro tec ted against e ros ion from f loodwaters . Provided tha t , w i th the approval o f the Deputy M i n i s t e r o f Environment, or h i s designate t o ensure that adequate p r o t e c t i o n from f l o o d o r e ros ion hazard i s prov ided , these requirements may be reduced. 102 RURAL DISTRICT II (1) PURPOSE: To provide development c o n t r o l regu la t ions which ensure the s a f e , hea l thy and convenient development o f E l e c t o r a l Area ' G ' . (2) PROHIBITED USES; The fo l low ing uses are p r o h i b i t e d un less s p e c i f i c a l l y approved by C o n d i t i o n a l zon ing . (a (b (c (d (e (f (g (h ( i ( j (k (1 (m (n (o (P (q (r (s ( t (u (v (w Amusement Parks Dude Ranches Horse and Auto Racing C i r c u i t s R id ing Academies Commercial Kennels Mink Farms Feedlots P igger ies o r other n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l , product-based operat ions M u l t i - f a m i l y Dwel l ings Mobile Home Parks Motels Hote ls Resorts Campsites Serv ice S t a t i o n s Restaurants R e t a i l S tores Commercial o r P r o f e s s i o n a l Business O f f i c e s Museums Indust r ies w i th over 10,000 square fee t o f f l o o r area Indust r ies which are obnoxious by reason o f smoke, fumes, dust , v i b r a t i o n , no ise o r odour Automobile Wrecking and Storage Yards I n d u s t r i a l uses on p a r c e l s over 2 acres i n area (3) STANDARDS Every use o f land and every b u i l d i n g o r s t ruc ture i n the E l e c t o r a l Area s h a l l comply w i th the p r o v i s i o n s o f Subsect ions (4) to (9) i n c l u s i v e . (4) MINIMUM SITE AREA AND MINIMUM SITE WIDTH: (a) Unless r e v i s e d by a C o n d i t i o n a l Zoning, the minimum s i t e area s h a l l be f i f t y (50) acres and the minimum s i t e width s h a l l be one thousand (1,000) f e e t . (b) Lots c rea ted p r i o r t o the adopt ion o f t h i s Bylaw, regard less o f area or dimensions, may be used prov ided the method by which sewage i s d isposed o f i s s a t i s f a c t o r y t o the Medica l Heal th O f f i c e r . (c) Notwithstanding the above, where permission f o r a HOMESITE SEVERENCE has been granted by the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Corrmission, the permit ted area and dimensions o f such HOMESITE s h a l l be as permit ted by the Commission. 103 BUILDINGS PER LOT: (a) A maximum o f two (2) dwe l l ing u n i t s on each p a r c e l over f i v e (5) acres i n a r e a . YARDS, SETBACKS: (a) On any l o t or s i t e , dwel l ing u n i t s s h a l l be twenty - f i ve (25) fee t from the f r o n t ya rd l i n e and ten (10) from any s ide l o t l i n e . (b) A l l b u i l d i n g s housing l i v e s t o c k s h a l l be setback twenty - f ive (25) f ee t from any proper ty l i n e . LIVESTOCK: (a) A l l l i v e s t o c k other than household pets s h a l l be p r o p e r l y caged and housed. WRECKED CARS: (a) No p a r c e l s h a l l be used f o r the wrecking o r s torage o f d e r e l i c t automobiles o r as a junk y a r d . FLOOD CONTROLS: (a) Notwithstanding any other p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s Bylaw, on f loodable land no b u i l d i n g o r any p a r t thereof s h a l l be const ructed , reconst ructed , moved or extended nor s h a l l any mobile home or u n i t , modular home or s t ruc ture be l o c a t e d ; ( i ) w i t h i n seven p o i n t f i v e (7.5) metres o f the n a t u r a l boundary o f a l a k e , swamp or pond; w i t h i n t h i r y (30) metres o f the na tura l boundary o f the Similkameen or Tulameen R i v e r s ; w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) metres o f the design water l e v e l boundary o f the Okanagan River channel ; w i t h i n f i f t e e n (15) metres o f the n a t u r a l boundary o f any other nearby watercourse; ( i i ) w i th the underside o f the f l o o r system of any area used f o r h a b i t a t i o n , bus iness , o r storage o f goods damageable by f loodwaters , o r i n the case o f a mobile home or u n i t the ground l e v e l on which i t i s l o c a t e d : lower than zero p o i n t s i x (0.6) metres above the 200 year f l o o d l e v e l where i t have been determined by, o r t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f , the M i n i s t r y o f Environment; nor lower than three (3) metres above the n a t u r a l boundary o f the Similkameen or Tulameen R i v e r s ; nor lower than one p o i n t f i v e (1.5) metres above the design water sur face p r o f i l e o f the Okanagan River channel ; 104 nor lower than one p o i n t f i v e (1.5) metres above the na tu ra l boundary o f any other watercourse, l a k e , swamp or pond, wi th the except ion o f Okanagan, Osoyoos, Skaha, Tug u l Nui t and Vaseux Lakes, where the irdnimum e l e v a t i o n a t which a b u i l d i n g may be const ructed or mobile u n i t loca ted s h a l l be : Okanagan Lake 343. Osoyoos Lake 280. Skaha Lake 339. Tug u l Nui t Lake 299. Vaseux Lake 329. 66 metres G . S . C . datum 70 metres G . S . C . datum 24 metres G . S . C . datum 50 metres G . S . C . datum 49 metres G . S . C . datum (b) Clause (a) ( i i ) s h a l l not apply t o : ( i ) a renovat ion o f an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g o r s t r u c t u r e used as a residence tha t does not i n v o l v e an a d d i t i o n t h e r e t o : ( i i ) tha t p o r t i o n o f a b u i l d i n g or s t ruc ture t o be used as a carpor t o r garage; ( i i i ) farm b u i l d i n g s other than dwel l ing u n i t s and c l o s e d - s i d e d l i v e s t o c k hous ing . Farm dwe l l ing u n i t s on p a r c e l s i z e s 8.1 hectares o r greater and w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve are exempted from the requirements o f Clause (b) ( i i ) but i f i n a f loodab le area s h a l l be e levated one (1) metre above the na tura l ground e l e v a t i o n . C l o s e d - s i d e d l i v e s t o c k housing behind 1 i n 200 year standard dykes as approved by the M i n i s t r y o f Environment i s exempted from the requirement t o f loodproof but i f not behind 200 year standard dykes s h a l l a l s o be e levated on (1) metre above the na tu ra l ground e l e v a t i o n ; ( iv ) l i g h t o r heavy i n d u s t r i a l development which i s requ i red t o f loodproof t o an e leva t ion zero p o i n t s i x (0.6) metres l e s s than the F l o o d Const ruc t ion L e v e l as determined by the M i n i s t r y o f Environment; (v) heavy indust ry behind 1 i n 200 year standard dykes as approved by the M i n i s t r y o f Environment. Heavy indus t ry inc ludes such uses as manufacturing o r process ing o f wood and paper products , meta l , heavy e l e c t r i c a l , non-metal ic minera l products , petroleum and c o a l products , i n d u s t r i a l chemicals and by-products and a l l i e d p roducts ; (v i ) the requ i red e l e v a t i o n may be achieved by s t r u c t u r a l e l e v a t i o n o f the s a i d h a b i t a b l e , bus iness , or storage area or by adequately compacted l a n d f i l l on which any b u i l d i n g i s t o be cons t rc ted o r mobile home l o c a t e d , or by a combination o f both s t r u c t u r a l e l e v a t i o n and l a n d f i l l . Where l a n d f i l l i s used t o achieve the requ i red e leva t ions s ta ted i n Clause ( b ) ( i i ) above, no p o r t i o n o f the l a n d f i l l s lope s h a l l be c l o s e r than the d is tances i n Clause (b) ( i ) from the na tu ra l boundary, and the face o f the l a n d f i l l s lope s h a l l be adequately pro tec ted aga ins t e r o s i o n from f loodwaters . 105 Provided tha t , w i th the approval o f the Deputy M i n i s t e r o f Environment, o r h i s designate t o ensure that adequate p r o t e c t i o n from f l o o d or e ros ion hazard i s prov ided , these requirements may be reduced. 5.0 CONCLUSION T h i s chapter i s intended t o r e f l e c t on t h i s study and the a l t e r n a t i v e s i t proposes. The f i r s t p a r t o u t l i n e s a number o f l i m i t a t i o n s o f the study. The second p a r t d iscusses the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the a l t e r n a t i v e . Par t three d iscusses the v a l i d i t y o f the a l t e r n a t i v e . 5.1 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY One o f the pr imary l i m i t a t i o n s o f the study i s found i n Chapter two, the "Analys is o f Statements", where i t i s acknowledged tha t an indepth i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o each statement may have y i e l d e d more complete in format ion . For example, d e t a i l i n g the cos ts o f s e r v i c i n g sprawl i n the study area could have provided a c t u a l d o l l a r f i g u r e s . Or , a more t e c h n i c a l l y p r e c i s e method o f ana lyz ing the s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f the undesi rable land uses i n the Okanagan F a l l s area compared t o the Keremeos Area may have prov ided more depth t o the study. However, i n defence o f the methods which were used, i t must be emphasized tha t i n s i g h t i n t o the genera l t rends was a l l tha t was d e s i r e d . I f an indepth a n a l y s i s us ing more s o p h i s t i c a t e d methods were u t i l i z e d the examination o f each o f the statements, cou ld have been a major research p r o j e c t i n i t s e l f . Another l i m i t a t i o n i s the extent o f the w r i t e r s p lann ing exper ience. Using the experience gained as a Planning Technic ian i n jus t one Regional D i s t r i c t has l i m i t e d the w r i t e r s i n s i g h t s on how zoning i s viewed, used and abused i n on ly one area o f the p r o v i n c e . I f , fo r example, the w r i t e r had had experience i n both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e p lanning p o s i t i o n s , i n var ious p a r t s o f the p r o v i n c e , a more w h o l i s t i c percept ion o f zoning may have been a c q u i r e d . T h i s may have r e s u l t e d i n a more favourable view o f the present system, however, t h i s was not the case . 106 5.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVE As the l i t e r a t u r e review o f the zoning bylaw a l t e r n a t i v e s has shown, there are l i m i t a t i o n s found i n any land use c o n t r o l . The Rura l Maintenance Bylaw i s no d i f f e r e n t . The problems and concerns expressed by r u r a l res iden ts i n the study area are taken as representa t ive o f those experienced i n other r u r a l a reas . Perhaps, i f the w r i t e r had been employed a t the M i n i s t r y o f Munic ipa l A f f a i r s where p lann ing i s seen on a province-wide s c a l e , a broader pe rspec t i ve may have been gained and a d i f f e r e n t a l t e r n a t i v e proposed. Another l i m i t a t i o n i s that the p roposa l has not been t e s t e d . A w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n o f the a l t e r n a t i v e leaves the reader w i th the sense tha t the a l t e r n a t i v e i s p l a u s i b l e . However, i t i s o n l y when i t i s t e s t e d i n a r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n tha t i t s t rue va lue w i l l be known. The success or f a i l u r e o f any land use c o n t r o l technique i s l a r g e l y dependant on the recept ion i t r ece ives from the p o l i t i c i a n s and the p u b l i c . I t i s hoped tha t t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e w i l l be taken through that process i n order t o a s c e r t a i n i t s p o t e n t i a l . 5.3 THE VALIDITY OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE Th is study has t r i e d t o address the concerns expressed by both the Regional Planners and the r u r a l r e s i d e n t s . In doing s o , an a l t e r n a t i v e land use c o n t r o l technique has been developed. I t conta ins a number o f features which g i v e i t the p o t e n t i a l t o be a more appropr ia te land use c o n t r o l than the Standard zoning methods p resen t l y used i n the p rov ince . Two s i g n i f i c a n t features o f t h i s technique are i t s s t r e n g t h . F i r s t l y , the l i s t o f p r o h i b i t e d uses ( a l l others be ing permitted) wi th the p r o v i s o than even these uses cou ld be acceptab le , g ives the bylaw a p o s i t i v e appearance. I t i s f e l t that i n a regu la tory s i t u a t i o n , a p o s i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e i s perhaps the most one can hope t o ach ieve . 107 Secondly, and perhaps the feature which above a l l else makes t h i s a worthwhile alter n a t i v e i s the conditional zoning technique. I t provides a solution to many of the complaints which are heard time and time again about standard zoning. Under t h i s proposal, the developer has the f l e x i b i l i t y to create a development which i s not r e s t r i c t e d by the stringent regulations found i n a Standard Zoning D i s t r i c t . For the residents, i t encourages p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the development process of t h e i r area. Too often we hear disgruntled residents complain that they have l i t t l e say over the development of t h e i r area. The conditional zoning technique encourages these residents to become involved i n the process. For the Planner, i t requires that he get involved i n the grass roots l e v e l of planning. In other words, i t requires that he get out of h i s o f f i c e i n t o the r u r a l areas to meet with developers and residents a l i k e to t r y and negotiate the best possible development for future generations. This alternative should be considered as a p o t e n t i a l l y viable land use control technique, designed with the needs and desires of r u r a l B r i t i s h Columbians i n mind. I f nothing else, i t should be considered as an idea deserving of objective examination by fellow planners, p o l i t i c i a n s and the public. 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailey, Bruce R., "The Use and Abuse of Contract Zoning", U.C.L.A. Law Review, Vol. 12:2, 1964/65 pp. 897-916. B e l l , D., "The U.S. as a Mass Society", i n Alex Irikeles (Ed.), Reading on Modern Society, Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, Prentice H a l l , 1966, pp. 71-86. B.C. Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s and Housing, Planning Services Div i s i o n , "Technical Guide For the Preparation of O f f i c i a l Settlement Plans, A p r i l , 1979. Boulding, K., "The Organizational Revolution", Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1968. Buck, Peter L., "Modern Land Use Control", Real Estate Law and Practice, course handbook, series no. 143, New York, 1978. Burnett, P. and L. Hansen, " Floodplain/Shoreland Management : A Guide for Local Zoning O f f i c i a l s " , Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, 1982. Carlson, Steven A., "Land Use Planning: A Rural Focus", Phd., 1977, University of Washington, Seattle. Contemporary Studies Project, "Rural Land Use Regulation i n Iowa: An Empirical Analysis of County Board of Adjustment Practices", Iowa Law Review, Vol. 68, no. 5, J u l y 1983, pp. 1083-1283. Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C., "Land Use Contracts", Centre f o r Continuing Education, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., 1976. Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C., "Land Use Control i n B.C.", Centre for Continuing Education, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., 1979. "Contract Zoning: A F l e x i b l e Technique for Protecting Maine Mun i c i p a l i t i e s " , University of Maine Law Review, Vol. 24, 1972, pp. 263-279. Council on Environment Quality, "The Costs of Sprawl i n the U.S.A.", E k i s t i c s , Vol. 40, no. 239, October 1975, pp. 266-272. Crawford, Clan J r . , "Strategy and Tactics i n Municipal Zoning", Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1969. El l i c k s o n , Robert C , "Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules and Fines as Land Use Controls", The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 40, no. 4, Summer, 1973, pp. 681-781. 109 England, J . L . , W.E. Gibbons and B . L . Johnson, "The Impact o f a Rura l Environment on Va lues" , Rura l Soc io logy , V o l . 44(1), 1979, p p . 119-136. Fishman, Steven B . , "The Contract Zoning Method and P u b l i c P o l i c y , " Urban Law Annual , 1972, p p . 219-226. F o r r e s t , C lyde W., "Change: The Recurr ing Zoning Issue" , Proceedings o f the I n s t i t u t e on Zoning, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1970. G e t z e l , J u d i t h and C . Thurow ( E d . ) , "Rural and Smalltown P l a n n i n g " , prepared f o r The Oldwest Regional Commission, prepared by The American Planning a s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D . C . , 1979. Glenn, N.D. and L . H i l l J r . , "Rural and Urban D i f f e rences i n A t t i t u d e s and Behaviour i n The Uni ted S t a t e s " , i n The Anna ls , A . A . P . S . S . , V o l . 429, January, 1977, p p . 36-50. Goldberg, M. and P. Horwood, "Zoning: I t s Costs and Relevance f o r the 1980 's" , F r a s e r I n s t i t u t e , 1980, Vancouver, B . C . Goodman, W.I . and E . C . Freund, " P r i n c i p l e s and P r a c t i c e o f Urban P lann ing" , Washington, D . C . , 1968. Harkness, Gary C , "Development Permits" i n Cont inu ing Lega l Educat ion S o c i e t y o f B . C . , Land Use C o n t r o l i n B . C . , Centre f o r Cont inuing Educat ion, U . B . C . , Vancouver, B . C . , 1979. Har t , D. and W. S c o t t , "The Organ iza t iona l Imparative", Acbrdnistrat ion and S o c i e t y , V o l . 7, November, p p . 259-285. Harvey, R . O . , and W.A.V. C l a r k , "The Nature and Economics o f Urban Sprawl" , Land Economics, V o l . 41, no. 1, February, 1965, p p . 1-9. H inds , D . S . , N.G. C a m and N. Ordway, 'Winning a t Zoning" , McGraw-Hi l l Company, 1979. Huddleston, Jack R. and Thomas Krauskopf , "Further Evidence Concerning L o c a l C o n t r o l o f Land Use" , Land Economics, V o l . 56, no. 4, November, 1980, p p . 471-476. Hughes, W . G . , "Land Use C o n t r o l s - F l e x i b i l i t y and D i s c r e c t i o n " , masters t h e s i s , School o f Carmunity and Regional P lann ing , U . B . C . , 1982. Ince, John G . , "Land Use Law: A Study o f L e g i s l a t i o n Governing Land Use i n B r i t i s h Columbia", Cont inuing L e g a l Educat ion S o c i e t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Centre f o r Cont inu ing Educat ion , U . B . C . , Vancouver, B . C . , 1977. 110 Kerr, C, J.T. Dunlop, F.H. Harbison and CA. Myers, "Industrialism and Industrial Man", Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1960. Kmiec, Douglas, W., "Land Use Deregulation: An Alternative Free Enterprise Development System", Zoning and Planning Handbook, Chapter 16, Clark Boardman Co. Ltd., New York, 1983, pp. 309-326. Lauf, Ted F., "Floodplain and Lakeshore Use Controls-The Wisconsin Experience in Clyde W. Forrest, Change: The Recurring Zoning Issue, Proceedings of the Institute on Zoning, University of Illinois, 1970. Mandelker, Daniel R., "The Zoning Dilemma", Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971. McGrath, Nicholas J. Jr., "Conditional Zoning: Flexibility in the Land Use Process, in Perter L. Buck (Ed.), Modern Land Use Control, Real Estate Law and Practice, course handbook, series no. 143, New York, 1978. Meshenberg, Michael J., "The Administration of Flexible Zoning Techniques", A.S.P.O., Planning Advisory Service, report no. 318. Miller, Michael K. and A.E. Luloff, "Who is Rural? A Typological Approach to the Examination of Rurality", Rural Sociology, Vol. 46(4), 1981, pp. 608-625. Miller, William S., "Conditional Zoning is Coming to Oregon", The Municipal Attorney, Vol. 12, no. 5, May 1972, pp. 98-105. Milner, James B., "An Introduction to Zoning Enabling Legislation, Canada Bar Review, 1962, p. 1. Nelson, Robert H., "Zoning and Property Rights: An Analysis of the American System of Land Use Regulation", Land Economics, Vol. 56, no. 1, February, 1980, pp. 117-123. Ottensmann, John R., "Urban Sprawl, Land Values and the Density of Development, Land Economics, No. 4, November, 1977, pp. 389-400. Pearson, Norman, "What Price Suburbia?", Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, November, 1967. Piatt, George M., "Valid Spot Zoning: A Creative Tool for Flexibility of Land Use", Oregon Law Review, Vol. 48, no. 3, April, 1969, pp. 245-262. Porter, Brian J., "The Land Use Contract: Its Validity as a Means of Use and Development Control", masters thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B.C., 1973. I l l England, J . L . , W.E. Gibbons and B . L . Johnson, "The Impact o f a Rura l Environment on Va lues" , Rura l S o c i o l o g y , V o l . 44(1), 1979, pp . 119-136. Fishman, Steven B . , "The Contract Zoning Method and P u b l i c P o l i c y , " Urban Law Annual , 1972, p p . 219-226. F o r r e s t , Clyde W., "Change: The Recurr ing Zoning Issue" , Proceedings o f the I n s t i t u t e on Zoning, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1970. G e t z e l , J u d i t h and C . Thurow ( E d . ) , "Rural and Smalltown P lann ing" , prepared f o r The Oldwest Regional Commission, prepared by The American Planning a s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D . C . , 1979. G lenn, N.D. and L . H i l l J r . , "Rural and Urban D i f f e rences i n A t t i tudes ' and Behaviour i n The Uni ted S t a t e s " , i n The Anna ls , A . A . P . S . S . , V o l . 429, January, 1977, pp . 36-50. Goldberg, M. and P. Horwood, "Zoning: I t s Costs and Relevance f o r the 1980 's" , F r a s e r I n s t i t u t e , 1980, Vancouver, B . C . Goodman, W.I . and E . C . Freund, " P r i n c i p l e s and P r a c t i c e o f Urban P lann ing" , Washington, D . C . , 1968. Harkness, Gary C , "Development Permits" i n Cont inu ing Lega l Educat ion S o c i e t y o f B . C . , Land Use C o n t r o l i n B . C . , Centre f o r Cont inuing Educat ion, U . B . C . , Vancouver, B . C . , 1979. Har t , D. and W. S c o t t , "The Organ iza t iona l Imparative", A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S o c i e t y , V o l . 7, November, p p . 259-285. Harvey, R . O . , and W.A.V. C l a r k , "The Nature and Economics o f Urban Sprawl" , Land Economics, V o l . 41, no. 1, February, 1965, p p . 1-9. H inds , D . S . , N.G. C a m and N. Ordway, ''Winning a t Zoning" , McGraw-Hi l l Company, 1979. Huddleston, Jack R. and Thomas Krauskopf, "Further Evidence Concerning L o c a l C o n t r o l o f Land Use" , Land Economics, V o l . 56, no. 4, November, 1980, p p . 471-476. Hughes, W . G . , "Land Use C o n t r o l s - F l e x i b i l i t y and D i s c r e c t i o n " , masters t h e s i s , School o f Caxmunity and Regional P lann ing , U . B . C . , 1982. Ince, John G . , "Land Use Law: A Study o f L e g i s l a t i o n Governing Land Use i n B r i t i s h Columbia", Cont inuing Lega l Educat ion Soc ie ty o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Centre f o r Cont inuing Educat ion , U . B . C . , Vancouver, B . C . , 1977. 112 Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia, "Municipal A c t " , R . S . B . C . , 1982, Queens P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B . C . R a f e r t , Chery l A . , "Spot Zoning" , Urban Law Annual , V o l . 23, 1982, p p . 457-466. Raherikamp, Sachs, Wel ls and Assoc ia tes I n c . , " Innovative Zoning: A D iges t o f the L i t e r a t u r e " , w i th A . S . P . O . , f o r the U .S . Department o f Housing and Urban Development, December, 1977. Raherikamp, Sachs, Wel ls and A s s o c i a t e s I n c . , " Innovative Zoning: A L o c a l O f f i c i a l s Guidebook", wi th A . S . P . O . and D. S t o l o f f f o r the U . S . Department o f Housing and Urban Development, November, 1977. Real Es ta te Research C o r p . , "The Costs o f Sprawl -Deta i led Cost A n a l y s i s " , prepared f o r H.U.D. and the E . P . A . , U .S . Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , A p r i l , 1974, Washington, D .C . Real E s t a t e Research C o r p . , "The Costs o f Sprawl -L i te ra tu re Review and B ib l iography" , prepared f o r H.U.D. and the E . P . A . , U . S . Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , A p r i l , 1974, Washington, D .C . Rhode Is land Statewide Planning Program, "Methods o f El j j r i inat ing C o n f l i c t s " , T e c h n i c a l Paper no. 82, A p r i l 1979. R i u k i n , M.D. , "Negotiated Development: A Breakthrough i n Environmental Cont rovers ies" , i n Management and C o n t r o l o f Growth, The Urban Land i n s t i u t u t e , V o l . 4, 1975, pp . 289-294, Washington, D.C. Rueter , F r e d r i c k H. and P h i l l i p Kushner, "Economic Incent ives f o r Land Use C o n t r o l " , U . S . Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, Washington, D . C , February, 1977. S c o t t , John N . , "Toward a St ra tegy f o r U t i l i z a t i o n o f Contract and C o n d i t i o n a l Zoning", J o u r n a l o f Urban Law, V o l . 57, no. 1, August 1973, p p . 94-111. Smith, L e s l i e W. and Karen K. Petersen, "Rural-Urban D i f fe rences i n To le rance : S tou fe rs ' " C u l t u r a l Shock" Hypothesis R e v i s i t e d " , Rura l Soc io logy , V o l . 45(2) , 1980, p p . 256-271. Tar lock , A . Dan, "Toward a Revised Theory o f Zon ing" , i n Management and C o n t r o l o f Growth, V o l . 1, 1975, p p . 228-237. Urban Land Management L t d . , "The New B . C . Land Use C o n t r o l Procedures" , f o r the B . C . Real Es ta te A s s o c i a t i o n , February, 1979. W i l l i a m Graham Consultants L t d . , "Improving Land Use C o n t r a c t s " , f o r the B . C . Real Es ta te A s s o c a t i o n , February, 1977. 113 W i l l i t s , F.K., R.C. Bealer and D.M. Crider, "Leveling of Attitudes i n Mass Society: R u r a l i t y and Tra d i t i o n a l Morality i n America", Rural Sociology, V o l . 38(1), 1973, pp. 36-45. Wilson, J . Gait, "Development Permits", i n Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C., Land Use Control i n B.C., Centre for Continuing Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1979. Windsor, Duane, "A Critique of the Costs of Sprawl", American Planning Association Journal, Vol. 45, no. 3, J u l y 1979, pp. 279-292. Wright, Robert R. and susan Webber, "Land Use i n a Nutshell", West Publication Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1978. 114 APPENDIX A REGIONAL DISTRICT OF OKANAGAN-SIMILKAMEEN BYLAW NO. 638 BUILDING BYLAW A Bylaw for the administration and enforcement of the build- ing code. WHEREAS Section 740 of the Municipal Act provides that the regulations made thereunder and the building code established thereby apply to the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. Now therefore, the Board of the Regional District of Okanagan- Similkameen in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: 1. TITLE This Bylaw may be cited for a l l purposes as the "Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen Building Bylaw No. 688, 1982". 2. DEFINITIONS In this Bylaw, "agent" includes a person, firm, or corporation represent-ing the owner, by designation or contract, and interalia includes a hired tradesman and contractor who may be granted permits for work within the limitations of his licence. "authority having jurisdiction" means the Regional District Board and the agent thereof that have authority- over the subject that is regulated. "building code" means the building code established by the regulations made under Section 740 of the Municipal Act. 3. APPLICATION (1) The provisions of this Bylaw apply to that portion of the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen con- tained within Electoral Areas A,B,C,D,E,F and H, and more precisely as described in the Letters Patent, as amended, incorporating said District: (2) Except as "otherwise provided in Subsection (3) of this Section, where (a) A building is built, this By,law applies to the design and construction of the building. (b) The whole or part of a building is moved, either into or from the Electoral Area or from one property to another within the Electoral Area, .fhis Bylaw applies to the building or part thereof moved and to any remaining part affected by the change. (c) The whole or part of a building is demolished, this Bylaw applies to the demolition and to any remaining part affected by the change, (d) A building is altered, this Bylaw applies to the alterations, and to a l l parts of the building affected by the change. (Sections 1, 2 & 3) Bylaw No. 688 115 continued (e) Repairs are made to a building, this Bylaw applies to such repairs. (f) The class of occupancy of a building or part thereof is changed, this Bylaw applies to a l l parts of the building affected by the change. (a) This Bylaw does not apply to farm buildings other than those used as residential buildings on land classified as Farmland by the Provincial Assessor. (b) This Bylaw does not apply to minor non-structural alterations valued at less than One Thousand Dollars (51,000.00) as described by the Building Inspector, made to buildings used or intended for ( i) single family houses; ( i i ) private garages of residential accessory buildings; ( i i i ) agricultural or horticultural purposes; ( iv) animal raising; or ( v) pountry raising. (c) This Bylaw does not apply to repairs made to buildings used or intended for ( i) single family houses; ( i i ) private garages or residential accessory buildings; ( i i i ) agricultural or horticultural purposes; ( iv) animal raising; or ( v) pountry raising. (d) This Bylaw does not apply to buildings on a mining property as defined in the Mineral Act, except that the Bylaw applies to buildings on a mining property used or intended for housing or residential accommodation of persons. Swimming Pools (a) "Pool" includes any a r t i f i c i a l pool in which the depth of water could attain at least sixty (60) centimeters which is intended for recreational use. (b) Public pools shall conform to those mandatory provisions of the B.C. Provincial Regulations-289/72 Health Act-Governing Swimming Pools, the Zoning Bylaws of the Regional District, and the regulations of this Bylaw; in case of design variance, the aforementioned mandatory provisions of the B.C. Provincial Regulations shall apply. (c) Private pools shall conform to the regulations of this Bylaw and the Zoning Bylaws of the Regional District. (Section 3) Bylaw No. 688 116 (4) continued (d) Construction permits are required in accord-ance with the provisions of this Bylaw. (e) Construction shall meet the structural require- ments of the Building Bylaw of the Regional District, to withstand a l l forces anticipated: ( i) provide fencing or equivalent barrier in a manner so that unsuspecting persons or small children cannot obtain entrance into the pool area, also being provided with a gate closure and latch; ( i i ) the pool floor shall have a slope not greater than thirty (30) centimeters in two point four (2.4) meters where the water depth is less than one point zero five (1.05) meters. The pool basin shall be a light colour. ( i i i ) At no time to create a public health nuisance. RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNER Neither the granting of a permit nor the approval of the drawings and specifications, nor inspections made by the 3uilding Inspector during the erection of the building shall, in any way, relieve the owner of such building from f u l l responsibility for carrying out the work in accordance with the requirements of this Bylaw. PROHIBITION (1) No person shall commence or continue any part of the work referred to in Subsection (2) of Section 3 unless a building permit has been obtained. (2) The written approval of the Building Inspector shall be obtained before: (a) the placing or pouring of any concrete; (b) a foundation below land surface is backfilled or covered,- (c) the structural framework of a building or structure is covered or concealed. PERMITS (1) Where: (a) an application has been made, and (b) the proposed work set out in the application conforms to this Bylaw and a l l other applicable bylaws, the Building Inspector shall issue the permit for which the application is made. (2) The application referred to in Subsection (1) of Section 5 shall: (a) be made on the form prescribed by the Building Inspector; (Section 3, 4, 5 & 6) Bylaw No. 688 117 c o n t i n u e d (b) b e s i g n e d b y t h e a p p l i c a n t ; ( c ) s t a t e t h e i n t e n d e d u s e o f t h e b u i l d i n g ; (d) i n c l u d e c o p i e s i n t r i p l i c a t e o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d s c a l e d r a w i n g s o f t h e b u i l d i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h i c h t h e w o r k i s t o b e c a r r i e d o u t s h o w i n g - C i ) t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e b u i l d i n g ; ( i i ) t h e p r o p o s e d u s e o f e a c h r o o m o r f l o o r a r e a ; t i i i ) t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e l a n d o n w h i c h t h e b u i l d i n g i s , o r i s t o b e , s i t u a t e d ; (, i v ) t h e g r a d e s o f t h e s t r e e t s a b u t t i n g t h e l a n d r e f e r r e d t o i n S u b c l a u s e ( i i i ) ; (. v ) t h e p o s i t i o n , - h e i g h t , a n d h o r i z o n t a l d i m e n s i o n s o f a l l b u i l d i n g s o n t h e l a n d r e f e r r e d t o i n S u b c l a u s e ( i i i ) ; a n d Ce) c o n t a i n a n y o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d b y t h i s B y l a w o r b y t h e B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r . T h e s c h e d u l e o f f e e s t o b e c h a r g e d f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a p e r m i t u n d e r t h i s B y l a w i s a s f o l l o w s : (a ) A f e e o f T e n D o l l a r s ( $ 1 0 . 0 0 ) f o r t h e f i r s t One T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( 5 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) o r f r a c t i o n t h e r e o f o f t h e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f t h e w o r k ' c o v e r e d b y t h e p e r m i t , a n d T h r e e D o l l a r s ( 5 3 . 0 0 ) f o r e a c h a d d i t i o n a l One T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( 5 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) o r f r a c t i o n t h e r e o f o f t h e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f t h e w o r k c o v e r e d b y t h e p e r m i t u p t o a n e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f F i f t y T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) ; a n d One D o l l a r ( 5 1 - 0 0 ) f o r e a c h One T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( 5 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) o r f r a c t i o n t h e r e o f o f t h e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f t h e w o r k i n e x c e s s o f F i f t y T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( 5 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) . T h e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f t h e w o r k s h a l l b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r , - (b) A f e e o f F i v e D o l l a r s ( $ 5 . 0 0 ) f o r m o v i n g a b u i l d - i n g ; ( c ) A f e e o f Two D o l l a r s ( $ 2 . 0 0 ) f o r e a c h p l u m b i n g f i x t u r e u p t o t e n ( 1 0 ) f i x t u r e s a n d One D o l l a r ( $ 1 . 0 0 ) p e r f i x t u r e a f t e r t h e f i r s t t e n (10 ) f i x t u r e s . E v e r y p e r m i t i s i s s u e d u p o n t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t : (a ) c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o b e s t a r t e d w i t h i n s i x (6) m o n t h s f r o m t h e d a t e o f i s s u a n c e o f t h e p e r m i t ; (b) c o n s t r u c t i o n m u s t p r o c e e d i n a d i l i g e n t m a n n e r a n d b e c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n e i g h t e e n (18 ) m o n t h s o f t h e d a t e o f i s s u a n c e o f t h e p e r m i t - o t h e r w i s e t h e p e r m i t b e c o m e s n u l l a n d v o i d ; ( c ) t h e e x t e r i o r o f a n y b u i l d i n g s h a l l b e f i n i s h e d i n d u r a b l e , w e a t h e r - r e s i s t a n t m a t e r i a l s p r i o r t o e m p l o y m e n t i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r u s e f o r w h i c h t h e b u i l d i n g i s i n t e n d e d . P r i o r t o o c c u p a n c y o f t h e b u i l d i n g , a n o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t m u s t be o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r . ( S e c t i o n 6) B y l a w N o . 6 8 8 118 continued (5) A permit shall not be issued where, in the opinion of the Building Inspector, the results of the tests referred to in Clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 8 are not satisfactory. (6) Where a single storey residential building having a floor area of less than forty-six (46) square meters to be placed or erected on the land wil l be occupied only as seasonal accommodation for temporary farm help engaged in farming on the land owned or leased for farm purposes, the owner of the land or his authorized agent may make application for a Building Permit Exemption Certificate and upon issuance, the provisions of this Bylaw shall not apply to such building during such use. DOCUMENTS ON THE SITE (1) The person to whom the permit is issued shall, during construction, keep (a) posted in a conspicuous place on the property, in respect of which the permit was issued, a copy of the building permit or a poster or placard approved by the Building Inspector in lieu thereof; and, (b) a copy of the approved drawings and specifications referred to in Clause (d) of Subsection (2) of Section 6, on the property in respect of which the permit was issued. POWERS OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR (1) The Building Inspector may: (a) enter any premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of administering this Bylaw; (b) direct that tests of materials, devices, con-struction methods, structural assemblies or foundation conditions be made, or sufficient evidence or proof be submitted at the expense of the owner, where such evidence or proof is necessary to determine whether the material, devices, construction or foundation meets the requirements of this Bylaw. The records of such tests shall be kept available for inspection during the construction of the building and for sucn a period thereafter as required by the Building Inspector; (c) direct by written notice, or by attaching a placard to premises, the correction of any con- dition where, in the opinion of the Building . Inspector, such condition violates the provisions of this Bylaw; (d) revoke a permit where there is a violation of the provisions of Subsection (4) of Section 5. PENALTY (1) Any person who contravenes any provision of this Bylaw is guilty of an offence punishable by way of summary conviction. (2) Each day during which such contravention is continued shall be deemed to constitute a new and separate offence (Section 6,7,8 & 9) Bylaw No. 688 119 10. CLIMATIC DATA When climatic data is required for the design of build-ings, i t shall be the data provided by the following table: ELECTORAL AREA APPLY TO B.C BUILDING COC£ 1980. A,3,C D,E,F H 1. January 2%% Design Temperature T16°C' ' -16°C -27°C 2.3.1.1. 2. January 1% Design Temperature -18°C -18°C -30°C • 2.3.1.1. 3. July 2*5% Design Drybulb Temperature 33°C 33°C 32°C 2.3.1.1. 4. July 2>j% Design Wetbulb Teroerature 20°C 20°C 20CC 2.3.1.1. 5. Annual Total Degree-days below 18°C 3 2. 9 5, 3513 4554 2.3.1.1. 6. Maximum Fifteen Minute Rainfall 10mm lOmrn 10mm 2.3.1.1.** 7. Maximun One Day Rainfall 35mm 45mm 37mm 2.3.1.1. 8. Annual Total Precipitation 342mn 296mm 359mm 2.3.1.1. 9. Maximun Snow Load on the Ground (KN/M2) 1.4 1.3 2.3 2.3.1.1. 10. Wird Effects: Probability 1/10(KN/m2) 1/30 " 1/100 •• .30' .43 .59 . .40 .50 .68 .24 .32 .42 2.3.1.1. 2.3.1.1. 2.3.1.1. 11. Seisnic Zone Zone 1 Zone 1 Zore 1 2.3.1.1. 12. Horizontal Design Ground Acceleration (A) .02 .02 .02 2.3.1.1. ** B.C. Plunbing Code, 1980. 11. The following Bylaws are hereby repealed: RDOS Building Bylaw No. 265, 1975. RDOS Building Bylaw No. 265, Amendment Bylaw No. 326, 1976. RDOS Building Bylaw No. 265, Amendment Bylaw No. 389, 1977. RDOS Building Bylaw No. 544, 1980. 121 APPENDIX B Province of Ministry Of the Parliament Buildings British Columbia Environment Victoria British Columbia OFFICE OF THE ' V8V1X4 DEPUTY MINISTER . A p r i l 1 i , 1983 Our F i l e : 0305030-22 Your F i l e : 24-21-78(1348) Ministry of Transportation & Highways, 380 Cherry Avenue, Penticton, B r i t i s h Columbia. V2A 3L7 Attention: D i s t r i c t Highways Manager Dear S i r : Re: Proposed Subdivision of Part of DL. 392, SDYD - Similkameen River This l e t t e r i s i n reply to your correspondence of . ... December 17, 1982. Pursuant to Section 82(1) of the Land T i t l e Act, consent i s given for the approval of the above-mentioned plan of subdivision, subject to the subdivider entering into a covenant r e g i s t r a b l e under Section 215, which s h a l l run with the land and s h a l l e f f e c t the following conditions for each l o t created, including any remainder of the property: "1. Hereafter, no building s h a l l be constructed, nor mobile home located within t h i r t y (30) metres of the natural boundary of Similkameen River or within seven point f i v e (7.5) metres of the landward toe of any dyke, whichever i s the greater setback. 2. Hereafter, no area used for h a b i t a t i o n , business, or storage of goods damageable by floodwaters s h a l l be located within any building at an elevation such that the underside of the f l o o r system thereof i s l e s s than 412.0 metres G.S.C. datum. In the case of a mobile home, the ground l e v e l or top of concrete or asphalt pad on which i t i s located s h a l l be no lower than the above described elevation. 3. The required elevation may be achieved by s t r u c t u r a l elevation of the said habitable, business, or storage area or by adequately compacted l a n d f i l l on which any building i s to be constructed or mobile home.located, or by a combination of both s t r u c t u r a l elevation and l a n d f i l l . No area below the required elevation s h a l l be used for the i n s t a l l a t i o n of furnaces or other fixed 2 123 APPENDIX C Section 13 AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (A-R) (1) PURPOSE: The purpose of th is D i s t r i c t i s to estab l ish an area which is in t rans i t ion from agr icu l tura l use to low-density res ident ia l use, and to ensure that future development is in keeping with the prevai l ing land use. (2) PERMISSIVE USES: The following uses and no others shal l be permitted in the A-R D i s t r i c t : (a) Agr icu l tu re , subject to the fo l lowing: ( i ) Except as provided by subclause ( i i ) , on any lo t or s i te of less than one-half (H) acre , only household pets are permitted and no horse, donkey, mule, ninny, cow, goat, sheep or pig shal l be a household pet whether or not i t i s owned by occupants of the residence and not kept for remuneration, hire or sa le ; ( i i ) On any lo t or s i t e , commercial kennels, s tab les , mink farms, feed lots , p igger ies , or other s imi lar service or non-agr icu l tura l , product-based operations shal l be prohib i ted , save and except the ra is ing of fowl, rabb i ts , and other small fur-bearing animals as a home occupation pursuant to the provisions of subclauses ( i ) to (v ) , i n c l u s i v e , of clause (e) of subsection (2) of sect ion 12; NOTE: See Section 13 (11) (a) ( i ) - Livestock (Special provisions) ( i i i ) The processing, packing, and sale of agr icu l tura l produce grown on the same lo t or s i t e or land of the same ownership only shal l be permitted. (b) S ingle- fami ly dwel l ings: (c) Mobile homes provided they have a f l o o r area of not less than seven hundred f i f t y (750) square feet and have a minimum width as o r i g i n a l l y designed and manufactured of not less than s i x - teen (16) feet and are placed on permanent foundations with f u l l s k i r t i n g blending in with the unit and subject to the provisions as out l ined in subsection (11) of Section 12. On s i tes of f ive acres or more in area , any mobile home or factory b u i l t unit home having a f l o o r area of not less than four hundred and eighty (480) square fee t , s i ted not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any property l i n e , and in the case of mobile homes subject to the provisions of subsection (n) of Section 12. (d) P icker 's Cabins; (e) Home occupations, subject to the provisions of clause (e) of subsection (2) of Section 12, provided that on any lot or s i t e of less than one-half (%) acre, the area used for home occu- pations shal l not exceed f ive hundred (500) square fee t ; (f) Public or private schools , including kindergartens; (g) Churches; (h) Comiuufiity h a l l s ; Section 13 D 124 (i) Public open-land recreational and institutional uses, including parks, playgrounds and cemeteries; (j) Public service or utility buildings and structures, with no exterior storage of any kind and no garages for the repair and maintenance of equipment; (k) Buildings and structures accessory to the uses permitted under clauses (a) to ( i ) , inclusive. STANDARDS: Unless otherwise specified, every use of land and every building or structure permitted in the A-R District shall comply with the provisions of subsections (4) to (11).inclusive, and section 28. MINIMUM SITE AREA and MINIMUM SITE WIDTH: Amended by authority of Zoning Amendment Bylaw So. 384, 1977 adopted by the Regional Board, December IS, 1977. (a) ( i) Where both an approved community or municipal water system and a municipal sewage collection system are provided, the minimum site area shall be Six Thousand (6,000) square feet and the minimum site width shall be Fifty (50) feet; ( i i ) Where an approved community or municipal water system is provided, but a municipal sewage collection system is not provided, the minimum site area shall be Nine Thousand (9,000) square feet and the minimum site width shall be Seventy (70) feet; ( i i i ) Where neither an approved public water system nor a community or municipal sewage collection system is provided, the minimum site area shall be Eighteen Thousand (18,000) square feet and the minimum site width shall be Seventy (70) feet. (b) In the case of uses permitted under clauses (g) and (h) of subsection (2), the minimum site area shall be one-half (1/2) acre; (c) In the case of uses permitted under clause (j) of subsection (2), the minimum site area shall be fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet and the minimum site width shall be twenty-five (25) feet; (d) Lots created prior to the adoption of this Bylaw, regardless of area or dimensions, may be used for any of the permitted uses of the A-R District, provided the method by which sewage is disposed of is satisfactory to the Medical Health Officer. 5) BUILDINGS PER LOT: (a) Not more than one (1) single-family dwelling shall be permitted upon a lot, except that where the lot exceeds one-half [h) acre in area, or forms part of a site which exceeds one-half (%) acre in area, one (1) additional single-family dwelling or mobile home shall be permitted for each five (5) acres or fraction thereof of lot or site area in excess of one-half (4) acre, provided that any dwelling units in excess of two (2) on any lot or site shall be used solely to accommodate families engaged in agruculture on the same lot or site. (b) Picker's cabins shall be limited to one (1) for each five (5) acres of lot or site area or land of the same ownership used for agricultural purposes. Section 13 D 125 (6) YARDS, SET3ACKS: (a) On any l o t or s i t e , p r i n c i p a l buildings s h a l l be set back from the front and rear l o t lines a distance equal to the height of the building, or twenty-five (25) feet, whichever i s greater, and not less than five (5) feet from an i n t e r i o r side l o t l i n e , f i f t e e n (15) feet from an exterior side l o t l i n e , or twenty (20) feet from any other p r i n c i p a l building on the l o t . (b) Accessory buildings s h a l l be set back from the front l o t l i n e the distance specified or p r i n c i p a l buildings i n clause (a), and not less than three (3) feet from a rear l o t l i n e and in t e r i o r side l o t l i n e , f i f t e e n (15) feet from an exterior side l o t l i n e , and ten (10) feet from a p r i n c i p a l building on the l o t i f detached from such building. Replaced by authority of Bylaw No. 551, 1980 adopted by the Board August 21, 1980. (c) Where there i s no rear lane, no building or structure or part thereof s h a l l be located within ten (10) feet of one side l o t l i n e , except that open, attached carports which provide through access to the rear yard may be located within f i v e (5) feet of a side l o t l i n e . (d) Notwithstanding clauses (b) and (c), a l l buildings and structures housing livestock s h a l l be located a minimum distance of twenty-five (25) feet from any property l i n e and forty (40) feet from any dwelling unit. (e) In no case s h a l l a building be located closer to a street centre l i n e than f i f t y (50) feet. (7) SITE COVERAGE: (a) On any l o t or s i t e of less than one-half (1/2) acre, p r i n c i p a l and accessory buildings together s h a l l not occupy more than t h i r t y (30) percent of the l o t or s i t e area. (b) On any l o t or s i t e of one-half (1/2) acre or more, p r i n c i p a l and accessory buildings together s h a l l not occupy more than twenty-five (25 ) percent of the l o t or s i t e area. (8) HEIGHT LIMITATION: (a) On any l o t or s i t e of less than one-half (1/2) acre, (i) p r i n c i p a l buildings s h a l l not exceed a height of t h i r t y (30) feet; ( i i ) accessory buildings s h a l l not exceed a height of f i f t e e n (15) feet. (b) On any l o t or s i t e of one-half (1/2) acre or more, no building s h a l l exceed a height equal to twenty-five (25) percent of the l o t or s i t e depth, or f i f t y (50) feet, whichever i s less, except that i n no case s h a l l dwellings exceed a height of -hirty (30) feet. (c) On any l o t or s i t e , no fence s h a l l be - (i) more than six (6) feet i n height for that portion of fence that does not extend beyond the minimum required front yard setback l i n e on the l o t or s i t e ; or ( i i ) more than four (4) feet i n height for that portion of fence that does extend beyond the minimum required front yard setback l i n e on the l o t or s i t e . Section 13 D 126 (9) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: (a) No dwelling unit, factory built unit home or mobile home shall have a floor area of less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet. (b) No picker's cabin, other than a travel trailer used for such purpose, shall have a floor area of less than one hundred ninety-two (192) square feet nor more than four hundred eighty (480) square feet. (10) SIGNS: Subject to the Motor-Vehicle Act and the regulations made thereunder: (a) No signs or advertising displays shall be permitted other than the following: (i) those denoting a home occupation; (ii) those denoting the name of the owner or the name or address of the property; ( i i i ) those advertising the sale or rental of property; (iv) those advertising the sale of agricultural produce grown on the same lot or site or land of the same ownership; (v) public utility and institutional signs, provided that such signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area or eight (8) feet in length and shall be limited to one (1) for each street frontage upon which the lot or site abuts, except that on any lot or site of less than one-half (h) acre, signs listed under subclauses (i) and (ii) of this clause shall not exceed one and one- half (1H) square feet in area. (b) Notwithstanding clause (a), one (1) sign only advertising the sale of lots within a residential subdivision, not exceeding fif t y (50) square feet in area or twelve (12) feet in length, may be erected. (c) Roof signs and illuminated or flashing signs shall be prohibited. (d) All signs advertising the sale of seasonal produce shall be permitted only during the period between June 1 and November 15 in any year. (e) No sign shall project over a public right-of-way. (11) LIVESTOCK (Special Provisions): (a) On any lot or site of less than two (2) acres, (i) the total number of horses, sheep, or other similar large animals shall not exceed one (1) for each one- half [h) acre or fraction thereof of lot or site area in excess of one-half [H) acre; Section 13 0 127 i i ) the total number of fowl, rabbits, or other small fur- bearing animals, or the number of colonies of bees, shall not exceed twenty-five (25), plus one (1) for each five hundred (500) square feet or fraction thereof of lot or site area in excess of one-half {h) acre. i i ) notwithstanding subclause (ii) above, in the case of chinchillas, the maximum number allowed on a lot or site less than one half (%) acre shall not exceed Amendment five hundred (500) while there are no restrictions Bylaw No. to the number of chinchillas on lots in excess of one Adopted half (h) acre. Sept. 21/7 All livestock other than household pets shall be properly caged or housed. Section 13 0 128 APPENDIX D Section 28 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (1) At any highway intersection, no obstruction to sight shall be permitted between the levels of three (3) feet and ten (10) feet above ground level within the triangular area formed by two inter- secting right-of-way lines and the line joining the points on such right-of-way lines fifteen (15) feet from the point of intersection. (2) Buildings shall not be sited in such a manner as to make impracticable the future legal subdivision of a lot. (3) Off-Street Parking: (a) Every required off-street parking space shall have a minimum area of one hundred eighty (180) square feet, and shall be so shaped and sited as to provide convenient access to the premises and to a public street; (b) For commercial and public uses, all required parking spaces shall be surfaced with all-weather, dust-free material; (c) All required parking spaces shall be kept clear and unobstructed when not occupied by vehicles; (d) Off-street parking space shall be provided as follows: (i) single-family dwellings - two (2) spaces per dwelling unit (ii) Multi-family dwellings - one and one-half (14) spaces per dwelling unit; ( i i i ) General commercial use - one (1) space per 500 Amendment square feet of service, Bylaw No. 16j office, or retail floor Adopted June space; 21/73 (iv) Motels, resorts, camp-sites - one (1) space per rental unit; (v) Public, institutional use - one (1) space for every five (5) seats provided for public seating and/or one (1) space per 100 square feet of floor space for recreation or social purposes, whichever is applicable. (4) One (1) travel trailer only may be permitted in conjunction with a permitted residential use on any lot or site, which may be used for the accommodation of guests or visitors during the period between June 1 and September 15 in any year. (5) No lot or site shall be used for the wrecking or storage of derelict automobiles or as junk yard, and any vehicle which has not been licensed for a period of one (1) year and which is not housed in a garage or carport shall be deemed to be a derelict vehicle and junk. (6) Temporary or mobile buildings or hoarding, the sole purpose Amendme: of which is incidental to the erection or alteration of a principal Bylaw building for which a building permit has been granted, shall be No. 161 permitted provided removal of same shall take place upon completeion Adopte of the principal building or within a period of six months, whichever June 2 comes f i r s t . (7) No building shall be erected closer to the bank of the Amendment Byl Shuttleworth Creek than 50 feet. No. 149 Adopted January 18/73 Section 28 0 129 Section 28 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS lSu.b6t£lnted by ojuXhoruity oi Balaw No. 652, 7 987 adopted by the TSooJid, June. 7 7, 79SZ) (7) (a) For the purposes of this section the following definitions s h a l l apply: C i ) "Natural Boundary" - means the v i s i b l e high water mark of any lake, r i v e r , stream or other body of water where the presence and action of the water are so common and usual and so long continued i n a l l ordinary years as to mark upon the s o i l of the bed of the lake, r i v e r , stream or other body of water a character d i s t i n c t from that of the banks thereof, i n respect to vegetation, as well as i n respect to the nature of the s o i l i t s e l f . ( i i ) "Watercourse" - i s any natural or man-made depression with well defined banks and a bed zero point six (0.6) metres or more below the surrounding land serving to give direction to a current of water at least six months of the year or having a drainage area of two (2) square kilometres or more upstream of the point of consideration, or as re- quired by a designated o f f i c i a l of the Ministry of Environmen of the_Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Bylaw, on floodable land no building or any part thereof s h a l l be constructed, reconstructed, moved or extended nor s h a l l any mobile home or unit, modular home or structure be located; ( i ) within seven point f i v e (7.5) metres of the natural boundary of a lake, swamp or pond; within t h i r t y (30) metres of the natural boundary of the Similkameen or Tulameen Rivers; within t h i r t y (30) metres of the design water l e v e l boundary of the Okanagan River channel; within f i f t e e n (15) metres of the natural boundary of any other nearby watercourse. ( i i ) With the underside of the floor system of any area used for habitation, business, or storage of goods damageable by floodwaters, or i n the case of a mobile home or unit the ground l e v e l on which i t i s located: lower than zero point six (0.6) metres above the 200 year flood l e v e l where i t has been determined by, or to the sa t i s f a c t i o n of, the Ministry of Environment; nor lower than three (3) metres above the natural boundary of Che Similkameen or Tulameen Rivers; nor lower Chan one point f i v e (1.5) metres above the design water surface p r o f i l e of the Okanagan River channel; nor lower than one point fiv e (1.5) metres above the natural boundary of any other watercourse, lake, swamp or pond, with the excepcion of Okanagan, Osoyoos, Skaha, Tug u l Nuit and Vaseux Lakes, where the minimum elevation ac which a building may be constructed or mobile unit l-?-*ted s h a l l be: Okanagan Lake 343 Osoyoos La<"» 280 Skaha Lake 339 Tug u l Null: T-»"».e 299 Vaseux Lak~ 329 .66 metres G.S.C. datum .70 metres G.S.C. datum .24 metres G.S.C. datum .50 metres G.S.C. datum .49 metres G.S.C. datum (Section 28) 130 Section 28 (7) continued (c) Clause ( b ) ( i i ) s h a l l not apply to: ( i ) a renovation of an e x i s t i n g building or structure used as a residence that does not involve an addition thereto; ( i i ) that portion of a building or structure to be used as a carport or garage; ( i i i ) farm buildings other than dwelling units and closed- sided l i v e s t o c k housing. Farm dwelling units on parcel sizes 8.1 hectares or greater and within the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve are exempted from the requirements of Clause ( b ) ( i i ) but i f i n a floodable area s h a l l be elevated one (1) metre above the natural ground elevation. Closed-sided livestock housing behind 1 i n 200 year standard dykes as approved by the M i n i s t r y of Environ- ment i s exempted from the requirement to floodproof but i f not behind 200 year standard dykes s h a l l also be elevated one (1) metre above the natural ground elevation; ( iv) l i g h t or heavy i n d u s t r i a l development which i s required to floodproof to an elevation zero point s i x (0.6) metres less than the Flood Construction Level as determined by the M i n i s t r y of Environment; ( v) heavy industry behind 1 i n 200 year standard dykes as approved by Che Ministry of Environment. Heavy industry includes such uses as manufacturing or processing of wood and paper produces, mecal, heavy e l e c c r i c a l , non-metallic mineral products, petroleum and coal products, i n d u s t r i a l chemicals and by-products and a l l i e d products; ( v i ) the required elevation may be achieved by s t r u c t u r a l elevation of the said habitable, business, or storage area or by adequately compacted l a n d f i l l on which any building i s co be conscructed or mobile home located, or by a combination of both s t r u c t u r a l elevacion and l a n d f i l l . Where l a n d f i l l i s used to achieve the required elevacions stated i n Clause ( b ) ( i i ) above, no portion of the land- f i l l slope s h a l l be closer Chan Che discances i n Clause (b ) ( i ) from Che nacural boundary, and Che face of Che l a n d f i l l slope s h a l l be adequacely procecced againsC erosion from floodwaters. Provided that, with the approval of the Deputy Minister of Environment, or his designate to ensure that adequate protection from flood or erosion hazard i s provided, these requirements may be reduced. (8) Temporary or mobile buildings and structures, the sole purpose of which are incidental to the following uses: logging, milling, mining - including gravel extraction and processing, - construction of utility services, movie filming, shall be permitted for a period not to exceed the l i f e of the aforementioned permitted use or six months, whichever crimes f i r s t , and shall be located at a distance greater than one thousand (1,000) feet from any adjacent residence on any adjacent site. Use and storage of said temporary or mobile buildings and structures shall be only by permit, which may be cancelled when there is a valid and proven objection to the temporary use. As per Amendment Bylaw No. 330, 1976, adapted bu the Reqional Board on March 24, 1977 . (Section 28) 131 APPENDIX E S e c t i o n 12 FORESTRY/GRAZING DISTRICT (F-G). (1) PURPOSE: The purpose of this District is to establish an area which has long been utilized as an extensive forestry/grazing district, and to ensure that future development proceeds in an orderly and economical fashion. (2) PERMISSIVE USES: The following uses and no others shall be permitted in the F-G District: (a) Agriculture; (b) Processing and packing of agricultural produce grown on \ the same lot or site or land of the same ownership; (c) Forestry; (d) Single-family dwellings, factory built unit homes and mobile homes; (e) Home occupations, provided that (i) a home occupation shall be conducted wholly within a building or accessory building; (ii) there shall be no exterior display or advertisement, except as provided by subsection (10); ( i i i ) there shall be no exterior storage of materials, commodities, or finished products; (iv) the use shall not generate traffic or parking problems within the District; (v) the use shall not produce public offence or nuisance of any kind, by any means; (f) Open-land recreational and institutional uses, including cemeteries, golf courses, public recreation areas, stables and kennels, and ancillary uses thereto, but excluding amusement parks, dude ranches, horse or auto- racing circuits, riding academies and privately owned camp-sites operated for reward; (g) Public service or utility buildings and structures, with no exterior storage of any kind and no garages for the repair and maintenance of equipment; (h) Buildings and structures accessory to the uses permitted in clauses (a) to (f), inclusive. (Section 12) 0 132 (3) STANDARDS: Every use of land and every building or structure permitted in the F-G District shall comply with the provisions of sub-sections (4) to (11) inclusive, and section 28 . (4) MINIMUM SITE AREA AND MAXIMUM SITE WIDTH: (a) The minimum lot area shall be Fifty (50) acres and the minimum width shall be One Thousand (1 ,000) feet, except that: (i) Lots with a minimum area of 1,500 square feet and a minimum width of twenty-five (25) feet may be created to accommodate uses under clause (g) of subsection (2) of this section; and (ii) Lots with a minimum area of two (2) acres may be created to accommodate public uses under clause (f) of subsection (2) of this section. (b) Lots created prior to the adoption of this Bylaw, regardless of area or dimensions, may be used for any of the permitted uses of the F-G District, provided the method by which sewage is to be disposed of is satisfactory to the Medical Health Officer. (c) Notwithstanding the above, where permission for a HOMESITE SEVERANCE has been granted by the British Columbia Agricultural Land Commission, the permitted area and dimensions of such HOMESITE shall be as permitted by the Commission. (5) BUILDINGS PER LOT: Not more than one (1 ) single-family dwelling, factory built unit home or mobile home shall be permitted upon a lot, except that where the lot exceeds twenty (20) acres in area, one ( 1 ) additional single-family dwelling or mobile home shall be . permitted for each ten (10) acres or fraction thereof of lot area in excess of twenty (20) acres, provided that any dwelling units in excess of two (2J on any lot shall be used solely to accommodate families engaged in agriculture on the same lot or site. (6) YARDS, SETBACKS: (a) On any lot or site, all buildings shall be set back from the front and rear lot lines a distance equal to the height of the building, or thirty (30) feet, whichever is greater, and not less than fifteen (15) feet from an interior or exterior site lot line. (b) Notwithstanding clause (a), all buildings housing livestock shall be located a minimum distance of twenty-five (25) feet from any property line and forty (40) feet from any dwelling unit. (c) On any lot or site, commercial kennels, stables, mink farms, feedlots, piggeries, or other similar service or non-agri- cultural, product-based operations shall be located a minimum distance of two thousand (2 ,000) feet from any A-R District and two hundred (200) feet from the centre line of any water- course used as a domestic water supply. Substituted by authority of Bylaw #675/81 adopted Mar. 18/82 (Section 12) 0 133 (d) The processing and packing permitted under clause (b) of subsection (2) shall be located a minimum distance of two thousand (2,000) feet from any A-R District. (e) In no case shall a building be located closer to a street centre line than fifty-five (55) feet. SITE COVERAGE: On any lot or site, principal and accessory buildings to- gether shall not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of the lot or site area. HEIGHT LIMITATION: On any lot or site, no building shall exceed a height equal to twenty-five (25) percent of the lot or site depth, or sixty (60) feet, whichever is less, except that in no case shall dwel- lings exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: (a) No dwelling unit, other than a mobile home, shall have a floor area of less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet. (b) No mobile home shall have a floor area of less than two hundred forty (240) square feet. SIGNS: Subject to the Motor-Vehicle Act and the regulations made thereunder: (a) No signs or advertising displays shall be permitted other than the following: (i) those denoting a home occupation; (ii) those denoting the name of the owner or the name or address of the property; ( i i i ) those advertising the sale or rental of property; (iv) those advertising the sale of agricultural produce grown on the same lot or site or land of the same ownership; (v) public utility and institutional signs, provided that such signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area or eight (8) feet in length and shall be limited to one (1) for each street frontage upon which the lot or site abuts; (vi) those identifying uses permitted under clause (f) of subsection (2), provided that such signs shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area, twelve (12) feet in length, or the height of the principal building on the lot or site, or twenty (20) feet, whichever is less, and shall be limited to one (1) for each street frontage upon which the lot or site abuts. Necessary directional signs within the lot or site not exceeding one and one- half (14) square feet in area shall be permitted. (b) Roof signs and illuminated or flashing signs shall be prohibited. (Section 12) 0 134 (c) All signs advertising the sale of seasonal produce shall be permitted only during the period between June 1 and November 15 in any year. (d) No sign shall project over a public right-of-way. (11) MOBILE HOMES: (a) No person shall locate a mobile home except on a well-drained site that is above high-water line, is at all times free of stagnant pools, and is graded for rapid drainage. (b) All installed mobile homes shall be restrained from moving and be securely anchored against the effect of high winds. (c) All foundations for the support of mobile homes or permissible additions shall be designed and installed in accordance with the building regulations in effect in the regulated area. (d) No person shall connect a mobile home to a community or muni- cipal water system or sewage-collection system unless the mobile home has a plumbing system designed and installed according to recognized standards with a vented trap for each fixture. (e) All mobile homes shall be connected to a municipal sewage- collection system, where available, or a private sewage- disposal system designed and installed in accordance with the provincial Regulations Governing Sewage Disposal, 1967, as amended. (f) No mobile home shall be installed and occupied (i) i f its electrical installations fail to meet the require- ments of the Electrical Energy Inspection Act; (ii). i f the standard of ventilation of its rooms is less than the requirements of the building regulations in effect in the regulated area; ( i i i ) i f its heating installations fail to meet the require- ments of the building regulations in effect in the regulated area. (9) The (i) installation and maintenance of all oil-burning equip- ment and appliances using inflammable liquids as fuel; and (ii) the storage and disposal of inflammable liquids and oils; and ( i i i ) the installation, maintenance, carriage, and use of compressed-gas systems shall be in accordance with the regulations of the Fire Marshal Act, - 'h) All additions and alterations thereof to mobile homes must be in accordance with the building and plumbing regulations in effect in the regulated area. •i) No additions to a mobile home shall be permitted except (Section 12) D 135 (i) skirtings, but only i f an easily removable access panel of a minimum width of four (4) feet provides access to the area enclosed by the skirtings; (ii) carports; ( i i i ) shelters against sun or rain (ramadas); (iv) vestibules of a maximum size of thirty (30) square feet; (v) rooms (cabanas) added to a mobile home, provided that any such added room shall have an exit or access other than through the mobile home, and, further, that any such additional room shall not be used as an exit or access to exit from any mobile home. No additions to a mobile home shall exceed in plan area the plan area of the mobile home to which they are attached. All additions to a mobile home shall be of a modular design and shall be constructed and finished in durable, weather- resistant materials similar in quality to those used in the construction and finishing of the principal unit to which they are attached. No outdoor storage of any kind ancillary to any mobile home shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of any lot line. All such storage shall be effectively screened and may not be piled higher than the required screen, and such screen shall consist of a well-maintained fence or wall not exceeding eight (8) feet in height, or i t may consist of a compact evergreen hedge not less than six (6) feet in height which shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Such storage area shall be not more than twelve (12) feet by twenty (20) feet in area. (Section 12) 0

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 7 19
United States 4 0
France 1 0
Canada 1 0
Netherlands 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 7 0
Unknown 2 1
Mountain View 2 0
Vancouver 1 0
Amsterdam 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items