UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Land use contract : its validity as a means of use and development control Porter, Brian John 1973

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 P67.pdf [ 9.38MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101435.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101435-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101435-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101435-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101435-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101435-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101435-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101435-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101435.ris

Full Text

THE LAND USE CONTRACT: ITS VALIDITY AS A MEANS OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL by BRIAN JOHN PORTER M.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  i n the School of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming required standard  to the  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1973  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y the  of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t  L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e  and  study.  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s for  s c h o l a r l y purposes may  by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  be granted by  s h a l l not be  C o m m o n ' i f ^  ^  ^ e C U Q f i a A  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  ftVuv  3>  .  1^7^  publication  allowed without  permission.  Department o f  Date  Department or  I t i s understood t h a t copying or  of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n written  the Head of my  ^kvrvrv\nc^  my  ABSTRACT  S i n c e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n e a r l y 1971 o f t h e Land Use C o n t r a c t - S. 702A o f t h e B.C. M u n i c i p a l A c t - few, i f any, s t u d i e s have been devoted t o i t s p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . T h i s paper t h e r e f o r e  a t t e m p t s b o t h a survey and a n a l y s i s o f  the use and i m p l i c a t i o n s o f S. 702A. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were used t o c o l l e c t d a t a from a l l R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t s and some f i f t e e n l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . A l t h o u g h r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a wide and v a r i e d usage, t h e r e was l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f a s t r o n g l y demonstrated need f o r a new form o f l a n d c o n t r o l .  Both t h e p l a n n e r s and  administrators  to whom t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  were d i r e c t e d , and by t h e i r  e v i d e n c e t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c , m i s u n d e r s t o o d and a r e c o n f u s e d by the new p r o v i s i o n s .  However, fewer problems than a n t i c i p a t e d  were a p p a r a n t l y encountered i n t h e use o f S. 702A, and i n i t i a l reluctance  to u t i l i z e  the l e g i s l a t i o n i s d i s s i p a t i n g .  By r e f e r e n c e t o American z o n i n g and B r i t i s h development c o n t r o l methods, i t was determined t h a t t h e Land Use  C o n t r a c t i s a form o f development c o n t r o l , s i m i l a r t o  O n t a r i o p r a c t i c e s and n o t u n l i k e t h e B r i t i s h example. can be used t o c o n s i d e r a b l e  It  advantage i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y where f l e x i b i l i t y and i n n o v a t i o n  are desired,so  l o n g a s i t i s used, as w i t h a l l development c o n t r o l , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a comprehensive p l a n .  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS •CHAPTER I ±1  PAGE INTRODUCTION  1  A REVIEW OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL  k  The Beginnings  4  American Zoning  6"  Origins and Development  6  An Analysis of Function  10  B r i t i s h Development Control  15>  L e g i s l a t i v e History  15>  The Present Act  22  Conditions  27  of Planning Permission  A Comparison of American and B r i t i s h Land Use and Development Policies Land Use and Development Control i n Canada  36  Factors  36  Status  39  Evaluation Land Use and Development Control and The Comprehensive Plan III  31  AN ANALYSIS OF THE ZONING PROCESS Zoning:  kh 50 $1  I t s P r a c t i c a l Failures and Theoretical  Deficiencies  57  Theoretical D e f i c i e n c i e s  £8  P r a c t i c a l Failures  60  Solution No. 1:  The Elimination of Zoning and  P r i v a t e Land Use Controls Solution No. 2: The Introduction of F l e x i b l e Technique to Modify Zoning  63 66  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  CHAPTER  IV  '  PAGE Spot Zoning  67  The Variance  69  The Exception  71  The Floating Zone  72  A Prognosis  7I4.  SOLUTION NO. 3 :  CONDITIONAL OR CONTRACT ZONING  .  76  Contract Zoning Defined Contract Zoning  78  Rezoning With Concomitant Agreement  79  Planned Unit Development  8l  Canadian S i t e Plan Control  8I4.  The Status of Contract Zoning  87  Statutory Authorization  87  The Case Law  88  Legal Implications of Contract Zoning  89 • 9£  Analysis of Use  . 100  Contract Zoning'and the R e s t r i c t i v e Covenant V  76  102  THE LAND USE CONTRACT The Introduction of The Understanding  702A  of the Land Use Contract  The Use of the Land Use Contract The P r a c t i c a l Considerations Status  .  102 108 115 12li 121+  •TABLE OF CONTENTS  CHAPTER  -PAGE -Form  127  ' Procedure  129  "The Land Use Contract as Development Control VI  133  CONCLUSION  li+1  BIBLIOGRAPHY  lU?  APPENDIX A - The Questionnaire  1!?8  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE  I ±1 III IV V VI  PAGE  Use of S.702A  -  117  F a c t o r s f o r t h e Use o f S . 702A  119  S u b j e c t s f o r S . 702A C o n s i d e r a t i o n  122  S . 702A E x p e r i e n c e  125  •  S t a t u s of C o n t r a c t A p p l i c a t i o n s Comprehensive P l a n n i n g  '  126 138  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  Mj foremost thanks and gratitude go t o f a c u l t y advisors Brahm Wiesman, Acting Director and Associate Professor of the School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, and William T. Lane, Part-Time Lecturer at the School and Municipal S o l i c i t o r f o r Richmond f o r t h e i r very valued assistance and advice. I am also g r a t e f u l t o the planners and administrators i n t h i s province, whose general response was heartening and whose many helpf u l r e p l i e s and suggestions were warmly appreciated.  CHAPTER I  THE LAND USE CONTRACT: ITS VALIDITY AS A MEANS OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT  CONTROL.  INTRODUCTION  I n A p r i l o f 1971 a new means o f s e c u r i n g l a n d use and d e v e l o p ment c o n t r o l was made a v a i l a b l e t o m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l s and r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t boards i n B r i t i s h Columbia. comparatively  The l a n d u s e c o n t r a c t was a  i n n o v a t i v e a t t e m p t t o p r o v i d e a new and f l e x i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e  t o z o n i n g , and l i k e a l l new t e c h n i q u e s  i s challenging t r a d i t i o n a l  con-  c e p t s o f l a n d t e n u r e , use and c o n t r o l . I t became apparent however t h a t many p l a n n e r s ,  administrators  and m u n i c i p a l s o l i c i t o r s were a t f i r s t somewhat l o a t h e t o u t i l i z e S.702, and t h a t a s u r v e y and a n a l y s i s o f g e n e r a l u s e w o u l d be o f b e n e f i t and assistance to t h e i r professions.  Consequently, a n a l y s i s of t h e land  use c o n t r a c t p r o c e e d e d from an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o i n t o f v i e w and t e n d e d to concentrate  on t h e p r a c t i c e and use o f S. 702A r a t h e r than t h e  terms o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n . planners  Questionnaires  were f o r w a r d e d t o some f i f t y  and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  throughout the province.  Because t h e r e was r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a n d . r a t i o n a l e o f t h e l a n d use c o n t r a c t  legislation,  i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a b e t t e r awareness o f i t s i n t e n t and u s e c o u l d  2  be obtained through a study of e x i s t i n g zoning methods and t h e i r r e l a t i v e degree of success or f a i l u r e i n land development and use control.  Canadian and American practices were analyzed, with p a r t i c u l a r  attention t o the increasing use of contract or conditional zoning i n the United States. I t was apparent that S.702A bore many s i m i l a r i t i e s to B r i t i s h Development Control l e g i s l a t i o n , and the practice there together  with  other Canadian examples of development c o n t r o l , was studied i n i t s own r i g h t and i n comparison with zoning.  The land use contract was  analyzed as a s i m i l a r form of development control, and a number of conclusions were drawn, and some problems were a i r e d , and attempts were made t o determine the genre and  scope of the new l e g i s l a t i o n .  While S. 702A has obvious relevance f o r the planners and administrators i n t h e i r province, i t also has a wider public impact as a means of c o n t r o l l i n g land, and f o r i t s effect on theories of land tenure.  As E.T. Rashleigh,  former d i r e c t o r of the Community Plannering  Association of Canada, B.C. Branch, has observed: "Private land ownership i s so sacrosanct i n public opinion and law, that i t can question the propriety of planning proposals and defeat legitimate community objectives." Rashleigh, 1968,  203-  L e g i s l a t i o n purporting to exercise constraint over the use of private land thus has p a r t i c u l a r relevance to the general public.  Allen  Leal, Dean of Osgoode H a l l ' s Law School, has characterized t h i s s i t u ation ':  "In no other area of the law do public interest groups and p r i v a t e r i g h t s come to grips so s t r i k i n g l y as they do i n the area of zoning l e g i s l a t i o n . " Leal, I960.  Land use contract l e g i s l a t i o n , by i t s nature, appears to have an e s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on these r i g h t s and the importance of understanding those e f f e c t s cannot be understated.  Nonetheless,  as r a d i c a l or innovative as S.702A might seem,  i t should not be considered i n a vacuum.  There i s evidence, f o r  instance, of a c l e a r l y evolving trend i n the United States towards use of c o n t r o l methods akin to the B r i t i s h l e g i s l a t i o n .  Heyman sees an  increasing American preference f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d regulation of proposed developments, the s h i f t i n g of p u b l i c costs to the developer who creates them, and the p u b l i c stimulation of developments which r e f l e c t s better amenities and a r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t uses. (Heyman, 1 9 7 0 , 25)  Similar achievements appear to be attainable through use of the land use contract, making the B.C. l e g i s l a t i o n a front-runner amongst innovative and f l e x i b l e development and land use control techniqu  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL'  THE BEGINNINGS OF LAND USE CONTROL The  c o n t r o l and u s e o f l a n d had f o r c e n t u r i e s been c o n s i d e r e d as  a p u r e l y p r i v a t e c o n c e r n o f t h e land-owner, and few n a t i o n a l governments dared t o consider  otherwise.  B e f o r e c o n d i t i o n s changed t o f i n a l l y p e r m i t  the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f z o n i n g and development c o n t r o l s - s t a t u t o r y i n s t r u m e n t s d e r i v i n g t h e i r a u t h o r i t y f r o m n a t i o n a l o r s t a t e and p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , use  c o n f l i c t s were d e t e r m i n e d b y r i g h t s o f p r i v a t e a c t i o n . The  l a w o f n u i s a n c e , f o r i n s t a n c e , w i t h i t s common-law r o o t s i n  B r i t a i n , saw e a r l y a p p l i c a t i o n i n N o r t h A m e r i c a n s i t u a t i o n s and, w i t h o u t the n e c e s s i t y o f l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y , p e r m i t t e d a s u i t i n n e g l i g e n c e f o r damage o c c a s i o n e d b y such t h i n g s as n o x i o u s fumes and d u s t emanating f r o m neighbouring properties.  I n determining the r i g h t s o f the p a r t i e s i n the  s u i t , t h e c o u r t s would r e g a r d t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e o f f e n s i v e undert a k i n g a s w e l l a s t h e n a t u r e o f e x t e n t o f t h e harm and t h e s o c i a l v a l u e o f t h e t y p e o f u s e i n v o l v e d ( P o o l e y , 1961, ho), and f r e q u e n t l y f e l t d i s p o s e d t o g r a n t i n j u n c t i o n s r e s t r a i n i n g t h e u s e c o m p l a i n e d o f . ( M i l n e r , 1963,  The  f i r s t i n t r o d u c t i o n o f any f o r m o f s t a t e o r n a t i o n a l  5-9)  interven-  t i o n eame w i t h l e g i s l a t i o n c o n f e r r i n g a u t h o r i t y on c i t i e s t o d e c l a r e  certain  t y p e s o f l a n d u s e s a s " p u b l i c n u i s a n c e s " , even though t h e y m i g h t n o t be s o p e r se ( P o o l e y , 1961, 40) Ontario,  and i n B r i t a i n , o t h e r p u b l i c h e a l t h  ordinances.  f o r example, h a d b y 1877 d e t e r m i n e d t h a t " s l a u g h t e r  houses, gas  works, t a n n e r i e s , d i s t i l l e r i e s . . . c a t t l e and swine" m i g h t c o n s t i t u t e n u i s a n c e s (RSO, 1877,  C. 174, S. 466),  and s i m i l a r l e g i s l a t i o n  permitting  5  l o c a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o p a s s b y - l a w s p r o h i b i t i n g such " N u i s a n c e s "  still  e x i s t s i n most s t a t e s and p r o v i n c e s . ( s e e B.C. M u n i c i p a l A c t , S.870) W h i l e however common-law r i g h t s t o i n j u n c t i o n s and damages f r o m n u i s a n c e o n l y succeeded a f t e r t h e f a c t , p r i v a t e deed r e s t r i c t i o n s were i n s t i t u t e d as group a t t e m p t s t o i n t r o d u c e arrangements.  l a n d use c o n t r o l by p r i v a t e  I n s t a n c e s were r e s t r i c t i v e covenants were u s e d t o a s s u r e  common o b j e c t s and i n s u r e i n s u l a r i t y from u n d e s i r a b l e are l e g i o n ( s e e g e n e r a l l y , M i l n e r , means o f s e c u r i n g legislative  u s e s and s o c i a l groups  1963, 3U8-it6o), b u t r e p r e s e n t a n o t h e r  a form o f use c o n t r o l w i t h o u t the n e c e s s i t y o f d i r e c t  authority.  These e a r l y r u b r i c s o f n u i s a n c e and r e s t r i c t i v e covenant were, however, as M i l n e r e x p l a i n s , b a s i c a l l y u n s a t i s f a c t o r y as e f f e c t i v e l a n d use c o n t r o l s . ( M i l n e r , 1962,  2+6)  Because t h e y r e l i e d e s s e n t i a l l y on p r i v a t e  and u n i l a t e r a l i n i t i a t i v e t h e y were n e i t h e r u n i f o r m i n a p p l i c a t i o n n o r consistently exercised.  Zoning and development c o n t r o l s , on t h e o t h e r hand,  t r a n s f e r r e d t h i s i n i t i a t i v e t o t h e l o c a l c o u n c i l s and,' w h i l e e a r l y o r d i n ances were o f t e n a p p a r e n t l y r e g a r d e d as l i t t l e more t h a n s t a t e for  substitutes  b u i l d i n g schemes, t h e y assumedly d i d s e c u r e a form o f u n i v e r s a l and  consistent  application.  W h i l e t h e r e f o r e b o t h t h e l a w o f n u i s a n c e and p r i v a t e deed r e s t r i c t i o n s r e m a i n p o s s i b l e and a r e s t i l l b e i n g u t i l i z e d as means o f s e c u r i n g u s e c o n t r o l , t h e i r g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n i n N o r t h A m e r i c a and B r i t a i n has been more o r l e s s r e p l a c e d b y t h e p r e v a i l i n g modes o f z o n i n g and development control.  6  •AMERICAN ZONING 1.  O r i g i n s and Development A l t h o u g h many A m e r i c a n p l a n n e r s and z o n i n g o f f i c i a l s have main-  t a i n e d t h e i r own c o u n t r y as t h e n a t u r a l b i r t h p l a c e o f z o n i n g , i t appears t h a t t h e germ o f modern z o n i n g r e c e i v e d f i r s t n u r t u r e n o t i n t h e U.S., b u t i n Germany.  T h e r e , d u r i n g t h e 1 8 7 0 ' s , one H e r r B a u m e i s t e r a l l e g e d l y became  t h e f i r s t a c t i v e a d v o c a t e o f z o n i n g , and t h e c i t i e s o f A l t o n a i n I88I4. and Frankfort-Qn-the-Main  i n 1891 became t h e f i r s t European c e n t r e s t o a c t u a l l y  implement any f o r m o f " z o n i n g " c o n t r o l s . ( L e w i s , 1949, 2£6)  These e a r l y  l a n d u s e o r d i n a n c e s were n o t u n l i k e p r e s e n t N o r t h A m e r i c a n z o n i n g enactments and were c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s e p a r a t i o n o r i s o l a t i o n o f f a c t o r y d i s t r i c t s f r o m r e s i d e n t i a l use a r e a s , l o t c o v e r a g e , s t r e e t u s e and t h e h e i g h t s , l o c a t i o n and u s e o f b u i l d i n g s .  O t h e r c i t i e s i n Europe, most n o t a b l y i n  Germany and t h e B r i t i s h I s l e s , were a l s o u t i l i z i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e h e i g h t o f b u i l d i n g s , b u t none a t t e m p t e d t h e use s e p a r a t i o n and c o n t r o l on t h e s c a l e o f A l t o n a and F r a n k f o r t . ( L e w i s , 19k9,  256)  A m e r i c a n c i t i e s d i d n o t r u s h t o implement t h i s new German c r e a t i o n d e s i g n e d t o c o n t r o l u s e , and t h e f i r s t s t e p s i n t o t h e f i e l d were c a u t i o u s and h e s i t a n t .  A number o f c i t i e s had a l r e a d y employed some f o r m o f c o n t r o l  o v e r b u i l d i n g h e i g h t , and B o s t o n had r e c e i v e d j u d i c i a l a p p r o v a l f o r i t s b a s i c two-zone system when, i n 1909,, t h e c i t y o f L o s A n g e l e s became t h e f i r s t t o attempt t h e more e x t e n s i v e o f c o n t r o l which h e r a l d e d modern z o n i n g . ( P o o l e y , I 9 6 I , kh)  D e v i s e d p r i m a r i l y t o p r o v i d e some p r o t e c t i o n t o  r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s from t h e encroachment and e f f e c t s o f l e s s d e s i r a b l e u s e s , t h i s new means o f use s e g r e g a t i o n , c a l l e d " d i s t r i c t i n g " b y i t s p r o p o n e n t s , saw a d o p t i o n i n t h e p e r i o d 1910-1915 b y t h e S t a t e s o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s ,  New  Y o r k , M i n n e s o t a and W i s c o n s i n and a number o f N o r t h A m e r i c a n c i t i e s i n d u i n g S e a t t l e , Milwaukee By 1912  and T o r o n t o . ( L e w i s , 19h9,  259)  some degree o f p u b l i c c o n t r o l and s u p e r v i s i o n o f l a n d use  seems t o have been an a c c e p t e d f a c t i n a number o f American c i t i e s , and i t was n o t t h e r e f o r e u n u s u a l f o r t h e C i t y o f New Y o r k , even b y t h i s t i m e t h e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f u r b a n problems, t o i n i t i a t e a s e a r c h f o r a new and more e f f e c t i v e means o f c o n t r o l l i n g and d i r e c t i n g u r b a n growth and A c t i v a t e d b y c u r r e n t and much-evident  development.  problems o f o v e r - c r o w d i n g ,  incompat-  i b i l i t i e s o f use and a t t e n d a n t n u i s a n c e i s s u e s , and a p p a r e n t l y s p u r r e d on by t h e demands o f a " b u l l i s h market f o r o f f i c e development" 1970,  15)  New Y o r k ' s B o a r d o f E s t i m a t e and Appointment  (Mandelker,  was commissioned i n  1913 t o f i n d a s o l u t i o n .  Under t h e C h a i r m a n s h i p o f E.M. B a s s e t , a p r o m i n e n t New York a t t o r n e y , a committee was s t r u c k w i t h t h e t a s k o f i n v e s t i g a t i n g and d e v i s i n g new means o f g r a p p l i n g w i t h t h e s e emergent urban p r o b l e m s , and was d i r e c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o examine and compare t h e p r a c t i c e and e x p e r i e n c e U.S. c i t i e s w i t h t h o s e a b r o a d . ( L e w i s , 1949,  259)  I t h e l d a number o f p u b l i c  h e a r i n g s and s t a t i s t i c a l f o r a y s , and i n 1913 d e l i v e r e d i t s r e p o r t . A l t h o u g h t h e committee had a t f i r s t c o n s i d e r e d a form o f e x p r o p r i a t i o n as t h e s o l u t i o n , t h i s p r o p o s a l was abandoned as b e i n g t o o c o s t l y ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967,  12)  and t h e r e p o r t i n s t e a d gave s t r o n g and u n i q u i v o c a b l e s u p p o r t t o  t h e need and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f e s t a b l i s h i n g d i s t r i c t s f o r t h e purpose o f r e g u l a t i n g not o n l y use, b u t a l s o h e i g h t , coverage, and t h e p r o v i s i o n of open space.  The r a t i o n a l e was " g r e a t e r s a f e t y and s e c u r i t y t o i n v e s t m e n t  s e c u r e d b y d e f i n i t e r e s t r i c t i o n s . " ( L e w i s , 19^9,  260)  8  As a d i r e c t and p r o p i t i o u s r e s u l t o f t h e r e p o r t ' s  primary  recommendations, t h e New Y o r k S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e , t h r o u g h d e l e g a t i o n s t a t e p o l i c e power, a u t h o r i z e d impose h e i g h t ,  New York C i t y t o e s t a b l i s h d i s t r i c t s and t o  a r e a and u s e l i m i t s f o r each d i s t r i c t s o  A n o t h e r Committee was s t r u c k , a g a i n w i t h B a s s e t t most o f t h e o r i g i n a l members r e p r e s e n t i n g  constructed.  as Chairman and i n c l u d i n g  b o t h p r i v a t e and p u b l i c  and was i n s t r u c t e d t o recommend t h e b o u n d a r i e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . intense preparation  and much p u b l i c p u l s e - t a k i n g ,  e n t h u s i a s t i c r e a l - e s t a t e i n t e r e s t s who p r e c e i v e d own p r o f e s s i o n  of the  sectors, After  a l b e i t a s s i s t e d by the certain benefits t o their  ( L e w i s , 19h9, 26l), t h e Committee s u b m i t t e d i t s t e n t a t i v e  r e p o r t , and w i t h i t s f i n a l a p p r o v a l i n J u l y o f 1916,zoning a r r i v e d i n North America.  The  decade o r so t h a t f o l l o w e d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f New York's  l e g i s l a t i o n has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d 1967,  as "The G o l d e n Age o f Zoning" ( M a k i e l s k i ,  8) and w h i l e i t s accomplishments may n o t n e c e s s a r i l y have been on an  "Elizabethan"  s c a l e , zoning d i d r e c e i v e considerable  and undoubted p u b l i c a c c e p t a n c e .  attention  Although i t i s claimed that the s u b t l e t i e s  o f z o n i n g were, n e v e r c o r r e c t l y - u n d e r s t o o d 1967,  professional  by the general public, ( M a k i e l s k i ,  6) i t s p o p u l a r i t y zoomed d u r i n g t h e 1920's.  R e c o g n i z i n g t h i s e a r l y p o p u l a r i t y , a c c e p t a n c e , and g e n e r a l effectiveness  o f z o n i n g , t h e U.S. F e d e r a l Government chose t o i n v e s t  s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h i s new means o f l a n d u s e c o n t r o l . Commerce H e r b e r t Hoover, as he t h e n was, c r e a t e d  The S e c r e t a r y o f  an A d v i s o r y Committee on  Z o n i n g i n an a t t e m p t , i t i s c l a i m e d , t o encourage m u n i c i p a l a d o p t i o n o f zoning plans.  I t was e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s would encourage and  9  a t t r a c t t h e r e a l e s t a t e development o f s e c u r e and p r o t e c t e d r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s , t h e r e b y r e l i e v i n g the c u r r e n t housing s h o r t a g e . ( L e w i s ,  194°,  262)  T h i s committee l o s t no time i n g r a s p i n g t h e i n i t i a t i v e and 1922 for  had p r e p a r e d t h e i r S t a n d a r d Zoning E n a b l i n g A c t , d e s i g n e d as a model easy a p p l i c a t i o n by a l l American m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  p u b l i s h e d i n 1926,  has i n f a c t p r o v e n  t o be remarkably  The  act, f i n a l l y  d u r a b l e , and  remains t h e b a s i s o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f p r e s e n t m u n i c i p a l z o n i n g Cunningham, 1969, twenty-nine 1946  369)  By 1930,  American s t a t e s had adopted  over 1,500  still  statutes.  f o u r y e a r s a f t e r i t s p u b l i c a t i o n , some 3h)  t h e A c t ( P l a g e r , 1968,  and  by  zoning o r d i n a n c e s a u t h o r i z e d i n a l l f o r t y - e i g h t s t a t e s  were i n f u l l e f f e c t . ( L e w i s , 19U9, in  by  262)  I n 1971  t h e American Law  Institute  t h e i r d r a f t of the P r o p o s e d Model Land Development Code, t h e f i r s t major  e f f o r t t o modernize t h e premise  of t h e o r i g i n a l a c t , noted "The  Standard  S t a t e Zoning E n a b l i n g A c t o f 1 9 2 2 . . . r e f l e c t s w i t h remarkable  accuracy the  e x i s t i n g law i n almost a l l o f t h e f i f t y s t a t e s " . ( A L I , 1971,  xi)  There was  v e r y l i t t l e a l t e r a t i o n i n the s t r u c t u r e o r p r a c t i c e o f  American z o n i n g d u r i n g t h e 1930's.  N o n e t h e l e s s , w h i l e t h e d e p r e s s i o n and  i n t e r - w a r b u i l d i n g slump c o n t r i b u t e d i m p o r t a n t l y t o t h i s r e l a t i v e  inertia,  i t has been n o t e d t h a t even where t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i c t a t e d major urban renewal programs and l e g i s l a t i o n , no r e a l attempts were ever made t o d e v i s e a l t e r n a t e o r complementary p l a n n i n g d e v i c e s t o meet t h i s demand, and  zoning  h e l d the f i e l d  only  c o m p l e t e l y and i n a l t e r a b l y . ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967,  8)  Not  had z o n i n g a c h i e v e d g e n e r a l p o p u l a r acceptance by t h i s time, b u t i t had a l s o obtained, f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons, appreciable p o l i t i c a l  espousal.  W i t h t h e r e f o r e b o t h p o l i t i c i a n s and t h e p u b l i c a l i k e l a u d i n g t h e g l o r i e s o f z o n i n g , change became u n l i k e l y .  Zoning f l o u r i s h e d everywhere though,  as one a u t h o r c a u s t i c a l l y comments, " w i t h always enough h o l d - o u t s t o p r e s e r v e t h e t a n t a l i z i n g image t h a t t o t a l r e v o l u t i o n s t i l l h a d n o t been a c h i e v e d . " ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967, 8) Nonetheless  and d e s p i t e t h i s evidence o f enduring p o p u l a r i t y ,  z o n i n g i n t h e 19^0's began t o a t r o p h y and show s i g n s o f t h e l i n g e r i n g m a l a i s e w h i c h c o n t i n u e s t o d a y t o be v a r i o u s l y a n d d i v e r g e n t l y diagnosed. While t h e p o l i t i c i a n s , s u s t a i n e d i n t h e i r b e l i e f by apparent  evidence o f  p u b l i c s u p p o r t , ( B r y d e n , 1967, 287) e n t e r t a i n e d and i n i t i a t e d p r e c i o u s few i d e a s f o r e i t h e r t h e improvement o r u p - g r a d i n g o f z o n i n g , o r i t s replacement  b y more e f f e c t i v e means o f l a n d u s e c o n t r o l , ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967,)  t h e p l a n n e r s and z o n e r s began t o r e c o g n i z e t h e symptoms o f weakness and i n e f f i c i e n c y i n t h e system. "zoning i s degenerating" (Reps, 196U, l ) ,  Some saw c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t  ( B l u c h e r , 1955,  96) and i s " s e r i o u s l y  ill"  a n d a number o f attempts were made e i t h e r t o i n v e s t new  l i f e i n t o t h e zoning t o o l o r attempt t o circumvent i t s use completely. S p e c i a l Use D i s t r i c t s , a t y p e o f s p e c i a l i z e d b u t s t r i c t c o n t r o l s f o r t h e a t r e d i s t r i c t s , a r t s c e n t e r s and v a r i o u s h i s t o r i c a t t r a c t i o n s , a l t h o u g h m a i n l y l i m i t e d i n a p p l i c a t i o n t o New Y o r k C i t y , ( S m i t h , 1969, WO were attempts t o a c q u i r e greater zoning c o n t r o l .  G e n e r a l l y however most such  p r o p o s a l s remained u n i n s t i t u t e d , s t y m i e d b y t h e p a r t i c u l a r a t t i t u d e s and f u n c t i o n o f zoning.  2. An A n a l y s i s o f F u n c t i o n W h i l e t h e p r e s e n t f u n c t i o n o f z o n i n g may v a r y somewhat f r o m B a s s e t t ' s o r i g i n a l d e l i n e a t i o n s , which were p r i m a r i l y aimed a t n u i s a n c e  abatement, t h e b a s i c form and  d e f i n i t i o n has remained g e n e r a l l y i n t a c t .  In i t s b a r e s t d e s c r i p t i v e form zoning d e r i v e s i t s s t r u c t u r e from a l o c a l orinance or by-law passed under the a u t h o r i t y of the s t a t e (or province) and p r i m a r i l y d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m p l i s h b o t h a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f use and  groups,  a d e s c r i p t i o n o f s t a n d a r d s f o r u s e s w i t h i n each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  r e g u l a t i o n i n t h i s form i s g e n e r a l l y p e r m i s s i v e and i n advance o f t h e i n t e n d e d u s e , hence " p e r m i t t i n g " a t e d f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r zone c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  establishes  The  regulations  t h e uses o r u s e s  elabor-  I t i s thus a form of  'pre-  r e g u l a t i o n * , o r sometimes, ' p r e - z o n i n g ' , though t h e l a t t e r p h r a s e i s more commonly u s e d t o d e s c r i b e "lower-use" h o l d i n g  now  the c r e a t i o n of ' a g r i c u l t u r a l ' or other  zones.  I n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e m u n i c i p a l power o r a u t h o r i t y t o zone i s derived only through s p e c i f i c s t a t e enabling  legislation, authorization  t h e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n , o r i n a few i n s t a n c e s  such as t h e case o f P h i l a d e l p h i  v i a state l e g i s l a t i o n granting  'home r u l e  z o n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n t o s p e c i f i c and 536)  1  by  and independence f r o m s t a t e 1971,  enumerated m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . ( S t e i n ,  T h i s a u t h o r i t y i s moreover b o t h l i m i t e d by and dependent upon t h e  " p o l i c e power" o f t h e U.S. stood phrase imparting  C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h a t l i t i g e o u s and much m i s u n d e r -  "a meaning and o r i g i n t o say the l e a s t , vague  i n d e f i n i t e . " ( M i l n e r , 1956, C a n a d i a n l a w ( M i l n e r , 1956,  130) 130)  H a v i n g no e x a c t e q u i v a l e n t  and  i n Anglo-  t h e p o l i c e power r e p r e s e n t s a f o r m o f  r e s i d u a l s t a t e power e f f e c t i v e i n t h e absence o f enumerated f e d e r a l powers and r e q u i r i n g o n l y t h a t r e g u l a t i o n s conform t o the d e f i n i t i o n o f t h i s power as c u r r e n t l y j u d i c i a l l y d e f i n e d . m u n i c i p a l power t o zone e n c a s t u l a t e s  L e s l i e S t e i n , a student of  the A m e r i c a n law t h u s l y : "The  the general  p r o p o s i t i o n e x i s t s t h a t a z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e t o be v a l i d must be r e a s o n a b l e  12  i n a p p l i c a t i o n , and have a s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n t o t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , m o r a l s , c o m f o r t and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e o f t h e p e o p l e . " ( S t e i n ,  1971,  537) W h i l e t h e i n i t i a l p u r p o s e o f t h e New Y o r k l e g i s l a t i o n was t o p r o v i d e s o l u t i o n s f o r problems o f n u i s a n c e a n d t h e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s o f u s e s , and t o a l l e v i a t e t h e i n t o l e r a b l y crowded c o n d i t i o n s o f many r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e new l e g i s l a t i o n were a l s o c a r e f u l t o c h a r a c t e r i z e i t s p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t y t o i n s t i t u t e some f o r m o f s t a b i l i t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n t h e u r b a n f o r m . ( L e w i s , 19U9, 262)  Undoubtedly t h i s  a b i l i t y t o s t a b i l i z e community a r e a s and a c h i e v e . . . " g r e a t e r  s a f e t y and  s e c u r i t y t o i n v e s t m e n t s e c u r e d b y d e f i n i t e r e s t r i c t i o n s " (Committee R e p o r t i n L e w i s , 19U9, 260) was l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e a r l y p u b l i c a c c e p t a n c e o f zoning.  I n t h i s r e g a r d t h e o b j e c t o f z o n i n g remains u n a l t e r e d t o d a y , f o r  i n I960 t h e Urban L a n d I n s t i t u t e was t o p r o c l a i m : "The C o u n c i l i s s t r o n g l y i n f a v o u r o f p l a n n i n g a n d z o n i n g as b e n e f i c i a l i n s t r u m e n t s i n p r o t e c t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods a g a i n s t a d v e r s e u s e and i n s t a b i l i z i n g community development and l a n d values" ( U L I , i960, 6l) Most c r i t i c s o f zoning  a r e f u l l y p r e p a r e d t o acknowledge t h i s  achievement o f z o n i n g , and r e c o g n i z e  the obvious existence o f both a p u b l i c  and o f f i c i a l d e s i r e f o r some degree o f u n i f o r m i t y i n s t a n d a r d s and a c e r t a i n minimum o f u s e r e g u l a t i o n s ( D e l a f o n s , 1969, ) , and f o r t h e p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and s t a r e d e c i s i s n a t u r e o f z o n i n g  administration.  They w i l l admit t h a t  z o n i n g , a t t h e l e a s t , h a s been a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h i t s e l f w i t h a c e r t a i n amount o f l e g a l i t y and r e s p e c t a b i l i t y and has f o u n d g e n e r a l a n d major a c c e p t a n c e b y t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967,  3)  t h a t z o n i n g h a s been c h a r a c t e r i z e d as t h e " p r e s e r v e r  I n the respect  then  and e n c o u r a g e r o f things:  t h e community f i n d s d e s i r a b l e , " i t has c o n t i n u e d t h e o r i g i n a l a s p i r a t i o n s o f i t s c r e a t o r s and i s , " as M i l n e r n o t e s , " h i s t o r y s u s t a i n e d " . ( M i l n e r L e c t u r e , A p r i l 5",  1968)  Nonetheless  and d e s p i t e t h e s e w e l l - t u n e d p h r a s e s , t h e r e i s some  s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e p u b l i c p o p u l a r i t y o f z o n i n g i s l a r g e l y due t o a p a r t i c u l a r and s p e c i f i e d r e l i a n c e on t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n a s p e c t and c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of zoning.  Because t h e p r i n c i p l e o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g u s e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s  and t h e c r e a t i o n s o f p h y s i c a l zones t o c o n t a i n them has tended t o p l a c e major importance  on t h e i n t e r - f a c e and i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s between t h e c a t e g o r -  i e s , t h e i n i t i a l purpose however o f p r o t e c t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s from " l e s s d e s i r a b l e " i n d u s t r i a l o r c o m m e r c i a l u s e o r , somewhat more e l e g a n t l y , " t o prevent t h e u n d e s i r a b l y r e s u l t s o f the proximate l o c a t i o n of v a r i o u s disharmonious  l a n d a c t i v i t i e s " ( D a v i d o f f s , 1971,  5l5),  t o e x c l u d e n o n - d e s i r a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s as w e l l .  was e a s i l y e x t e n d e d Thus, b y z o n i n g a  n e i g h b o u r h o o d i n such a manner s o as t o p r e s e r v e i t s " e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r " , c e r t a i n segments o f s o c i e t y c o u l d assumedly be e n j o i n e d f r o m e s t a b l i s h i n g i n that locale.  Unfavourably  d e s c r i b e d as e x c l u s i o n a r y z o n i n g ( B r o o k s , 1970  and  G i b s o n , 1971) t h i s p r a c t i c e f l o u r i s h e d from t h e f o r m a t i v e s t a g e s o f z o n i n g and, s u s t a i n e d w i t h t h e b l e s s i n g s o f t h e p o l i t i c i a n s and r e a l - e s t a t e i n t e r e s t s , p r o b a b l y s e r v e d as a p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e p u b l i c acceptance of zoning.  N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e u s e o f z o n i n g t o c o n s e r v e , s t a b i l i z e arid  enhance p r o p e r t y v a l u e s came under a t t a c k as e a r l y as 1926 c r e a t o r o f t h e G r e e n b e l t Concept, (Weaver, 1965,  by Charles S t e i n ,  726) and t h e " s o c i a l  p r o p e n s i t y t o form t i g h t l i t t l e i s l a n d s o f r e s i d e n t i a l e x c l u s i v i t y " 1969,  (Sager,  791) h a s r e c e i v e d renewed s e v e r e and t e l l i n g c r i t i c i s m w i t h i n t h e l a s t  ten years.  Yet, the public recognition of the a b i l i t y of zoning to  preserve neighbourhood and property value appears to have received widespread support as a v a l i d function of the zoning  process.  An equally e f f e c t i v e but perhaps l e s s obvious explanation f o r the tenacity of zoning i s i t s p a r t i c u l a r popularity and association with the p o l i t i c a l elements..  One  of the most notable d i s t i n c t i o n s  between B r i t i s h land use c o n t r o l methods and the American experience i s the l a t t e r ' s inherent and entrenched d i s t r u s t of administrative descretion.  One theory explains that early c i v i c administrations were  somewhat l e s s than circumspect and tended to either use zoning as a t o o l to f u r t h e r t h e i r own  ambitions or those of the p o l i t i c a n (Reps, 1961i,  k) or permitted the business community to use i t f o r the creation of t h e i r own personal geographic o l i g o p o l i e s . ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967,  7)  Assisted  by the conviction that "American l o c a l administration simply could not handle such r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " (Williams, 1971,  108),  zoning gradually l e f t  the preserve of the administration and became a more public, and hence p o l i t i c a l , method of c o n t r o l .  Good arguments have been advanced f o r the p o l i t i c i s i n g of  zoning.  Makielski noted that because zoning i s so c r i t i c a l to the economic l i v e l i h o o d , and s o c i a l aspirations of so many people, i t i s i n a sense a l o g i c a l outgrowth of and dependent upon the l e g a l theory and i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure of l o c a l government (Makielski, 1°67,  20),  and Heeter maintains that  despite the "pessimistic view" which planners and zoners have of the p o l i t i c a l process, i t i s clear that the formulation and implementation of plans f o r a community's development i s a basic p o l i t i c a l decision and  can  only be successfully c a r r i e d out " i f brought d i r e c t l y i n t o the p o l i t i c a l  15  process".(Heeter,  1969,  68)  There i s concern however t h a t the e v o l u t i o n o f zoning  t o a more  p o l i t i c a l f u n c t i o n has meant t h a t the p l a n n e r s have become, as one mentator d e s c r i b e d ,  "weak v o i c e s shunted t o the p e r i p h e r i e s o f p o l i c y  m a k i n g " . ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967, longer  com-  8)  a b l e t o c l a i m zoning  and r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p l a n n i n g  C e r t a i n l y the p l a n n i n g as i t s own and  p r e s e r v e and  zoning has  p r o f e s s i o n i s no  assumedly the  changed c o n s i d e r a b l y  function from  t h i s a n a l y s i s o f the s i t u a t i o n d u r i n g the 1930's: "... f o r t h e almost s t i l l - b o r n p l a n n i n g p r o f e s s i o n i t was a l e a s e on l i f e . A t l a s t p l a n n e r s had a l e g a l t o o l w i t h which t h e y c o u l d bludgeon t h e i r sworn enemies, t h e r e a l - e s t a t e p r o f e s s i o n . No l o n g e r r e s t r i c t e d t o p l a n n i n g b o u l e v a r d s and p u b l i c works p r o j e c t s , the p l a n n e r was equipped f o r the enormous expansion o f the p o l i c e power i n t o the r e a l m o f p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l p l a n n i n g by f o c u s i n g on the t o t a l environment c r e a t e d by b o t h p u b l i c and p r i v a t e development". ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967, 7) However t h i s r o l e may  have changed, the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f zoning  r e m a i n s a v i t a l f u n c t i o n o f the a d e t e r m i n i n g e f f e c t on the  and  planning  zoning p r o c e s s and w i l l c o n t i n u e t o have  e v o l u t i o n o f l a n d use  and  development c o n t r o l .  BRITISH DEVELOPMENT CONTROL  1.  Legislative History Development and l a n d use i n the U n i t e d Kingdom i s c o n t r o l l e d by  body o f p l a n n i n g ment C o n t r o l .  a  and a n c i l l i a r y l e g i s l a t i o n c o l l e c t i v e l y known as DevelopThe  p r o d u c t o f a l o n g and  sometimes t o r t i o u s e v o l u t i o n ,  development c o n t r o l e s s e n t i a l l y r e q u i r e s t h a t a l l use change and ment o f l a n d i n England, Wales and S c o t l a n d p r o c e e d o n l y by way s i o n from l o c a l government s o u r c e s .  developof permis-  There i s no i n h e r e n t r i g h t t o  16  d e v e l o p l a n d i n whatever f a s h i o n t h e owner m i g h t w i s h , and each a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o develop l a n d o r change i t s use i s r e g a r d e d on i t s own individual merits.  P r i o r t o t h e i n c e p t i o n o f any form o f town p l a n n i n g o r development c o n t r o l s i n B r i t a i n , the t r a d i t i o n a l concepts  o f t h e common l a w p e r m i t t e d an  owner t o d e v e l o p h i s own l a n d i n any way he d e s i r e d , so l o n g as he d i d n o t i n f r i n g e upon t h e r i g h t s o f o t h e r s .  F r e e and u n t r a m m e l l e d e n t e r p r i s e was  f e l t " n e c e s s a r y f o r n a t i o n a l p r o s p e r i t y " and any e x t e n s i o n o f government a c t i v i t y beyond what was c o n s i d e r e d i t s p r o p e r sphere w o u l d have been l o o k e d upon as "an encroachment on p e r s o n a l l i b e r t y and l i k e l y t o handicap a t i v e . "(U.K. , 1968,  l)  initi-  The d i r e c t consequence however o f t h i s absence o f  any p o l i c y f o r t h e o r d e r l y and c o n t r o l l e d development o f l a n d was congest i o n i n t h e towns and e v e n t u a l l y , suburban s p r a w l . A need f o r some form o f c o n t r o l was presumably p e r c e i v e d and i n 1909 t h e H o u s i n g , Town P l a n n i n g A c t (9 Edw. 7, C. 44)  was i n t r o d u c e d i n an  a t t e m p t t o somehow c u r t a i l t h i s t o t a l freedom o f u s e .  Under t h e terms o f  t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n , and as s u b s e q u e n t l y m o d i f i e d and extended b y s u c c e s s i v e  1 a c t s , l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s , b e i n g t h e c o u n c i l s o f c o u n t i e s , c o u n t y boroughs, non-county b o r o u g h s , u r b a n d i s t r i c t s and r u r a l d i s t r i c t s ( a s opposed t o l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e f i r s t two o n l y ) ( H e a p , 87),  1964,  were empowered t o p r e p a r e town p l a n n i n g schemes a f f e c t i n g l a n d  e i t h e r i n t h e c o u r s e o f development o r a p p e a r i n g l i k e l y t o be u s e d f o r b u i l d i n g purposes.(Heap, 1969, ment (Megarry & Wade, 1  5)  Armed w i t h some power f o r g e n e r a l e n f o r c e -  1959, 1018), t h e l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s were t o i n d i c a t e  1932 Town and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g A c t , 22 & 23 Geo. 5, c. 48 and and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g A c t , 7 & 8 Geo. 6, c. 47.  1944 Town  what development would be p e r m i t t e d  i n each p a r t o f t h e l a n d a f f e c t e d ,  w i t h the express objects t o secure: a) p r o p e r s a n i t a r y c o n d i t i o n s , and b) amenity and convenience i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e l a y o u t and u s e o f t h e l a n d and o f any n e i g h b o u r i n g l a n d s . (Heap, 1969, 5) L e g i s l a t i o n i n 1932 extended t h e i r c o n t r o l t o i n c l u d e t h e p l a n n i n g o f b u i l t - u p a r e a s and l a n d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y l i k e l y t o be d e v e l o p e d . (Heap,  1969, 7) The  h o u s i n g boom o f t h e 1930's a p p l i e d c o n s i d e r a b l e  pressure  t o t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and s e r v e d t o emphasize i t s two basic flaws:  t h e a c t was o p t i o n a l , and o n l y a h a n d f u l l o f schemes were  made o p e r a t i v e b y t h e l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s ( B a r r , 196U, 163) and an e x t r e m e l y l o n g p e r i o d u s u a l l y e l a p s e d between t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e l o c a l a u t h o r i t y t o p r e p a r e a scheme and i t s f i n a l a p p r o v a l  (Megarry & Wade, 1959, 1019).  T h i s p e r i o d between c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e scheme and i t s f i n a l  adoption  was s u p p o s e d l y s u b j e c t t o a form o f " i n t e r i m development c o n t r o l " , and a d e v e l o p e r who wished t o b u i l d c o u l d o b t a i n p e r m i s s i o n  from t h e l o c a l  a u t h o r i t i e s w h i c h would h o l d him i n v i o l a b l e even though h i s p r o j e c t might n o t be i n agreement w i t h t h e scheme as f i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d .  Nonetheless,  because o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t time l a g p r i o r t o t h e scheme's f i n a l and  approval  t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e were no enforcement p r o v i s i o n s a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n  t h i s i n t e r i m p e r i o d , many d e v e l o p e r s permission,  apparently proceeded without i n t e r i m  gambling t h a t when t h e scheme was f i n a l l y approved t h e y would  have l o n g gone w i t h t h e i r p r o f i t s . ( M e g a r r y & Wade, 1959> 1019)  While t h e  p r o j e c t c o u l d be s u b j e c t t o r a z i n g i f i t d i d n o t a c c o r d w i t h t h e f i n a l  18  scheme and had n o t been g r a n t e d i n t e r i m development p e r m i s s i o n , t h e r e were 163)  a p p a r e n t l y v e r y few i n s t a n c e s where enforcement f o l l o w e d . ( B a r r , 196k, G e n e r a l l y , t h e 1909  A c t and s u c c e s s i v e amendments t o 1932  " t i m i d and r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t i v e " . (Megarry, 196i|, In  attempts  was  considered  218)  t h e r e f o r e t o c l o s e t h i s l o o p - h o l e and o t h e r w i s e  t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , P a r l i a m e n t approved t h e 1943  extend  Town & C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g  ( I n t e r i m Development) A c t , w h i c h a u t h o r i z e d a c t i o n a g a i n s t a l l development w h i c h p r o c e e d e d a t any t i m e w i t h o u t t h i s i n t e r i m development p e r m i s s i o n . A l s o , s i n c e by t h i s t i m e o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e l y  7k%  of  t h e c o u n t r y had as y e t  e i t h e r a u t h o r i z e d schemes (70$) o r i n s t i t u t e d i n t e r i m development c o n t r o l (k%)  ( M e g a r r y & Wade, 1959,  was  imposed on t h e b a l a n c e .  1 0 1 9 ) , compulsory i n t e r i m development c o n t r o l L o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s were now  empowered t o  e i t h e r p e n a l i z e unauthorized uses or demolish unauthorized b u i l d i n g s ( S . 5 ) , t h u s a c h i e v i n g a system o f t o t a l c o n t r o l and a v a i l a b l e enforcement p r o v i s i o n s a g a i n s t any development p r o c e e d i n g w i t h o u t  permission.  D e s p i t e t h i s apparent e x t e n s i o n o f t h e power-to c o n t r o l u s e  and  development, t h e r e appeared t o be a b a s i c and p r e v a l e n t d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the t h e o r y of l a n d use c o n t r o l i n e f f e c t . c o m p u l s o r y powers were n o t o n l y i n a d e q u a t e l i a b i l i t i e s (U.K., 1968a, 2 ) ,  Many f e l t t h a t t h e  but f r a u g h t w i t h compensation  and a l t e r n a t i v e s were c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d .  A number o f r e p o r t s t h e r e f o r e emanated from s p e c i a l commissions m e e t i n g d u r i n g t h e war  y e a r s , n o t a b l y t h e S c o t t R e p o r t o f 1942  on Land U t i l i z a t i o n i n R u r a l A r e a s ) and t h e 1940  (The Committee  Barlow Report  (The  R o y a l Commission on t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e I n d u s t r i a l P o p u l a t i o n ) , and t h e s e a t t e m p t e d t o g r a p p l e w i t h t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f major l a n d t e n u r e  19  and s u s t a i n e d p l a n n i n g p r o b l e m s .  The most c o n s e q u e n t i a l s u g g e s t i o n s how-  e v e r , dependent on a " r a d i c a l and f u n d a m e n t a l m o d i f i c a t i o n o f p r o p e r t y r i g h t s " ( D e l a f o n s , 1969, I n t r o d u c t i o n ) , came f r o m t h e F i n a l R e p o r t b y t h e E x p e r t Committee on Compensation and B e t t e r m e n t , t h e name o f i t s Chairman, Mr. J u s t i c e  19U2,  b e t t e r known b y  Uthwatt.  The 19U7 Town and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g A c t (10 & 11 Geo. 6, c. 51) and s i m i l a r l e g i s l a t i o n p r o m u l g a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f o r S c o t l a n d has been r e f e r r e d t o a s " r a d i c a l and comprehensive" (U.K. 1968a, 2)  I t directly  i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e U t h w a t t R e p o r t , v i z : Ownership o f l a n d i n v o l v e s d u t i e s t o t h e community a s w e l l as t h e r i g h t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l owner, and any i n c r e m e n t i n t h e v a l u e o f l a n d r e s u l t i n g f r o m an a l t e r n a t e u s e , r e f e r r e d t o as t h e "development v a l u e " , s h o u l d accrue d i r e c t l y t o t h e p u b l i c w i t h compensation t o t h e owner.  By n a t i o n a l i z i n g t h e development  v a l u e s o f a l l l a n d , t h e a c t e f f e c t i v e l y p e r m i t t e d t h e owner o n l y h i s e x i s t i n g u s e and t h e v a l u e d e r i v e d t h e r e b y , and p r e v e n t e d t h e p r o f i t f r o m any s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n l a n d v a l u e by c i r c u m s t a n c e s n o t caused d i r e c t l y by t h a t owner.  B e f o r e c a r r y i n g o u t any development f o r w h i c h p l a n n i n g  p e r m i s s i o n was r e q u i r e d , t h e d e v e l o p e r would now be r e q u i r e d t o r e m i t t o t h e government's agency, t h e C e n t r a l L a n d B e a r d , a "development charge"  equal  t o the i n c r e a s e i n t h e value o f t h e l a n d caused by t h e p l a n n i n g p e r m i s s i o n i n q u e s t i o n . (Megarry & Wade, 1959, 1021*)  Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f development charges was e x t r e m e l y u n p o p u l a r w i t h t h e E n g l i s h d e v e l o p e r who b a l k e d a t t h e h i g h charges imposed on l a n d n o r m a l l y s u b j e c t t o w i d e f l u c t u a t i o n i n a s s e s s e d v a l u e (Megarry & Wade, 1959, 1 0 2 7 ) .  The government i t s e l f  apparently  20  ^came to regret the i n f l a t i o n a r y tendencies encouraged by the l e g i s l a t i o n and the f a c t that the p u b l i c viewed the charge as a simple form of i n d i r e c t taxation.(U.K., 1968a, 10)  Thus i n 1953,  ostensibly i n the fear that  further retention of the development charges might act as a brake on development once the severe b u i l d i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s of World War  II were l i f t e d  (U.K., 1968a, 10) the development charge l e g i s l a t i o n was repealed.^ Notwithstanding the demise of the development charge, the more basic planning concepts of the 1947 l e g i s l a t i o n , more or l e s s compendium of preceeding acts, remained i n t a c t through successive l e g i s l a t i v e changes. The prime tenet remained that, with but a few exceptions, no development could proceed without obtaining the r e q u i s i t e permission from authorized l o c a l government sources.  The 1947  act replaced the "development scheme"  of e a r l i e r l e g i s l a t i o n and whereas the "scheme" had formerly been optional, each l o c a l authority was now required to i n s t i t u t e a "plan" by no l a t e r than the f i r s t of July, 1951.(S.5)  The Development Plan, with control over the "carrying out of b u i l d i n g . . . or the making of any material change i n the use of any building or...land" (S.12(2)) d i d not appear to be regarded as a hard and f a s t guideline on planning permissions but was rather to "form a prophesy of the permissions l i k e l y to be granted and those l i k e l y to be & Wade, 1959, 1022)  refused".(Megarry  Instead of d i r e c t i n g the decision of l o c a l plan-  ning a u t h o r i t i e s , i t was to guide t h e i r deliberations on planning permissions, and so remained "prophetic" and "somewhat imprecise".(Laux, 1972,  4)  Comprehensiveness at the national l e v e l was to be achieved by providing the  Town and Country Planning Act, 1 & 2 E l i z . 2, c.  16.  21  M i n i s t e r of Housing with the r i g h t to veto or disallow any application where incompatibility with surrounding uses was perceived, a recognition, i t i s claimed, of some e a r l y form of regional planning.(Laux,  1972,  6)  Attempts were made i n the new l e g i s l a t i o n to provide f o r a more adequate enforcement procedure: unauthorized development could now be served notice to take c e r t a i n steps, the f a i l u r e of which would activate l e g a l action consisting either of l i a b i l i t y to f i n e or prosecution, or the remedies of injunction or s p e c i f i c performance.(S. 23 (1-10)  Nonetheless,  the  time-consuming nature of these l e g a l processes together with an e x i s t i n g l e g a l r i g h t of appeal from the notices apparently m i l i t a t e d against e f f e c t i v e use of the proceedings, and c r i t i c s noted that "the law governing enforcement notices i s so t e c h n i c a l and cumbersome as to be r e l a t i v e l y ineffective".(Megarry & Wade, 1959,  1023)  Concern with the rather cumbersome procedures of the 19^7  legis-  struck i n 196U  l a t i o n l e d to the creation of the Planning Advisory Group,  s p e c i f i c a l l y to review the planning system, with s p e c i a l reference to "the delays i t incurs and the q u a l i t y of i t s results."(U.K., 1965, t h e i r report commended the 19^7  iii)  While  l e g i s l a t i o n of Lord S i l k i n as "the most  advanced and complete system of land use planning i n the world" (Heap, 1969,  20), i t went on to note that i t s c e n t r a l i z e d procedures had  caused  not only long delays i n reaching decisions, but the i n a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s to play a s u f f i c i e n t part i n the planning process, and the emphasis of a negative control of undesirable development rather than p o s i t i v e planning f o r the creation of a pleasant environment. concluded by recommending that the system of preparing and  The report  approving  development plans be r a d i c a l l y altered and that general changes be i n t r o duced i n the methods of administering development control.(U.K., 1968a,  6)  22  2. The Present Act The Report of t h i s Planning Advisory Group and  the resultant  1967 White Paper lead to the introduction of a new Town and Country Planning Act (l6/17 E l i z . 2, c. 72) intended, however, not as a replacement but rather as a supplement to the 1962 l e g i s l a t i o n 38),  (10 & 11 E l i z . 2 , C.  i t s e l f but a consolidation of the 19U7 Act and subsequent amendments.  The Act envisioned a new form of development plan which was to be i n t r o duced gradually i n t o areas with appropriate and adequate resources, such as a planning s t a f f , to oversee t h e i r implementation.  Plans already  authorized under the 1962 l e g i s l a t i o n would be retained and only gradually replaced, and the present B r i t i s h p r a c t i c e therefore consists of a combination of both forms.(U.K., 1968a, 6)  The basic tenet of preceding B r i t i s h l e g i s l a t i o n , that permission i s an absolute prerequisite to development, remained of course as the spine of the new planning law, although "development" received a somewhat broader d e f i n i t i o n i n the 1968 l e g i s l a t i o n .  A l l b u i l d i n g operations, the  use of a single-family house f o r purposes other than a dwelling, and the making of any material change i n the use of any b u i l d i n g or land now came under the c o n t r o l of the new l e g i s l a t i o n . ( P a r t  7) (Heap, 1969, 90)  The Development Plan, while remaining the main framework of development c o n t r o l (U.K., 1969a, 8 ) , underwent a considerable change i n structure. The plan authorized by the e a r l i e r 19&2 l e g i s l a t i o n was to consist of a group of maps and documents which, while not l e g a l l y binding, had to be r e f e r r e d to whenever consideration i s given to the granting of permission to b u i l d or develop.  The plan was t o be submitted f o r approval t o the  23  minister, with the p r o v i s i o n f o r a p u b l i c i n q u i r y  and t h e n became a p u b l i c  document i n d i c a t i n g t h e a r e a s a l l o c a t e d f o r t h e v a r i o u s u s e d , and f o r p o s s i b l e development under a comprehensive scheme o r f o r l i m i t e d u s e .  I n essence  t h e n , t h e p l a n , c o m p u l s o r y as i t was, had t o show n o t o n l y t h e e x i s t i n g and p r o p o s e d u s e s f o r t h e a r e a , b u t a l s o i n d i c a t e t h e g e n e r a l manner o f d e v e l o p ment and i t s s t a g i n g . A m a j o r c r i t i c i s m however o f t h e 1962 l e g i s l a t i o n was t h a t i t i n a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e d f o r p u b l i c and l o c a l i n p u t (Anon., 1969, 6?6) and t h e r e f o r e t h e 1968 A c t a t t e m p t e d t o p r o v i d e f o r i n c r e a s e d f l e x i b i l i t y and a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r i n p u t and c o n t r o l b y l o c a l c o n c e r n s t h r o u g h t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f a t w o - s t a g e d development p l a n .  O v e r a l l c o n t r o l and b r o a d , compre-  h e n s i v e p l a n n i n g was t o be a c h i e v e d v i a a s t r u c t u r a l p l a n , p r i m a r i l y a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t b r o a d l y and d i a g r a m m a t i c a l l y d e s c r i b i n g t h e g e n e r a l for  development.  plans  The o b j e c t o f t h i s p l a n was t o " s k e t c h o u t t r e n d s and  t e n d e n c i e s , l a y down g e n e r a l l i n e s and show b r o a d l y and w i t h o u t d e t a i l how development i s g o i n g t o shape up w i t h i n t h e a r e a o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l p l a n " (Heap, 1969, hi), and i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e q u i r e d f o r m u l a t i o n o f p l a n n i n g p o l i c y and p r o p o s a l s f o r development and u s e , t h e p l a n was t o i n d i c a t e c e r t a i n "Action Areas"  s e l e c t e d f o r comprehensive t r e a t m e n t  w i t h a l o c a l p l a n . ( H e a p , 1969,  i n accordance  ho)  The l o c a l p l a n , as t h e second l e v e l , was d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e t h e f l e x i b l e and a r e a - c e n t e r e d  p l a n o f a c t i o n on t h e l o c a l s c a l e , and i t was t o  be " a s t a t e m e n t o f f u r t h e r and b e t t e r p a r t i c u l a r s d e m o n s t r a t i n g  a more  d e t a i l e d w o r k i n g o u t o f some p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t o f town p l a n n i n g . . . (Heap,  See Town and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g (Development P l a n s ) D i r e c t i o n , 1965.  1969,  53).  A wide range o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s was  t o be l e f t  available with  the  l o c a l p l a n , the M i n i s t e r r e p o n s i b l e f o r i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n n o t i n g t h a t , i n some i n s t a n c e s , i t may  be more advantageous t o l e a v e scope and freedom t o  the i m a g i n a t i o n and i n i t i a t i v e o f t h e p r i v a t e developer (Heap, 1969,  55)  and h i s a r c h i t e c t .  Thus, the A c t s p e c i f i e s t h a t an a r e a g e n e r a l l y has  o p t i o n o f p r e p a r i n g a l o c a l p l a n , w i t h o u t the requirements m i n i s t e r i a l approval. i n the s t r u c t u r a l p l a n ,  1969,  o f time  the  or  Where however, an a r e a i s d e c l a r e d an " A c t i o n A r e a " p r e p a r a t i o n o f a l o c a l p l a n i s compulsory.(Heap,  5D  C e n t r a l i z e d c o n t r o l and comprehensiveness i s a t t a i n e d t h r o u g h requirement  f o r t h e s t r u c t u r a l p l a n t o s t a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p of p r o p o s a l s  f o r development and use t o o t h e r such p r o p o s a l s i n the n e i g h b o u r i n g Although has  the  the L o c a l P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y now  area.  approves the p l a n , the M i n i s t e r 1969  the " l a s t say i n the form and c o n t e n t o f a s t r u c t u r a l plan".(Heap,  38 & 47)  The  furthermore  f o r m a l e x p o s i t i o n o f p l a n n i n g p o l i c y f o r g e n e r a l guidance  is  a c h i e v e d by t h e M i n i s t r y through p e r i o d i c r e g u l a t i o n s and  c i r c u l a r s i s s u e d s e v e r a l times some guidance  a year t o provide the l o c a l o f f i c i a l s  i n d e c i d i n g s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n s . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962,  B a s i c p l a n n i n g and  with  46)  a c t u a l d e c i s i o n s however c o n t i n u e t o emanate  from the l o c a l l e v e l where t h e county and county borough c o u n c i l s are the l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e a t the community l e v e l . ( H e a p , 87)  An  even more l o c a l body i n the h i e r a r c h y of B r i t i s h m u n i c i p a l  ment however, the l o c a l d i s t r i c t c o u n c i l , a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e s t h e  1969, govern-  initial  a p p l i c a t i o n f o r development p e r m i s s i o n and p r o v i d e s the f i r s t i n s p e c t i o n and acceptance i s secured,  o f the summary-form a p p l i c a t i o n p r e s e n t e d .  Once t h e i r  a more d e t a i l e d p r o p o s a l i s then s u b m i t t e d t o t h e  approval  "local  25  p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y " f o r t h e i r more a u t h o r a t a t i v e One  acceptance.  e f f e c t o f t h i s p r o m o t i o n o f d i r e c t and f i r s t - h a n d  involvement  a t t h e p u r e l y l o c a l l e v e l has been t h e i n v o l v e m e n t  of the p r o f e s s i o n a l  p l a n n e r f r o m the v e r y e a r l y o r b e g i n n i n g s t a g e s .  I n most i n s t a n c e s he i s  employed as a s o r t o f l i a i s o n between t h e p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s o f l o c a l  district  c o u n c i l s and c o u n t y c o u n c i l s , and i n such an i d e a l s i t u a t i o n , i t has been n o t e d , h i s judgement on i n d i v i d u a l a p p l i c a t i o n s t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e c o u n t y c o u n c i l s - t h e l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s i s o f t e n most c o n t r o l l i n g . (Mandelker, 1962,  87)  The d i r e c t power t o d i s p o s e o f an a p p l i c a t i o n remains t h e  primary  f u n c t i o n o f t h e l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y , and i n t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s on  an  i n d i v i d u a l a p p l i c a t i o n t h e y must r e f e r t o the development scheme ( e i t h e r 1962  o r I968 p l a n ) and c e r t a i n " o t h e r m a t e r i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s " .  As  the  no  l e g i s l a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n e x i s t s f o r t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , c o n s i d e r a b l e scope t h e o r e t i c a l l y i s a v a i l a b l e , b u t t h e v a r i o u s d i r e c t i v e s and g u i d e l i n e s p u b l i s h e d by t h e Government have s e r v e d t o somewhat c i r c u m s c r i b e t h i s apparent d i s c r e t i o n .  O f f i c i a l l y , the d i s c r e t i o n of the l o c a l p l a n n i n g  a u t h o r i t y does n o t admit much i n t h e way  o f p e r s o n a l and i n d i v i d u a l  circum-  s t a n c e s , w h i c h seldom a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o o u t w e i g h t h e g e n e r a l p l a n n i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . ( U . K . , 1969a, 16)  There i s however some e v i d e n c e t o t h e  c o n t r a r y t h a t a t t e n t i o n to p e r s o n a l circumstances  "pervades the a d m i n i s t r a -  t i o n o f t h e A c t " and t h a t h a r d s h i p i s a p r i m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a l b e i t on e r r a t i c b a s i s . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962,  an  123)  Once t h e l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y has c o m p l e t e d d e l i b e r a t i o n on  the  a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e y must s e l e c t w i t h i n two months from t h e a v a i l a b l e o p t i o n s  26  o f u n c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o v a l , r e f u s a l o r acceptance  o f t h e development p r o p o s a l  subject e i t h e r t o general or s p e c i f i c conditions.  I n a c e r t a i n number o f  enumerated i n s t a n c e s " ^ such as r e c r e a t i o n u s e s and g e n e r a l r e p a i r s ( s e e Heap, 1969, 90) p e r m i s s i o n i s a u t o m a t i c , w h i l e i n o t h e r s i t can be g i v e n s u b j e c t t o t h e p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y ' s subsequent a p p r o v a l o f s i t i n g , and o t h e r m a t t e r s . ( U . K . , 1969a, 7)  design  The p e r m i s s i o n under t h e terms o f t h e  1962 l e g i s l a t i o n was, w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o any m o d i f i c a t i o n o r r e v o c a t i o n , t o enure f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e l a n d and o f any p e r s o n h a v i n g an i n t e r e s t i n the l a n d , unless otherwise provided.  The 1968 A c t however, e s t a b l i s h e d  a f i v e - y e a r term on t h e p e r m i s s i o n , w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f w a i v e r o r r e n e w a l i f c o n d i t i o n s w a r r a n t . ( H e a p , 1969, 109-113)  One o f t h e o b j e c t s o f t h e new l e g i s l a t i o n was t o p r o v i d e f o r i n c r e a s e d l o c a l and p u b l i c i n p u t .  P u b l i c h e a r i n g s c a n be d i r e c t e d b y t h e M i n i s t e r  i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s , and he has t h e g e n e r a l power t o r e v i e w any o t h e r m a t t e r . ( S . 1 5 , 1947 A c t )  N o n e t h e l e s s , i t appears t h a t h i s r e v i e w power i s  seldom e x e r c i s e d a s t h e g e n e r a l and s p e c i f i c  guidelines provided t o l o c a l  p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s have t e n d e d t o be r e l i g i o u s l y f o l l o w e d . (Mandelker, 47)  1962,  W h i l e any d e p a r t u r e from an approved development p l a n i s cause enough  t o a c t i v a t e h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n , i n p r a c t i c e the M i n i s t e r w i l l n o t , apparently, i n t e r v e n e . ( U . K . , 1969a, 12)  The l e g i s l a t i o n a l s o p r o v i d e s f o r a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f a p p e a l , a p u b l i c i n q u i r y a v a i l a b l e t o any a p p l i c a n t who f e e l s " a g g r i e v e d " by a d e c i s i o n o f t h e l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y . (S. 23 1962 A c t )  The procedure  how-  ever makes no p r o v i s i o n f o r an a p p e a l b y i n t e r e s t e d o r a f f e c t e d t h i r d p a r t i e s (Mandelker,  1962, 84), and does n o t t e n d t o r e s e m b l e a j u d i c i a l  "General Development O r d e r , 1963, S t a t . I n s t . No. 709.  27  appeal.  Appeal d e c i s i o n s , f o r i n s t a n c e , are not g e n e r a l l y p u b l i s h e d  (Mandelker, 1962,  kk)  and t h e a p p e l l a n t i s t h e r e f o r e w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t  o f a body o f p r e c e d e n t s t o a s s i s t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s p o s i t i o n .  Mandelker  r e p o r t s t h a t s t a f f f r o m t h e M i n i s t r y o f H o u s i n g and L o c a l Government a d j u d i c a t e on a p p e a l s a r e u n f a v o u r a b l y  who  d i s p o s e d towards precedence because  i t l e a d s t o " u n d e s i r a b l e r i g i d i t i e s i n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962, b u t t h e s e i n s p e c t o r s and a d v i s o r y p e r s o n n e l the r e q u i s i t e l e g a l t r a i n i n g or experience  117),  do n o t , i n any e v e n t , p o s s e s s t o adequately f u n c t i o n i n a  system based on p r e c e d e n t s . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962,  115)  A p p e a l s f r o m a d e c i s i o n on p l a n n i n g p e r m i s s i o n  are t h u s  considered  on a p u r e l y ad hoc b a s i s , g e n e r a l l y l a c k i n g t h e b e n e f i t s o r guidance e i t h e r f r o m a body o f e s t a b l i s h e d p l a n n i n g l a w o r from t h e v e r y " g e n e r a l l y worded" government c i r c u l a r s . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962,  Of some 8, 1*95 a p p e a l s a g a i n s t  1+6)  d e c i s i o n s o f t h e l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s l a u n c h e d i n 1967, (U.K., 1969,  10),  6,  521  were  dismissed  and a p p e l l a n t s i n any event a r e reminded t h a t t h e M i n i s t e r  has t h e power t o change even t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s n o t a p p e a l e d a g a i n s t , o r t o impose new 1965  and a d d i t i o n a l ones.(S.  23(1*),  1962  Act)  Nonetheless, the  R e p o r t o f t h e P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r y Group recommended t h a t the p u b l i c a p p e a l  p r o c e d u r e be c a r e f u l l y r e t a i n e d as " e s s e n t i a l t o t h e maintenance o f p u b l i c confidence  3.  i n t h e system".(U.K., 1965,  Conditions of Planning The  29)  Permission  s o u r c e o f t r u e p l a n n i n g d i s c r e t i o n and t h e key t o t h e  flex-  i b i l i t y of the B r i t i s h l e g i s l a t i o n i s undoubtedly found i n the p r o v i s i o n s enabling the l o c a l planning a u t h o r i t y , i n d i s p o s i n g of a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r p l a n n i n g p e r m i s s i o n , t o e i t h e r u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y a c c e p t , r e j e c t o r , most  importantly, grant acceptance subject to c e r t a i n conditions. (2)(a) of the grandfather 1947  Section lit  l e g i s l a t i o n authorized the imposition of  conditions to regulate "the development or use of land...so f a r as appears to be expedient f o r the...development authorized", while the 1962 c o n s o l i dated l e g i s l a t i o n permitted the authority to impose such conditions "as they think f i t " with s p e c i f i c power to include the impostion  of time  l i m i t s on t h i s condition and to extend i t to other lands of the applicant not covered by h i s application.(S. 17 & 18)  Read either together or by  themselves, these sections appear s u f f i c i e n t to vest the l o c a l planning authorities with considerable d i s c r e t i o n .  Such has not however been the  case, f o r a number of administrative d i r e c t i v e s , together with pronouncements of several courts and administrative t r i b u n a l s , have served to somewhat confine and delineate the conditional power of planning  permissions.  The courts, f o r instance, i n r e f e r r i n g to t h i s seemingly broad power to attach conditions to a planning permission have imposed c e r t a i n general l i m i t a t i o n s .  Local a u t h o r i t i e s have been advised that t h i s wide  power "must serve some genuine planning purpose i n r e l a t i o n to the develop(U.K., 1969a, 6 ) ,  ment permitted" be "reasonably  and that the conditions themselves must  certain and i n t e l l i g e n t l y and sensibly r e l a t e d to the  planning scheme and proposals f o r the area".(Fawcett Properties Ltd. v. Buckingham County Council, i n Heap, 1969,  119)  The Government had heeded the Courts" r u l i n g s and has not only issued c i r c u l a r s warning planning authorities to be prepared always to j u s t i f y the imposition of conditions but has provided them with a number of t e s t s to be considered whenever planning conditions are contemplated. (U.K., 1968b, 1)  :  The conditions, f o r instances, must f i r s t be necessary  29 and r e l e v a n t t o t h e p l a n n i n g f u n c t i o n and t h e development b e i n g p e r m i t t e d , w h i l e a s e c o n d t e s t s h o u l d d e t e r m i n e whether t h e y can i n f a c t b e e f f e c t i v e . C o n d i t i o n s w h i c h can o n l y be worded a s a p o s i t i v e r e q u i r e m e n t , t h e c i r c u l a r warns, a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y r e s t r i c t i v e and w i l l , a s a g e n e r a l r u l e , b e d i f f i c u l t t o e n f o r c e . ( U . K . 1968b, 5)  F i n a l l y , t o reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y  b o t h o f m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and non-compliance  b y d e v e l o p e r s and t h i r d p a r t i e s  and o f p o s s i b l e j u d i c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n , ^ c o n d i t i o n s s h o u l d be k e p t p r e c i s e a n d r e a s o n a b l e . ( U . K . 1968b, 5) Of more p r a c t i c a l c o n c e r n however a r e a number o f r e s t r i c t i o n s and l i m i t s on t h e a c t u a l t y p e o f c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h t h e a u t h o r i t y can  impose.  A l t h o u g h i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n appears s u f f i c i e n t l y b r o a d i n terms t o i n c l u d e , f o r i n s t a n c e , c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r i n g r o a d c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e d o n a t i o n o f open space f o r p u b l i c p u r p o s e s , and a f e e t o p r o v i d e f o r s e r v i c i n g t h e lot-3 being c r e a t e d , Mandelker maintains t h a t these amenities are normally secured i n s t e a d through a process o f b a r g a i n i n g w i t h the developer, u s u a l l y permitt i n g a h i g h e r d e n s i t y i n r e t u r n . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962, 63)  There w o u l d , however, appear t o be o t h e r r e a s o n s f o r t h i s  apparent  r e t i c e n c e t o demand s u c h i t e m s a s a c o n d i t i o n s o f p l a n n i n g p e r m i s s i o n .  It  has been j u d i c i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t t h e g r a n t i n g o f a p u b l i c r i g h t - o f - w a y w i t h o u t compensation, w h i c h t h e owner s h o u l d by common l a w be e n t i t l e d t o , i s c l e a r l y i n v a l i d ( H a l l & Co. v. Shoreham, i n Heap, 1969, 118), and a s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r i n g c o m p l e t i o n o f development w i t h i n a c e r t a i n t i m e p e r i o d has e q u a l l y been h e l d u n e n f o r c e a b l e . ( U . K . , 1968b, 5)  A con-  d i t i o n s t i p u l a t i n g payment o f a n a n n u a l sum t o t h e p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y a s s e c u r i t y f o r t h e f i n a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f a number o f c o n d i t i o n s t o t h e p l a n n i n g  30  permission has been held by the M i n i s t e r , s i t t i n g on appeal, as improper and beyond planning powers, the r u l e apparently being that money can only be demanded on d i s t i n c t authority l a i d down by statute.(Case I I I / 16 i n Heap, 1969,  115)  Suggestions f o r a " l o t fee" condition, on the other  hand, have apparently been received cooly because of the e a r l i e r f a i l u r e of the development charge provisions of the 1947 Act, although road cons t r u c t i o n requirements are normally secured even i n the l i g h t of dubious l e g i s l a t i v e authority, i n the apparent hopes that they w i l l not be (Mandelker, 1962,  63)  challenged.  F i n a l l y , there i s the suggestion that many l o c a l  authorities f e e l that t h e i r insistence on donations and s i m i l a r conditions represents a sale of planning permission to the highest bidder.(Mandelker, 1962,  63)  In addition however to these p r i n c i p l e s that unreasonable, imprec i s e or unenforceable conditions w i l l not be sustained, there has been some consideration of the e f f e c t that a n u l l i f i e d condition might have on the status of the planning permission i t s e l f .  E a r l i e r j u d i c i a l opinion  appeared to hold that an improper or i n v a l i d condition would t a i n t the whole planning permission  (Pyx Granite, i n Heap, 1969,  118), hut recent  opinion appears to be evolving somewhat away from t h i s p o s i t i o n . 1  It  now  :  seems, a l b e i t by way  of an acknowledged obiter and not without some d i f f e r -  ence of opinion, that the e f f e c t of an i n v a l i d condition on the planning permission i s to be decided purely as a matter of common sense, having regard to whether that condition i s fundamental or merely i n c i d e n t a l to the permission.(Heap, 1969,  120)  Obiter dictum - An observation by a judge on a l e g a l question suggested by a case before him, but not arising i n such a manner as to require decision. I t i s therefore not binding as a precedent." P . G . Osborne, A Concise Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. London, 1964.  31  A COMPARISON  OF AMERICAN AND BRITISH LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY  I t now seems apparent t h a t as means o f p l a n n i n g  and l a n d u s e c o n -  t r o l , B r i t i s h and American l e g i s l a t i o n and p r a c t i c e y h a v e  t a k e n on d e c i d e l y  divergent  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , each r e p r e s e n t i n g  a d i s t i n c t and s e p a r a t e  n a t i o n a l approach t o t h e problems o f u s e and development. e v e r an a p p a r e n t l y  T h e r e i s how-  wide r a n g e o f o p i n i o n as t o t h e magnitude o f t h e h i a t u s  between t h e two j u r i s d i c t i o n s , and DelaFons has o b s e r v e d t h a t " t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s between a f o r m a l  system o f r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l s . . . a n d  c o n t r o l as a  d i s c r e t i o n a r y power ... a r e more a p p a r e n t t h a n r e a l " . ( D e l a f o n s , 1969, 112)  There i s some d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e b a s i c t h e o r y planning  and u s e c o n t r o l s i n b o t h c o u n t r i e s , as c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e i r  o r i g i n s and p r e v a i l i n g p r a c t i c e . of B r i t i s h planning tuent  and a t t i t u d e o f  c o n t r o l , i t has been i n t i m a t e l y i d e n t i f i e d as a c o n s t i -  "Town and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g "  i n s t e a d o f use,  Almost s i n c e t h e i n c e p t i o n o f any f o r m  c o n c e r n , w i t h t h e emphasis on development  and encompassing t h e t e n e t t h a t a l l development be s u b j e c t  t o some form o f s t a t e o r u n i f i e d c o n t r o l .  Consequently, broad  administra-  t i v e c o n t r o l and a t t e n d a n t d i s c r e t i o n have been a h a l l m a r k o f t h e B r i t i s h practice. zoning"  American p l a n n i n g  l e g i s l a t i o n , on t h e o t h e r hand, where  r e q u i r e s the determination  "pre-  of projected use p r i o r t o the f a c t ,  t e n d s t o emphasize u s e i n s t e a d o f development.  W h i l e zoning may have been d e r i v e d from p r i n c i p l e s o f u s e c o n t r o l and t h e l a w o f n u i s a n c e , i t i s now d i s t i l l e d  from a v a r i e t y o f a c t s and  r e g u l a t i o n s j i n c l u d i n g s u b - d i v i s i o n and b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s and t h e sometimes d e t e r m i n a t i v e and  official  guidance from M a s t e r P l a n s , urban r e n e w a l schemes  s t r e e t maps.  This plethora of constituent l e g i s l a t i o n ,  each  32  d e v e l o p i n g from d i s t i n c t b u t d i f f e r e n t p l a n e s , p u r p o s e s and p o i n t s o f v i e w has undoubtedly s e r v e d t o c o n f u s e somewhat t h e d i r e c t i o n and scope o f American p l a n n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n .  Comprehensive p l a n n i n g , f o r i n s t a n c e ,  appears f a r l e s s a t t a i n a b l e w i t h t h e v a r i e t y o f A m e r i c a n s t a t u t e s t h a n w i t h t h e s i n g u l a r and p u r p o s e - o r i e n t e d  B r i t i s h development c o n t r o l l e g i s l a t i o n ,  where t h e development p l a n p r o v i d e s c o n t i n u i t y and a s s u r e s  comprehensive-  ness. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c r e t i o n has n o t o f course c h a r a c t e r i z e d p l a n n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , and t h e o f t - c i t e d f e a r o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n d i s c r e t i o n has t e n d e d t o u n d e r s c o r e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n t h i s a r e a .  Americans  h a v e , f o r example, c e n s u r e d t h e B r i t i s h l e g i s l a t i o n as " t h e image o f a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n making" (Anon., 1969,  76) and f o r i t s d i r t h o f p o l i c y  p r i n c i p l e s , sometimes r e n d e r i n g , i t i s c l a i m e d , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y d i f f i c u l t . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962,  exceedingly  129)  I t h a s a l s o been p o p u l a r t o d i s t i n g u i s h B r i t i s h and A m e r i c a n a t t e m p t s a t u s e and development c o n t r o l on i s s u e s o f p u b l i c v e r s u s p r i v a t e enterprize.  M a n d e l k e r ' s s t u d y o f t h e two p l a n n i n g systems p o i n t s o u t  t h a t t h e E n g l i s h l e g i s l a t i o n was p r i m a r i l y d e s i g n e d t o r e g u l a t e p u b l i c b u i l d i n g , and hence does n o t c o n t a i n t h e s u p e r v i s o r y powers w h i c h i n America l i n k t h e planning a u t h o r i t y w i t h the p r i v a t e builder.(Mandelker, 1962,  62)  F r e d e r i c k Laux, a C a n a d i a n l a w p r o f e s s o r , c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e  r e s u l t s o f t h i s p o l a r i t y as t h e . . . "somewhat anamolous s i t u a t i o n t h a t a s o c i a l i s t t y p e government d e v i s e d and implemented a l a n d u s e r e g u l a t o r y scheme w h i c h b o t h r e c o g n i z e d and gave c o n s i d e r a b l e i n i t i a t i v e i n l a n d u s e p l a n n i n g . . . w h i l e A m e r i c a n E u c l i d e a n z o n i n g , w h i c h was d e v i s e d and k e p t  c u r r e n t b y a p o l i t i c a l system committed t o t h e p r i n c i p l e o f f r e e e n t e r p r i s e , by i t s v e r y nature, d r a s t i c a l l y l i m i t s . . . t h e r o l e o f t h e p r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r i n f o r m u l a t i n g and i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e community plan."(Laux, 1972, 5) T h i s p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r o f American  z o n i n g and a p r e v a l e n t d i s t r u s t  of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c r e t i o n i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n d i s t i n c t i o n s i n appeal procedures.  B r i t i s h a p p e a l p r a c t i c e n o r m a l l y c o n s i s t s o f a t r i a l de novo  a complete r e - h e a r i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p l a n n i n g p e r m i s s i o n , which i s r o u t i n e l y handled by I n s p e c t o r s , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s g a t e d t h i s power b y t h e M i n i s t e r .  dele-  A l t h o u g h t h e form o f such h e a r i n g s  a l l e g e d l y remains j u d i c i a l ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962, 89), t h e I n s p e c t o r s t e n d t o p o s s e s s n e i t h e r l e g a l t r a i n i n g o r p l a n n i n g e x p e r i e n c e . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962, 21,95, I l k )  There i s no s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n f o r such a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c r e  t i o n i n t h e American system, and a p p e a l s g e n e r a l l y p r o c e e d s t r i c t l y i n accordance w i t h j u d i c i a l p r i n c i p l e s .  T h i s method i s c l a i m e d t o a f f o r d  c o n s i d e r a b l e more emphasis t o t h e r i g h t s o f i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s , t h e p l a n n e r s ' r o l e becoming r a t h e r more a d v i s o r y . ( C o u n t s , 1966, 2)  Nonetheless,  t h e r e i s a p p a r e n t l y n o t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e second-look approach  that  i s a v a i l a b l e i n B r i t i s h a p p e a l p r o c e d u r e , f o r t h e American c o u r t s have tended t o g i v e t h e o r i g i n a l z o n i n g d e c i s i o n a p r i m a f a c i e a c c e p t a n c e . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962, 19) American c r i t i c s however f e e l t h a t t h e i r methods p r o v i d e g r e a t e r advantages f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l a n d u s e c o n t r o l s ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967), and a v o i d s t h e dangers o f i n f l u e n c e by p r i v a t e p r e s s u r e groups i n a development c o n t r o l system.(Anon.,  1969, 677)  A p r i m e r e m a i n i n g d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s e two t h e o r i e s o f l a n d  3h  u s e and development c o n t r o l l i e s i n t h e a t t i t u d e s o f l a n d t e n u r e .  Although  few Americans argue w i t h t h e t h e s i s t h a t ... " Z o n i n g r e s u l t s f r o m a r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t t h e v a l u e and u s e f u l n e s s o f each p a r c e l , n o t o n l y t o t h e owner b u t t o t h e community, i s v i t a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e use made o f t h e a d j o i n i n g p a r c e l " ( L a n d e l s , 165),  t h e r e has been l e s s a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e e x t e n s i o n as  championed by Henry George:  "The v a l u e o f l a n d ... i s n o t i n any case t h e  c r e a t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l who owns t h e l a n d ; i t i s c r e a t e d b y t h e community". 1 ( M i l n e r , 1963,  88)  The c o n c e p t o f t h e "development v a l u e " o f l a n d was, o f  c o u r s e , i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e U t h w a t t R e p o r t o f 19ii2 and saw i m p l e m e n t a t i o n w i t h t h e n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f t h e development v a l u e o f l a n d i n B r i t a i n ' s 19U7  Town and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g A c t .  what m o d i f i e d t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s 19^7  W h i l e subsequent l e g i s l a t i o n has someordinance, the obvious p r o c l i v i t y  of the B r i t i s h t o t h i s form of land tenure stands i n contrast t o the t r a d i t i o n a l American views. A number o f A m e r i c a n s have r e c o g n i z e d c e r t a i n advantages i n E n g l i s h development c o n t r o l :  "The E n g l i s h development p l a n c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n -  t i v e and p r o c e d u r a l s t r e n g t h s n o t p o s s e s s e d b y t h e A m e r i c a n M a s t e r P l a n and z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e " . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962,  13)  The most r e c e n t recommendations  o f t h e A m e r i c a n Law I n s t i t u t e ' s M o d e l Land Development Code ( A L I D r a f t ,  1971,  3) c l e a r l y e n v i s i o n a form o f development c o n t r o l c l o s e l y a l l i e d t o t h e B r i t i s h model, b u t a r e a l s o b a s e d on s u g g e s t i o n s from A m e r i c a n p l a n n i n g and zoning s p e c i a l i s t s . A number o f t h e s e r e f o r m s u g g e s t i o n s , n o t i n g t h a t even now 1  "local  See however: S t i c k e l , 1969, U23; Rawson, M a r i o n " P r o p e r t y T a x a t i o n and Zoning",- 1967 P l a n n i n g 2 7 8 ; " P r o p e r t y T a x a t i o n and U r b a n Development" i n M i l n e r , 1963, l U 2 . )  35  governments  a r e t u r n i n g away f r o m E u c l i d e a n z o n i n g ... t o a system i n  w h i c h t h e c e n t r a l f e a t u r e i s a r e q u e s t b y an owner f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o d e v e l o p " ( S m i t h , 19 69, kk),  have a d v o c a t e d a p e r m i t system i n s t e a d o f t r a d i -  t i o n a l zoning procedure.  By p r o v i d i n g some means o f g e n e r a l r e g u l a t i o n ,  i t i s a r g u e d , t h e need f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f l e x i b i l i t y , w h i c h  assumedly  cannot be accommodated i n s t a n d a r d z o n i n g , would t h e r e b y be a v a i l a b l e . (Kras,, 1965,  10)  D a n i e l Mandelker i n h i s study o f E n g l i s h  development  c o n t r o l has c r i t i c i z e d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r a p e r m i t system as m e r e l y p r o v i d ing  e x p o s u r e o f some o f t h e more complex problems o f c o n t r o l and c o - o r d i n -  a t i o n w h i c h a r e o t h e r w i s e h i d d e n o r compromised b y c o n v e n t i o n a l z o n i n g , and he argues t h a t e i t h e r f u l l E n g l i s h - s t y l e development c o n t r o l must be or t h e s e a r c h c o n t i n u e d e l s e w h e r e i n a t t e m p t s t o accommodate p u b l i c p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s . ( M a n d e l k e r , 1962,  Some recommendations  and  21)  f o r t h e f u l l i n s t i t u t i o n o f development  i n t h e p l a c e and s t e a d o f z o n i n g have been made. 1962  adopted,  control  M o s t , such as D a l b e l l e s  p l a n f o r a two-step c o n t r o l p r o c e d u r e encompassing b o t h p r e l i m i n a r y  and f i n a l p l a n s w i t h p o l i c y g u i d e l i n e s and "development p l a n s " t a i l o r e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r l o c a l a r e a p l a n n i n g ( D a l b e l l e , 1968)  have been n o t e d f o r  t h e i r r e m a r k a b l e resemblance t o t h e c u r r e n t E n g l i s h l e g i s l a t i o n . ( C o u n t s , 1966,  8)  The p r a c t i c a l m a j o r i t y o f s u g g e s t e d r e f o r m s have,however, concent r a t e d on e s t a b l i s h i n g w o r k i n g i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s between e x i s t i n g z o n i n g and recommended development c o n t r o l r e g u l a t i o n s .  Heeter's survey of  m a j o r U.S. Government r e p o r t s on u r b a n problems i n t h e 1960's d i g e s t s a " g u i d a n c e system" i n c o r p o r a t i n g a v a r i e t y o f new t o o l s t o g u i d e t h e tempo,  36  p r i o r i t y , l o c a t i o n , type and q u a l i t y of use and development that would co-exist with zoning, which would i t s e l f be retained s p e c i f i c a l l y t o guard against incompatible changes - " i t s o r i g i n a l purpose."(Heeter, 1969, 66) Somewhat s i m i l a r i s Rep's system o f "Development Regulations" requiring a compulsory development plan but allowing broad discretionary power to l o c a l administrators to grant permits, a l b e i t circumscribed by narrowly defined development r i g h t s and well-defined performance standards. (Reps, 1961+, 6-9) Such combined controls have of course been operating with general success i n Canadian provinces and would be able to provide considerable guidance wherever such methodology i s contemplated.  I n t e r e s t i n g l y then, American  experience and d i r e c t i o n seem now t o be approaching Canadian examples i n t h e i r search f o r innovative and f l e x i b l e t o o l s to combat zoning r i g i d i t y .  LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL IN CANADA l ) Factors The evolution of Canadian land use and development control l e g i s l a t i o n has tended t o roughly p a r a l l e l that of the United States and has t r a d i t i o n a l l y eschewed the establishment of a closer a f f i n i t y with B r i t i s h methods o f land use control, with the r e s u l t that u n t i l recently zoning has been the primary c o n t r o l mechanism i n t h i s country.  There i s evidence  however of an increasing trend t o experimentation with B r i t i s h - s t y l e control methods and the present s i t u a t i o n i n Canada i s composed of both  elements.  Although Canadian zoning practice does bear close resemblance t o i t s American counterpart and remains an " e s s e n t i a l l y U.S.  type control"  (Milner, 1962b, 32), there i s some difference of opinion as t o both the  37  r a t i o n a l e and e x t e n t o f t h e American i n f l u e n c e .  Milner, f o r instance,  maintains t h a t i n s p i t e o f the prima f a c i e s i m i l a r i t i e s , American planners have r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e i n Canada ( M i l n e r , 1962b, U 5 ) , a l t h o u g h o t h e r s c o m p l a i n o f c o n t i n u e d and u n n e c e s s a r y p r a c t i c e . ( C l a r k , 1958, 6)  dependence on t h e American  Aykroyd, i n h i s comparative study o f B r i t i s h  and A m e r i c a n l a n d c o n t r o l s , i s p r o b a b l y more a c c u r a t e i n h i s p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t w h i l e there i s undoubtedly i n the procedure  some American i n f l u e n c e h e r e , i t i s m e r e l y  and t e c h n o l o g y and does n o t go t o t h e b a s i c n a t u r e o f o u r  p l a n n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , w h i c h remains r o o t e d i n B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n . ( A y k r o y d , 1969,  15) There i s , i n any e v e n t , c o n s i d e r a b l e c r i t i c i s m o f t h e way i n w h i c h  t h e A m e r i c a n t h e o r y o f z o n i n g has been a p p l i e d i n t h e C a n a d i a n c o n t e x t . M i l n e r maintains that the d i r e c t adoption of the l e g i s l a t i v e r a t i o n a l e f o r z o n i n g , c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e " p o l i c e power" o f t h e American c o n s t i t u t i o n , i s absolutely without c o n s t i t u t i o n a l n e c e s s i t y or v a l i d i t y i n t h i s country, and was p r o b a b l y done w i t h o u t any c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e p h r a s e s and w o r d i n g i n t h e a u t h o r i z i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , ( M i l n e r , 1956,  131) and  A d l e r q u e s t i o n s t h e a d o p t i o n o f American s o l u t i o n s w h i c h do n o t a p p l y t o t h e l e s s c o n s t r a i n e d Canadian s y s t e m . ( A d l e r , 1968, 163)  In addition,  a l t h o u g h b o t h c o u n t r i e s share common growth and development p a t t e r n s and have, because o f h i s t o r y and g e o g r a p h i c p r o x i m i t y , e x p e r i e n c e d growth problems,  t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n fundamental  similar  distinctions i n the consti-  t u t i o n a l arrangement o f f e d e r a l and s t a t e o r p r o v i n c i a l governments, i n t h e s o c i o - l e g a l f a b r i c and i n our common-law t r a d i t i o n s .  Finally,  differing  a t t i t u d e s towards r u r a l - u r b a n problems and i n concern f o r t h e r e t e n t i o n o f l o c a l rights a l l m i l i t a t e against assimilitude i n land control p o l i c i e s . ( M e r r i f i e l d , 1963, 3)  38  The influence of the U.K.. system of development control i s perhaps more d i f f i c u l t to discern i n t r a d i t i o n a l Canadian land use control, but i s becoming increasingly more apparent i n the new being advocated.  and f l e x i b l e approaches  The d i s t i n c t l y Canadian requirement of p r o v i n c i a l approval  of most zoning by-laws (Milner,  1962b, 32) probably.derives from B r i t i s h  t r a d i t i o n , and s i m i l a r state supervision of zoning i s at present minimal i n i  the United States, where and even planning assistance i n land use controls i s present i n l e s s than h a l f of the states. (Cunningham,  1965,380) .. Requirements  s i m i l a r to ours however, are presently being considered and recommended for  i n s t i t u t i o n i n American land use l e g i s l a t i o n . ( A L I Draft 3,  1971)  The greatest impact and influence of•English tradition.is-probably, f e l t i n that most substantial-and important d i s t i n c t i o n betwen American B r i t i s h land use p r a c t i c e - i n the degree of d i s c r e t i o n . adminstration  and  American land iise  has been s i n g u l a r l y noted f o r i t s d i s t r u s t of administrative  d i s c r e t i o n and characterized by attempts to keep d i s c r e t i o n low and well within l i m i t s capable of f u l l and constant l e g i s l a t i v e or p o l i t i c a l review. Canada, on the other hand, with a background of B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n experience and enjoying a correspondingly  and  d i f f e r e n t s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l develop-  ment from that of the United States, has experienced neither this d i s t r u s t nor adverse reaction against the vasting of discretionary power i n i t s administrative o f f i c i a l s .  Some form of administrative d i s c r e t i o n i s presently  available i n Canadian sub-division and zoning controls,'and the increasing use of development c o n t r o l i s widening the horizon f o r d i s c r e t i o n , except wherever the maintenance of s u i t a b l e p o l i t i c a l control i s paramount.(Milner, Lecture, March 28,  1968)  39  2) S t a t u s Zoning now p r o v i d e s t h e p r i m a r y means o f l a n d u s e c o n t r o l i n a l l b u t two o r t h r e e o f t h e C a n a d i a n p r o v i n c e s .  A l t h o u g h M a n i t o b a and P r i n c e  Edward I s l a n d do n o t r e f e r t o t h e i r l e g i s l a t i o n as z o n i n g , i t a p p a r e n t l y f u n c t i o n s i n much t h e same manner, ( M i l n e r , 1962a, 1 U 5 ) , w h i l e s e v e r a l o f t h e o t h e r p r o v i n c e s i n c l u d i n g A l b e r t a and O n t a r i o o p e r a t e w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g c o n t r o l s augmented b y r e c e n t i n t r o d u c t i o n s o f development c o n t r o l . Zoning i s n o t however g e n e r a l l y compulsory i n Canada ( A y k r o y d , 1 5 ) ,  except  i n new l e g i s l a t i o n f o r i n d i v i d u a l O n t a r i o R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t s and i n A l b e r t a where l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l "proceed" p l a n has been p u t i n t o e f f e c t . ( M i l n e r , 1962b,  once a  27)  Most p r o v i n c i a l z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e s b e a r c l o s e resemblance t o t h e A m e r i c a n p r o d u c t and have been d e r i v e d i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n from t h o s e r o o t s . (RAIC, 1965, 7)  O n t a r i o , f o r i n s t a n c e , had a f a i r l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d  u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n b y t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y and b y 190U was, l i k e o t h e r m a j o r u r b a n c e n t r e s i n Europe and t h e E a s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s , operating with not only a s e t of building regulations t o control i n t e r  alia,  f r o n t a g e and s e t - b a c k s , b u t w i t h by-laws t o " p r e v e n t , r e g u l a t e and c o n t r o l t h e l o c a t i o n , e r e c t i o n and u s e o f ... ( c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d t r a d e s ) . ( M i l n e r , 1963, 606)  No attempts however t o i n s t i t u t e " d i s t r i c t i n g " o r any c l a s s i f i -  c a t i o n o f u s e were made u n t i l 1921 when l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f " t h e use of l a n d o r t h e e r e c t i o n or use o f b u i l d i n g s w i t h i n any d e f i n e d a r e a o r areas ... f o r any o t h e r purpose t h a n t h a t o f a p r i v a t e r e s i d e n c e " ( 1 9 2 1 , S.O.C. 6 3 , S. 10) h e r a l d e d t h e f i r s t  detached  zoning  JUo  enabling  s t a t u t e , a t l e a s t i n terms now f a m i l i a r t o modern z o n i n g b y - l a w s . Whatever may have been t h e i n t e n t i o n s f o r t h i s e a r l y z o n i n g b y - l a w ,  most O n t a r i o m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a p p a r e n t l y r e g a r d e d i t as l i t t l e more t h a n a s t a t e s u b s t i t u t e f o r a b u i l d i n g s c h e m e . ( M i l n e r , 1962b, 1*6)  From 1921 t o  1952,  when T o r o n t o f i n a l l y r e v i s e d i t s o r i g i n a l z o n i n g p r o c e d u r e , some 1*00 by-laws had been p a s s e d .  D u r i n g t h a t t i m e however, t h e i n i t i a t i v e f o r d e f i n i n g t h e  a r e a w i t h i n w h i c h t h e b y - l a w would be u s e d was l e f t up t o t h e l o c a l r e s i d e n t s t h e m s e l v e s so t h a t a number o f t h e s e " d e f i n e d  a r e a s " were l i t t l e more  t h a n l o c a l s t r e e t s , t h e p r o d u c t o f somewhat o v e r - e f f u s i v e  parochial  i n t e r e s t s . ( M i l n e r , 1962b, 1*6) I f t h e development and u s e o f z o n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n r e f l e c t s a p u r e l y American t r a d i t i o n , the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  d i s c r e t i o n and  development c o n t r o l i n t o Canadian l a n d u s e l e g i s l a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s "the f i r s t r e a l and major d e p a r t u r e from U.S. p r a c t i c e " . ( C l a r k , 1958,  9)  Now  1 a v a i l a b l e i n a t l e a s t seven p r o v i n c e s development c o n t r o l appears t o be g a i n i n g w i d e s p r e a d use and a c c e p t a n c e amongst b o t h p l a n n e r s and d e v e l o p e r s (RAIC, 1965,  22)^although t h e p r o v i n c e s g e n e r a l l y have n o t appeared t o o  eager t o experiment w i t h d i s c r e t i o n a r y l a n d use c o n t r o l s a t t h e expense o f t h e p r o v e n methods o f z o n i n g . The P r o v i n c e o f A l b e r t a has however, f o r a t l e a s t twenty y e a r s , been u t i l i z i n g a f o r m o f development c o n t r o l .  The f i r s t  c o n t r o l l e g i s l a t i o n , c l o s e l y m o d e l l e d on t h e 191*7  development  B r i t i s h A c t , was i n t r o -  duced i n t o A l b e r t a i n 1950  a l l e g e d l y on t h e i n i t i a t i v e o f t h e C i t y o f  Edmonton ( S t e v e n s o n , 1961,  1*35)  and u n d o u b t e d l y s u g g e s t e d , s u s t a i n e d  B.C., A l b e r t a , Saskatchewan, M a n i t o b a , O n t a r i o ,  P . E . I , and  and  Newfoundland.  la  promoted b y t h a t p r o v i n c e s " g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f E n g l i s h b o r n o r educated p l a n n e r s " . ( M i l n e r , 1962b, U5)  T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n was a p p a r e n t l y seen as  no more t h a n an i n t e r i m measure when f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d , i n t e n d e d t o be u s e d o n l y between t h e r e s o l u t i o n t o p r e p a r e a g e n e r a l p l a n and i t s f i n a l implementation  (Laux, 1972,  9)  Nonetheless,  t h e advantages o f d e v e l o p -  ment c o n t r o l appear t o have been q u i c k l y a p p r e c i a t e d b y b o t h Edmonton and C a l g a r y f o r , b y s i m p l y n o t i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e p l a n b o t h c i t i e s have been o p e r a t i n g w i t h " i n t e r i m " development c o n t r o l more o r l e s s c o n t i n u o u s l y s i n c e 1950.(Stevenson, 1961, U35)  The anomalous " i n t e r i m d e s i g n a t i o n was  t h e r e f o r e d e l e t e d from t h e a c t and a l l r e f e r e n c e s i n 1963  (RAIC, 1965,  22),  i n essence v i t i a t i n g M i l n e r ' s p r e d i c t i o n t h a t " t h e r e a l danger o f i n t e r i m c o n t r o l i s t h a t i t soon becomes c o n t r o l and l o s e s i t s i n t e r i m q u a l i t y " . (Stevenson,  1961,  1+35)  A l b e r t a ' s p l a n n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n now t h e r e f o r e p e r m i t s t h e m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l s e i t h e r t o r e g u l a t e b y t h e t r a d i t i o n a l means o f a z o n i n g b y l a w (R.S.A. 1970,  G. 276, S. 119) o r , even a f t e r a g e n e r a l p l a n has been  adopted, t o o b t a i n a u t h o r i z a t i o n f r o m t h e M i n i s t e r t o c o n t i n u e t h e e x e r c i s e o f development control.(S.100)  That p a r t o f t h e a c t c o n c e r n e d w i t h D e v e l o p -  ment C o n t r o l b e a r s s t r o n g resemblance t o t h e E n g l i s h l e g i s l a t i o n .  To  ensure t h a t t h e p r o p o s a l s o f t h e g e n e r a l p l a n w i l l be c a r r i e d o u t , t h e l e g i s l a t i o n a l s o p r o v i d e s f o r t h e enactment o f development schemes, g e n e r a l l y d e s i g n e d t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e d e s i g n a t i o n , assembly o r p u r c h a s e o f s c h o o l and p a r k , s i t e s , roadways and o t h e r s p e c i f i e d u s e s . ( S . l l U ) o f development i s a c h i e v e d through  Actual control  a system o f p e r m i t s , c o n d i t i o n a l o r  o t h e r w i s e , w h i l e each a p p l i c a t i o n i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d on i t s own m e r i t s "having r e g a r d t o t h e p r o p o s e d development c o n f o r m i n g w i t h t h e g e n e r a l  plan being prepared or adopted"(S. 100 (2)) To t h i s point the l e g i s l a t i o n bears a strong, and probably intent i o n a l , resemblance t o English Development Control.  Nonetheless, a  further and somewhat d i s - s i m i l a r section of the Alberta Act provides f o r a "land use c l a s s i f i c a t i o n guide", ostensibly t o a s s i s t i n the exercise of development control but appearing, f o r a l l intents and purposes,  virtually  i d e n t i c a l t o the standard form zoning by-law though absent i t s general sections on applications, appeals and enforcement.(Laux, 1972, 18)  Both  Edmonton and Calgary (Calgary ByLaw 7839, S. 11-1) require that the development control o f f i c e r t o whom the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of administering development control has been delegated s h a l l be governed by t h i s land use c l a s s i f i c a t i o n guide, and concern has been expressed that should the law i n f a c t so require that he be governed by t h i s guide, the d i s t i n c t i o n between development c o n t r o l and zoning would be e f f e c t i v e l y negated and the intent and purpose of the l e g i s l a t i o n frustrated.(Laux, 1972, 20)  In  f a c t , recent j u d i c i a l set-backs to the status of the Calgary Development Control By-Law have tended to confirm t h i s fear,"'' and the status of both zoning and development control i n A l b e r t a i s "to say the l e a s t , uncertain". (Laux, 1972, 12)  The practice i n the Province of Ontario may however be even more uncertain, f o r there development control i s p r a c t i c e d without any s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e authorization.  Ontario's " r e s t r i c t e d area" by-laws, s i m i l a r  to zoning ordinances but considered to be somewhat more negative (Cumming,  See Calgary Herald, March 11, 1972.  1950,  n . p . ) , have a p p a r e n t l y been u t i l i z e d i n t h e main f o r o n l y s i n g l e -  f a m i l y u s e , and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have i n s t e a d been i n s i s t i n g on t h e enactment o f s p e c i f i c by-laws f o r each o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l use(0LRC, 1971,  11)  W h i l e most o f O n t a r i o ' s u r b a n c e n t r e s have l o n g had t h e p r a c t i c e o f u s i n g f o r m a l documents e x e c u t e d w i t h t h e d e v e l o p e r as a prime c o n t r o l ( A y k r o y d , 1969,  18),  instrument  t h i s method has t a k e n on some s o p h i s t i c a t i o n and i s  now w i d e l y u s e d i n b o t h H a m i l t o n and T o r o n t o ism f o r t h e C i t y o f L o n d o n . ( A d l e r ,  1971,  and i s t h e major c o n t r o l mechan-  97)  The p r a c t i c e t h e r e i s t o g e n e r a l l y r e t a i n t h e e x i s t i n g z o n i n g and r e q u i r e any d e v e l o p e r who f o r t h e change.  thus  d e s i r e s a more e c o n o m i c a l o r d e s i r a b l e use t o a p p l y  I n s t e a d o f r e z o n i n g t h e p r o p e r t y , an i n d i v i d u a l b y - l a w i s  p a s s e d t o r e s t r i c t development t o t h a t p r o p o s e d o r p e r m i t t e d by t h e m u n c i p a l i t y and c o v e r e d by an a r i c i l l i a r y c o n t r a c t . ( S a n d l e r , 1 9 6 U )  The  M u n i c i p a l Board, t h e a p p r o v i n g a u t h o r i t y f o r a l l m u n i c i p a l z o n i n g  Ontario by-laws,  o f f i c i a l p l a n s and s u b d i v i s i o n s , has however c h a r a c t e r i z e d such a p r a c t i c e as  " s p o t z o n i n g " and has i n d i c a t e d t h a t "On  general p r i n c i p l e s t h i s Board  i s opposed t o s p o t z o n i n g and s i t e p l a n c o n t r o l s . . . " ( R e P i c k e r i n g B y - l a w c i t e d i n A d l e r , 1971,  102).  3718,  The O n t a r i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l however i n a I960  d e c i s i o n (Re N o r t h Y o r k B y - l a w  lUo67, I960 2k DLR 12) a p p e a r s t o have  v i t i a t e d the p r a c t i c e of spot zoning ( M i l n e r , L e c t u r e , March  28, 1968),  and t h e O.M.B. appears r e a d y t o observe t h e p r e c e d e n t , so l o n g as t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f p l a n n i n g r e s e a r c h i n t h e g e n e r a l a r e a o r t h a t t h e use change i s i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s p i r i t and i n t e n t o f an e x i s t i n g o f f i c i a l p l a n . ( A d l e r , 1971,  95)  M i l n e r t h u s f e e l s , t h a t t h e B o a r d has t a c i t l y approved  t h e London p r o c e d u r e ,  and t h a t t h e O n t a r i o f o r m o f development c o n t r o l i n  p r a c t i c e t h u s c l o s e l y approximates (Milnei;  1962b, 53)  A l b e r t a development c o n t r o l l e g i s l a t i o n .  The C i t y of Vancouver, operating with i t s own charter  independently  of the Municipal Act, has been able to u t i l i z e somewhat more f l e x i b l e means Since 1956  of land use c o n t r o l than other p r o v i n c i a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  the  c i t y has been operating with a Development Permit system, l a t e r amended to 2 allow the attachment of conditions, while a 1962  amendment  permitted the  designation of c e r t a i n zones without uniform regulations but f o r which development required council approval.  Although there would appear to be  extensive d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers given to the Technical Planning Board under these Comprehensive Development Zones, c i t y planning o f f i c i a l s have i n d i cated that because each zone i s normally established with a s p e c i f i c purpose or development i n mind, and because c o u n c i l a c t u a l l y sets the p o l i c i e s f o r each zone, l i t t l e actual d i s c r e t i o n i s available. (Gereeke, 1971,  15)  Because however the remainder of the province's m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are within the j u r i s d i c t o n of the Municipal Act, which u n t i l r e c e n t l y made no p r o v i s i o n f o r any form of c o n d i t i o n a l use, Vancouver's system was generally considered preferable.(South, Interview.)  Other provinces d i d however  3 permit s p e c i a l conditions of use , and B.C.'s r e c e n t l y introduced S. 702A provides f o r "such terms and conditions f o r the use and development of the land as may be mutually agreed upon...".(S.702A,(3)). 3. Evaluation Recognizing and to some extent encapsulating the American trend to replace or rejuvenate the creaking and sometimes i n e f f e c t i v e machinery of zoning with new  and f l e x i b l e techniques approximating  •"•Chapter 55, R.S.B.C., o  B r i t i s h development  i960,  By-law 1*031, amending the Zoning and Development By-law  •^eg. Saskatchewan, Community Planning Act, R.S.S.C. 172, Ontario, Planning Act, R.S.O. C. 276, S. 123(c).  3575. S. U6(b), and  c o n t r o l , Canadian z o n i n g has undergone s i m i l a r e v a l u a t i o n t o r s , w r i t e r s and p o l i t i c i a n s . l a t i o n and  by  administra-  Meanwhile, t h e development c o n t r o l  r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t e x p e r i e n c e o f A l b e r t a , O n t a r i o and  Canadian p r o v i n c e s has  legis-  other  a l s o been under some s c r u t i n y , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r  r e g a r d t o i t s f e a s i b i l i t y as an a l t e r n a t i v e o r r e p l a c e m e n t f o r z o n i n g . One  p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t a b l e f a c t o r o f Canadian development c o n t r o l ,  as d i s t i n c t from b o t h the B r i t i s h p r a c t i c e and i n i t i a l American a t t e m p t s , i s i t s concurrent operation  w i t h e x i s t i n g zoning r e g u l a t i o n s .  I n many  p r o v i n c e s development c o n t r o l l e g i s l a t i o n o r i t s t a c i t l y approved p r a c t i c e e i t h e r s e r v e s as a d i r e c t r e p l a c e m e n t f o r z o n i n g o r c o - e x i s t s and i s u t i l i z e d i n company w i t h i t . f o r i n s t a n c e , was  The  o r i g i n a l i n t e n t o f the A l b e r t a  legislation,  t o u t i l i z e " i n t e r i m " development c o n t r o l f o l l o w i n g a  r e s o l u t i o n t o p r e p a r e a g e n e r a l p l a n and t i o n of zoning r e g u l a t i o n s .  o n l y up t o and u n t i l the  institu-  N o n e t h e l e s s , and i n a p p a r e n t r e c o g n i t i o n  of  the p r e f e r e n t i a l advantages o f development c o n t r o l , l a t e r l e g i s l a t i o n authorized  the M i n i s t e r t o suspend t h e z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s  a r e a and p e r m i t the use ment c o n t r o l and a t one 10)  and  o f any p a r t i c u l a r  o f " i n t e r i m " development c o n t r o l , and b o t h d e v e l o p -  z o n i n g can now  be u s e d as a means of r e g u l a t i n g l a n d  t h e same t i m e a f t e r a g e n e r a l p l a n has been adopted.(Laux,  p l a c e i t under development c o n t r o l , a l t h o u g h t h e r e v e r s e does not appear p o s s i b l e .  yet  1  I n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , S.702A, which a u t h o r i z e s development a r e a s and use See  1972,  The M i n i s t e r ' s power t o suspend z o n i n g has been j u d i c i a l l y e x t e n d e d  t o a l l o w a m u n i c i p a l i t y t o t a k e l a n d c u r r e n t l y under the z o n i n g b y - l a w  1  use  the c r e a t i o n  o f a " l a n d use c o n t r a c t " , i s f o u n d w i t h i n  Bohey v. C i t y o f Edmonton, 1971,  S.C.  of  and  1*6  " D i v i s i o n (3) - Z o n i n g " , a n d e x p r e s s l y existing (S,  zoning regulations  702A (8)  recognition  Municipal  a l a n d o w n e r to d e v e l o p  Act  I960 C.255, as amended).  R.S.B.C.  Municipal  without, of course, l e g i s l a t i v e  B o a r d however  apparently  zoning controls:  ( c i t e d i n Adler,  f e e l s that the use of  by the l e s s f l e x i b l e  1590196  R e I n g l e w o o d P a r k , L o n d o n B y - l a w CP  that both  for full  z o n i n g and development  A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e o f Canada.  control•should  and e f f e c t i v e development o f  r e s o u r c e s has been advanced by a s p e c i a l committee r e p o r t Noting l i t t l e  land  of t h e R o y a l  o r no o b j e c t i o n  to the  o p e r a t i o n ~of d e v e l o p m e n t c o n t r o l I n A l b e r t a , t h e c o m m i t t e e m a i n t a i n s e f f e c t i v e u s e o f c o n d i t i o n a l z o n e s and' d i s c r e t i o n a r y p o w e r s z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w o u l d n a r r o w t h e gap b e t w e e n c o n t r o l , and i t s t r o n g l y a d v i s e s municipal  and r e g i o n a l  concern with  1965,  by  Law  expressed  t h e p a r t i c u l a r r e q u i r e m e n t s and t h e t i m e consumed b y p u b l i c  o f f i c i a l plan'j  the three  a n d d e v e l o p m e n t c o n t r o l . (OLRC, 1971,  levels of  i s the retention of supervisory  zoning,  12)  A second major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Canadian development legislation  development  The O n t a r i o  i s somewhat l e s s c o n v i n c e d a n d h a s  b o d i e s and p r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r s i n p r o c e s s i n g the  z o n i n g and  25)  that  i n traditional  t h a t b o t h forms be a v a i l a b l e f o r use  authorities.(RAIC,  Reform Commission however,  but  1971, 102)  Similar recognition be a v a i l a b l e and u t i l i z e d  authorization.  " i n t e r i m " a n d a s an a r e a becomes m o r e  u r b a n i z e d development c o n t r o l shouTdbe r e p l a c e d  (1965).  Similar  o f t h e c o m m u t a b i l i t y o f z o n i n g and development c o n t r o l i s  d e v e l o p m e n t c o n t r o l s h o u l d be s t r i c t l y  traditional  Under  s h o u l d h e n o t w i s h t o c o n t r a c t - w i t h -the m u n i c i p a l i t y ,  implied i n the Ontario.practice The O n t a r i o  allows  c o n t r o l by the  control  hi  p r o v i n c i a l government.  A t l e a s t f o u r p r o v i n c e s now p r o v i d e f o r a form o f  p r o v i n c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l t o e n f o r c e l o c a l p r o c e d u r e s arid s t a n d a r d s , and i n t h r e e more m i n i s t e r i a l a p p r o v a l o f c o n t r o l by-laws i s r e q u i r e d . ( A d l e r , 1968,  162)  C e n t r a l i z e d c o n t r o l seems t o be an i n h e r e n t f a c t o r  o f development c o n t r o l and t h e B r i t i s h p r a c t i c e o f e x e r c i s i n g c o n t r o l from t h e n a t i o n a l government  down t o l o c a l c o u n c i l s appears t o have h a d  i n f l u e n c e on C a n a d i a n p r o c e d u r e .  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e A m e r i c a n Law I n s t i -  t u t e ' s M o d e l l a i d Development Code s u g g e s t i o n s f o r t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f c e r t a i n s t a t e c o n t r o l s i n c o n c e r t w i t h a development c o n t r o l p r o c e d u r e i s r e m a r k a b l e a k i n t o t h e B r i t i s h m o d e l . ( A L I D r a f t 3,  1971)  C r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f A m e r i c a n z o n i n g procedures can g e n e r a l l y be a p p l i e d , m u t a t i s m u t a n d i s , t o Canadian methods as w e l l , a l t h o u g h some c r i t i c s have i n j e c t e d a p a r t i c u l a r l y C a n a d i a n f l a v o u r .  Haar's c o n c e r n  w i t h t h e l a c k o f comprehensive p l a n n i n g i n A m e r i c a n z o n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n ' ' " , f o r i n s t a n c e , h a s been a m p l i f i e d i n t h i s c o u n t r y by M i l n e r .  He n o t e s  t h a t because o f t h e f r e q u e n c y o f amendment made n e c e s s a r y b y t h e z o n i n g b y - l a w ' s i n f l e x i b i l i t y , comprehensiveness i s w e l l n i g h i m p o s s i b l e , ( M i l n e r ,  1962b, h9) and t h a t few p r o v i n c e s have p r e c e e d e d t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n o f z o n i n g by-laws w i t h any c o n c e p t o f a comprehensive p l a n . ( R A I C , 1965,  7)  Cumming, however, has n o t e d a t r e n d i n Canadian z o n i n g p r a c t i c e towards g r e a t e r a t t e m p t s a t comprehensiveness, (Gumming, 1955,  122)  encouraged, i t  m i g h t be supposed, b y t h e i n c r e a s i n g u s e o f development c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s .  Reps and M a k i e l s k i have commented t h a t z o n i n g i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y a l i e n t o t h e p l a n n e r , a l t h o u g h s u p p o r t e d b y t h e p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s , ( M a k i e l s k i , 1 9 6 7 , 1 7 ) , and M c N a i r n e y makes s i m i l a r "^Charles H a a r , " I n A c c o r d a n c e W i t h A B a s i c P l a n " , 68 H a r v a r d Law Review,  115U.  (1951*)  '  conclusions  i n the Canadian c o n t e x t .  about z o n i n g , 1961,  121)  While the p e o p l e are  he n o t e s , "the p r o f e s s i o n a l s hope i t gets  enthusiastic  lost."(McNairney,  M i l n e r however, f e e l s t h a t the t a s k o f a zoning  i s made i m p o s s i b l e  draughtsman  1962b, 1+9),  by a l a c k o f l e g i s l a t i v e d i r e c t i o n ( M i l n e r ,  and h i s committee r e p o r t a m p l i f i e s t h i s l a c k o f f a i t h by t h e p l a n n e r s i n t h e r i g i d s t a n d a r d s o f t h e zoning  by-law. (RAIC, 196$,  7)  A l t h o u g h the advantages o f development c o n t r o l are now considerable  concern and  favourable  receiving  recommendation by the American  Law  I n s t i t u t e i n t h e i r Model Land Development Code, t h e s e p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s have been i m p l i c i t i n Canadian p l a n n i n g  f o r some t i m e .  suggested t h a t Canadian l a n d use p r a c t i c e was development c o n t r o l ( L e v i n ,  1957),  and  E a r l Levin  moving towards a form i f  the r e p o r t o f t h e R o y a l A r c h i t e c t u r a l  I n s t i t u t e o f Canada borrowed h e a v i l y from A l b e r t a ' s Ontario's  In 1957,  legislation  and  p r a c t i c e f o r t h e i r recommendations f o r t h e implementation  development c o n t r o l i n Canada.(RAIC,  A n a l y s i s d f the O n t a r i o use,  of  1965)  p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the C i t y o f L o n d o n , 1  e n a b l e d A d l e r t o c o n c l u d e t h a t development c o n t r o l o f f e r s advantages o f f l e x i b i l i t y , use  o f a v a i l a b l e l a n d , and  coordination  o f the i n t e r e s t s o f  p l a n n e r s and d e v e l o p e r s s u p e r i o r t o zoning,, w h i l e i t s p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i s a t l e a s t e q u a l t o t h a t o f more t r a d i t i o n a l methods.(Adler, 1971,  103)  Milner  however m a i n t a i n s t h a t development c o n t r o l i s l e s s p r e d i c t a b l e t h a n zoning,  a t l e a s t f o r the d e v e l o p e r , because the p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s  i n a l l l a n d use  c o n t r o l s a r e more r e a d i l y apparent i n p r o p e r t y  involved already  zoned f o r development t h a n i n areas w i t h o u t t h i s p r i o r i n d i c a t i o n . ( M i l n e r L e c t u r e , March 28, 1  1968)  See a l s o , Guard, "The Implementation of Development C o n t r o l s U n p u b l i s h e d Conference paper, n.d.  i n London".  k9  Certain problems have of course also arisen with the use of development control.  The C i t y of Edmonton, f o r instance, has been c r i t i c i z e d f o r  i t s "unnecessarily broad d e f i n i t i o n of development", amounting, i t i s claimed to expropriation without compensation (Stevenson, 1962, 1*38), and the permissive aspect of the Calgary l e g i s l a t i o n has apparently involved that c i t y i n a number of court actions.(Martin, 1962 and Calgary Herald, March,11, 1972)  In Vancouver, on the other hand, developers have apparently expressed  grievance with too s t r i c t an administrative p o l i c y i n the processing of development permit applications (Geronazzo, 1961*, 6), while i n Ontario the major problem i s seen to be the requirement of a "large...educated" (Adler, 1971, 103) and "superior" s t a f f to deal with development control methods. (RAIC, 1965,  23)  P a r t i c u l a r Canadian attitudes and the available use of both zoning and development controls have offered considerable scope to land use control l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h i s country.  Many of the i n f l e x i b i l i t i e s and  j u r i s d i c t i o n a l problems that have been encountered i n American zoning have not appeared to pose a problem i n the Canadian context, where the influence of B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n and experience has permitted planners a greater degree of d i s c r e t i o n i n the administration of zoning by-laws and has f a c i l i t a t e d the implementation  of development c o n t r o l .  50  LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN  Questions concerning the co-relation of zoning and development control with the concept of comprehensive planning have seemingly been a major component i n any study of land use and development control, and t h e i r tortuous r e l a t i o n s h i p and f a i l u r e to p r a c t i c a l l y and complementally co-exist gives some understandings of the workings and f a i l i n g s of land use control and zoning as a whole. The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, expanding on Bassett's o r i g i n a l thesis, introduced the concept of comprehensiveness i n 1926. Section 3 of that act decreed that a l l ordinances " s h a l l be drawn i n accordance with a comprehensive plan", f a i l i n g which the zoning would be l i a b l e to be rendered u l t r a v i r e s .  While Bassett undoubtedly intended that the  "comprehensive plan" should be a set of planning p r i n c i p l e s , l e g i s l a t u r e s implementing  the act provided no further meaning or substance t o the term,  and the courts i n t h e i r attempts t o induce meaning have tended to define i t rather d i f f e r e n t l y .  Thus, although the "comprehensive plan" i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y  open t o mean either "well considered" or "geographically complete" (Stevens, 1969, 265), j u d i c i a l preference tends towards the l a t t e r and the courts have apparently been able t o d i r e c t nothing more than that the zoning ordinances should be "comprehensive, i . e . uniform and broad i n scope of coverage".(Haar,  1955, 1157)  As Reps concludes, whatever we think  state l e g i s l a t i o n says about the necessity to ground zoning i n a w e l l considered or comprehensive plan, the courts by and large have interpreted such a plan to be the zoning map i t s e l f " . (Reps, 1961*, 5) Euclid decision  L  1  The land-mark  established t h i s geographic d e f i n i t i o n (Pooley, 1961, 1*5),  E u c l i d v. Ambler Realty Co.  1926, 272, U.S. 365.  and t h i s meaning has apparently s i m i l a r acceptance i n the Canadian context. (Milner, 1962b, U8) Because of t h i s e a r l y d i s t o r t i o n and confusion i n meaning, and without l e g i s l a t i v e encouragement, i t appears that l i t t l e  inter-relation  between zoning and comprehensive planning ever existed i n North American m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and that few communities can a c t u a l l y claim t h e i r zoning regulations stem from any comprehensive plan.(Reps, 1955,  5)  A  survey  undertaken i n 1965 revealed that American m u n i c i p a l i t i e s seldom i d e n t i f y the "master plan" with the "comprehensive plan" requirement of the state enabling statutes, and that only about h a l f of those areas with comprehensive planning have i n f a c t adopted a master plan.(Cunningham, 1965,  383)  Similar i n d i c a t i o n s are available f o r Canada and although the use of the comprehensive plan i s apparently on the increase (Cummings, 122),  i t has  been noted that even i n Ontario, where l e g i s l a t i o n requires r e f e r r a l to the o f f i c i a l plan, few communities have as yet drafted e f f e c t i v e community plans.  By 1966  only 11% of l o c a l Ontario m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , though admit-  tedly representing the bulk of that province's urban population, had o f f i c i a l plan at a l l . (Adler, 1971,  any  11)  A major exception of course i s wherever development control has been introduced.  In Alberta's l e g i s l a t i o n , c o n t r o l i s to be exercised on  the basis of the merits of each i n d i v i d u a l a p p l i c a t i o n , "having regard to the proposed development conforming with the general plan prepared or as adopted".  1  Ontario's Planning Act  2  s i m i l a r l y contemplates the preparation  and approval of o f f i c i a l plans p r i o r to enactment of r e s t r i c t e d area, or zoning, by-laws (OLRC, 1971, ""•S.IOO ( 2 ) , 2  9 ) , and only i n B r i t i s h  Columbia i s the  A l b e r t a Planning Act, Chapter 276, 1970 R.S.A.  R . S . 0 , 1970,  C.3U9  52  exercise of development c o n t r o l , v i a the land use'contract, now  possible  without the preparation of a community plan or evidence of some other form of comprehensive planning. Canadian c r i t i c s are certain however i n t h e i r recommendations that .development c o n t r o l not be exercised without the presence of a comprehen'Sive plan.  Milner has stated that "development control without master  planning i s as weak as piece-meal zoning"  (Milner,  1962b, 5U), and the  Royal A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e ' s study i s more emphatic: "Without t h i s background of a plan properly prepared and published.so  as to be r e a d i l y available,  we recommend unequivocally that no municipality should engage i n any form of development c o n t r o l , whether by t r a d i t i o n a l zoning byQlaws or otherwise" .  RAIC, 1965,  22)  The American Law  I n s t i t u t e i n the monumental Model Development Code  has apparently rejected the o v e r a l l requirement of a written plan f o r future land development which requires o f f i c i a l adoption,  and has  instead  elaborated c e r t a i n controls and power which cannot be used by l o c a l governments u n t i l they have provided "written evidence of forethought" i n some few instances, an o f f i c i a l plan. (ALI Draft 2, A r t i c l e 3)'  or,  Even then,  some American c r i t i c s are disturbed that t h i s attitude r e f l e c t s l e g a l intentions to t o t a l l y eliminate the scope f o r a r b i t r a r y decisions, and may be the most suitable planning  solution.(Delafons, 1969,  not  137)  What i s i n t e r e s t i n g ..however i s that these attempts, to .co-ordinate development and use date.  controls with comprehensive planning are of such a late  53  One  p l a u s i b l e explanation,  l a t e i n t r o d u c t i o n and  advanced by Haar, r e c o r d s  development o f the p l a n n i n g  the  relatively  profession, reaching  an  a c t i v e energy l e v e l somewhat l a t e r than the e a r l y i n s t i t u t i o n o f z o n i n g assumedly never a b l e t o a c t i v e l y impress p l a n n i n g e s t a b l i s h e d l a n d use  i d e a l s on the  c o n t r o l mechanism.(Haar, 1955,  1157)  already  Planning  f o r e t e n d e d t o be a. l a t e r i n t r o d u c t i o n t o l o c a l a r e a a d m i n i s t r a t i o n many i n s t a n c e s The  f a i l e d t o provide  active co-ordination with existing  s i t u a t i o n i n Canada i s s i m i l a r and Rogers has  planning  i s a r e l a t i v e l y new  time a concomitant and  form o f m u n i c i p a l  thereand  in  zoning.  observed: "Community  a c t i v i t y and  i s a t the same  an outgrowth o f the powers o f l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s t o 2,  75U)  event, as another commentator n o t e s , most o f the "master p l a n s "  that  r e g u l a t e l a n d use by means o f zoning I n any  and  were adopted f o r m u n i c i p a l  use  p e r i o d and were n e v e r i n t e n d e d l a n d use.  regulations".(Rogers,  1959,  V.  o r i g i n a t e d i n the 1910-19U0 " C i t y B e a u t i f u l " as guides t o the e x e r c i s e o f c o n t r o l over  Consequently, z o n i n g  d e v e l o p e d i t s own  philosophy  and  tended t o  emphasize t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between l a n d uses r a t h e r than t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t t i e them together.(Cunningham, 1965,  383)  M a k i e l s k i , on t h e other hand b e l i e v e s t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s o f f e r no encouragement f o r comprehensiveness, and w h i l e the l e g a l t h e o r y  o f use  controls envisions  and that  a r e l a t i v e l y coherent,  open system o f comprehensible and p r a c t i c a l s t a n d a r d s a p p l i e d t o the communi t y as a whole, "the p o l i t i c a l system demands n e a r l y the o p p o s i t e " . ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967,  19)  This p o l i t i c a l antipathy  towards comprehensiveness i s h e i g h t e n e d ,  he c l a i m s , by t h e geographic n a t u r e o f p r e s s u r e beyond t h e i r own  groups t h a t don't  community o f i n t e r e s t s . ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967,  Even i n Canada, t h e r e i s s u r p r i s i n g l y l i t t l e  look  19)  encouragement t o  the  use of comprehensive planning i n land use controls.  Milner's committee  notes that no Canadian province, with the exception of B r i t i s h Columbia, provides any l e g i s l a t i v e purpose or r a t i o n a l e f o r the carrying out of a development plan or the securing of i t s benefits, and that general p r o v i n c i a l encouragement i n t h i s regard i s lacking.(RAIC,  1965,  7)  Adler's study of  the Ontario Municipal Board reveals that the Board makes very few references to o f f i c i a l plans and that " d e t a i l e d consideration of the plan i s the exception and not the r u l e " . ( A d l e r , 1968,  109)  Generally, the Board i s  more attentive to the i n d i v i d u a l development proposal i t s e l f than to the o f f i c i a l plan f o r the area, y i e l d i n g , so Adler claims, to the impression that the proposal dictates the plan and not the converse.(Adler, 1965,  112)  Another explanation advanced f o r the i n a b i l i t y of comprehensive planning and zoning to f u n c t i o n a l l y coincide i s that the general p u b l i c i s b a s i c a l l y unaware of the relevance of the comprehensive plan and the potent i a l of i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with zoning.  The Ontario Law Reform Commission,  f o r instance, has complained that public opposition i s being voiced at hearings i n t o i n d i v i d u a l development proposals, when i t should instead arise at hearings on the comprehensive plan (OLRC, 1971,  10), and the  Municipal Board appears to suggest that the weakness of development cont r o l l i e s not i n the technique but i n the f a i l u r e of the p u b l i c and involved p a r t i e s to inspect the o f f i c i a l plan.(Adler, 1968,  103)  Adler i d e n t i f i e s three reasons f o r t h i s lack of public knowledge: 1) the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n d i r e c t s i t s e l f at the policy-makers and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the plan, without mention of the average c i t i z e n s involvement; 2) the act does not require a p u b l i c hearing p r i o r to the adoption of an o f f i c i a l plan, as i t does with a rezoning; and 3) the jargon used i n the enabling act and the ordinance somewhat obfuscates the e f f e c t of the plan on the c i t i z e n . ( A d l e r , 1971, 110) 1  55  The O n t a r i o Law Reform Commission h a s added a f o u r t h : k) t h e p l a n ' s s t a g i n g i s b a d l y m i s u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e c i t i z e n s who v i s u a l i z e t h e l o n g - r a n g e p l a n s s o p r e f e r r e d b y p l a n n e r s as h a v i n g i n s t e a d immediate and s h o r t - r a n g e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . (OLRC, 1971, 9)  N o n e t h e l e s s , p l a n n e r s and o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s c o n c e r n e d  with  l a n d c o n t r o l a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y agree t h a t c e r t a i n v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t advant a g e s a c c r u e wherever z o n i n g c o n t r o l s a r e u s e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a comprehensive p l a n .  The comprehensive p l a n p r o v i d e s c o n s i d e r a b l e  guidance  f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f z o n i n g and o t h e r p l a n n i n g c o n t r o l s , and t h u s h e l p s guard a g a i n s t " a r b i t r a r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and i r r a t i o n a l i t y " . ( H e y m a n , hi)  1970,  I n a d d i t i o n t o c a l m i n g t h i s p a r t i c u l a r A m e r i c a n fear. ;j i t f u r n i s h e s  t h e p u b l i c w i t h a r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s and a y a r d s t i c k a g a i n s t w h i c h z o n i n g and development c o n t r o l p r o g r e s s can be measured ( L a u x , 36), and p r o v i d e s a sounder l e g a l b a s i s f o r t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e .  1972, Where  t h e comprehensive p l a n i s n o t employed, a number o f a d v e r s e e f f e c t s have been b o t h n o t e d and p r e d i c t e d , i n c l u d i n g a t e n d e n c y f o r development t o be f r o z e n t o i t s e x i s t i n g p a t t e r n , t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a h o s t o f u n e x p e c t e d and f r e q u e n t l y u n d e s i r a b l e r e s u l t s , a n d a t o t a l l o s s o f comprehensiveness i n t h e development pattern.(Goodman & F r e u n d , 1968, 1*05)  As Laux n o t e s , what  r e m a i n s i s a " p l a n n e r s ' n i g h t m a r e o f an i n c o n s i s t e n t and v a r i e d patchwork of l a n d uses".(Laux,  1971, k)  W h i l e however t h e r e i s w i d e s p r e a d  b e l i e f t h a t u s e t h e development  c o n t r o l s s h o u l d n o t be e x e r c i s e d w i t h o u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f some f o r m o f comprehensive p l a n o r g u i d e t o development, t h e r e i s some v a r i a t i o n i n t h i n k i n g concerning the nature o f i t s extent.  Many commentators have p r o p o s e d t h a t  56  t h e m a s t e r o r comprehensive p l a n s h o u l d be n o t h i n g s h o r t o f mandatory, e i t h e r immediately (Reps, 196U,  7),  upon t h e u n d e r t a k i n g  o f use o r development c o n t r o l s  o r a f t e r a p e r i o d o f g r a c e ( W i l l i a m s , 1966,  any e v e n t p r i o r t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f z o n i n g .  8),  but i n  O t h e r s however f e e l t h a t  o n l y t h e more d i s c r e t i o n a r y c o n t r o l s s h o u l d be w i t h - h e l d f r o m a community o r l o c a l a u t h o r i t y u n t i l i t has a master p l a n o r has a t l e a s t shown i t s e l f capable of adequately 1969)  d e a l i n g w i t h c u r r e n t development p r o b l e m s . ( S m i t h ,  The A m e r i c a n Law  I n s t i t u t e m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h i s approach r e p r e s e n t s  a compromise between t h e extremes o f a s t a t i c m a s t e r p l a n c o n t r o l l i n g a l l development and t h e g r a n t i n g o f wide d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers t o l o c a l t o use as t h e y  raay.(ALI,  D r a f t 3,  officials  xvii)  S i m i l a r a t t e m p t s t o r e s t r i c t t h e use o f c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g powers i n O n t a r i o t o communities w i t h an a d o p t e d o f f i c i a l p l a n have r e c e i v e d t h e p r a i s e o f t h a t p r o v i n c e ' s Law Reform Commission (OLRC, 1971,  13),  a l t h o u g h B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s l e g i s l a t i o n r e s t r i c t i n g t h e use o f S. 702A t o connnunities w i t h a p l a n has now  been r e p e a l e d .  In A l b e r t a , M i n i s t e r i a l  a p p r o v a l i s r e q u i r e d b e f o r e t h e e x e r c i s e o f development c o n t r o l i n t h e  first  i n s t a n c e , and Laux s u s p e c t s t h a t t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i s t i e d i n w i t h whether or not the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n question i s capable  of p r o p e r l y a d m i n i s t e r i n g  such a h i g h l y d i s c r e t i o n a r y system o f l a n d use c o n t r o l . ( L a u x , 1971,  11)  CHAPTER I I I  - AN ANALYSIS-OF THE ZONING PROCESS ZONING:  ITS PRACTICAL FAILURES AND THEORETICAL DEFICIENCIES "Zoning i s seriously i l l and i t s physicians-the planners-are mainly to blame. We have unnecessarily prolonged the e x i s tence of a land use control device conceived in. another era when the true and frightening complexity' of urban l i f e was barely appreciated. We have, through heroic e f f o r t s and with massive doses of l e g i s l a t i v e remedies, managed to preserve what was once a l u s t y infant not only past the retirement age but w e l l into s e n i l i t y . What i s c a l l e d f o r i s l e g a l euthanasia, a r e s p e c t f u l requiem, and a search f o r a new l e g i s l a t i v e substitute sturdy enough to survive i n the modern urban world." (John Reps, 196U, 1)  "The zoning process i s b a s i c a l l y an exercise i n myth-making, an i n v i t a t i o n to corruption i n l o c a l government, an i n s t r u ment • of the r e a l estate i n t e r e s t s , and an involved and timeconsuming technical a c t i v i t y that r a r e l y produces concrete r e s u l t s i n urban planning terms." (Makielski, 1 9 6 7 , 1 )  "Most development i s now occuring by way of modification i n pre-established r u l e s and not as a s a t i s f a c t i o n of them... The present system- i s both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and mechanically incapable of handling a f l e x i b l e response to development." (Krasnowiecki, 1 9 7 0 , 3 , and Marcus, 1 9 7 0 , 193)  " I t i s now clear that conventional zoning and subdivision regulations are not appropriate devices f o r regulating most of our future urban development." (American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , 1 9 6 8 , k3) While the prevalent zoning theory and procedure appears to have secured a substantial degree of public and p o l i t i c a l acceptance, 1967,  2 8 7 ) i t i s being regarded with considerably l e s s  enthusiasm  (Bryden  58  by those most concerned with i t s p r a c t i c a l functioning.  Zoning  i s increasingly under attack as a form of unnecessairly r i g i d regulation "rooted i n outmoded t r a d i t i o n and i n h i b i t i n g desirable change and experimentation",  (Bair & Bartley, 1966, 2)  and i s c r i t i c i s e d by an increasing  number of planners, lawyers and urban s p e c i a l i s t s f o r i t s notable f a i l u r e i n combatting emerging woes.  Such c r i t i c i s m has been generally construc-  t i v e , although analysis of the problems have proven-somewhat-difficult.  As.  one urban c r i t i c notes, "Planning law has blundered i n t o a whole series of i n t e l l e c t u r a l deadends because our substantive planning concepts are incomp l e t e l y thought through."(Williams, 196U, 9k)  In addition, the  remarkable  tenacity of the zoning process to r e s i s t change, public and p o l i t i c a l complacency, and some j u d i c i a l h o s t i l i t y have proved to be major impediments to reform of the: process, and many recommendations have remained l a r g e l y academic.  1.  Theoretical Deficiencies One of the most basic -criticisms of t r a d i t i o n a l zoning theory i s  that it-remains an e s s e n t i a l l y negative form of control, and-runs counter to both the c l a s s i c a l s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l philosophy and.the p r e v a i l i n g or contemporary p o l i t i c a l theory which believes that a set of positive.actions can improve the status of mankind.(Makielski,-1967,  13)-  The American Law  Institute has predicted that the'prohibitive nature of zoning w i l l l i k e l y render i t eventually i n e f f e c t i v e (ALI Draft 3,- p.xi) but i t i s exactly i t s negative aspect and ease of understanding that apparently underly the popular support of zoning.  As Makielski emphasizes i n h i s t r e a t i s e on zoning  and p o l i t i c s , when applied to the p o l i t i c a l and administrative arena, i t i s r e a l l y t h e o r e t i c a l l y and p r a c t i c a b l y more f e a s i b l e to anticipate future  59  di-ff i c u l t y by a process of negation than one of causation. (Makielski,  1967,  1U) A r e l a t e d c r i t i c i s m i s that zoning i s aimed p r i m a r i l y at the existing "use" of land and, ignores i t s "development" aspect.(Makielski, 1967,  10)  I t i s claimed that zoning requires pre-designation and therefore  can only adequately deal with already developed areas or, at the l e a s t , those with the p r o b a b i l i t i e s of development (Heeter, 1969,  59),  so that decisions  r e l a t i n g to the "development aspect" must be made p r i o r to any r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r so doing.  By thus concentrating on e x i s t i n g or probable use  and  f a i l i n g to provide s i g n i f i c a n t development guidance, zoning u l t i m a t e l y s l i g h t s developing properties and loses v a l i d i t y i n the face of changing market-economic and s o c i a l conditions.(Heeter, 1969,  59)  This i n a b i l i t y to sensatively r e l a t e to the changing s o c i a l s t r u c ture represents another zoning deficiency.  Because i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y  negative i n expression, zoning appears to f o s t e r certain i n e q u a l i t i e s .  Not  only has considerable c r i t i c i s m been directed at the imposition of minimum standards f o r some r e s i d e n t i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and the r e s u l t i n g encouragement of d i s t i n c t forms of undesirable s o c i a l and economic discrimination" " 1  but i t i s claimed that even current zoning theory f a i l s to recognize the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t uses, an i n c r e a s i n g l y important factor i n modern large-scale or multiple-use projects.(Heeter, 1969,  63)  Makielski  f e e l s that a public i n t e r e s t i s incapable of d e f i n i t i o n i n t r a d i t i o n a l zoning, and therefore the process has become prey to a l l d e s c r i p t i o n of  See generally, Pooley, 1961,  Sussna, 1969  and Davidoff,  1971.  60  p o l i t i c a l and pressure group persuasion, with the l i k e l i h o o d of a "common good" or " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " emerging being s l i g h t indeed.(Makielski, 1967, 16)  Extending the admission that zoning has certain obvious p o l i t i c a l and economic advantages and that the public i n t e r e s t might not be adequatelyprotected by the process, Marion Clawson has suggested that zoning be sold, much l i k e a mineral lease, to the highest bidder.(Clawson, 1966, 9)  This  proposition has however received short s h r i f t from c r i t i c s and has drawn the i r e of the Municipal  Law O f f i c e r s Association who note, "We cannot  imagine a worse method of exercising a municipalities power to control land use f o r the benefit of the public as a whole. f o r skull-duggery?"(Stickle,  2  Can you imagine the chance  1968, U23)  - P r a c t i c a l Failures Deficiencies  i n the theory have also resulted i n s i g n i f i c a n t prac-  t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n the enforcement of t r a d i t i o n a l zoning regulations. Makielski's t h e s i s on p o l i t i c s and the zoning process maintains that the p o l i t i c i a n s have detached themselves from the p u b l i c arena and so have f o r f e i t e d control over land use and development, to competing public i n t e r e s t groups.(Makielski,  1967, 17)  The r e a l p u b l i c i n t e r e s t or  general welfare of the i n d i v i d u a l , he argues, as a "single t h e o r e t i c a l unit", has been overlooked and has l o s t i t s meaning.(Makielski, 1967, 19) According therefore to t h i s l i n e of reasoning, any improvement and land use control process must make adequate provision f o r the d i r e c t and personal involvement of the general public i n a manner t o ensure t h e i r contribution.  61  The p l a n n e r s t o o have been accused o f a b r o g a t i n g t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h e z o n i n g p r o c e s s , and because n e i t h e r t h e y o r t h e e l e c t e d c o u n c i l s , seem p r e p a r e d t o make c l e a r d e c i s i o n s , t h a t f u n c t i o n has been p a s s e d on t o t h e c o u r t s . ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967, 17)  While  t h e r e i s some c o n t e n -  t i o n t h a t t h e p l a n n e r s were, i n any event, i n a d e q u a t e l y 1955,  96),  educated(Blucher,  t h e r e i s g r e a t e r concern t h a t t h e c o u r t s , because t h e y do n o t  p o s s e s s t h e r e q u i s i t e e x p e r t i s e t o determine  issues of increasing  techni-  c a l i t y and c o m p l e x i t y , a r e n o t t h e p r o p e r b o d i e s t o be s o i n v o l v e d i n t h e zoning process.(Reps,  1961*, 6)  W i l l i a m s however f e e l s t h a t t h e c o u r t s  have been g e n e r a l l y u n s a t i s f a c t o r y o n l y because t h e y a r e f a c e d by a d i s t i n c t l a c k o f p l a n n i n g guidance  ( W i l l i a m s , 196U,  95),  and t h i s undoubtedly  reflects  i n t h e p a s t j u d i c i a l t r a d i t i o n t o a l l o w t h e o r i g i n a l l e g i s l a t i v e judgment on zoning m a t t e r s t o s t a n d . ( P o o l e y , 1961, 83)  The p r i m a r y reason f o r t h i s g e n e r a l absence o f d i r e c t i o n s and s t a n d a r d s from  t h e zoning p r o c e s s ( B l u c h e r , 1955,  96) l i k e l y l i e s w i t h t h e  f a i l u r e o f z o n i n g t o c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e concept o f t h e comprehensive p l a n . B e a r i n g no r e q u i r e d r e l a t i o n t o o v e r - a l l development p l a n s , zoning has been d e s c r i b e d as b o t h " b l u n t and i m p r e c i s e " ( P o o l e y , 1961,  71),  and has  been c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s . . . " e s s e n t i a l l y a s e t o f Marquis o f Queensbury r u l e s f o r r e a l - e s t a t e s p e c u l a t o r s r a t h e r than a comprehensive development guide." ( B a m e t t , 1970,  126)  The most t e l l i n g p r a c t i c a l c r i t i c i s m  o f zoning, and c e r t a i n l y t h e  most o f t - c i t e d , i s i t s r e l a t i v e r i g i d i t y and l a c k o f f l e x i b i l i t y .  As  M a k i e l s k i n o t e s , what was i n t h e o r y a r a d i c a l i d e a has now become s e v e r e l y l i m i t e d b y r e s t r i c t i v e p r a c t i c e s . ( M a k i e l s k i , 1967,  lU)  s t r i c t n e s s o f l a n d use o r d i n a n c e s were m i t i g a t e d through  Formerly, t h e legislative  62  p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n s e n t i n g land-owners t o breach c e r t a i n r e g u l a t i o n s ( P o o l e y , 1961,  1+9),  now  the Boards o f V a r i a n c e and Appeal p r o v i d e some r e l i e f t o  zoning r i g i d i t y .  Indeed, the use o f a p p e a l p r o c e e d i n g s i s an  interesting  i n d i c t m e n t o f t h e zoning p r o c e s s , f o r as one a u t h o r n o t e s , " I f a system can be  judged by the f r e q u e n c y o f t h e d e p a r t u r e s from i t , z o n i n g f a i l s  s p e c t a c u l a r l y " . ( A n o n . , 1969,  673)  M i l n e r laments t h i s n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e  r e l a x a t i o n o f o v e r l y r i g i d z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e s w i t h an a p p e a l  1962b,  (Milner,  1+9),  although A y k r o y d  s u p p o r t s t h e a p p e a l p r a c t i c e as  "good t h i n g " and n o t e s t h a t i t "saves t h e m i s t a k e s  o f t h e C o u n c i l and  a p p r o v i n g a u t h o r i t i e s from b e i n g p e r p e t u a t e d " . ( A y k r o y d ,  The  process  1969,  a the  31)  i n f l e x i b i l i t y o f z o n i n g perhaps has i t s b i g g e s t impact  on form.  A r c h i t e c t s m a i n t a i n t h a t zoning s e r v e s t o r e s t r a i n r a t h e r than encourage design i n i t i a t i v e i n attempts Reps, one  (Cramer,  I960, 90), and o t h e r s c h a r a c t e r i z e i t as h o p e l e s s  t o i n t e g r a t e l a r g e - s c a l e developments.(Heeter,  1969,  63)  John  o f the more v i g o r o u s opponents o f z o n i n g p r a c t i c e , notes t h a t by  attempting t o provide d e t a i l e d standards f o r a l l conceivable s i t u a t i o n s , zoning has o n l y s e r v e d t o s e g r e g a t e t h e f u n c t i o n a l p o r t i o n s o f c i t i e s r a t h e r t h a n i n t e g r a t e them: "We  have B a l k a n i z e d our c i t i e s i n t o d i s t r i c t s w i t h p r e c i s e  and r i g i d zoning".(Reps,  1961+, 5)  for  r e f o r m now  A l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f the  s t r e s s the attainment  suggestions  o f zoning f l e x i b i l i t y t h r o u g h  due  r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e v a r i a b l e s i n each s i t u a t i o n and t h e i r s e n s a t i v e i n t e g r a t i o n . ( K r a s n o w i e c k i , 1970,  The impact  7)  however o f z o n i n g has been p e r c e i v e d everywhere on the  urban and r u r a l l a n d s c a p e and has  caused many p r o f e s s i o n a l p l a n n e r s  to  " r e g a r d z o n i n g more o f a h i n d r a n c e than a h e l p i n c i t y p l a n n i n g " . (Cunningham, 1965,  383)  Understandably  then, a number o f s o l u t i o n s t o t h e problems of-  63  z o n i n g have been advanced over t h e p a s t two decades w h i c h , w h i l e t h e y v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y i n t h e i r terms and i m p l i c a t i o n s , d e s e r v e some f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r ation.  SOLUTION NO. 1:  THE ELIMINATION OF ZONING AND PRIVATE LAND USE CONTROLS  T h e r e have been o c c a s i o n a l s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t z o n i n g be c o m p l e t e l y r e p l a c e d b y some a l t e r n a t e , b u t p r i v a t e , means o f l a n d u s e c o n t r o l .  The  b e s t p r a c t i c a l example o f s e c u r i n g such c o n t r o l on a l a r g e s c a l e i s t h a t o f Houston, Texas.  O p e r a t i n g w i t h o u t any form o f z o n i n g o r s i m i l a r p u b l i c  l a n d u s e c o n t r o l , a p r a c t i c e r e f e r r e d t o b y i t ' s opponents as "The H o u s t o n Heresy"  ( D e l a f o n s , 1969, 1 3 2 ) , u s e c o n t r o l i s a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h e x t e n s i v e use  o f p r i v a t e deed r e s t r i c t i o n s s u s t a i n e d and s u p p o r t e d v i a t h e market mechanism. (Welch, 1967, 2$7)  S i n c e 1929 when p r o p o s a l s t o i n s t i t u t e  c o n t r o l s were f i r s t d e f e a t e d b y p u b l i c referendum,  zoning  p r i v a t e deed c o n t r o l s  have c o n t i n u e d t o a c h i e v e p r e f e r e n c e over z o n i n g , and i t s s u p p o r t e r s c l a i m t h a t H o u s t o n has s u c c e s s f u l l y grown w i t h o u t zone l i m i t s w h i l e e x p e r i e n c i n g , i n any e v e n t , no g r e a t e r problems t h a n w i t h any o t h e r c i t y o p e r a t i n g under t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . ( W e l c h , 1967, 25>7)  F u n c t i o n a l l y , t h e u s e , i m p o s i t i o n and enforcement o f r e s t r i c t i v e covenants  i s i n i t i a l l y encouraged t h r o u g h t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f c i v i c c l u b s ,  which o p e r a t e much l i k e any neighbourhood  community o r g a n i z a t i o n b u t c a n ,  i f n e c e s s a r y , r e q u e s t a s s i s t a n c e from t h e c i t y t o e n f o r c e deeds i n s o f a r as t h e y may a f f e c t t h e u s e o f p r o p e r t y . ( D e l a f o n s , 1969, 132) power o f enforcement,  This municipal  l o n g a p r a c t i c e , has f i n a l l y been legalized''" as a  1965 Texas S t a t e O r d i n a n c e , A r t i c l e 9 7 h a - l  6U  " l a w f u l and l o g i c a l a d j u n c t t o t h e p o l i c e p o w e r " . ( O l s o n , 1967, 269)  Coven-  a n t s w h i c h v i o l a t e t h e U.S. o r S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n cannot,, o f c o u r s e , be e n f o r c e d b y e i t h e r t h e c i t y o r p a r t i e s t o t h e deeds. D e s p i t e t h e a p p a r e n t r e l a t i v e s u c c e s s Houston has had w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e covenants ... O f f i c i a l s t h e r e admit however t h a t i t i s n o t even a good a l t e r n a t i v e t o z o n i n g , b u t t h e o n l y t o o l t h e c i t y has ( O l s o n , 1967, 267) .. t h e r e has been no e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r a p p r e c i a b l e N o r t h American a t t e m p t s a t such e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l b y p r i v a t e means.  The American Law I n s t i t u t e has  a d m i t t e d l y g i v e n some c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t t h e l o c a l government be empowered t o c o n t r o l o r e l i m i n a t e c o v e n a n t s r e s t r i c t i n g l a n d u s e , and w h i c h f r e q u e n t l y t h w a r t governmental g u i d a n c e t o l o c a t i o n o f u s e , b u t t h e y u l t i m a t e l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t c o n t r o l and i n t e r f e r e n c e by l o c a l c o u n c i l s would o n l y s e r v e t o f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e t h e p r o c e s s . ( A L I D r a f t 3 , 23)  Similar  s e n t i m e n t s r e f l e c t t h e Canadian p o s i t i o n , a n d M i l n e r n o t e s t h a t O n t a r i o p l a n n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n i s c h i e f l y concerned w i t h a system o f c o n t r o l s t h a t w o u l d be s e l f - e x e c u t i n g , and n o t w i t h t h e b e n e f i t s and burdens o f covenants as t h e y r e l a t e t o a d j a c e n t land-owners. ( M i l n e r , 1965, 81)  R e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s r e m a i n however as a v a l i d and l e g a l means o f s e c u r i n g some f o r m o f l a n d c o n t r o l .  They a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l , L e a l  n o t e s , when u s e d t o o r d e r t h e a m e n i t i e s o f a community a t t h e p o i n t where t h e z o n i n g b y - l a w l e a v e s o f f . ( L e a l , I960, 182)  N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e i r u s e has  n e v e r been w i d e s p r e a d , c h i e f l y , i t i s c l a i m e d , because N o r t h A m e r i c a n l a n d v a l u e s have n o t s t a b i l i z e d , and because m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e r e c o g n i z i n g t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s and a r e i n s t i t u t i n g more e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l s . (Owens, 1967, 582)  I n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a r e s t r i c t i v e covenants a p p a r e n t l y  a r e c o n s i d e r e d a "minor p l a n n i n g t o o l " and r e c e i v e l i t t l e u s e . ( M e r r i f i e l d ,  65  1963, 12) Traditionally,  r e s t r i c t i v e covenants are enforceable at common  law by property owners benefiting from the covenant, but B a i l e y complains that because a previously existing  f i n a n c i a l interest may have dissapated,  there i s often no longer a motive f o r prompt enforcement.(Bailey,  1965,  910) A municipality may therefore have t o contend with covenants that are not only d i f f i c u l t t o enforce but, where there are changed conditions, are unduly r e s t r i c t i v e and undesirable, but d i f f i c u l t t o  remove.(Dallstream  & Hunt, 195U, 238) Few r e s t r i c t i v e covenants however contain t i m e - l i m i t i n g provisions. Nevertheless, i t would appear that j u d i c i a l termination can be secured where there i s merger, that i s to say, where a l l r e s t r i c t e d areas come under common ownership, (Owens, 1967, 58U) or where conditions have so changed that the purpose of the agreement i s no longer served by i t s continued enforcement.(Trager,  1963, ihl)  Although there are also some state l e g i s -  l a t i v e provisions to i n v a l i d a t e such covenants, Owens f e e l s that increased American l e g i s l a t i o n i s required t o c l a r i f y the inadequate  and unclear  grounds to declaring covenants unenforceable,(Owens, 1967, 587)  Where r e s t r i c t i v e covenants exist i n company with zoning l e g i s l a t i o n and there i s a c o n f l i c t , American law appears to presume that the covenant p r e v a i l s only i f i t r e s t r i c t s the land to a greater degree than the zoning ordinance.  Zoning i s superior i f i t makes the use r e s t r i c t e d by  the covenant i l l e g a l . ( S t a i r , 196U, 36l)  In B r i t a i n , on the other hand, the  19k7 Town and Country Planning Act allows the l o c a l authority t o impose  66  r e s t r i c t i o n s on e x i s t i n g r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s o r d i s c h a r g e them, t h u s e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e o f f i c i a l p l a n i s paramount.  Similar provisions prevail i n Alberta  wherever t h e r e i s c o n f l i c t w i t h an o f f i c i a l p l a n , p l a n n i n g scheme o r z o n i n g by-law. ( M e r r i f i e l d , 1963, 2 & 9) M o s t a u t h o r i t i e s acknowledge t h a t a c l e a r i n g s t a t u t e i s needed t o t e r m i n a t e a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant t h a t has n o ~ s t a t e d term o f e x i s t a n c e and i s g e n e r a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e . ( A s c h e r , 1953, 262)  I t now'appears however t h a t  wherever t h e r e i s a p o l i c y o f u s i n g c o v e n a n t s , t i m e l i m i t s and t e r m i n a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s a r e r o u t i n e l y s p e c i f i e d . (Owens, 1967, 585)  SOLUTION NO. 2:  THE INTRODUCTION OF FLEXIBLE TECHNIQUES TO MODIFY ZONING  " F l e x i b l e and d i s c r e t i o n a r y t e c h n i q u e s ... a r e s h a k i n g t h e v e r y f o u n d a t i o n s o f American z o n i n g p r a c t i c e . " (Mandelker, 1 9 6 2 ,  156)  W i t h i n c r e a s i n g f e r v o r , p l a n n e r s , l a w y e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have been t u r n i n g t o a v a r i e t y o f newly d e v e l o p i n g t e c h n i q u e s i n attempts t o u p d a t e and s u s t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g p r a c t i c e s .  Recognizing that greater  f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h e c o n t r o l mechanism, and t h e i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y t o d e a l w i t h p r o p o s e d development on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , c o u l d s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e f o r m and e n e r v a t e t h e inadequacy to  o f t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g p r a c t i c e , a t t e m p t s were made  e v o l v e and d e v i s e t e c h n i q u e s t h a t w o u l d a c c o m p l i s h t h e s e ends w i t h o u t  however u n d u l y d i s r u p t i n g t h e z o n i n g f a b r i c .  A number o f new p l a n n i n g  controls resulted.  D e s p i t e e n c o u r a g i n g p r o g r e s s i n t h e development o f new t e c h n i q u e s , t h e j u d i c i a r y c o n t i n u e d t o be i n d i f f e r e n t and even s u s p i c i o u s - of t h e ad hoc  67  nature of these new flexible planning standards.(Counts, 1966, 6)  The  Courts, realizing that such methods were considerably less able to comprehend and satisfactorily deal with the discretionary techniques than traditional zoning, (Anon., 1969, 683) have found review time-consuming and frustrating, and i t has been suggested that the courts have failed to adjust their views to the changing times, and that the barriers to judicial appeal that were experienced have been no legal accident.(Anon., 1969,  68U)  The development of new control mechanisms i n attempts to solve the inadequacies of zoning has therefore been somewhat d i f f i c u l t :  The  courts have apparently declined to judicially distinguish between the various new methods, (Williams, 1961i, 93) and the resulting mystique created by a confusion i n terminology has assumedly led many developers and protestors to claim that "zoning i s manipulated by a small group of insiders at their expense."(ALI Draft 2, 2k)  Nonetheless, four distinct attempts to obviate  zoning f l e x i b i l i t y have been developed with some success i n meeting their purpose. 1. Spot Zoning The practice of individually zoning small parcels, generally described as "spot zoning,', has been utilized i n some form since the inception 1  of zoning and can probably be characterized as the f i r s t of the techniques purporting to induce f l e x i b i l i t y to zoning.  Defined as a "provision i n a  zoning ordinance or a modification thereof which affects the use of a particular piece of property or a small group of properties and i t not related to the general plan of the community" (Wood, 1961, 238), spot zoning has been hard h i t for i t s most damning characteristic - lack of inclusion in a comprehensive plan.  68  Nevertheless, the p r a c t i c e of i n d i v i d u a l attention to small parcels i n a large and otherwise homogeneous use category has always been perceived as one means to avoid zoning r i g i d i t y and, as Milner points out, a l l spot zoning has not been bad and some i s even necessary.(Milner, 1962b, U? and 1956,  129 & 131)  l e t wherever the forces of t r a d i t i o n a l zoning remain  f i r m l y ensconced, e s p e c i a l l y i n the U.S.,  spot zoning has tended to be regarded  with marked j u d i c i a l hostility.(Cunningham, 1965,  397)  The p r a c t i c e of  i n d i v i d u a l l y treating small parcels within a larger unit without accord to a pre-designated plan has i n fact become so opprobrious there that ithe term "spot zoning" has apparently been considered a general p e r j o r a t i v e l a b e l f o r any new and suspicious d i s c r e t i o n a r y scheme.(Anon., 1969,  682)  J u d i c i a l and administrative reception of spot zoning i n Canada has tended to be more receptive and l i b e r a l , and Milner f e e l s that at l e a s t the Ontario Bench i s well aware that some bias n e c e s s a r i l y e x i s t s , and that a l l parcels cannot be treated equally.(Milner Lecture, A p r i l 11, Supreme Court of Canada d e c i s i o n i n Scarborough V. Bondi  1  1968)  The  appears to recognize  that i t i s sometimes necessary to treat land d i f f e r e n t l y , and the precedential e f f e c t of t h i s decision has tended to f a c i l i t a t e the use and reception of spot zoning here. There i s however some i n d i c a t i o n that the American courts are a l s o becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y receptive to such techniques as spot zoning and, so long as an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d zoning i s " r e l a t e d to something broader and beyond i t s e l f " , i t assumedly has a good chance of j u d i c i a l approval.(Anon., 670)  1969,  Described otherwise, there must be evidence of both " r a t i o n a l i t y "  defined as the i n d i c a t i o n that certain planning a c t i v i t i e s i n the form of  1  1 9 5 9 , 18D.L.R. (2d.)  161.  69  l a n d use a n a l y s i s and p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i o n have been c a r r i e d o u t i n t h e a r e a , and " e q u a l i t y " , g e n e r a l l y l i n k e d t o t h e " i n accordance w i t h a comprehensive p l a n " requirement.(Heyman, 1970,  25)  N o n e t h e l e s s , w i t h o u t l e g i s l a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n and w i t h  hedging  j u d i c i a l a p p r o v a l , s p o t z o n i n g has tended t o be u t i l i z e d somewhat i n f r e q u e n t l y and, a p p a r e n t l y b e c a u s e i t i s n o t g e n e r a l l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a comprehensive p l a n and t e n d s t h e r e f o r e t o r e s u l t i n u n a n t i c i p a t e d and uneven development p a t t e r n s , l o c a l c o u n c i l s and p l a n n e r s a r e somewhat l o a t h e t o recommend i t s u s e . ( M i l n e r ,  1962b, hi)  2. The V a r i a n c e Because i t has l e g i s l a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n , v a r i a t i o n o f t h e terms o f t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , e i t h e r i n i t s r e g u l a t i o n s o r , and somewhat l e s s  likely,  t h e use i t s e l f , a p p a r e n t l y r e p r e s e n t s t h e " f i r s t means o f a m e l i o r a t i o n " i n a p r a c t i c a l sense.(Stevens,  1959,  259)  The m a j o r i t y o f z o n i n g e n a b l i n g  statutes s p e c i f i c a l l y provide t h a t exception or a v a r i a t i o n of the zoning b y - l a w may be p e r m i t t e d wherever " u n u s u a l " o r "undue h a r d s h i p " o c c u r s t o the a p p l i c a n t .  1  The t e r m i s however seldom d e f i n e d f u r t h e r by l e g i s l a t i o n ^  a l t h o u g h j u d i c i a l r u l i n g s have d e t e r m i n e d sufficient.  t h a t mere i n c o n v e n i e n c e i s n o t  A t l e a s t i n American j u r i s d i c t i o n s , i t must be shown b o t h t h a t  t h e v a r i a n c e won't a l t e r t h e e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d o r won't r e s u l t i n an u n r e a s o n a b l e  r e t u r n t o t h e a p p l i c a n t , ( S t e v e n s , 1969,  259)  and  t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e u n i q u e and uncommon t o t h e n e i g h b o r hood and n o t s i m p l y o f a f i n a n c i a l n a t u r e . ( A n o n . ,  1969,  671)  N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h i s j u d i c i a l d e f i n i t i o n , t h e v a r i a n c e has been See f o r eg. B.C. M u n i c i p a l A c t , S.  709(1) ( c )  70  r e f e r r e d t o as t h e "bete n o i r e o f t h e z o n i n g e x p e r t s " and t h e r e i s a p p a r e n t l y some clamour f o r i t s complete 231)  195U,  a b o l i t i o n . ( C a l l s t r e a m & Hunt,  Much o f t h i s c r i t i c i s m i s l e v e l l e d a t t h e t o o f r e q u e n t use  o f t h e v a r i a n c e , and apparent p r a c t i c e o f a p p e a l b o a r d s and c o u n c i l s i g n o r i n g standards or precedents i n g r a n t i n g the v a r i a n c e at l e a s t i n the few i n s t a n c e s where such precedents; are a v a i l a b l e . ( H e y m a n , One  33)  1970,  commentator n o t e s , " I t s c r e a t o r s e x p e c t e d t h a t a system o f judge-made 671)  r u l e s would emerge t o e l i m i n a t e much o f t h e vagueness",(Anon., 1969, b u t such has a p p a r e n t l y n o t been t h e c a s e .  I n any e v e n t , most v a r i a n c e o r z o n i n g r e v i e w boards seem t o be g e n e r a l l y s t a f f e d e i t h e r by laymen, so t h a t j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s o n l y a r e a l i s s u e i n an a p p a r e n t l y s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n o f c a s e s , and t h e n o n l y on t h e 1970,  n a r r o w grounds o f an i l l e g a l g r a n t i n g o r o b v i o u s f a v o r i t i s m . ( H e y m a n , 33)  I n s o f a r as t h e s e amateur t r i b u n a l s s h o u l d be bound by  Milner's attitude i s relevant:  precedent,  "An amateur t r i b u n a l / s u r e l y s h o u l d n o t be  t h e v i c t i m o f i t s own. m i s t a k e s t h r o u g h some N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y f e t i s h f o r and supposed p r e d i c t a b i l i t y " . ( M i l n e r , 1962b, kk)  precedent  There i s  however g e n e r a l o p i n i o n t h a t some s e t o f v e r y g e n e r a l ground r u l e s i s r e q u i r e d wherever f l e x i b i l i t y i s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d and d i s c r e t i o n i n v o l v e d , ( A n o n . , 671)  1969,  and M i l n e r m a i n t a i n s t h a t z o n i n g s h o u l d n o t be t o o impermanent. ( M i l n e r ,  1962b,  33)  S i m i l a r t o c r i t i c i s m o f o t h e r f l e x i b l e t e c h n i q u e s , a major comp l a i n t i s t h a t t o o much d i s c r e t i o n l i e s w i t h t h e v a r i a n c e and b o a r d s . ( D a l l s t r e a r n & Hunt, 195U,  227)  One  appeal  s t u d y contends t h a t a t l e a s t  h a l f o f t h e a p p e a l b o a r d r u l i n g s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s cannot be  justified  and p r o b a b l y r e p r e s e n t i l l e g a l u s u r p t i o n s o f power, ( B l u c h e r , 1955,  100)  and a recent survey substantiates t h i s claim with figures showing that only 12 of hi use and bulk variances granted by the Kentucky appeal boards could be deemed justifiable.(Anon., Note #27,  672)  As Marcus i n h i s  t r e a t i s e on zoning administration notes, "The l e g a l l i t e r a t u r e i s replete with studies of l o c a l boards of appeals that make s i g n i f i c a n t departures from t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y circumscribed l e g i s l a t i v e l y delegated areas of authority."(Marcus, 1970,  97)  There i s , nonetheless, considerable support f o r the continued use of the variance procedure, and Bryden notes i t s r e s i l i e n c y and persistence despite the introduction of more sophisticated methods of achiev ing f l e x i b i l i t y . (Bryden, 1967,  228)  I t would appear that the use of v a r i -  ances w i l l continue to provide at l e a s t one means of ameliorating the r i g i d i t y of zoning.  3. The Exception The use of exceptions, generally i n the form of s p e c i a l use permits also became a popular means of securing some f l e x i b i l i t y with the zoning ordinance.  Although employable i n a v a r i e t y of ways and circumstances,  they are standardly defined i n the zoning by-law as the "may"  uses that  are not permitted as of r i g h t , but, being s p e c i f i c a l l y enumerated, may  be  permitted only by approval of proper authorities upon application. (Delafons, 1969,  50) Exceptions or " s p e c i a l use permits" were developed i n the p e r i o d  following World War I I as a control f o r nuisance and other " d i f f i c u l t " uses which d i d not conform to the t r a d i t i o n a l zones and configurations.(Stevens, 1969,  260)  They were however apparently appreciated as an easy means of  72  postponing  decisions on unpopular a c t i v i t i e s (Babcock, 1966,  use, f o r whatever reason, so f l o u r i s h e d that by 1962  7), and  their  they had received  generally wide and popular u t i l i z a t i o n i n the U.S.(ALT, Draft  2,6).  The exceptions have however been c r i t i s i z e d f o r t h e i r non-specifici t y and because they represent an increase i n d i s c r e t i o n a r y power.  Stevens  argues that the power to grant an exception i s an administrative one,  and  as such would require a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of the standards to be followed i n the exercise or granting of development permission.(Stevens, Others however have maintained  1969,  that there i s no cause f o r alarm  260)  concerning  t h i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y power because only development's c l e a r l y singled-out beforehand f o r such treatment can be c o n t r o l l e d , and because the c r i t e r i a f o r 3k)  permission i s standard and well-defined i n the ordinance.(Heyman, 1970, Canadian c r i t i c s , on the other hand, apparently f e e l that the resultant tendency of exception to set precedent e f f e c t i v e l y works against the attainment  of f l e x i b i l i t y . ( A y k r o y d , 1969,  U8'&  Laux, 1972,  35),  and  similar r e a l i z a t i o n s i n the United States l e d to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of further means to obviate the r i g i d i t y of zoning.  U. The F l o a t i n g Zone The search f o r a new development t o o l that would not only be more f l e x i b l e than p r i o r methods but that could a t t a i n some greater degree of public and j u d i c i a l favour led to the formulation of the f l o a t i n g zone concept, alledgedly derived from a combination of the s p e c i a l use permits special use d i s t r i c t s . ( D e l a f o n s , 1969,  53)  a decidedly "more sophisticated concept"  and  The " f l o a t i n g zone" i s however (Babcock, 1966,  8) f o r , operating  much l i k e B r i t a i n ' s Green B e l t l e g i s l a t i o n , i t reconciles a set of vague but described standards with an i n d i v i d u a l treatment of each development  73  p r o p o s a l on i t s own m e r i t s .  A l l i e d t o z o n i n g t o t h e degree o n l y t h a t a d i s t r i c t w i t h i t s own s t a n d a r d s and r e g u l a t i o n s i s i n s t i t u t e d i n t h e b y - l a w a s a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n category,  t h e f l o a t i n g zone has no g e o g r a p h i c a l l y d e f i n e d b o u n d a r i e s o r  l o c a l e . a n d , l i k e t h e " f l o a t i n g charge" o f commercial l a w , descends t o a d e f i n i t e l o c a t i o n o n l y upon a p p l i c a t i o n a n d p e r m i s s i o n b y t h e r e l e v a n t officials.  As one commentator d e s c r i b e s t h e p r o c e s s :  "...with a ' r i g h t '  p r o p o s a l and d e v e l o p . . . t h e t e x t u a l r e f e r e n c e would descend f r o m t h e f i r m ^ ament and s e t t l e on t h e l u c k y owner's l a n d —  but only a f t e r extensive  b a r g a i n i n g between t h e a p p l i c a n t and t h e m u n i c i p a l 1966, 8)  legislature".(Babcock,  Thus, t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e f l o a t i n g zone w o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d  i n d i v i d u a l l y and a t t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n , and would n o t be d e l i n e a t e d by e a r l i e r pre-zoning  decisions.  E s s e n t i a l l y , p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i z e would  have t h e i n i t i a t i v e on l o c a t i o n .  A l t h o u g h t h e r e has been some j u d i c i a l c o n c e r n t h a t u s e o f t h e f l o a t i n g zone b e a r s u n c o m f o r t a b l e r e s e m b l a n c e t o " s p o t z o n i n g " suspect, the technique 38).  and hence i s  has been g e n e r a l l y f a v o u r a b l y r e c e i v e d (Heyman, 1970,  The f i r s t j u d i c i a l r u l i n g f o u n d " n o t h i n g u n u s u a l o r i m p r o p e r i n t h e  method".(Rodgers V. V i l l a g e o f T a r r y t o w n )  1  I t now appears t h a t i f t h e u s e  o f t h e f l o a t i n g zone c l e a r l y e x h i b i t s a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o p u b l i c o b j e c t i v e s w h i c h a r e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , t h e d e v i c e w i l l be f a v o u r a b l y r e g a r d e d by t h e courts.(Heyman, 1970,  39)  Yet despite apparent j u d i c i a l support,  t h e f l o a t i n g zone has n o t  s e e n t h a t much u t i l i z a t i o n i n t h e A m e r i c a n c o n t e x t .  Explanations  from claims t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e t o o s t r i n g e n t f o r f l e x i b l e use •Sj.Y. 1951,  96 N.E. 2 d .  731.  range  ( S t e v e n s , 1969, much d i s c r e t i o n ,  260),  t o opposed arguments t h a t t h e t e c h n i q u e a l l o w s t o o  f a i l s t o g i v e adequate p u b l i c n o t i c e , r e p r e s e n t s an  un-  a u t h o r i z e d d e l e g a t i o n o f z o n i n g powers w i t h o u t adequate s t a n d a r d s , and  by  n o t a c c o r d i n g w i t h a comprehensive p l a n and e n u r i n g t o t h e b e n e f i t s o f individuals,  c o n s t i t u t e s spot zoning.(Johnson,  1970,  U03)  Thus i t seems t h a t even though t h e f l o a t i n g zone m i g h t be a b l e t o s u s t a i n i t s e l f on t h e t r a d i t i o n a l and j u d i c i a l l y d e f i n e d g r o u n d - r u l e s z o n i n g c o n t r o l s , i t has f a i l e d t o f i n d s u f f i c i e n t p u b l i c use and and o f f i c i a l c r e d i b i l i t y .  of  acceptance  Doubtless the f a c t of i t s inappropriateness f o r  t h e more t r a d i t i o n a l u s e s o f z o n i n g and c o n t r o l o f n u i s a n c e c o n t r i b u t e d somewhat t o i t s l a c k o f f a v o u r ( S t e v e n s , 1969,  260),  b u t i t s demise has  s e r v e d t o p r o v i d e f r e s h impetus t o t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f new  and  different  t e c h n i q u e s geared t o c o n t r o l o f b o t h t r a d i t i o n a l and d e v e l o p i n g u s e s  and  a c h i e v i n g maximum f l e x i b i l i t y w i t h i n d i s c r e t i o n a r y l i m i t s .  A PROGNOSIS I t appears t h e n t h a t f l e x i b l e z o n i n g c o n t r o l s d e s i g n e d t o zoning r i g i d i t y w h i l e conforming  t o t r a d l t i o n a i z o n i n g b e h a v i o r have f a i l e d  t o p r o v i d e s i g n i f i c a n t means o f c o n t r o l l i n g  emergent u s e s and development.  W i l l i a m ' s resume and c a t a l o g u e o f t h e i r demise i s as c o n c l u s i v e as 1.  2. 3. h. 5.  breach  Massive confusion i n t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n created m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s and d o u b t s as t o t h e i r use and efficacy; V i t a l p u b l i c 'support d i d n o t m a t e r i a l i z e ; They were u s e d t o o f r e q u e n t l y f o r p u r e l y p a r o c h i a l advantage; W i d e l y u s e d w i t h o u t a s u f f i c i e n t p l a n n i n g background, t h e y were no l o n g e r t o p i c a l o r p e r t i n e n t t o o l s f o r t h e changing development p a t t e r n s ; and They were o v e r l y i d e a l i s t i c and t e n d e d t o r e p r e s e n t "pervassive unrealism". , ( Williams,,: I96J4,  any:  89.)  75  C l e a r l y then, any new means hoping to provide solutions to continuing development problems would have to avoid the d e f i c i e n c i e s of the existant f l e x i b l e techniques and yet s t i l l accomplish s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than had t r a d i t i o n a l zoning procedure.  Increased d i s c r e t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d  attention seemed to provide some promise, even though i t might only be accomplished outside the confines of t r a d i t i o n a l zoning.  76  CHAPTER IV  CONDITIONAL OR CONTRACT ZONING  The p a s t two  decades o f American l a n d use c o n t r o l have been d i s -  t i n g u i s h e d by t h e e n e r g e t i c s e a r c h f o r an u l t i m a t e l y s u c c e s s f u l and means o f development c o n t r o l .  While f e a s i b l e and p r a c t i c a l r e s u l t s were  a l r e a d y b e i n g a c c e p t a b l y o b t a i n e d through v a r i a n c e s and e x c e p t i o n s , l i n e o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n was  flexible  advancing  another  c o n c e p t s which had the p o t e n t i a l f o r  i n c r e a s e d b u t i n d i v i d u a l i z e d c o n t r o l w i t h ample f l e x i b i l i t y t o accommodate emerging development t e c h n i q u e s .  D e s c r i b e d v a r i o u s l y as c o n t r a c t z o n i n g ,  c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g , s i t e - p l a n c o n t r o l o r p l a n n e d u n i t development, each method r e p r e s e n t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d e p a r t u r e from t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g  theory  w h i l e d i s p l a y i n g c e r t a i n a f f i n i t y w i t h B r i t i s h - i n f l u e n c e d development c o n trols.  They tended t o a v o i d t h e r i g i d i t y o f z o n i n g c a t e g o r i e s by i n s t e a d  being t a i l o r e d f o r i n d i v i d u a l a p p l i c a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e of property, a c h i e v i n g c o n t r o l n o t t h r o u g h u n i v e r s a l and p r e - d e t e r m i n e d of  r e g u l a t i o n s b u t by  i n d i v i d u a l l y d i r e c t e d p e r m i t s , agreements, c o n d i t i o n s o r c o n t r o l l i n g  plan.  way  site  N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e h i s t o r y o f c o n t r a c t zoning has been r e p l e t e w i t h  d e f i n i t i o n a l c o n f u s i o n , numerous p r a c t i c a l problems and c o n s i d e r a b l e j u d i c i a l intolerance.  CONTRACT ZONING DEFINE  1. C o n t r a c t  Zoning  As a p r e l i m i n a r y c a u t i o n i t must be p o i n t e d out t h a t t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r able confusion surrounding l a n d use c o n t r o l . z o n i n g " was  t h e c o r r e c t d e s i g n a t i o n f o r t h e s e new  A number o f terms a r e encountered  modes o f  b u t as " c o n t r a c t  t h e f i r s t t o be a p p l i e d g e n e r i c a l l y , though perhaps  inaccurately,  77 i t w i l l be a p p l i e d i n t h i s p a p e r wherever g e n e r a l d e s i g n a t i o n o f t h e common technique  i s desired.  I n a number o f i n s t a n c e s however, d i f f e r e n t f o r m s  have been compared t o " c o n t r a c t z o n i n g " and i n t h o s e c a s e s t h e term i s g e n e r a l l y r e s e r v e d f o r c o n t r o l forms i n v a l i d a t e d b y e a r l i e r j u d i c i a l r u l i n g s . B a s s e t t ' s a d m o n i t i o n t h a t " c o n t r a c t s have no p l a c e i n a z o n i n g  plan"  ( B a s s e t t , 1936, 18U) was i n s t r u m e n t a l n o t o n l y i n f i r s t d e s i g n a t i n g t h e p r a c t i c e o f o b t a i n i n g agreements between d e v e l o p e r and m u n i c i p a l a u t h o r i t y b u t i n c a s t i n g t h e f i r s t ambiguous mold o f l e g a l i n v a l i d i t y .  A t t h e time  however h i s remarks were s p e c i f i c a l l y aimed a t t h e t h e n p r e v a i l i n g m u n i c i p a l p r a c t i c e s o f securing a donation  o f l a n d o r money p r i o r t o any c o n s i d e r a t i o n  o f t h e r e - z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n ( s e e f o r eg. S h a p i r o , 1968, 283 & B e u s c h e r , 196U 169), a n d t h e n a g r e e i n g n o t t o l a t e r r e z o n e t h e p r o p e r t y .  The f o r m and  p r a c t i c e o f c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g h a s changes s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i n c e t h a t t i m e , and the c o n t r a c t zoning b e i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y approved by today's courts s h o u l d n o t be m i s t a k e n f o r i t s e a r l i e r o p p r o b r i o u s  form.  As i t i s b o t h t h e common g e n e r i c d e s i g n a t i o n a n d a l a t t e r l y more s p e c i f i c f o r m d e s c r i p t i o n , c o n t r a c t z o n i n g h a s been v a r i o u s l y d e f i n e d .  One  s o u r c e d e s c r i b e s i t a s a r e - z o n i n g c o n d i t i o n e d b y a " t r a n s a c t i o n where b o t h owner a n d m u n i c i p a l i t y u n d e r t a k e r e c i p r o c a l o b l i g a t i o n s " ( S h a p i r o , 1968,  269),  and a n o t h e r a s a r e - z o n i n g i n w h i c h t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y a g r e e s n o t t o change t h e z o n i n g f o r a s e t p e r i o d o f t i m e . ( S c h a f f e r , 1965, h3)  B o t h however appear d a t e d ,  and a more c u r r e n t j u d i c i a l d e f i n i t i o n r e p r e s e n t s i t more a c c u r a t e l y as a " r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f l a n d u s e i n which t h e landowner a g r e e s t o p e r f o r m c o n d i t i o n s n o t imposed on o t h e r l a n d i n t h e same c l a s s i f i c a t i o n " . ( S c r u t t o n v. Sacremento, i n C u r t i n , 1970, U65)  Because however o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y  i n a c c u r a t e l y c i r c u m s c r i b i n g a technique  o f such v a r i e d forms a n d p r a c t i c e s ,  78  a "rezoning w i t h concomitant  c o n d i t i o n s " might w e l l serve t o best describe  the c o n t r a c t zoning p r a c t i c e o f i n d i v i d u a l l y c o n t r o l l i n g d e f i n e d p a r c e l s . D e s p i t e t h e v a r i e t y o f c o n t r o l b e i n g e x e r c i s e d , c e r t a i n common problems a t t a c h t o each, a n d because t h e y a p p l y t o i n d i v i d u a l p a r c e l s a l l c o n t r a c t o r c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g t y p e s have been c a s t i g a t e d as i l l e g a l s p o t - z o n i n g and f o r p r o v i d i n g d i f f e r e n t r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e same t y p e o f u s e i n c r e a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l "one-use" d i s t r i c t s . ( S h a p i r o , 1968, 280)  In addition,  t h e c o u r t s r e m a i n s u s p i c i o u s o f an i l l e g a l b a r g a i n i n g away o f l e g i s l a t i v e power by c o n t r a c t , and a r e a p p a r e n t l y r e a d y t o i n v a l i d a t e an o r d i n a n c e as soon as t h e y encounter  t h e word ' c o n d i t i o n ' . ( S t r i n e , 1963, 119)  An adequate  u n d e r s t a n d i n g however o f t h e s e c r i t i c i s m s a n d o f t h e f o r m a n d n a t u r e o f c o n t r a c t z o n i n g c a n be b e s t d e r i v e d o n l y b y an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f each o f t h e o t h e r  forms.  2. C o n d i t i o n a l Z o n i n g C o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t from c o n t r a c t z o n i n g t h a t i t appears t o be somewhat l e s s i l l e g a l .  except  F u n c t i o n a l l y and b y d e f i n i t i o n  t h e two s h a r e a number o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a n d b o t h p e r m i t r e z o n i n g s u b j e c t t o t h e c a r r y i n g o u t o f a number o f s t a t e d c o n d i t i o n s a s agreed between t h e parties.  As a r e s u l t , t h e U.S. C o u r t s have g e n e r a l l y tended t o i n t e r -  weave c o n t r a c t z o n i n g w i t h c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g ( C u r t i n , 1970, 1*63), and subsequent attempts t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e two have been c o n f u s i n g and i n c o n c l u s i v e .  D i s t i l l i n g common ground from t h e v a r i e t y o f d e f i n i t i o n s , i t would seem t h a t c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g b e s t d e s c r i b e s t h e m u n i c i p a l p r a c t i c e o f g r a n t i n g r e z o n i n g s u b j e c t t o c o n d i t i o n s a s agreed between t h e p a r t i e s .  As  t h e m a j o r d i s t i n c t i o n from c o n t r a c t z o n i n g however, t h e r e i s no appearance  79  o f r e c i p r o c a l o r b i l a t e r a l p r o m i s e s w h i c h m i g h t be t a k e n t o c h a r a c t e r i z e a "contract".  The m u n i c i p a l i t y appears t o r e m a i n f r e e t o f u r t h e r r e z o n e  any t i m e , o r t o r e v o k e t h e p e r m i t t e d z o n i n g s h o u l d c o n d i t i o n s n o t be ( S c h a f f e r , 1965,  hQ)  d e v e l o p e r who may,  The p o s i t i o n does n o t o f c o u r s e f a c i l i t a t e  at  met.  the  n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g h i s own performance^ be u n a b l e t o enforce-  a c t i o n by t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ( R e t t i g , 1968,  20U)  b u t a t l e a s t i n t h i s way,  no  f e t t e r on t h e power t o zone i s p e r m i t t e d , and t h e c a s t i g a t i o n s o f i l l e g a l c o n t r a c t z o n i n g a r e t h e r e f o r e o b v i a t e d . ( S c h a f f e r , 1965,  kl)  O p i n i o n as t o t h e l e g a l e f f i c a c y o f c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g , as h e r e d e f i n e d , v a r i e s between a p p r o v a l ( S c h a f f e r , 1965, v a l i d i t y ( S h a p i r o , 1968,  271),  l y i n g w i t h the aforementioned  h9)and h i n t s o f d o u b t f u l  t h e cause f o r such d i s p a r i t y a p p a r e n t l y i n a b i l i t y to c o n c l u s i v e l y i d e n t i f y the d i s -  t i n c t i o n s between c o n t r a c t z o n i n g and c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g .  A more l i b e r a l  l e g a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n however appears t o o f f e r some hope f o r t h e c a t i o n o f t h i s c o n f u s i o n ( b e l o w p. 93 encountered  clarifi-  ) , b u t wherever e i t h e r term i s  i t i s s t i l l a d v i s a b l e t o pay p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e sub-  stance of the technique r a t h e r than i t s d e s c r i p t i o n .  3 . R e - Z o n i n g W i t h Concomitant Agreement Unquestioned  l e g i s l a t i v e and j u d i c i a l a p p r o v a l appears t o have  been r e s e r v e d f o r a t h i r d f o r m o f " c o n t r a c t z o n i n g " , a r e z o n i n g accompani e d by concomitant  o r a n c i l l i a r y agreement.  D i f f e r i n g from c o n d i t i o n a l  z o n i n g o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e agreement upon w h i c h t h e z o n i n g i s c o n d i t i o n e d does n o t commonly r e c e i v e m e n t i o n i n e i t h e r t h e z o n i n g o r d i n ance o r t h e r e z o n i n g b y - l a w  1  r e z o n i n g w i t h c o n d i t i o n s sub  a p p a r e n t l y v i t i a t e s t h e z o n i n g change.  silentio  J u d i c i a l a p p r o v a l a p p e a r s t o be  i  : See c o n t r a . Myhre v. Spokane i n R e t t i g , 1968,  198.  80  a v a i l a b l e so l o n g a t l e a s t as t h e r e i s no o f f i c i a l o r f o r m a l i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e m u n i c i p a l a u t h o r i t y has r e c e i v e d a s s u r a n c e s i o r from a p p l i c a n t s f o r the change.(Shapiro,  1968,  o f c o n d i t i o n s o r behav275)  O b s e r v i n g B a s s e t t ' s c a u t i o n t h a t " c o u n s e l • w i l l do w e l l when p r e s e n t i n g a z o n i n g case t o t h e c o u r t t o o m i t a l l r e f e r e n c e t o c o n t r a c t s between p a r t i e s and c o n t r a c t u a l r e s t r i c t i o n s r u n n i n g w i t h t h e l a n d " ( B a s s e t t , 185)  1936,  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s thus g e n e r a l l y prepare rezoning ordinances i n the  s t a n d a r d form, w h i l e b a r g a i n i n g w i t h land-owners on t h e s i d e ,  While the  A m e r i c a n c o u r t s a r e no doubt c o g n i z a n t o f t h i s e x t r a - o r d i n a n c e manoeuvring, and have a p p a r e n t l y been t a c i t l y a p p r o v i n g t h e s e r e z o n i n g s ( R e t t i g , 1968),  the  A m e r i c a n Law I n s t i t u t e has o b j e c t e d t o t h e r e f u s a l o f t h e l a w t o r e c o g n i z e r e a l i t y thusly:  "The  r e a l o b j e c t i o n i s t h a t an a c t i v i t y w h i c h ought t o be  c a r r i e d on a t t h e p u b l i c c o n t r o l l e v e l has been d r i v e n u n d e r g r o u n d . " ( A L I , 1970,  193)  R e z o n i n g w i t h c o n d i t i o n s sub s i l e n t i o seems t o have t a k e n a v a r i e t y of forms.  The e a r l i e s t  was  where s i n c e t h e e a r l y '50's  developed  f o r use i n C h i c a g o ' s Cook County,  a p r o c e d u r e o f v o l u n t a r y a l i e n a t i o n has  achieved  c o n d i t i o n a l c o n t r o l w i t h o u t r u n n i n g t h e r i s k o f i n v a l i d a t i o n as " c o n t r a c t zoning".  A t t h e s u g g e s t i o n o f t h e County B o a r d o f Z o n i n g A p p e a l s an  a p p l i c a n t w i t h a f a v o u r a b l e r e z o n i n g request would v o l u n t a r i l y a l i e n a t e h i s p r o p e r t y t o a t h i r d p a r t y , l a t e r r e - a c q u i r i n g i t s u b j e c t t o a covenant r u n n i n g w i t h t h e l a n d , t h e terms o f w h i c h e n u r e d t o t h e b e n e f i t o f and were e n f o r c e a b l e by a l l I n h a b i t a n t s o f t h e county.  O b j e c t i o n a b l e u s e s w o u l d be  p r o h i b i t e d by t h e c o v e n a n t , w h i c h i t s e l f r e c e i v e s no r e f e r e n c e i n t h e r e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e . ( D a l l s t r e a m & Hunt, 195k,  236)  This technique  has  81  been frequently used instead of a use variance (Beuscher, 195>U, v i i i ,  52),  and has been given some attention by other j u r i s d i c t i o n s contemplating similar excursions. Interest has also been shown i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t application which' would involve a p r i o r commitment by the owner to either encumber h i s land or provide those physical alterations he expects the municipal authority to require before favourably considering h i s application.  Similar to  voluntary alienation, such action would seem to be the d i r e c t r e s u l t of c l e a r implications from the. rezoning authorities, but; the courts have . apparently accepted the p o s s i b i l i t y , o f a purely voluntary.action and have not therefore invalidated t h i s procedure.(Shapiro, 1968,  27U)  In any  event, suggestions f o r such alienation, encumbrancing or physical a l t e r a t i o n generally arise from Advisory Planning Commissions, Planning Boards or Appeal Boards and are not d i r e c t l y traceable to the municipal l e g i s l a t i v e body which would authorize the zoning change.  As such, they do not  seem to r i s k the' charge of " i l l e g a l contract zoning". k.  Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development methods, PUDs, are presently receiving  considerable attention i n the U.S.  as a possible answer to the zoning  i n f l e x i b i l i t y that has p a r t i c u l a r l y plagued the larger and more complex development projects. (Babcock, 1966,  Considered "contract zoning with sophistication"  11), the PUD  i s i n f a c t an i n t e r e s t i n g hybrid of zoning,  sub-division, condominium and design controls, which resembles rezoning with concomitant  agreement but comes closest to representing an American  form of development control. Unlike i n d i v i d u a l techniques such as the f l o a t i n g zone, the  PUD  82  c o n c e p t employs a p o s i t i v e c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n t o c r e a t e a p a r c e l o f e i t h e r o f an i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d e n t i a l use o r a m i x t u r e o f u s e s , and w h i l e i n o p e r a t i o n i t somewhat r e s e m b l e s c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g ( B a i r , 1969,  1*),  i t  a p p a r e n t l y a c h i e v e s c o n t r o l w i t h a minimum o f p r e - s e t r e g u l a t i o n s . ing  Eschew-  r e g u l a r zoning by-laws, the m u n i c i p a l l e g i s l a t u r e determines o n l y the  p e r c e n t a g e o f space t o be d e v o t e d t o each c o n t e m p l a t e d  u s e , and b y  c o m p l i a n c e w i t h l o t s i z e , h o u s i n g t y p e , s e t - b a c k and use  waiving  restrictions,  l e a v e s t h e b u l k o f t h e c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n t o be m u t u a l l y d e t e r m i n e d by p l a n n e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and d e v e l o p e r s . ( J o h n s t o n ,  1970,  the  1*05)  A number o f p r o c e d u r a l g u i d e - l i n e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e a v a i l a b l e for  use w i t h t h e PUD  technique.  F o r i n s t a n c e , most o r d i n a n c e s r e q u i r e t h a t  a l l i n v o l v e d l a n d be under u n i f i e d c o n t r o l w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i n v o l v i n g a s i n g l e o r s e r i a l development p r o g r a m . ( B a i r , and a l t h o u g h one a u t h o r s u g g e s t s  f o r t y (1*0)  1969,  3)  Minimum s i z e v a r i e s  a c r e s ( W o l f f e , 1968,  San F r a n c i s c o o r d i n a n c e - r e q u i r e s o n l y t h r e e ( 3 )  10),  the  acres o r a l a n d p a r c e l  e i t h e r bounded on a l l s i d e s by s t r e e t s , z o n i n g o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l boundary l i n e s , o r p a r k s p a c e , o r i n c l u s i o n w i t h i n a Redevelopment p r o j e c t . ( D e l a f o n s , 1969, etc.  172)  A s e t o f comprehensive p l a n s i n c l u d i n g e l e v a t i o n s , s i t e  plans  must p r o v i d e f o r t h e maintenance and o p e r a t i o n o f a l l f a c i l i t i e s  w i l l be o f common u s e . ( B a i r , 1969,  which  3)  The f i r s t p r o c e d u r a l s t e p i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a r e - z o n i n g , and a p r e l i m i n a r y p l a n i n g e n e r a l i z e d form i s the only formal i n d i c a t i o n t h a t o t h e r p r e - r e q u i s i t e s have been met to  requirement,  t o g e t h e r w i t h agreements  comply w i t h r e g u l a t i o n s , t o c o m p l e t e development and t o b i n d  must be s u b m i t t e d .  The  while  successors  a p p l i c a n t s ' p r o p o s a l must "meet t h e p u b l i c p u r p o s e  o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s t o a degree a t l e a s t e q u a l t o what w o u l d be  accomplished  83  i f t h e c o n t r o l s were e n f o r c e d s t r i c t l y a s w r i t t e n ( i . e . t h e o r i g i n a l z o n i n g ) ( B a i r , 1 9 6 ° , 8 ) , b e s t accomplished, h e a r i n g . ( W o I f f e , 1968, 10)  i t i s suggested, by a p u b l i c  Once a p p r o v a l i s g r a n t e d b y t h e r e q u i s i t e  a u t h o r i t y , t h e p l a n as s u b m i t t e d and s u b s e q u e n t l y augmented t o a compreh e n s i v e l e v e l becomes " s e t " and r i g i d , a l l o w i n g o n l y m i n o r a l t e r a t i o n s as s t a g i n g p r o g r e s s e s . ( B a i r , 1969, 8) P l a n n e d U n i t Developments have p r o v e d  e f f i c i e n t i n the staged  development o f l a r g e m u l t i - u s e t r a c t s and i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o b o t h  handle  i n c r e a s e s i n d e n s i t y without s a c r i f i c i n g a e s t h e t i c s o r amenities and t o p r o v i d e maximum u s e w i t h e f f i c i e n c y and p r e s e r v a t i o n o f open l a n d . ( W o l f f e , 1968,  11)  There have been c o m p l a i n t s however t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d s employed a r e so vague t h a t t h e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s m i g h t be open t o abuse (Babcock, 1966, 11),  and t h a t t h e t e c h n i q u e a l l o w s t h e u s e o f r e g u l a t i o n s t o h a r a s s , d e l a y  or t o t a l l y f r u s t r a t e developers.(Lawrence  5k)  While t h i s contention can  be r e b u t t e d by an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i v e n o v e l t y o f t h e p r o c e d u r e ( W o l f f e , 1968, 9 ) , a more r e a l c r i t i c i s m c e n t e r s on t h e r i g i d n e s s imposed by t h e l o c k i n g i n o f c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s u b m i t t e d P l a n . ( W o l f f e , 1968, 10)  Y e t , i t i s apparent t h a t t h e P l a n n e d U n i t Development  procedure  a c h i e v e s a s i g n i f i c a n t degree o f f l e x i b i l i t y and freedom f r o m z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s and a n . i n c r e a s e d d i s c r e t i o n a r y i n p u t , a l l t h e w h i l e r e t a i n i n g t h e r e q u i r e d degree o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and s t a b i l i t y f o r p u b l i c a c c e p t a n c e . ( W o l f f e , 1968,  11)  I t s f l e x i b i l i t y and q u i c k r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o market needs have  made i t a t t r a c t i v e t o d e v e l o p e r s , and t h e A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g  Qh  O f f i c i a l s have c a l l e d i t t h e " r e g u l a t o r y d e v i c e t h a t w i l l c o n t r o l l a n d u s e i n d e v e l o p e d a r e a s i n t h e f u t u r e " . (A3P0, 1968,  U3)  5>. Canadian S i t e P l a n C o n t r o l " S i t e p l a n c o n t r o l i s the a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e g u l a t o r y process t o t h e u s e o f p a r t i c u l a r p a r c e l o f l a n d e x p r e s s e d i n t h e form o f d e t a i l e d p l a n s w h i c h have been d e t e r m i n e d b y n e g o t i a t i o n between t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y and t h e d e v e l o p e r , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e u s e p r o p o s e d and i t s p r o b a b l y e f f e c t on t h e neighbouring lands." A d l e r , 1971, 97.  Contained  i n Adler's thorough a n a l y s i s of Ontario a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  p r o c e d u r e , t h i s d e f i n i t i o n s u c c i n c t l y d e s c r i b e s t h e u n i q u e l y Canadian s o l u t i o n t o t h e p r o b l e m s o f i n t r o d u c i n g f l e x i b i l i t y where t r a d i t i o n a l z o n ing  p r o c e d u r e has p r o v e n i n e f f e c t i v e o r i n s u f f i c i e n t .  Called s i t e plan  c o n t r o l a f t e r the Ontario p r a c t i c e o f r e q u i r i n g submission  of s i t e  plans  w i t h t h e r e q u e s t f o r r e - z o n i n g ( M i l n e r L e c t u r e , A p r i l l U , 1968), t h e p r o c e d u r e has b o t h o b v i o u s a f f i n i t y w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n PUD p r a c t i c e and a d i s t i n c t l y C a n a d i a n emphasis. S i m i l a r t o P l a n n e d U n i t Development p r a c t i c e , s i t e p l a n c o n t r o l a c h i e v e s p r i m a r y c o n t r o l t h r o u g h p o s i t i v e means, i . e . t h e encouragement o f i n d i v i d u a l development p r o p o s a l s w i t h f l e x i b l e and d i s c r e t i o n a r y c o n t r o l s , and t h u s d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s , u s e r e s t r i c t i o n s and c o n d i t i o n s and v o l u n t a r y a l i e n a t i o n , a l l o f which t e n d t o be n e g a t i v e i n scope and e f f e c t .  The manner i n w h i c h O n t a r i o a d m i n i s t e r s s i t e p l a n c o n t r o l — c h a r a c t e r i z e s i t as development c o n t r o l ( A d l e r , 1971, 97) — e n a b l e somewhat more c o n t r o l t h a n i s a v a i l a b l e w i t h t h e PUD:  Adler  would seem t o The A m e r i c a n  85  method i s available only a f t e r the developer has v o l u n t a r i l y applied f o r a PUD rezoning, while Ontario municipalities, by p r e - r e s t r i c t i n g the zoning of land to either the present use or ' a g r i c u l t u r a l , are able to force most 1  developers t o apply f o r a zoning change:and thereby submit t o the l o c a l jurisdiction.^  Freezing of a l l development p r i o r to the undertaking of an  agreement by the developer completes t h i s control process.(Adler, 1971, 97) I t would appear however that use of Ontario's s i t e plan controls varies somewhat within the province.  The use of 'associated development  agreements', undoubtedly common i n a number of Canadian m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , has been p a r t i c u l a r l y followed i n the Toronto area communities of North York, Etobicoke, O a k v i l l e and Hamilton (Milner Lecture, A p r i l i i , 1968) and "spasmodically" i n other Metropolitan Toronto m u n i c i p a l i t i e s (Adler, 1 9 7 1 , 97),  whereas s i t e plan c o n t r o l , incorporating the conditions and design  control of the plan wiith the rezoning amendment, appears somewhat l e s s common.  However, i n London combined with the development agreements i t i s  "the r u l e rather than the exception".(Adler, 1971, 95)  The London procedure requires the developer to submit a plan containing elevations, access, use and location s p e c i f i c a t i o n s p r i o r t o the actual rezoning request, and to execute the associated development agreement encompassing s i t e improvements, municipal services and access c o n t r o l before f i n a l approval of the more permissive general zoning by the l o c a l council.(OLRR, —  1970, 7)  Considerable negotiation normally precedes  approval  causing Milner t o describe the procedure as "unauthorized development con-  t r o l " (Milner Lecture March 2 9 , 1968) —  and assuming no objection i s hereto-  See Standard O i l v. Kamloops [ l 9 7 2 j 5 W.W.R. 660 and In Re D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver Zoning By-Law 1*277, (Unreported) 1 9 7 3 .  86  b e f o r e r a i s e d , t h e b y - l a w i s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e O.M.B. f o r t h e i r a p p r o v a l . (London, 1969).  W h i l e London p r o c e d u r e p u b l i c a t i o n s make no a p p a r e n t  p r o v i s i o n f o r a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , A d l e r has i n d i c a t e d t h a t p l a n n i n g b o a r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s n o r m a l l y done a t a p u b l i c m e e t i n g .  The  s i t e plans  and  a c t u a l e l e v a t i o n s of proposed s t r u c t u r e s are then i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the l o c a l l y l e g i s l a t e d b y - l a w , and once OMB  a p p r o v a l i s o b t a i n e d t h e development  agreement i s deemed a covenant t o r u n w i t h t h e l a n d . ( A d l e r , 1971,  Nonetheless  97)  and d e s p i t e w i d e s p r e a d p r a c t i c e i n London and  other  O n t a r i o communities, t h e s t a t u s o f O n t a r i o s i t e p l a n c o n t r o l remains u n c e r t a i n . I n 1968  s i x O n t a r i o m u n i c i p a l i t i e s p e t i t i o n e d the l e g i s l a t u r e f o r s p e c i a l  l e g i s l a t i o n p e r m i t t i n g t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e f a i r l y s t r i n g e n t c o n t r o l s over development b e i n g f o l l o w e d i n London.  A l l however were r e q u e s t e d t o w i t h -  h o l d t h e i r r e q u e s t s u n t i l t h e s t u d y o f p l a n n i n g and development c o n t r o l l e g i s l a t i o n had been c o m p l e t e d by t h e O n t a r i o Law Reform Commission. r e p o r t , r e l e a s e d i n l a t e r 1971 Planning Act. i t y may,  Their  recommended major changes t o O n t a r i o ' s  Under t h e terms o f the p r o p o s e d l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e m u n i c i p a l -  i n t h o s e a r e a s d e s i g n a t e d by t h e M i n i s t e r f o r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e  p r o v i s i o n s , e n t e r i n t o agreements w i t h d e v e l o p e r s c o n c e r n i n g such t h i n g s as highway d e d i c a t i o n , a c c e s s , o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g , l a n d s c a p i n g and b u i l d i n g design.  general  By-laws w i t h p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n t o the s p e c i f i e d  lands  can t h e n be p a s s e d , and t h e agreements r e g i s t e r e d a g a i n s t the l a n d s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f The R e g i s t r y A c t . ( 0 L R C , 1971, A p p e n d i x B)  The  similarity  t o B.C.'s S. 702A - Land Use C o n t r a c t l e g i s l a t i o n i s s t r i k i n g . U n t i l f i n a l l e g i s l a t i v e a p p r o v a l however, t h e O n t a r i o p r a c t i c e o f s i t e p l a n c o n t r o l remains a t t h e f o r e b e a r a n c e  o f t h e c o u r t s and t h e O n t a r i o  87  Municipal Board.  The s i t u a t i o n i s not altogether s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r there  i s doubt whether the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have present authority to impose as a condition of rezoning that services be provided.(OLRC, 1971, 1971,  97)  contrary  1  The Ontario Municipal Board, despite j u d i c i a l  7 & Adler,  advice to the  has oft-times requested that these conditions and development  agreements be submitted along with the request f o r approval of the rezoning by-law. (Adler, 1971,  98)  Although no serious consequences have yet  flowed from t h i s p r a c t i c e , there i s concern that the Board has no guidelines to f o l l o w i n discharging i t s functions, has no planning expertise, and generally " i n planning matters, f l i e s by the seat of i t s pants."(Greer,  1972)'  Nonetheless, i t s implied or t a c i t approval of s i t e plan control has probably served to sustain and encourage Ontario development control.  THE STATUS OF CONTRACT ZONING 1. Statutory Authorization Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine where contract zoning initiated  first  or the extent of i t s use, i t seems f a i r to assume from Bassett's  early condemnation that i t has been of long consideration as a possible means of achieving development c o n t r o l or a degree of f l e x i b i l i t y .  By 1956  the  p r a c t i c e of attaching conditions to rezoning was evidently widespread i n the State of New  York (per d i c t a , Church v. I s l i p , i n S t r i n e , 1963, 121;),  and there i s l i t t l e reason not to believe that other j u r i s d i c t i o n s also engaged i n the rezoning of property conditioned on the execution of agreements.  F u l l scale employment does however seem rather uneven across the  United States, f o r by 1968 See below, p. 2  See also, Baker,  1972.  contract zoning was s t i l l i n an "embryonic stage"  88  i n the State of Washington.(Rettig, 1968, 218) Nonetheless, by 1965 no state had yet expressly authorized the use of conditional or contract rezonings.(Bailey, 1965, 897).  Admittedly,  the New York State Legislature had introduced and approved a 1956 b i l l permitting the use by l o c a l council of "requirements, agreement or condit i o n s " , but i t was promptly vetoed by order of the Governor, who gave the reason that i t "would upset the orderly progress f o r zoning regulation". (Strine, 1963, 127)  As a r e s u l t , development contracts i n that state  were only l e g i s l a t i v e l y permitted when the project concerned public housing. (Regional Plan Assoc., 1955, 166)  A v a r i e t y of explanations have been advanced f o r t h i s apparent reluctance by the U.S. state l e g i s l a t u r e s to authorize contract  zoning.  Bailey suggests that there i s concern that to allow rezoning with conditions would require a complete and t o t a l r e v i s i o n of the o f f i c i a l concepts of municipal land use (Bailey, 1965, 915), and the short l i f e - s p a n of the Model Land Development Code proposals to permit contract zoning,(ALI Draft l ) omitted i n the subsequent major t h e o r e t i c a l r e v i s i o n s of Draft 3, lends some support to h i s contention.  The assumption i s that there i s unanimous  agreement that contract ,zoning remain an u n o f f i c i a l and informal device. ;  (Bailey, 1965, 915)  2. The Case Law Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t American case that dealt with contract zoning was Church v. The Town of I s l i p {(below, p^3 ), i n which the New York court, apparently disregarding the veto implication that contract  zoning  was i l l e g a l , found an implied authority f o r the municipality t o impose cond i t i o n s i n rezoning ins-fcances.  The Regional Plan Association, who had  89  o r i g i n a l l y urged the Governor to exercise h i s veto (Strine, 1963,  127),  came out i n strong opposition to the decision, arguing that without  express  grant by the l e g i s l a t u r e there could be no authority to enter i n t o agreements with owners and developers.(RPA, 1955,  166)  The decision was however generally h a i l e d by the majority of  critics,  who were quick to observe that not only was there no language i n the act which might negate the implication that conditions could be imposed (Strine, I963,  116).  Others maintain that as the courts had previously been pre-  pared to imply the power to impose conditions f o r variances and sub-division regulations, there was ample authority f o r such an implication i n zoning, p a r t i c u l a r l y where i t favours the well being of land-owners, promoted general development and serves the general welfare.  In any event, they argue, the  exercise of zoning powers a c t u a l l y comes within the "police power""'" of the state c o n s t i t u t i o n and i s not under the authority of the State planning acts, and the implication need not therefore be impaired by statutory silence. (Curtin, 1970,  k6k)  3. Legal Implications of Contract a) The Contract.  Zoning  P r i o r to Church v. I s l i p attempts to introduce  the f l e x i b i l i t y of contract zoning i n t o t r a d i t i o n a l land c o n t r o l p r a c t i c e were generally f r u s t r a t e d by contrary j u d i c i a l r u l i n g s , on the nature of the contract. F a i t h f u l l y heeding Bassett's dictum that contracts had no place i n zoning, the American courts tended, as one c r i t i c notes, "to take a negative  atti-  tude about zoning changes which can be shown to have been made i n return f o r a valuable consideration", and they seemed most anxious to avoid condoning the bargain and sale concept forseen i n early contract zoning 1969,  l5l)  (Crawford,  Trager however f e e l s that the suspicious and i l l i b e r a l attitudes  90  of the courts were occasioned because they were unable either to determine what actions by c o u n c i l and developer had preceded the rezoning by-law and subsequent appeal, or to a r t i c u l a t e exact standards f o r administrative conduct. (Trager, 1963,  lU7)  Concern over administrative procedure often f o r e -  shadowed any question of by-law form, and the following characterization by Charles Haar i s a good depiction of the r e s u l t : I f the court to which the question i s eventually taken believes the governmental action to be a r b i t r a r y and improper, that action i s branded as spot-zoning. I f not, i t i s c a l l e d a planned readjustment." (Haar, 1955, 1167. ) The importance of Bassett's e a r l y condemnation cannot be overstated with regard to the slow progress i n the c r e d i b i l i t y and j u d i c i a l acceptance of contract zoning.  While S t r i n e doubts the exact meaning  and reasoning of Bassett's remarks, he has d i s t i l l e d them to three points: 1)  there i s no consideration f o r a contract since the municipality cannot promise to perform an act i t i s • already under an obligation to do; 2) contract zoning represents an improper delegation by c o u n c i l of i t s l e g i s l a t i v e authority and hence i s i n v a l i d ; and 3) the power to impose conditions i s u l t r a v i r e s the authority of the municipal l e g i s l a t i v e council. (Strine, 1963,  119.)  Since the h i s t o r y of contract zoning has been distinguished by considerable manoeuvring by planners, lawyers, l e g i s l a t o r s and the courts to v i t i a t e t h i s type of rezoning without becoming ensnared by Bassett's enunciated i l l e g a l i t i e s , i t might serve to consider these points more f u l l y .  Bassett's f i r s t proposition - that the performance of an act that one i s already under o b l i g a t i o n to do cannot s u f f i c e as consideration f o r a contract - i s a generally v a l i d point of law, and no longer i s contentious.  91 In such circumstances no contract would exist and as one case put i t , "!The phrase 'contract zoning' has no l e g a l s i g n i f i c a n c e and simply r e f e r s to a r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of land use i n which the landowner agrees to perform conditions not imposed on other land i n the same c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . "  (Scrutton  v. C a l i f o r n i a , i n Curtin, 1970, U65) B i l a t e r a l agreements i n v o l v i n g municipal obligations may not therefore represent l e g a l contracts, and there have been frequent examples of deliberate avoidance of the mention of terms or conditions which could be interpreted as consideration f o r the rezoning.  The p r a c t i c e of rezoning  without o f f i c i a l i n d i c a t i o n of conditions i s perhaps a p a r t i a l attempt t o avoid such inference, as borne out by the Ontario Court of Appeal i n Re North York Township By-Law  1U067, I960  ( 2k DLR  12) which directed the  Ontario Municipal Board not to consider concomitant agreements when passing on a rezoning.  Adler, however, claims that the Court has "unwittingly  and unnecesarily f e t t e r e d i t s e l f " by t h i s decision (Adler, 1971, 98), and there i s considerable opinion that the imposition of conditions has absol u t e l y no e f f e c t on the l e g a l i t y of contract zoning, with p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r ence to the apparently v a l i d attachment of conditions t o variances.(Strine, 1963, 127 & C u r t i n , 1970, k6k) The second limb of Bassett's t r i p a r t i t e l o g i c argues that i f a municipal c o u n c i l by agreement surrenders up i t s r i g h t to l a t e r change a zoning, i t would constitute an improper and i l l e g a l delegation of l e g i s lative authority.  1  As the Regional Plan Association emphatically  declares:  "A municipality has no power t o make any agreement or deal C i t y o f Vancouver vs. Registrar of Vancouver, L.R. D i s t r i c t . 15 W.W.R.  35T @ 356.  92  which w i l l i n any way control or embarass i t s l e g i s l a t i v e powers and duties. ' Neither the p o l i c e power of the state i t s e l f not that delegated by i t to a municipality i s subj e c t to l i m i t a t i o n by private contract; nor i s the exercise of such power to be alienated, surrendered or l i m i t e d by any agreement or device." 1  (Regional Elan, Association 1955.) In a n u t - s h e l l , the zoning of property within a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s borders must be kept mutable.(Shapiro, 1968, Anderson's American Law  270)  of Zoning however takes issue with the  theory on t h i s point, and concludes that not only would any municipal  agree-  ment be but an implied or moral assurance, but also that the alleged suspension of p o l i c e power i s only t h e o r e t i c a l and not r e a l . ( i n C u r t i n , U65)  Moreover, fears of such a l i e n a t i o n by those who  1970,  disfavour the grant  of increased discretionary power to administrative o f f i c i a l s would seem baseless.  Trager, f o r instance, was  unable to document a single case of  any agreement by the c i t y which would prevent i t from subsequently e x e r c i s ing the power to again rezone against the property.(Trager,  1963,  132)  Bassett's f i n a l point, that contract zoning i s i n f a c t u l t r a v i r e s the l o c a l governmental authority, might i n the l i g h t of an already observed absence of state and p r o v i n c i a l enabling l e g i s l a t i o n have borne a p r i o r i concern.  The alleged existence of an implied power to attach conditions  to a rezoning has already been noted however, and the widespread popularity of t h i s p o s i t i o n has reduced somewhat the imperiousness of t h i s l a s t of Bassett's arguments. Yet i n the Canadian context both Milner (Milner Lecture, March 29,  1968)  and Adler (Adler, 1971,  98) have expressed some doubts as to  the v a l i d i t y of the Ontario p r a c t i c e of development control.  Wherever  93 l e g i s l a t i v e authority i s absent, there may be room f o r not only theoret i c a l but r e a l concern f o r the l e g a l e f f i c a c y of contract  b) The Conditions.  zoning.  Although most attention since Bassett's  d i r e c t i o n had been to the form and substance of contract zoning 1968  the  decision of Church v. I s l i p dramatically a l t e r e d the nature of Ameri-  can j u d i c i a l consideration from i t s previous f o r m a l i s t i c approach to a r e a l i s t i c analysis of the e s s e n t i a l nature and r a t i o n a l e of contract zoning. Because of the importance of the case to American planning law and i t s possible relevance i n the Canadian context further attention seems warranted.  The Town of I s l i p had permitted the rezoning of previously •Residential  1  property to a 'Commercial' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and by by-law  s p e c i f i e d that the rezoning was to be conditioned upon compliance with s i x conditions and upon the execution and recording of r e s t r i c t i v e covenants concerning  density, f l o o r area r a t i o and landscaping.  no i n d i c a t i o n of an express contract. (Wood, 1961,  The o r i g i n a l Supreme Court referee who  There was however  21+1)  f i r s t heard the case i n v a l -  idated the rezoning, r u l i n g that the amendment constituted spot  zoning  while the imposition of conditions involved i l l e g a l contract zoning.(160 N.Y.S.S. 2 d . \&,  1956,  i n S t r i n e , 1963,  123).  On appeal the referee's  decision was reversed, and the court, noting that the p r a c t i c e of imposing conditions was widespread, concluded that the practice was not  "contrary  to the s p i r i t of the zoning ordinances [ o r ] beyond the statutory powers of l o c a l l e g i s l a t i v e bodies".(8 N.Y. r u l i n g was 2d.  866)  2 d . 25U, i n Strine, 1963,  12U)  This  subsequently upheld by the State Court of Appeals.(203 N.Y.S.  9h  The case accomplished two  significant feats.  F i r s t l y , the court  apparently was prepared to imply the power to impose conditions on the part of the l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s .  As a r e s u l t , as one author notes, so long  as there i s no express contract i n the terms of o f f e r and acceptance, the a f f i x i n g of conditions to a zoning amendment no longer constitutes i l l e g a l contract zoning. (Wood, 1961,  2I4.2)  Secondly, by suggesting that the impos-  i t i o n of conditions represents not a bargaining away of d i s c r e t i o n but an attempt to protect the i n t e r e s t s of neighboring landowners, the court appears to have heralded a new  approach to the l e g a l i t y of contract zoning  and  represents, as Strine notes, "the f i r s t attempt by a court to avoid the 'no-contract-zoning'  doctrine while giving weight to the considerations  underlying i t . " ( S t r i n e , 1963,  126)  The emphasis was now  rather than s u p e r f i c i a l i t i e s . ( S h a p i r o , 1968,  to be on p o l i c i e s  277)  With the change i n emphasis, the conditions themselves, which had previously received next to no consideration from the courts, came within the scope of l e g a l consideration, and the new to be t h i s :  l e g a l s i t u a t i o n thus appears  i n questions of contract zoning, there i s a rebuttable pre-  sumption that the conditions do not render the zoning change i l l e g a l ,  and  conditions should only be i n v a l i d a t e d i f the proper c r i t e r i a f o r a rezoning does not otherwise e x i s t or the conditions are a r b i t r a r y , capricious or discriminatory.(Shapiro, 1968,  277)  The t e s t of reasonableness, t r a d i t i o n -  a l l y used to guage the v a l i d i t y of administrative action seems, together with the 'police power  1  requirements of public health, safety, morals and  general welfare, thus becomes the primary t e s t of the conditions i n American contract zoning.(Strine, 1963,128)  From the reasoning of Church v. I s l i p  and subsequent decisions, conditions w i l l generally only be judged unreason-  95  able and hence i n v a l i d i f they constitute a person l i c e n c e , are founded p r i m a r i l y on aesthetic consideration, or are a disguised exercise e i t h e r i n land a c q u i s i t i o n by expropriation or taxation. (Rettig, 1968, 210) Notwithstanding t h i s guidance i n assessing the reasonableness of conditions, some p r a c t i c a l problems have been encountered.  There i s , f o r  instance, some suggestion i n the Church v I s l i p decision that neither the applicants not* the neighbouring  landowners could challenge the conditions  involved ostensibly because they had "accepted" the conditions and accruing b e n e f i t s . ( S t r i n e , 1 9 6 3 , 125)  One c r i t i c c a l l s t h i s approach " a r t i f i c i a l "  and suggests that neighboring  landowners should be allowed every a v a i l a b l e  argument to contest conditions and protect the value of t h e i r property. (Strine, 1963, 126)  However, an i n d i v i d u a l who might wish to attack the  conditions of a contract zoning i s faced with opposing suggestions procedure.  as t o  One p r a c t i t i o n e r advises that not the conditions but the actual  by-law i t s e l f be attacked i n e f f o r t s to s e t aside the : rezoning, f o r t o proceed otherwise might r e s u l t i n retention of the offending by-law without the ameliorating conditions.(Bailey, 1 9 6 5 , 901)  On the other! hand, at  l e a s t i n the State of Washington, i f the owner-petitioner  wishes to i n v a l i d a t e  the conditions and yet r e t a i n the rezoning, he must launch attack on the conditions themselves, but only subsequent t o approval of the amending bylaw. (Rettig, 1968, 213)  ANALYSIS OF USE Contract zoning has experienced  a slow and sometimes p a i n f u l pro-  gression up t o and through i t s several forms.  Reception by the courts has  been e r r a t i c and confusing, although e a r l i e r suspicion and h o s t i l i t y now appear  96  t o be y i e l d i n g t o j u d i c i a l t o l e r a n c e and a c c e p t i b i l i t y . ( S c h a f f e r , 1965,  Contract  zoning  52)  appears t o be on t h e verge o f r e c e i v i n g wide  a c c e p t a n c e over N o r t h A m e r i c a and i s now b e i n g h i g h l y recommended wherever a community d e s i r e s t o ease t h e burden o f t r a d i t i o n a l zoning f l e x i b i l i t y to i t s control function.(Shapiro,  1968,  a u r a and a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r  28?)  and i n t r o d u c e  Itspositive  l e v e l s o f c o n t r o l than  p r e v i o u s l y p o s s i b l e , have proven so p o p u l a r w i t h l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s and administrators  t h a t t h e r i g h t t o u s e a c o n t r a c t zoning  i n the United  States  i s f r e q u e n t l y o f f e r e d as a ' c a r r o t ' t o encourage m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o adopt a l a n d development p l a n (Bosselman, 1 9 6 8 , Law I n s t i t u t e had i n c l u d e d i t ,  12), and u n t i l r e c e n t l y t h e American  a f t e r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n , as one o f t h e  suggested development t o o l s i n i t s Model L a n d Development Code.(ALI D r a f t 2)  There a r e a l s o i n d i c a t i o n s o f a b r o a d e r p u b l i c w i l l i n g n e s s t o a c c e p t t h i s new means o f l a n d u s e c o n t r o l p r i n c i p a l l y , i t i s claimed, capacity to ameliorate  o r m i n i m i z e t h e o t h e r w i s e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s which a r e -  zoning might have on a d j a c e n t Density  zoning,  and n e i g h b o r i n g  p r o p e r t i e s . ( B a i l e y , 1965,  and u s e mixes, p r o v i s i o n s f o r a c c e s s and p a r k i n g ,  and n o i s e and d e s i g n (Trager,  considered  125)  899)  b u f f e r zones,  s t a n d a r d s a r e a l s o commonly p o s s i b l e w i t h  1963,  for its  contract  as a r e a number o f f a c t o r s and a m e n i t i e s n o t  a t t a i n a b l e w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l zoning,  t y f a c t o r s of drainage, t r a f f i c ,  i n c l u d i n g t h e h e a l t h and s a f e -  open space, s e t - b a c k s and m u n i c i p a l  ser-  v i c e s , and o t h e r more g e n e r a l l y f l e x i b l e s t a n d a r d s commensurate w i t h t h e new development p a t t e r n s . ( B a i l e y , 1965,  907)  There i s a l s o e v i d e n c e o f  c o n t r a c t zoning b e i n g u t i l i z e d t o o b t a i n monies f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s i n l i e u o f t h e more t r a d i t i o n a l bonding, a l t h o u g h t h i s  extension  97 has apparently been unfavourably received by the O.M.B.(Adler, 1971, and has been invalidated by some U.S.  courts.(Shapiro, 1968,  100)  283)  General r e l a t i o n s between the planning administrators and the public have also been enhanced through the use of contract zoning, allegedly because use of contracts avoids the necessity of confusing l e g a l statutes, thus making the p a r t i e s more aware of t h e i r respective p o s i t i o n , and because i t enables a more co-operative approach involving the owner, municipality and neighbours and allowing them f u l l expression of t h e i r needs and desires.(Bailey, 1965,  907 & 9lh)  While i t would appear that ample opportunity exists to s u c c e s s f u l l y u t i l i z e contract zoning, there are obviously a v a r i e t y of other p r e - e x i s t ing techniques available which might provide somewhat s i m i l a r solutions. Accordingly, i t has been suggested that contract zoning be used only wherever the problem cannot be adequately solved by a previously proposed statutory scheme.(Trager, 1963,  126)  Variances and special exceptions, f o r instance, have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been used i n situations now purportedly soluble by contract zoning.  Consi-  dered the "closest acceptable alternative to contract zoning that exists under present zoning schemes" (Bailey, 1965,  912),  variances can be used to  permit c e r t a i n non-conforming uses and to r e l i e v e i n d i v i d u a l hardship. Accompanied by conditions, of which the power to a f f i x has been considered i n herent i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n s of variance boards (Wood, 1 9 6 l ,  233),  they are  able to secure s u b s t a n t i a l l y more c o n t r o l over the a l l o t e d use, and yet- are considered of l i m i t e d application because of the d i f f i c u l t y i n demonstrating the " p a r t i c u l a r and unnecessary hardship" required f o r t h e i r invocation. (Shapiro, 1968,  28l)  98  S i m i l a r l y , s p e c i a l ( or administrative) exceptions f i n d l i t t l e use i n circumstances where contract zoning might be u t i l i z e d , f o r although they are considered good f o r s p e c i a l problems, the statutes demand that each s i t u a t i o n be unique thus eliminating recurrent or frequent use of t h i s technique.(Trager, 1 9 6 3 , lU6) Conditional uses, sometimes c a l l e d statutory exceptions, would seem t o e r r on the opposite side, f o r being prepared i n advance to f a c i l i tate c e r t a i n uses as part of a general scheme, they f a i l t o provide f o r the unique problems of i n d i v i d u a l s affected by the rezoning proposal.(Trager, 1963,  Ihk)  In addition, should the circumstances f i t the c r i t e r i a  elaborated, the c o n d i t i o n a l use must normally be awarded, and the technique therefore does not o f f e r the preferred d i s c r e t i o n a v a i l a b l e with contract zoning.(Trager, 1 9 6 3 , 129) The use of e x i s t i n g techniques can of course be avoided altogether either by a rezoning without conditions or the creation of a new zone f o r each p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n .  The f i r s t would however seem p o l i t i c a l l y un-  acceptable f o r reasons already elaborated, and the creation of i n d i v i d u a l zones has been considered i n v a l i d f o r the complex and confusing plethora of i l l e g a l "one-use" zones that would l i k e l y r e s u l t . ( B a i l e y , 1 9 6 5 , 912 & Trager, 1963,  H*3)  I t appears then that contract zoning s a t i s f i e s the requirements of a s a t i s f a c t o r y solution to the problems of zoning and i s superior i n use to the other f l e x i b l e techniques.  Nonetheless, contract zoning has come under  some c r i t i c i s m .  The contention that contract zoning i s discriminatory and l i a b l e  99  to i n v a l i d a t i o n as i l l e g a l spot zoning has been r e f e r r e d to by Trager as i t s "most s u b s t a n t i a l and severest criticism"(Trager, 1963,  135) p r i m a r i l y  because: 1) the discrimination of contract zoning promotes inconsistency i n p o l i c y regarding neighboring properties; and 2) contract zoning f a i l s to accord with a comprehensive plan. (Rettig, 1968,  216.)  Rather than contradict the c r i t i c i s m , even the supporters of cont r a c t zoning w i l l r e a d i l y admit to the presence of discrimination,(Adler, 1971,  102)  and agree that i t does aim d i r e c t l y at a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l  or property without n e c e s s a r i l y considering the general wslfare.(Trager, 1963,  136)  In any event, R e t t i g notes that most contract or c o n d i t i o n a l  zonings could be accomplished  v a l i d l y without the imposition of conditions,  and hence the mere presence of conditions cannot provide substance f o r the claims of i l l e g a l spot zoning.(Rettig, 1968,  216)  The second branch of t h i s claim against contract zoning argues that because i t i s ad hoc i t f a i l s either to accord with a general plan or to take i n t o account the impact of development on the area as a whole, (ALI D r a f t 1,  S. 3 - 1 0 6 , p.72), and i f there i s v a l i d i t y to t h i s contention,  the points made e a r l i e r concerning the comprehensive plan (p.55) equal a p p l i c a t i o n here.  As Adler frequently emphasizes any  have  reasonable  e f f o r t at background research p r i o r to the contract rezoning provides a suitable basis f o r measuring the "public welfare" aspect of the zoning change, (Adler, 1971,  95) although he warns that "unless there are external  guidelines to constrain municipal a c t i v i t y , there may perhaps be a tendency to impose whatever conditions the t r a f f i c w i l l bear."(Adler, 1971,  100)  100  In dealing with the a l l i e d argument that r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n without a comprehensive plan tends t o destroy the expectations of property owners (Trager, 1963, l U o ) , Adler notes that the Ontario Municipal Board has shown concern f o r t h i s problem by i n d i c a t i n g a clear preference f o r development controls only u n t i l development s t a b i l i z e s when i t i s to be replaced by conventional zoning.(Adler, 1 9 7 1 , 102)  He argues however that the zoning  map, since i t f a i l s t o show future use, i s no better a p r e d i c t i v e agent than development control.(Adler, 1 9 7 1 , 103)  A f o r t i o r i , Trager's t r e a t i s e on  contract zoning admits that a l l rezonings are generally contrary t o expectations and, i n any event, the courts have long held that, zoning creats no vested r i g h t s i n property owners. (Trager, 1963,li+0)  A r e l a t e d - c r i t i c i s m i s that contract zoning f a i l s to provide an adequate public record or, as the American Law I n s t i t u t e explains, the indirectness of the process r e s u l t s i n a s i t u a t i o n i n which the zoning map and regulations do not r e f l e c t the s p e c i a l treatment.(ALI p.73)  Draft 1, S. 3-106,  As a r e s u l t , there apparently i s fear that contract zoning w i l l  impose conditions upon the use of property that are unstated and "not i n accordance with t r a d i t i o n s and d i s t i n c t l y contrary to accepted l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s . " (Blucher, 1 9 5 5 , 99)  Refuting arguments however note that p r i v a t e  covenants as used i n t r a d i t i o n a l zoning do not appear on any maps, and i n any event, the actual rezoning procedure gives s u f f i c i e n t notice of potent i a l undesirable use t o excite f u r t h e r inquiry.(Bailey, 905)  CONTRACT ZONING AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT The conditions i n contract zoning are thus frequently u t i l i z e d as a form of r e s t r i c t i v e covenant (Bailey, 1 9 6 5 , 909) accompanied by the  101 specification successors  t h a t t h e y " s h a l l r u n w i t h t h e l a n d ... and be b i n d i n g on  and a s s i g n e e s " . ( R e t t i g , 1968, 206)  Many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s how-  e v e r , when t h e y seek t o e n f o r c e such c o v e n a n t s , e x p e r i e n c e some d i f f i culty. Traditionally,  o n l y t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e covenant may e n f o r c e i t  and wherever t h i s p r i n c i p l e ing t o enforce  i s s t r i c t l y construed,  t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y seek-  t h e covenant would have t o r e t a i n a p o r t i o n o f l a n d w h i c h  c o u l d b e n e f i t f r o m i t . ( B a i l e y , 1965, 909)  The O n t a r i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l  appears t o have s i m i l a r l y r u l e d t h a t r e s t r i c t i v e covenants may be u n e n f o r c e able against a l l but the o r i g i n a l covenators, unless the m u n i c i p a l i t y r e t a i n s some l a n d c a p a b l e o f b e i n g b e n e f i t e d , and even a l t h o u g h t h e covenant e x p r e s s l y "runs w i t h t h e l a n d " . (125 V a r s i t y Road v. Y o r k , i n A d l e r , 100).  1971,  A l t h o u g h t h e case d e a l t w i t h a s u b - d i v i s i o n , A d l e r m a i n t a i n s t h a t  i t e q u a l l y a p p l i e s i n r e s p e c t t o z o n i n g b y - l a w agreements. ( A d l e r , 1971,  101)  Thus, t h e u s e o f r e s t r i c t i v e covenants c a n have a d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t on t h e p r a c t i c a l  enforcement o f c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g s ,  a n d B a i l e y warns  t h a t w h i l e s u b j e c t i n g t h e z o n i n g t o c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant i s o f t e n t h e s i m p l e s t means o f enforcement, i t i s t h e l e a s t a d v i s a b l e ( B a i l e y , 1965, 907)  I f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y c a n o b t a i n agreement t o c o n d i t i o n s  from a d e v e l o p e r A s h e r , f o r one, b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e l a t t e r a r e e a s i e r t o e n f o r c e t h a n a r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t and f a r l e s s t r o u b l e s o m e . ( A s c h e r , 1953, 262)  102  CHAPTER V  THE LAND USE CONTRACT  THE INTRODUCTION OF S.702A I t had been apparent f o r some time p r i o r to 1968 that t r a d i t i o n a l zoning controls as permitted i n t h i s province were no longer adequate to cope with the problems and exigencies of Municipal land use control.  A  number of l o c a l governments, faced with increasing development pressures but i n s u f f i c i e n t resources to provide the necessary services f o r new urban establishment, were r e s o r t i n g to the practice of exacting both funds and a v a r i e t y of development and amenity conditions from prospective developers, a p o l i c y seemingly u l t r a v i r e s the Municipal Act, Most of these same munici p a l i t i e s were at the same time applying pressure on the P r o v i n c i a l Government to either l e g a l i z e t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s or provide some alternate but superior means of c o n t r o l l i n g and securing orderly and economic land use, growth and development. The Department of Municipal A f f a i r s was no doubt aware of the problem, and e a r l y i n 1968 began to consider more adequate means of c o n t r o l l i n g land development than available with e x i s t i n g sub-division and zoning enabling l e g i s l a t i o n .  Considerable i n t e r e s t was at t h i s time shown i n  the type of development controls exercised i n the C i t y of Vancouver, where the p o s s i b i l i t y of more innovative zoning with conditional or s p e c i a l uses existed.  Vancouver's Comprehensive Development Zone received scrutiny,  as d i d the Interim Development Control permitted i n Alberta's land control  legislation.(South - Interview)  What was r e a l l y desired however was  a "more c e r t a i n way  of  c o n t r o l l i n g land use", perhaps incorporating some of Vancouver's controls but without i t s Technical Planning Board, and permissive i n the same manner as conditional uses.(South - Interview)  In essence, the  new  l e g i s l a t i o n had to both correct e x i s t i n g abuses and lend v a l i d i t y to some p r e v a i l i n g municipal p r a c t i c e s , and also provide an e s s e n t i a l l y new  and  innovative form of land use control.  THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT In 1968  then the new  l e g i s l a t i o n was  introduced as Section 702A.  C l e a r l y and admittedly modelled on a combination of commercial contract land permit (South - Interview), the new  and  702A i n s t i t u t e d the development  permit, to be granted by the Municipal o u n c i l to the owner of land s i t u w  ated with a " Development Area" and providing both f o r the s u b s t i t u t i o n of existing zoning by-laws by "other terms and conditions" and f o r the posting of bonds and security to ensure due performance by the developer, v i z : 1) Where a Council has adopted an o f f i c i a l community plan, the Council may, i n a by-law under section 702, designate areas of land within a zone or zones as development areas. 2) Upon the a p p l i c a t i o n of an owner of land within the development area or h i s agent, the Council may, by the issuance of a development permit, waive the provisions of the by-law as they apply to that land and substitute therefor other terms and conditions which s h a l l have the e f f e c t of a bylaw adopted under section 702. 3) I f the holder of a development permit does not commence the development described therein within two years of the date of issue of the permit, the permit s h a l l lapse unless extended by the Council. k) The Council may require that the owner or developer s h a l l provide a performance bond or other s e c u r i t y i n the amount and form prescribed i n the development permit.  IOU  5) The Council may prescribe the procedure f o r the issue of a development permit and the form thereof. 6) The Council s h a l l not issue a development permit u n t i l i t has held a public hearing thereon, notice of which as been published i n the manner prescribed i n subsection (1) of section 703. The notice s h a l l i d e n t i f y the lands with respect to which the proposed development permit i s to be issued, state i n general terms the intent of the provisions of the proposed development permit, and state where and the days and hours during which a copy of the proposed development permit may be inspected. 7-)- Nothing i n t h i s section s h a l l r e s t r i c t the r i g h t of an owner to develop h i s land i n accordance with the regulations of the municipality apply t o the zone i n which the land i s s i t u a t e . 1968, c. 33, s.l66. I t should be noted that not only was the provision f o r the p u b l i c hearing c a r e f u l l y c a r r i e d over t o the new l e g i s l a t i o n but, by permitting the owner to proceed either under 702A or the p r e v a i l i n g zoning regulations pertaining t o h i s land, the e x i s t i n g zoning l e g i s l a t i o n was re-emphasized and preserved.  Thus, the new l e g i s l a t i o n was apparently to be but an  a l t e r n a t i v e to the e x i s t i n g S. 702.  Nonetheless, the development permit  and subsequent land use contract l e g i s l a t i o n was, f o r some reason best understood by i t s d r a f t e r s , retained within the existing D i v i s i o n (3) "Zoning", an anomoly. which somewhat b e l i e s i t s status as an a l t e r n a t i v e and may well have served t o considerably confuse m u n i c i p a l i t i e s who otherwise regard 702A as a clear-cut and dichotomous alternative to zoning. In any event, the development permit l e g i s l a t i o n was doomed to an early grave.  Despite alleged intentions to obviate e x i s t i n g municipal  d i f f i c u l t i e s and t o provide f o r more innovative municipal land use and development controls, the concept f a i l e d t o gain the a c t i v e i n t e r e s t of but a few B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  I t quickly had become apparent that the  prerequisite of an adopted o f f i c i a l community plan was militating against the use of 702A f o r , despite the f a c t that "several municipalities ...  105 r e a l i z i n g t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f u l t i m a t e c o n t r o l on k e y l o c a t i o n s b y d e v e l o p ment p e r m i t , r u s h e d i n t o e f f i c i e n t community p l a n s " ( W i l s o n , 1971, P-U9), o n l y a few B.C. communities, amongst them S u r r e y and P r i n c e George, had a n adopted p l a n s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e requirements.  In addition, the  r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s had a p p a r e n t l y been u n w i t t i n g l y d e p r i v e d o f t h e u s e o f 702A b y government i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . For i n s t a n c e , although t h e establishment predated  of the regional d i s t r i c t s  t h e development p e r m i t l e g i s l a t i o n , S. 702A (1) s p e c i f i c a l l y  r e f e r r e d o n l y t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f an o f f i c i a l p l a n b y a c o u n c i l ,  thus  a p p a r e n t l y making no p r o v i s i o n f o r p l a n a d o p t i o n b y t h e R e g i o n a l B o a r d , a f u n c t i o n otherwise  a u t h o r i z e d b y S. 796 o f t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t .  In t h e  c a s e however o f a t l e a s t one r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t , a d i s t i n c t u s e was seen f o r t h e Development P e r m i t p r o c e d u r e and t h e Board, h a v i n g r e g a r d t o S. 798(1) "With r e s p e c t t o t h a t a r e a o f t h e r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t n o t c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n a c i t y , d i s t r i c t , town, o r v i l l a g e , t h e R e g i o n a l B o a r d may e x e r c i s e any o f t h e powers c o n f e r r e d ; by o r under D i v i s i o n s ( l ) , (3) Z o n i n g , and (U) o f P a r t XXI e x e r c i s a b l e t h e r e u n d e r b y a C o u n c i l , and t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h o s e D i v i s i o n s , e x c e p t s e c t i o n 70U, a p p l y mutatis mutandis"  and c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e i r own a d o p t e d r e g i o n a l p l a n came w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e " o f f i c i a l community p l a n " o f S. 702A, p r o c e e d e d t o i n s t i t u t e t h e development p e r m i t p r o c e d u r e . a p p a r e n t l y d i d n o t , however,  The Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s  agree w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f  t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and was n o t p r e p a r e d  t o acceed t o t h e i r  submissions.  ( P e r s o n a l Correspondence)  Not s u r p r i s i n g l y t h e n , i n 1970 t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f an adopted p l a n were d e l e t e d (1970, C. 29. S. 21) and t h e Development P e r m i t  legislation  106  became a v a i l a b l e t o a l l B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s o r r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s , w i t h o r w i t h o u t an o f f i c i a l p l a n . D e s p i t e however t h i s g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o S. 702A t h e Development P e r m i t l e g i s l a t i o n , " h i s t o r i c r e s i s t a n c e c o n t i n u e d "  (South -  L e t t e r ) and r e l a t i v e l y f e w b o a r d s o r c o u n c i l s saw f i t t o u t i l i z e t h e 1 section.  O n l y two r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s  2 and seven m u n i c i p a l i t i e s c o n s t i t u -  t i n g but eighteen percent o f t h e t o t a l f o r t y - n i n e r e p l i e s r e c e i v e d , reported any e x p e r i e n c e  a t a l l w i t h t h e Development P e r m i t .  The Government was w e l l  aware t h a t 702A was n o t r e c e i v i n g t h e e x t e n t o f u s e t h e y h a d e n v i s i o n e d and a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e "was some c o n f u s i o n and doubt as t o what a development p e r m i t was" ( S o u t h - L e t t e r )  Municipal a u t h o r i t i e s f e l t that the permit  p r o c e d u r e l a c k e d c l a r i t y , was "cumbersome and u n w i e l d y "  and a c c o m p l i s h e d  l i t t l e t h a t c o u l d n o t a l r e a d y be done s i m p l e r w i t h o t h e r means.  Recog-  n i z i n g t h a t t h e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were " a c t i n g t h e same and n o t h i n g new was b e i n g a c c o m p l i s h e d w i t h t h e development p e r m i t "  (South - L e t t e r ) , the Govern-  ment r e s c i n d e d t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i n A p r i l o f 1971 and r e p l a c e d i t w i t h t h e Land Use C o n t r a c t . ( 1 9 7 1 , C. 3 8 , S. 52) THE LAND USE CONTRACT 1) I n e x e r c i s i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e C o u n c i l s h a l l have due r e g a r d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e r e f e r r e d t o i n s u b s e c t i o n (2) o f s e c t i o n 7 0 2 : a) The development o f a r e a s t o promote g r e a t e r e f f i c i e n c y a n d quality: b^ The impact o f development on p r e s e n t and f u t u r e p u b l i c c o s t s : c ) The b e t t e r m e n t o f t h e environment: d) The f u l f i l l m e n t o f community g o a l s : and e) The p r o v i s i o n o f n e c e s s a r y p u b l i c s p a c e . 2) The C o u n c i l may, b y b y - l a w , amend t h e z o n i n g b y - l a w t o d e s i g n a t e a r e a s o f l a n d w i t h i n a zone as development a r e a s , b u t a p u b l i c h e a r i n g under s e c t i o n s 703 and 70U i s n o t r e q u i r e d . ^ B u l k l e y - N e c h a k o a n d Nanaimo. ^ort  C o q u i t l a m , Richmond, Maple R i d g e , V i c t o r i a , P r i n c e George, and M i s s i o n .  Terrace,  107  3) Upon t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f an owner o f l a n d w i t h i n t h e development a r e a , o r h i s agent, t h e C o u n c i l may, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any b y - l a w o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y , o r s e c t i o n 712 o r 713, e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n i n g s u c h terms and c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e use and development o f t h e l a n d as may be m u t u a l l y a g r e e d upon, and t h e r e a f t e r t h e use and development o f t h e l a n d s h a l l , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any b y - l a w o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y , o r s e c t i o n 712 or 713, be i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e l a n d use c o n t r a c t . k  A c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o under s u b s e c t i o n (3) s h a l l have t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t o f a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant r u n n i n g w i t h t h e l a n d and s h a l l be r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e by t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y .  J  3>) The C o u n c i l may, by b y - l a w , p r e s c r i b e t h e p r o c e d u r e by which t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y may e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t and t h e f o r m and consideration of the contract. 6) The C o u n c i l s h a l l n o t e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t u n t i l i t has h e l d a. p u b l i c h e a r i n g , n o t i c e o f which has been p u b l i s h e d i n t h e manner p r e s c r i b e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( l ^ o f s e c t i o n 703, and e x c e p t upon t h e a f f i r m a t i v e v o t e o f t w o - t h i r d s o f a l l t h e members, o f council. 7) The p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 703 a p p l y , w i t h t h e n e c e s s a r y changes and so f a r as a r e a p p l i c a b l e , t o a h e a r i n g under t h i s s e c t i o n . 8) N o t h i n g i n t h i s s e c t i o n r e s t r i c t s t h e r i g h t o f an owner t o d e v e l o p h i s l a n d i n accordance w i t h the r e g u l a t i o n of the m u n i c i p a l i t y a p p l y i n g t o t h e zone i n w h i c h t h e l a n d i s s i t u a t e who does n o t e n t e r i n t o a l a n d use c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e C o u n c i l . 9) A l a n d use c o n t r a c t i s deemed t o be a z o n i n g b y - l a w f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e C o n t r o l l e d A c c e s s Highways A c t . (Amended by 1971, The B i l l 100,  new  52)  C. 38, S.  l e g i s l a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e house i n s p r i n g o f 1971  as  v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y from t h e Development P e r m i t i n a number o f  instances worth noting.  Probably  t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t change d e a l t w i t h  t h e manner o f s e c u r i n g e f f e c t i v e development c o n t r o l , f o r a l t h o u g h  the  p r o c e d u r e f o r d e c l a r i n g a development a r e a r e m a i n e d t h e same, t h e use  of  t h e p e r m i t t o w a i v e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e z o n i n g and s u b - d i v i s i o n by-laws  was  r e p l a c e d by a u t h o r i t y f o r c o u n c i l t o e n t e r i n t o l a n d use c o n t r a c t s c o n t a i n i n g "such terms and c o n d i t i o n s ...  as may  be m u t u a l l y a g r e e d upon".  At  the  same t i m e , t o broaden t h e power b a s i s and r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h i s  108 new a u t h o r i t y , f i v e a d d i t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d f o r "due r e g a r d " by C o u n c i l j o i n e d t h e s i x o f t h e o r i g i n a l z o n i n g s e c t i o n .  Requirements  f o r a two y e a r p e r m i t d u r a t i o n (S.3) and o p t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s  f o r bond-  i n g and s e c u r i t y were d e l e t e d , p e r s u m a b l y t o be c o v e r e d b y t h e "terms and c o n d i t i o n s " o f t h e new c o n t r a c t p r o c e d u r e , w h i l e a t i g h t e n i n g o f p r o c e d u r a l r e g u l a t i o n s n o w . s p e c i f i e d t h a t p r o c e d u r e , f o r m and c o n s i d e r a t i o n , as w e l l as subsequent d e c l a r a t i o n o f t h e development a r e a , s h o u l d p r o c e e d b y b y - l a w . (S.  3 '& $)  A f i n a l and i m p o r t a n t a d d i t i o n t o t h e l e g i s l a t i o n p r o v i d e d  t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t have t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t o f a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant running with the land.(S.U)  UNDERSTANDING THE LAND USE CONTRACT The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f S. 702A - t h e Land Use C o n t r a c t - was a c c l a i m e d by government f o r c e s and, i t i s a l l e g e d , t h e o p p o s i t e s i d e o f t h e house. (South - Interview)  Because t h e i n i t i a l concept  and much o f t h e e a r l y  d r a f t i n g o f t h e new l e g i s l a t i o n a p p a r e n t l y a r o s e b a s i c a l l y f r o m w i t h i n t h e Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , t h e l a n d u s e c o n t r a c t was c o n s i d e r e d u n i q u e and i n d i v i d u a l . ( S o u t h - I n t e r v i e w )  The M i n i s t e r h i m s e l f h a i l e d  h i s new l e g i s l a t i o n as " r e v o l u t i o n a r y " , (The P r o v i n c e , March 26, 1971) and was o b v i o u s l y e n t h u s i a s t i c about t h e t e c h n i q u e , . cation - Various  ( P e r s o n a l Communi-  sources)  Nonetheless,  some c r i t i c s e n t e r t a i n e d m i s g i v i n g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y  c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e c o n c e p t s i n t r o d u c e d b y 702A were unders t o o d b o t h b y t h e government and b y t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c .  I t was c l a i m e d  t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n had been i n t r o d u c e d w i t h o u t a c l e a r  understanding  of e i t h e r i t s i n t e n t , philosophy or reasoning.  As a r e s u l t ,  one p l a n n e r  109  n o t e s , " t h e r e i s an a u r a o f m y s t i c i s m about 702A."  Similar  appeared i n t h e n e w s l e t t e r o f t h e P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e o f B.C.  criticism and bemoaned  t h e government's abuse o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n by h o i s t i n g 702A "up t h e f l a g p o l e t o see who  salutes".  c o n t i n u e s , "as how new  "A few p o s i t i v e g u i d e l i n e s " , t h e comment  l e g i s l a t i o n s h o u l d be u s e d would be an  t h a t t h e u s e o f such l e g i s l a t i o n has been t h o r o u g h l y t h o u g h t ( S t a l l a r d , 1971,  indication out".  p.3)  O t h e r s have p e r c e i v e d what t h e y c o n s i d e r t o be a c o n f l i c t i n t h e t h e o r y o f t h e 702A l e g i s l a t i o n .  W h i l e government p r e s s r e l e a s e s and p u b l i c  statements have been i n t e r p r e t e d as e n c o u r a g i n g  t h e use o f t h e l a n d use  c o n t r a c t t o achieve r e s u l t s not a t t a i n a b l e w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l zoning, other s o u r c e s have c a u t i o n e d t h a t t h e l a n d use c o n t r a c t " s h o u l d n o t r e p l a c e t h e n o r m a l z o n i n g system" b u t s h o u l d i n s t e a d be s t a n d a r d l y a v a i l a b l e as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o zoning (South - L e t t e r )  T h e r e i n l i e s t h e c o n f l i c t , f o r as  one m u n i c i p a l s t u d y o f 702A c o n c l u d e d , "How  can t h e l e g i s l a t i o n on  one hand decree t h a t a l a n d use c o n t r a c t s h o u l d n o t be u s e d t o  the  circumvent  n o r m a l z o n i n g and on t h e o t h e r hand a l l o w t h e i s s u a n c e o f a l a n d use  con-  t r a c t w h i c h p e r m i t s a development which o r d i n a r i l y w o u l d be i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f e x i s t i n g l a n d use c o n t r o l s and r e g u l a t i o n s ? " ( S u r r e y , D r a f t Report  on S. 702A, J a n u a r y 2,  1972)  D e s p i t e some a t t e m p t s by t h e Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s t o j u s t i f y i t s " a l t e r n a t i v e " p o s i t i o n on t h e use o f 702A, i t now  appears  t h a t t h e Department has r e i t e r a t e d i t s s t a n d t h a t t h e l a n d use c o n t r a c t n o t be u s e d t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f z o n i n g .  S. 702A r e p r e s e n t s  "refined  z o n i n g " f o r many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , one o f f i c i a l c l a i m s ( S o u t h - I n t e r v i e w )  110  and t h e r e i s w a r n i n g t h a t any use of 702A t o o b v i a t e zoning m i g h t w e l l be s u f f i c i e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e M i n i s t e r . ( S o u t h - L e t t e r ) There i s i n d i c a t i o n however t h a t a t l e a s t some d i s t r i c t s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a l r e a d y i n i t i a t e d p o l i c y w h i c h c o u l d w e l l i n v o l v e t h e use  of S.  t o e x c l u d e o r e l i m i n a t e the need f o r t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g c o n t r o l s . "While the Government f e l t t h a t t h e r e was  702A  1  a major need f o r some.  more adequate means t o c o n t r o l t h e l a r g e m u l t i p l e - u s e and  community  development schemes b e i n g c o n t e m p l a t e d i n a number o f l o w e r m a i n l a n d communities (The P r o v i n c e , March. 26, whether i n f a c t t h e r e was  1971), i t m i g h t be  questionable  any r e a l need a t a l l f o r t h e t y p e of use  development c o n t r o l c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e l a n d use c o n t r a c t . o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s may  have f e l t t h a t " z o n i n g  The M i n i s t e r  i s a crude weapon f o r  r e g u l a t i n g development" (The Vancouver Sun, A p r i l some p l a n n e r s  28,  1971,  p.i+U)  and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a c t u a l l y r e p o r t e d t h a t r e z o n i n g s  somewhat s i m p l e r and f a r q u i c k e r , and i n some I n s t a n c e s means o f c o n t r o l .  and  but were  a much p r e f e r a b l e  A number of r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have 2  n o t as y e t u t i l i z e d S.  702A and  at l e a s t seven of t h e s e i n c l u d i n g f o u r G.V.R.D.  members, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were p r e s e n t l y s a t i s f i e d w i t h the e x i s t i n g r e zoning  procedures. I t was  e x p e c t e d t h a t some use of S 702A w o u l d be the r e s u l t . o f  p r o m p t i n g by the Government, and i n l i g h t o f the a l l e g e d l y e n t h u s i a s t i c and p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t o f t h e - M i n i s t e r i n t h e new was  l e g i s l a t i o n , an a t t e m p t  made t o e s t a b l i s h the e x t e n t or degree o f government encouragement t o  the use  of S.  702A.  "'"eg. M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t o f S u r r e y , where by c o u n c i l p o l i c y a l l r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s are t o p r o c e e d v i a S. 702A. 2 E. Kootenay, S u n s h i n e C o a s t , New W e s t m i n s t e r , P o r t Moody, Burnaby, N o r t h Vancouver D i s t r i c t and C e n t r a l S a a n i c h .  Ill  Queries were directed only to those jurisdictions with actual Land Use Contract experience (Q. 13)^ but only four of the seven regional districts and a surprisingly small two of fourteen municipal replies, constituting but 28$, reported any D.M.A. encouragement.  In contrast,  three regional districts and twelve municipalities reported "no encouragement".  Correlated data on form and procedure tended to sustain this low  figure, for only two regional districts and two municipalities, 2k% of total .replies, indicated that the idea or origin of the contract was derived from the Department of Municipal Affairs.(Q. 12) Just how effective was the communication between municipal  and  government o f f i c i a l s might be guaged by comparing the following data and media report.  In reply to criticisms that the legislative amendment  changing the requirements for by-law approval from a 2/3 to a simple majority had not been preceded by consultation with the municipalities, the Minister of Municipal Affairs had retorted that the "U.B.C.M. was consulted at the executive level".  (The Sun, April 28, 1972, p.Uii)  None  of the sixteen replies from municipalities and regional districts reported the origin or encouragement of S. 702A from this same Union of British Columbia Municipalities.  It would appear then that the government enthusiasm for the use of 702A has not necessarily been picked up by the planners and tors at the local level.  administra-  Many seem cautious in their approach to the  new legislation and some entertain definite misgivings as to i t s use. Nonetheless, nearly k3% of the general comments on 702A, ten replies from the twenty-three administrators and planners responding to an invitation  I  S e e A p p e n d i x A.  112 f o r g e n e r a l remarks,(Q.18) p r o v i d e d comments o f a g e n e r a l l y p o s i t i v e n a t u r e and n o t e d t h e Land Use C o n t r a c t as a " u s e f u l " and " v a l u a b l e " t o o l , " d e s t i n e d t o be t h e way  of the f u t u r e " .  The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e t o t a l  p r o v i d e d e i t h e r q u a l i f i e d e x p r e s s i o n s o f agreement (U), g e n e r a l l y cautious nature mentioning 702A p r o c e d u r e was  o r remarks o f a  areas o f s p e c i f i c o r g e n e r a l  concern.  c r i t i c i z e d as l e n g t h y and cumbersome i n f o u r i n s t a n c e s ,  w h i l e t h e r e m a i n d e r n o t e d t h e c o n f u s i n g and u n c l e a r i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e danger o f s p o t z o n i n g and t h e need f o r comprehensive p l a n n i n g , and c e r t a i n o t h e r problems i n h e r e n t i n t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenant a s p e c t o f S.  702A.  A l t h o u g h no attempt was made t o d i r e c t l y a s c e r t a i n t h e degree o f acceptance  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g by t h e owners o r d e v e l o p e r s b e i n g p a r t y t o  t h e l a n d use c o n t r a c t o r t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c , s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n was o b t a i n e d from t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e p l i e s t o p e r m i t a t l e a s t some s l i g h t i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r p o s i t i o n .  Asked t o i n d i c a t e whether d e v e l o p e r s  or  landowners appeared t o p r e f e r 702A p r o c e d u r e  t o t h e o l d r e z o n i n g , k3%  t h e r e p l i e s ( 9 o f 21) r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e new  l e g i s l a t i o n was more f a v o u r a b l y  r e c e i v e d than t h e o l d , as opposed t o e q u a l b l o c k s o f 28% each who i n d i f f e r e n t one way  o r t h e o t h e r o r r e g a r d e d t h e new  technique  of  were  less  favourably.  W h i l e o c c a s i o n a l comments on 702A have emanated from government s o u r c e s , t h e r e have been a l m o s t no s i g n i f i c a n t j u d i c i a l o r p u b l i c o b s e r v a t i o n s on t h e new  l e g i s l a t i o n and i t has p r o v e n d i f f i c u l t t o guage t h e  e x t e n t o f p u b l i c awareness and u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  Nevertheless, s c r u t i n y of  t h e d a t a r e l a t i n g t o t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g does p r o v i d e some i n d i c a t i o n , a l b e i t o f a h e a r s a y n a t u r e , o f p u b l i c r e c e p t i o n o f 702A.  For i n s t a n c e ,  113 ten of twenty-one r e p l i e s , some U8$ reported general public agreement at the 702A hearing required by subsection public reception was  "neutral.':  (6), while 15$  indicated that  The remaining 38$ of the r e p l i e s reported  opposition to the contract at the public hearing.  In one  municipality  where a l l r e s i d e n t i a l zones had been declared development areas, public opposition became of such magnitude and proportion that rezoning to multiplefamily r e s i d e n t i a l use had to be retained instead. While i t i s neither possible nor correct to ascribe such opposit i o n to the use of the land use  contract per se, as opposed to t r a d i t i o n a l  rezoning procedure, there does appear to be some confusion i n the public mind.  As one Regional D i s t r i c t planner notes, "People i n general  very confused on Land Use Contracts... of zoning."  are  they are more used to the s e c u r i t y  Public opposition i s however more l i k e l y centered about  p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the proposed development than the mode f o r f a c i l i tating i t .  Nonetheless, one administrator has reported that because of  the considerable negotiation which i s apt to precede land use  contract  hearings, p u b l i c reception and opinion has tended to coalesce about either approval or blanket opposition, r e s u l t i n g i n easy acceptance or immediate and outright r e j e c t i o n . The data does not however seem s u f f i c i e n t to e i t h e r conclusively support or refute the proposition.  I t does not appear, f o r instance,  that any more public i n t e r e s t than normal has been generated through the of land use contracts, f o r 50$  of nineteen  r e p l i e s reported attendance  hearings as average i n comparison with a rezoning hearing, four showing below average and f i v e above average attendance.  One might conclude  use at  llii  however that those i n attendance were somewhat more aware and  articulate  than usual, because only one r e p l y of the eight i n d i c a t i n g opposition f e l t that i s was  below the average f o r a rezoning p u b l i c hearing.  r e p l i e s noted that the opposition where present, was reported above average opposition.  average and  Four three  Nonetheless, only three of sixteen  r e p l i e s , 19%, advised that any deviation from the proposed contract  had  r e s u l t e d from p u b l i c hearing reception, the balance reporting i n the negative.  Although s o l i d comparative data i s not a v a i l a b l e f o r rezoning hearings, the data seems ito, i n d i c a t e that while there i s l i t t l e difference i n attendance or the general mood at contract hearings, those i n attendance are more responslvely aware.  This, together with the small  proportion of instances where changes were incurred by reason of public reception, might lend some small support to the proposition that because of the pre-negotiation inherent i n 702A procedure the opposition i s l e s s fragmented, better informed and l e s s l i k e l y to r e j e c t the proposed contract.  While i t i s true that i f the Land Use Contract i s used e x c l u s i v e l y then p u b l i c hearings would be held f o r a l l proposed developments, i n cont r a d i s t i n c t i o n to those developments which, because they conform to e x i s t ing zoning, may  not require rezoning hearings, i t i s nevertheless  difficult  to draw conclusions as to whether the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i s being better served with the land use contract procedures.  The M i n i s t e r of Municipal  A f f a i r s had advised Municipal o f f i c e r s to always present proposals  to  the p u b l i c before d r a f t i n g any by-laws regarding development plans (The Vancouver Sun, May  13, 1972),  but i n at leasfea few instances,  the  115  public hearing has already been c r i t i c i z e d as but a rubber stamp.  Generally  however, i t would appear that the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i s being served at l e a s t as w e l l with 702A as by the standard rezoning procedure, and perhaps even better.  The declaration of a Development Area, f o r instance, adver-  t i s e s an i n t e n t to entertain contract applications and could be providing s u f f i c i e n t pre-warning t o interested p u b l i c p a r t i e s , while the negotiations p r i o r t o contract execution or public hearing can also involve segments of the p u b l i c . Analysis of the o v e r a l l data however, seems t o indicate that neither the planners nor the p u b l i c are any too clear on what S. 702A r e a l l y represents.  Although i t s short-term effects - a change i n land  use - seem l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t from that effected by a rezoning, there i s s t i l l confusion i n the public mind and uncertainty by the administrators as to the long-range and theoretic implications of the new l e g i s l a t i o n . While c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d government statements could go f a r i n d i s p e l l i n g t h i s confusion, i t seems that the theory of S. 702A i s not yet even f u l l y understood by i t s creators.  THE USE OF THE LAND USE CONTRACT R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e information concerning the scope and theory of S. 702A has y e t emanated from government sources and attempts to otherwise ascertain such information.have not been too successful. Nevertheless, some press statements are available and these together with impressions and material obtained from interviewed personnel provide at l e a s t some i n d i c a t i o n of the government position.  Considerable data,  '  on the other hand, was obtained from the questionnaires See Appendix A  1  and permitted  116 a n a l y s i s o f t h e ways i n w h i c h the l a n d use c o n t r a c t has  so f a r been employed.  Comparison o f t h e s e u s e s w i t h t h e g o a l s and o b j e c t s , of 702A as e x p r e s s e d by t h e Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s produced some i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . F o r t h e purposes o f t h i s e x e r c i s e t h e government's p o s i t i o n on a n t i c i p a t e d uses o f 702A was 1. i t s present  d e r i v e d from t h e f o l l o w i n g :  I n i n t r o d u c i n g B i l l 100  - t h e f i r s t appearance o f 702A i n  guise - the M i n i s t e r of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s • o u t l i n e d the purpose  and p r i m a r y o b j e c t o f the'new l e g i s l a t i o n t h u s l y : amendment was and ...  "The  Development A r e a  d e s i g n e d t o s i m p l i f y p r o c e d u r e f o r major development p r o j e c t s  t o p r o v i d e , f o r l a r g e - s c a l e comprehensive development w i t h o u t  of zoning by-laws"; 2.  a rash  (The P r o v i n c e , March 26, 1971.)  L a t e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n was p r o v i d e d I n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e r e c e i v e d  f r o m t h e Department's D i r e c t o r o f R e g i o n a l Planning'who e x p l a i n e d t h a t 702A i s t o be u s e d "whenever z o n i n g i s i n a d e q u a t e , " p a r t i c u l a r l y i n i n s t a n c e s i n v o l v i n g l a r g e - s u b - d i v i s i o n development where s e r v i c e s and open space are r e q u i r e d , and i n redevelopment o f downtown c o r e s and s i m i l a r c o m p l e x i t i e s , (South - L e t t e r . ) 3.  The M i n i s t e r p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r scope i n F e b r u a r y o f  1972,  almost a y e a r a f t e r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f B i l l 100, when he n o t e d t h a t t h e . l e g i s l a t i o n was  i n t e n d e d t o keep c o s t s down, p r o v i d e f o r p a r k s and  a t i o n l a n d s , and ensure t h a t p u b l i c h o u s i n g needs are met. F e b r u a r y 9, 1972) ual  planners  recre-  (Vancouver  He i s a l s o r e p o r t e d a t ' t h i s t i m e t o have a d v i s e d  Sun,  individ-  t o u t i l i z e t h e l a n d use c o n t r a c t f o r a l l l a r g e f i v e o r t e n  developments.  acre  ( P e r s o n a l Correspondence, June 27, 1972.) W h i l e t h e r e has  a l s o been some.suggestion by t h e M i n i s t e r t h a t  t h e l a n d use c o n t r a c t be u s e d t o " f r e e z e t h e r e s a l e p r i c e o f l a n d " Vancouver Sun,  (.The  F e b r u a r y 9,1972), none have so f a r v e n t u r e d , t o employ t h e  c o n t r a c t i n c o n c e r t w i t h a l a n d f r e e z e , and t h e i d e a does n o t appear, i n  any  117  event, to have received further a i r i n g by the government. Having thus determined, so f a r as possible, the government's d e l i n i a t i o n of instances and uses where the land use contract should be employed, a comparison could be made with the actual uses to which The following table categorizes seme 59  702A has so f a r been put.  out  of a t o t a l 91 known uses of 702A, plus seven applications under the o l d permit l e g i s l a t i o n , and encompass a l l stages of progress f o r which r e l i a b l e data i s a v a i l a b l e .  TABLE I USES OF S. 702A A.  -  THE LAND USE CONTRACT  Residential 1.  12  Apartment  (lU)  B.  Industrial  1  C.  Large Scale Commercial  6 3  2. Condominium  2  2  D.  Standard Commercial  3. Sr. C i t i z e n High-Rise  3  (U)  E.  k. Other S p e c i a l i z e d Res.  2  (U) <2U)  Large Scale Recreational 2  F.  A r c h i t e c t u r a l Control  1  G.  Combined Uses  2  H.  Use C o n f l i c t s  1  I.  " A l l Development"  2  SUB 5.  Sub-Division  6.  Recreational Sub-Div.  19 3  _J±  SUB  7  7. Mobile Home - T r a i l e r Park  5  8. Motel  1  9.  Camp Ground RES.  2 TOTAL  hi  GRAND TOTAL  (U6)  * The f i g u r e s i n brackets represent the combined t o t a l of both land use contract and development permit applications.  (2)  ~W  20  5"9  (66)  118  From the derivation of the types of uses which appear to have received government encouragement or sanction, summarized as: 1)  large-scale or comprehensive commercial or i n d u s t r i a l developments; 2) multiple-use developments; 3) major subdivisions requiring amenity or s e r v i c i n g provisions; and k) s p e c i a l development problems and other complexities not e a s i l y soluble with t r a d i t i o n a l zoning; i t can be seen at l e a s t prima f a c i e , that the only items from Table I that f i t comfortably within the o f f i c i a l l y sanctioned uses are A(5>) (6),  B,C,E  or  and G, while A - (2), (3) and (k) might also have p o t e n t i a l  application here.  At the l e a s t 18 and at the most 25 of the t o t a l  number of contract applications, thus come within these terms of reference.  The balance, representing  about 5>Q% of the t o t a l , would  seem therefore beyond the pale of sanctioned  l e g i s l a t i v e competence.  To f u r t h e r investigate t h i s comparison, a more intensive inquiry was made using data on the factors c i t e d by the planners and tors as t h e i r reasons f o r u t i l i z i n g S. 702A.  administra-  The following table  l i s t s actual uses, or where the land use contract has not yet been employed, contemplated uses, as grouped by  thosefactors;  119  TABLE I I FACTORS FOR THE USE OF 702A.  Q.ii 702-A  R E A S O N S  FOR  USE.  ACTUAL  2  CONTEMPLATED  TOTAL  5  2  7  2. Landscaping  h  2  6  3. F l e x i b i l i t y a. l e s s stringent regulations b. more stringent regulations c. public works control  3 6 1  1  1. •  -  Q.C  Design  Control  U. Complicated Project  '  1  12 3  3  ii  7. Staging  k 1  ii ii  1  2  8. Sub-Division  5  1  6  9 . Acquisitionary a. parks or r e c r e a t i o n a l land b. roadway dedication c. s e r v i c i n g charges  2 1 2  1  6  5". Major Development 6 . Mixed Uses  i l O . Use Variations a. i n s t r u s i o n uses or incompatibility b. permit s p e c i f i c but not general use c. permit use not s p e c i f i c a l l y provided f o r i n zoning by-laws 11.  2  7  2 1  ii  3  19  S p e c i a l Problems a. emergency t r a f f i c control b. S t r a t a T i t l e s Act - condominium c. s o i l and sanitation  1 1 1  3  12.  General F l e x i b i l i t y  2  2  13.  " A l l Types"  1  2  3  56  21  77  TOTALS  120  Rather than attempting  an a n a l y s i s o f t h i s t a b l e i n t h e terms  o f r e f e r e n c e c i t e d e a r l i e r and as u s e d above, r e g a r d was e n c o u n t e r e d axiom t h a t S. 702A - t h e Land Use  had t o t h e  Contract - should not  u s e d i n i n s t a n c e s where t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g methods w o u l d s u f f i c e . was  often be It  1  t h e r e f o r e a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t s u b t r a c t i n g f r o m the above f a c t o r s t h o s e  w h i c h c o u l d assumedly have been a d e q u a t e l y h a n d l e d by z o n i n g would l e a v e a r e m a i n d e r w h i c h by t h e m s e l v e s w o u l d be l i k e l y s u b j e c t s f o r 702A. A t f i r s t g l a n c e f o r i n s t a n c e , t h e "Use  V a r i a t i o n s " o f #10  be a t t a i n a b l e e i t h e r t h r o u g h an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f z o n i n g o r a r e l a x a t i o n o f c o n t r o l s by a B o a r d o f V a r i a n c e .  seem t o  categories  Prevailing liberal  2 a t t i t u d e s towards s p o t z o n i n g by some C a n a d i a n c o u r t s  might permit  i n t r u s i o n a r y uses n o t g e n e r a l l y a l l o w a b l e i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ,  although  3 a r e c e n t Kamloops c a s e  has u n d e r l a i n t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a v o i d i n g d i s c r i m -  i n a t i o n i n zoning by-laws.  M i n i s t e r o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s has  himself  e x p r e s s l y c a u t i o n e d t h a t S. 702A c a n n o t be u s e d as a d e v i c e f o r s p o t (The P r o v i n c e , March 26,  zoning.  1971,  p.6)  I t a l s o seems p o s s i b l e t o remove t h e " F l e x i b i l i t y " u s e s o f #3  from t h o s e remaining  f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by 702A, on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t  appears t h a t t h e s e ends c o u l d be a c c o m p l i s h e d by a more e f f e c t i v e use  of  b o t h e x i s t i n g c o n t r o l s and new means o f l e s s magnitude t h a n t h e l a n d  use  contract.  Comprehensive Development zones, f o r i n s t a n c e , o r t h e use  c o n c e p t s s i m i l a r t o t h e P l a n n e d U n i t Development^'  1  2  See  above, p.  109.  See above, p. 68. 3 S t a n d a r d O i l o f B.C. L t d . & A.R. M e t c a l f e C o n s t r u c t i o n L t d . v. C o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e C i t y o f Kamloops. 1972, 5 WWR 660 ^ See  above, p..  81.  The  of  121  would l i k e l y provide s a t i s f a c t o r y solutions f o r not only the factors and problems of a t t a i n i n g f l e x i b i l i t y , but also the "Major Development" issues and the "Mixed Uses".  The M u n i c i p a l i t y of Burnaby f o r example,  which encompasses a large area of both development and re-development p o t e n t i a l , reports that i t s e x i s t i n g zoning and development procedure i s s a t i s f a c t o r y to handle submitted projects to date and that i t therefore has no present need f o r the land use contract.  S i m i l a r explanations have  also come from several other lower mainland m u n i c i p a l i t i e s who  have not  yet a c t u a l l y used 702A , and of the twenty-nine reasons advanced f o r not 1  using the land use contract or development area procedure, Question C almost 25$  1,  indicated "present s a t i s f a c t i o n with existing zoning procedures".  Summing together therefore the f a c t o r s of " F l e x i b i l i t y , the a l l i e d "General F l e x i b i l i t y " of #12,  and  "Major Developments", "Mixed  Uses" and "Use V a r i a t i o n s " produces a t o t a l of forty-one  instances  where the desired ends might seem to be more generally available with the e x i s t i n g or amplified zoning controls.  Subtracting t h i s f i g u r e  from the t o t a l , corrected to seventy-three by the deletion of the three r e p l i e s f o r " A l l Types", leaves an aggregate of some thirty-two factors, considerably l e s s than h a l f , which would appear to warrant land use contract consideration.  Extracting these remaining factors from Table I I produces the following:  North ^Vancouver D i s t r i c t ,  and New  Westminster.  122  TABLE I I I  Subjects f o r 702A Consideration A. Design & Landscaping  Total Uses 13  B. A c q u i s i t i o n  6  C. Complicated Projects  3  D.  2  Staging  E. Sub-Division  6  F. Special Problems  3  Before however accepting the above as v a l i d objects f o r 702A i t might be possible to take one f u r t h e r step and to subject them to scrutiny i n terms of the "considerations" l e g i s l a t i v e l y required by both 702A and 702 - the standard zoning authority.  The Municipal Act p r o v i -  des that the land use contract provisions can only be exercised so long as the Municipal Council, or Regional Board, has regard not only to the considerations of 702A but also those r e f e r r e d to i n Section 702: "702 (2) In making regulations under t h i s section, the Council s h a l l have due regard to the following considerations:(a) The promotion of health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the p u b l i c : (b) The prevention of the overcrowding of land, and the preservation of the amenities p e c u l i a r to any zone: (c) The securing of adequate l i g h t , a i r and access: (d) The value of the land and the nature of i t s present and prospective use and occupancy: (£) The character of each zone, the character of the buildings already erected, and the p e c u l i a r s u i t a b i l i t y of the zone f o r p a r t i c u l a r use; and ( f ) The conservation of property values." The land use contract provisions read: "702A (1) In exercising the provisions of t h i s section, the Council s h a l l have due regard to the following considerations i n addition to those r e f e r r e d to i n subsection (2)  123  of section 7 0 2 : (a) The development of areas to promote greater e f f i c i e n c y and quality: (b) The impact of development on present and future public costs: (c) The betterment of the environment: (d) The f u l f i l l m e n t of community goals: and (e) The p r o v i s i o n of necessary p u b l i c space." Just how important these "considerations" are remains somewhat of a moot point. Terminals c a s e  1  The recent decision i n the North Vancouver Neptune  d i d however contain a strong admonition to pay s p e c i a l  attention to these reasons whenever applying the zoning sections, and the Prince George s o l i c i t o r who  helped prepare the d r a f t contract  and  procedural guidelines now being observed i n a large proportion of the d i s t r i c t s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s i m i l a r l y warns municipal o f f i c e r s to payp a r t i c u l a r heed to these considerations.(Wilson,  1971,  50)  Unfortun-  ately, no j u d i c i a l or l e g i s l a t i v e assistance can be derived from other Canadian provinces f o r i t would appear that only B r i t i s h Columbia has included these types of provisions i n authorizing the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s and D i s t r i c t s to exercise zoning and development controls.(RAIC,  1965  7) In l i k e l y response to these recommendations, and on the advice of s o l i c i t o r s , a majority of contracting l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s have made s p e c i f i c reference to the considerations of 702(2) and  702(1).  2 Six  of the eleven contract forms examined contain such a reference, 3  while another  r e f e r s to these considerations i n the authorizing by-law.  Only those contracts which do not appear to follow the model form prepared "''Nov. 18, 1970 Supreme Court of B.C. (Unreported), p Okanagan-Similkameen, Fraser-Fort George, Surrey, Delta, Richmond and Prince George. ^Povt  Coquitlam.  12U  by Mr. Wilson" make no r e f e r e n c e  whatsoever t o t h e s e c t i o n s .  Whether o r n o t i n f a c t t h e C o u n c i l s attend t o these considerations obviously  i n authorizing  and Boards a c t u a l l y do a l a n d use c o n t r a c t i s  d i f f i c u l t t o determine, b u t those c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  do seem  s u f f i c i e n t l y b r o a d t o p r o v i d e a t l e a s t some v e s t i g a l a u t h o r i t y f o r i n c l u d i n g a l l s i x o f t h e above s u b j e c t o f S.  702A.  A more p e r s o n a l  groups as p o t e n t i a l l y v a l i d  objects  o r s u b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s might p o s s i b l y  more s p e c i f i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  t o each o f t h e s u b j e c t s  r e s u l t s would v a r y a c c o r d i n g  t o each i n d i v i d u a l ' s a p p l i c a t i o n s , and  assign  l i s t e d , but t h e  w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f f u r t h e r j u d i c i a l guidance o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n  this  e x e r c i s e would s e r v e no u s e f u l purpose a t t h i s p o i n t .  THE PRACTICAL 1.  CONSIDERATIONS  Status The  questionnaire  s e r v e d a d u a l purpose: Not o n l y was i t  d e s i g n e d t o a s c e r t a i n t h e degree and e x t e n t t o which t h e S. 702A p r o v i s i o n s were perceived  and u n d e r s t o o d , b u t i t a l s o p r o v i d e d  o f t h e number o f development a r e a s and l a n d use c o n t r a c t  both a t a l l y applications  thus f a r encountered and, where a u t h o r i z i n g by-laws o r c o n t r a c t s h a d a c t u a l l y been p r e p a r e d , an i n d i c a t i o n o f form and c o n t e n t . t y p e s o f uses and t h e i r r a t i o n a l e had g r e a t e r t i c a l purposes, t h e catalogue o f contracts  duction and  implications f o r analy-  d i d at l e a s t provide a  r e l a t i v e i n d i c a t i o n o f progress i n the general  By  While the  use o f  702A.  t h e l a t e s p r i n g o f 1 9 7 2 , almost a y e a r f o l l o w i n g t h e i n t r o -  o f t h e new l e g i s l a t i o n , e x a c t l y h a l f o f t h e r e g i o n a l  districts  a t l e a s t twenty B.C. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s h a d had some e x p e r i e n c e w i t h  125  S.  702A,  as indicated by the following table:  TABLE IV Municipalities  Total  U  3  1*  a) 1 - 3  h  9  13  - 5  3  7  10°  c) More than 6  3  3  6  22  36  Regional Districts Development Area Declaration only Land Use Contract Applications  b) 3  TOTAL  lk  - June  b  d  1972  a - Comox Strathcona, East Kootenay, Alberni-Clayoquot, Thompson-Nicola R.D.s: New Westminster, N. Saanich, Delta. b - G.V.R.D., Bulkley-Nechako, N. Okanagan, Peace RiverL i a r d , R.D.s: Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Oak Bay, Sydney, Esquimalt, Mission,Matsqui^, Sumas-*, McKenzie*c - Squamish-Lillooet, Okanagan-Similkameen, Fraser-Fort George R.D.s: West Vancouver, North Vancouver City, Coquitlam, Richmond, White Rock, V i c t o r i a , Saanich d - Cariboo, Central Okanagan, Nanaimo, R.D.s: Langley C i t y , Prince George, Surrey. Note * - indicates no substantiating data received e i t h e r f o r reason of no r e p l y to the questionnaire or because i n f o r mation was received too l a t e f o r i n c l u s i o n .  Thus, only eight communities have had what might be considered as "major" experience with the terms of S. 702A although at l e a s t twenty-three applications.  another  have had at l e a s t some dealings with land use contract Roughly h a l f of the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s and an obviously  l a r g e but unascertained and somewhat meaningless number of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  126  have had as y e t no e x p e r i e n c e  w i t h S. 702A.  A number o f t h e s e d i s t r i c t s  and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' ' " have however r e p o r t e d t h a t a l t h o u g h  t h e y had  u t i l i z e d t h e a c t u a l p r o c e d u r e , a c t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n was  being given to i t s  implementation, and,  not  i n c l u d i n g t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e development a r e a s  i n some i n s t a n c e s , t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f d r a f t c o n t r a c t s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n  o f 702A a p p l i c a t i o n s . Wherever an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a l a n d use c o n t r a c t i n d i c a t e d t h a t S. 702A was  i n a c t i v e process,  t h e l o c a l a u t h o r i t y was  asked t o  provide  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e s t a t u s o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and the f o r m and p r o c e d u r e b e i n g o b s e r v e d and t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e p r o v i d e s an a p p r o x i m a t e i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u s o f some t h i r t y - o n e r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t and s i x t y m u n i c i p a l use c o n t r a c t s .  Information  land  on a f u r t h e r t w e n t y o r so a p p l i c a t i o n s i s  not i n c l u d e d i n t h i s t a b l e f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: a) i n s u f f i c i e n t I n d i c a t i o n on s t a t u s o f i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r a c t s was a v a i l a b l e , as i n t h e c a s e o f P r i n c e George and t h e Cariboo, b) i n f o r m a t i o n was r e c e i v e d t o o l a t e f o r c o m p i l a t i o n , eg. Nanaimo C i t y and McKenzie D i s t r i c t , c) no r e p l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was r e c e i v e d , eg. M a t s q u i , and C h i l l i w a c k , and d) t h e t a s k o f e x a m i n i n g each o f a l a r g e number o f c o n t r a c t a p p l i c a t i o n s , as i n S u r r e y where each r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n i s , by c o u n c i l p o l i c y , t o be p r o c e s s e d under S. 702A, p r o v e d beyond t h e scope o f t h i s p r o j e c t .  TABLE V Status  of  Contract Applications June ' 72 A. R e j e c t e d  o r Dropped  B. Completed and  Filed  Regional Districts  Municipalities Total  12  7  19  3  21  2k  T e r r a c e , P o r t Moody, N o r t h Vancouver D i s t r i c t , C e n t r a l  Saanich.  127  TABLE V CONTINUED Status of ;t Applies Contract Applications  Districts  Municipalities Total  June « 72 C. Completed, not yet f i l e d  9  9  D. Approved, but awaiting execution  2  2  7  7  10  9  19  6  5  11  31  60  91  E. Awaiting Public Hearing P r i o r to Approval F. Being Drafted G. "Pending" TOTAL  Translating these s t a t i s t i c s into percentages, as of Summer 1972 some 21$ of the 702A applications have been dropped, 26$ have been processed to t h e i r completion and the remaining 53$ remain i n some stage of the proceedings.  While i t would perhaps have been useful t o compare  t h i s data with the d i s p o s i t i o n of standard rezoning applications, the figures by themselves do not appear unreasonable, and indications e l s e where tend to substantiate c e r t a i n procedural s i m i l a r i t i e s .  2. Form Further data on completed land use contracts or the master contract forms themselves were submitted by fourteen regional d i s t r i c t s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and these were studied both from the point of view of t h e i r own content and i n the l i g h t of other questionnaire data.  The  most pronounced i n d i c a t i o n was that the majority of these contracts seemed to spring from or align with one p a r t i c u l a r form, subsequently discovered t o have been prepared by J . Gait Wilson, a Prince George  128  s o l i c i t o r with an early and p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n S. 702A.  At l e a s t  f i v e of the contracts examined, f o r instance^ follow the Wilson format exactly  1  while an additional three adhere somewhat to t h i s formula but  with the addition of a number of a d d i t i o n a l , and i n some instances 2 modifying, provisions. about U6%  The remaining f i v e contracts, representing  of the t o t a l , appear s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s t i n c t to stand on t h e i r 3  own,  and suggest o r i g i n s e n t i r e l y independent of the Wilson model. Inquiries as to contract form were also included i n the ques-  t i o n n a i r e and twenty r e p l i e s were received.  The great majority,  over 75% of the t o t a l , reported that t h e i r land use contract forms were devised and prepared by a combination of lawyer and planning  staff.  Only three m u n i c i p a l i t i e s indicated that contract preparation had been through the exclusive services of a lawyer, while two others appeared to use the services of e i t h e r the planner or administrator without any l e g a l assistance whatsoever. Nonetheless, some degree of l e g a l input was i n eighteen of the r e p l i e s , an 85% coverage.  therefore present  Yet, i n r e p l y to a  question on the o r i g i n of the contract form, only h a l f appeared to f e e l that form i n i t i a t e d with the s o l i c i t o r , the remainder noting e i t h e r the Municipal Act or Regional D i s t r i c t meetings as responsible.  Terrace, Fraser-Fort George, Prince George, Mission and Delta. i  Okanagan-Similkameen, Richmond and 1  Surrey.  Esquimalt, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, West Vancouver and White Rock.  129  There was however a s i g n i f i c a n t l y low response to t h i s question, only ten r e p l i e s , and t h i s probably r e f l e c t s confusion over the  ambiguity  of the question.  In any event, i t seems that the l e g a l profession has had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y major involvement  i n the preparation of land use contracts,  and while t h i s might diminish as forms and procedure become more standardized, there remains the l i k e l i h o o d of some degree of continued consultation and assistance.  Municipal A f f a i r s had indicated that i t  does not favour the preparation of land use contracts by planners alone as i t "tends to l e t the courts do the interpretation" (South - Interview) but the i n d i c a t i o n to t h i s point i s that contract preparation has been and w i l l l i k e l y continue to be co-ordinated e f f o r t between planning s t a f f and  lawyer.  3. Procedure Although i t might be expected that the preparation of procedural form, because of i t s administrative nature, would l i e well within the planners' j u r i s d i c t i o n , such has not been the case to date. Although there i s no d i r e c t i n d i c a t i o n of procedural o r i g i n s , more than h a l f ( 5> of 9)  of those d i s t r i c t s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s supplying  information on procedure have elected to observe the guidelines prepared by Wilson to accompany h i s contract form.  1  Two others share  a common procedure d i f f e r e n t from and somewhat more d e t a i l e d than the Wilson format,  :  2  While the remaining three  3  exhibit certain independence  ''"Fraser -Fort George, Prince George,Mission, Terrace, & Delta. 2 Cariboo, Squamish-Lillooet. 3Central Okanagan, Bulkley-Nechako & West Vancouver  130  i n t h e development o f p r o c e d u r a l g u i d e l i n e s .  The g r e a t e s t  distinc-  t i o n s seem t o l i e i n t h e d e s i g n a t i o n and number o f a p p r o v i n g t i e s however, and g e n e r a l l y s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s c h a r a c t e r i z e a l l  authoriprocedure  o u t l i n e s submitted t o the p o i n t of adhering to W i l s o n ' s g u i d e l i n e s t o the f a i r l y s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r a l requirements of the  The o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n s  are worth n o t i n g .  or  legislation.  For instance,  a l t h o u g h most l o c a l c o u n c i l s now r e q u i r e o n l y p r e l i m i n a r y s k e t c h p l a n s t o accompany t h e i n i t i a l l a n d use a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h f u l l d e s i g n and w o r k i n g d r a w i n g s t o be s u b m i t t e d o n l y a f t e r p u b l i c and c o u n c i l : a p p r o v a l has been i n d i c a t e d , a few communities have p r o c e d u r a l s t a n d a r d s r e q u i r i n g a more comprehensive d e s i g n s u b m i s s i o n a t t h e t i m e o f cation  1  Of somewhat more s i g n i f i c a n c e however, i s t h e  of the status of the a p p l i c a n t .  It  appli-  determination  appears t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e i n some  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s t o d e c l a r e t h e Development A r e a o f 702A (2) a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a l a n d use c o n t r a c t , ( v i z . S u r r e y , C e n t r a l Okanagan)  the  s u b s e c t i o n (3), has been r e c e i v e d ,  There i s , however,  considerable  s u p p o r t f o r t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e development a r e a d e c l a r a t i o n must 2 p r e c e e d any c o n t r a c t a p p l i c a t i o n ,  and a c a r e f u l r e a d i n g o f t h e l e g i s -  l a t i o n seems t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s p o s i t i o n .  A t l e a s t one p r o c e d u r a l  g u i d e - l i n e r e c e i v e d has however c l a r i f i e d and r e - s t a t e d t h i s ment.  require-  (Quadra P l a n n i n g S t u d y , Development A r e a G u i d e l i n e s f o r Quadra  I s l a n d - J a n u a r y , 1972) E g . N o r t h Vancouver C i t y . E g . T. C a r l o w , New W e s t m i n s t e r Land R e g i s t r a r ,  PersonaTf-Interview.  A number of procedural d i f f i c u l t i e s and  misunderstandings  have been encountered i n the i n i t i a l processing of land use contracts. Several administrators, f o r instance, complained that S. 702A procedure was both "cumbersome" and "time-consuming", while others preferred the r e l a t i v e " s i m p l i c i t y " of zoning. The procedural sequence and timing f o r nineteen land use contracts which have been processed more or less to completion tends however to contradict such impressions.  Eleven of these contracts,  accounting f o r %Q% of the t o t a l , required a minimum of from four to s i x months f o r completion, while a further four applications had a duration of from s i x to twelve months.  The remaining four applica-  tions, including one s t i l l "pending" at the time of inquiry,' took from one to two years to completely process.  This can be compared with  estimates of up to s i x months f o r normal rezonings i n Vancouver (Geronazzo, pondence) .  19°U,  2) and both Surrey and Coquitlam (Personal Corres-  The f a c t that almost 60% of the land use contract a p p l i -  cations f a l l within t h i s range tends to indicate that inordinate delays i n processing the remaining applications might be occasioned by circumstances not necessarily connected with the general procedure.  What i s perhaps the l a s t step i n most land use contract procedures was expected to cause the most concern f o r l o c a l ment o f f i c i a l s .  govern-  Although S. 702A (1+) i s clear that the land use  contract " s h a l l have the force and e f f e c t of a r e s t r i c t i v e  covenant  running with the land" and " s h a l l be registered i n the Land Registry O f f i c e " , there were only a few cautious statements expressed as to i t s e f f e c t s and longterm implications.  Several administrators  132  anticipated problems i n enforcing the p o s i t i v e nature of the land use contract, as d i s t i n c t from the generally negative form of most r e s t r i c t i v e covenants, while others have reservations concerning the problems of amending executed and registered contracts.  Only one municipality  to date has yet attempted to create a reversionary r e s t r i c t i v e covenant to be released by consent from the Land Registry once construction i s complete according to the terms of the contract, although a few other contracts contain termination clauses and l o c a l o f f i c i a l s have expressed s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t i n devising means f o r terminating or r e l e a s ing  the covenant.  1  A number of p o t e n t i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g l e g a l questions seemed i m p l i c i t i n t h i s statutory creation of a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant, and i t had been reported that certain Land Registrar had i n i t i a l doubts as to the r e g i s t e r a b i l i t y of land use contracts.  I t was  expected there-  fore that a large number of planners and administrators would attest to encountering at l e a s t some problems with the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant aspect of the land use contract.  Nonetheless, only three r e p l i e s from  a t o t a l of f i f t e e n received to t h i s inquiry (Q.l6) reported any problems, the balance i n d i c a t i n g that no problems had been encountered concerning r e g i s t r a t i o n of the contract as a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant. Accordingly, an i n i t i a l intent to study t h i s area somewhat more intens i v e l y ••was- de-emphasized.  See f o r instance, Ascher, 1953? 262, or Snyder, 1966.  or generally Owens, 1967  133  THE LAND USE CONTRACT AS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL,  Even a casual f a m i l i a r i t y with the land use contract l e g i s l a t i o n reveals a s i g n i f i c a n t degree of s i m i l a r i t y between B r i t i s h Columbia's S. 702A and English Development Control.  Some a s s i m i l i -  tude might be expected however, considering that the precedent Development Permit l e g i s l a t i o n borrowed heavily from Alberta's Interim Development Control, i t s e l f a copy of much of the English l e g i s l a t i o n .  The  existing sections authorizing declaration of a development area and subsequent use of the land use contract to waive provisions of the zoning or "any by-law of the municipality" —  i n e f f e c t determining  land use and development i n terms e n t i r e l y extraneous to the by-laws —  does permit a discretionary form of control f a r more common to English  development control than American-developed zoning.  Nonetheless,  zoning  continues to be a primary land c o n t r o l form i n B.C., and while the land use contract procedure might seem to have the p o t e n t i a l f o r application i n a s i m i l a r manner as Development Control, c e r t a i n p r a c t i c a l and procedu r a l disconformities appear to have l e d to d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s .  The e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n of English-style development control appears to r e l y on the continued  existence of two f a c t o r s : -  1) the presence of strong and well a r t i c u l a t e d government p o l i c y on questions of development and land use; and 2) the preparation and observation of an o f f i c i a l community plan to guide and determine l o c a l land use decisions. Both these factors seem possible within the p r o v i n c i a l context, and the p o l i c i e s of the B.C. Government towards land use and planning were examined i n comprehensive planning terms and t o attempt an analysis  13k  of the strength of the government p o s i t i o n and implementation at the l o c a l administrative l e v e l .  The findings indicate something l e s s  than a serious or firm p o s i t i o n on e i t h e r point.  A l l municipal and d i s t r i c t zoning by-laws, as well as ordinances establishing procedure, declaring development areas or authorizing the land use contract must draw t h e i r authority d i r e c t l y from the M T i n i c i p a l Act, delineating as i t does the scope and extent of P r o v i n c i a l control over land use and development.  Yet t r a d i t i o n a l l y , even although  municipal and l o c a l governments are i n a sense merely "legatees" of the basic p r o v i n c i a l authority, they do r e t a i n an appreciable degree of independence i n such matters within' t h e i r own  j u r i s d i c t i o n , providing  of course that they remain s t r i c t l y within the terms of the Act.  A  number of recent provisions do however serve to s u b s t a n t i a l l y enhance and increase the d i r e c t involvement of the p r o v i n c i a l government i n the l o c a l land c o n t r o l process.  Whatever the reasons f o r the establishment Districts legislation —  of the Regional  some say they were i n s t i t u t e d i n response to  a need f o r increased l o c a l autonomy —  the extent of d i r e c t p r o v i n c i a l  control over t h e i r operations has served to broaden the scope f o r involvement by that senior l e v e l i n matters and land use and development c o n t r o l .  S. 798  (A) (2), f o r instance, requires Cabinet  approval  f o r any and a l l by-laws, be they zoning, sub-division or otherwise, which a f f e c t t e r r i t o r y within the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t but not included within the confines of a town, v i l l a g e , d i s t r i c t or c i t y . p a r t i c u l a r concern to those d i s t r i c t s who  This measure has caused  exercise control over the  Unorganized T e r r i t o r i e s and the section has been c r i t i c i z e d by one planner  135  as an apparent r e f l e c t i o n of a lack of confidence by the province i n the competence of the Regional D i s t r i c t Boards. Subsection  (6) of S. 798(A) appears however to extend t h i s  p r o v i n c i a l control even further with i t s necessity f o r M i n i s t e r i a l , as d i s t i n c t from Cabinet, approval before a land use contract can be approved anywhere within the Regional D i s t r i c t , or i n the f l o o d p l a i n of a 1  municipality.  In subsection  (7) the M i n i s t e r of Municipal A f f a i r s i s  given the power to grant an appeal to p a r t i e s whose a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a land use contract has been rejected by the Regional D i s t r i c t .  He  can,  " i f he i s of the opinion that the proposal of the owner f o r development i s reasonable, d i r e c t that the lands be designated a land use contract entered i n t o . . . "  a development area  While t h i s section i s notable  and as  authority f o r the recent Gabriola Island hearings, which ultimately served to substantiate the Board's o r i g i n a l r e j e c t i o n of the development proposal, i t also seems to have been given a somewhat d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by the M i n i s t e r . "bureaucrats"  In a public statement deploring the actions of c e r t a i n who  were opposing a proposed Lower Mainland development,  the Minister warned l o c a l governments to read with caution that section of the act permitting him to allow development i f he decides that i t i s i n the pubjic i n t e r e s t . ^ fhe provision of what might be considered c e n t r a l d i r e c t i o n i n the administration of land use contracts does however seem more concerned with the consolidation of d i r e c t and f i n a l power i n the hands of the "''This provisions was repealed by the f a l l 1972 session of the newly elected l e g i s l a t u r e . 2 ^emphasis mine) The Vancouver Sun, January 28, 1972, 6.  136  P r o v i n c i a l Government than i n providing a series of common and w e l l conceived p o l i c y guidelines f o r general application throughout the province.  L e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r i n g ultimate p r o v i n c i a l approval  of  municipal and d i s t r i c t contracts, and t a l k s of p r o v i n c i a l land development freeze to accompany and f a c i l i t a t e implementation of the new  l e g i s l a t i o n (Vancouver Sun, Feb. 9, 1972)  to not appear e f f e c t i v e  as c e n t r a l government guidance, supervision, and assistance to i t s junior governments.  Attempts to s u c c e s s f u l l y integrate zoning with comprehensive planning have long posed a problem to both the senior l e v e l s of government and administrators  and planners at the l o c a l l e v e l .  Although  true English development c o n t r o l should obviate any such accommodation, attempts to i n s t i t u t e s i m i l a r control methods on t h i s continent seem to require either some j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a continued co-existence  or some  other s a t i s f a c t o r y means of r e l a t i n g the two procedures and concepts.  The experience with S. 702A i n t h i s province has been somewhat of an about-face:  The o r i g i n a l development permit l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y  required the existence of an " o f f i c i a l community plan", but t h i s requirement was  dropped by the 1970  available.  Few  explanations  amendments and 702A became u n i v e r s a l l y are available however to explain t h i s  p o l i c y change, and government o f f i c i a l s have merely pointed out that  few  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s had i n f a c t adopted o f f i c i a l plans, and the scope f o r the new  l e g i s l a t i o n was  thus severly limited.(Personal Interview - Department  of  Municipal'Affairs )  Th  e  fact  i s  however that the p r o v i n c i a l  authorities did apparently very l i t t l e to i n any way  encourage the  use  of the development permit within the natural framework of an o f f i c i a l or  137  comprehensive plan.  When, f o r instance, the Bulkley-Nechako Regional  D i s t r i c t attempted to u t i l i z e the new l e g i s l a t i o n , they were advised by Department of Municipal A f f a i r s o f f i c i a l s that the " O f f i c i a l community plan" d i d not encompass the D i s t r i c t ' s own adopted Regional Plan. (Personal Correspondence - Director of Planning, Bulkley-Nechako Regional D i s t r i c t )  Considering the seemingly broad d e f i n i t i o n a l range  inherent i n the "community plan", the attitude of the government appears unnecessarily r i g i d , and the absence of the community plan requirement has been sharply c r i t i c i z e d by municipal o f f i c i a l s . ( T h e Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 28, 1972, p.IOi). However, deletion of the requirements of the o f f i c i a l communi t y plan, d i d make the new 702A provisions u n i v e r s a l l y available to a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and regional d i s t r i c t s and assumedly gave some expression to the sentiments of the government of zoning, development c o n t r o l and comprehensive planning.  Although a recent newspaper account reports the  Minister as advising councils that, before using zoning controls, they should " . . . f i r s t underscore community goals and values and ... express them i n an o f f i c i a l plan." (The Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 28, 1972, p.hk) there have been few i n d i c a t i o n s of present government philosophy t o substantiate t h i s p o s i t i o n .  With attention focused on the problems of i n t e r - r e l a t i n g zoning and comprehensive planning by t h i s somewhat nebulas a t t i t u d e , one of the major objectives of the questionnaire i n q u i r y was t o ascertain the extent such c o r r e l a t i o n by both l o c a l and senior governments and administrative s t a f f .  Data and material pertaining both to the  adoption or observation of an o f f i c i a l "community" plan and the  138  presence or absence of some form of professional planning s t a f f , considered to be a general though not exclusive i n d i c a t o r of comprehensive planning a c t i v i t y , was c o l l e c t e d and evaluated i n terms of experience with S, 702A.  The r e s u l t s were not unexpected and  generally inconclusive but do at least provide somewhat of an inventory. The following tables are drawn from questions A 1,  2 and 3 ,  and B 2 of the questionnaire and give some i n d i c a t i o n of the degree and extent of comprehensive planning i n the surveyed  communities.  TABLE VI CO  co t3 U co * COt  U O  O  Regional D i s t r i c t s Municipalities TOTALS  o rH  PH  rH PH  u o  rH  rH  O  -p o  PH  cd  EH  c  •H  a  <H CH  rH  •P  PH CO  8  12  k  2k  18  16  6  2  2k  10  2k  18  kQ  28  bo p a H •H c  CO  u CO  c  o o  i—i PH  rH  rH CO •P O  PH  EH  an  CO  CO  an  £  —  nsu an  ft  an  >  •H CO  O S3  8  26  6  8  2k  6  16  50  The Regional Planning D i v i s i o n of the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s does however make c e r t a i n planning services a v a i l a b l e to those regional d i s t r i c t s without a planning s t a f f or access to consultants.  Of course, not a l l of the communities included i n these tables have yet had the occasion to employ the Land Use  Contract  provisions but of those who did, a l l but two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Esquimalt and Oak Bay, and two Regional D i s t r i c t s , Central Okanagan and Comox-Strathcona, had either an o f f i c i a l l y sanctioned plan or at l e a s t one i n general observation.  139  However, t h e two  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are o l d and w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d urban  ar,eas w i t h i n the  confines  of Greater  o p e r a t e w i t h some form o f p l a n n i n g  A significantly had  a p l a n but  Victoria, staff.  higher proportion  lacked planning  while both r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s  s t a f f - two  702A  o f communities u s i n g  o f twelve r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s  t h i r t e e n o f twenty m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , f o r a grand t o t a l o f f i f t e e n twenty-two communities w i t h 7 0 2 A e x p e r i e n c e .  O n l y t h e two  out  and  of  regional  d i s t r i c t s o f C e n t r a l Okanagan and Comox-Strathcona o p e r a t e w i t h some form of planning  s t a f f but w i t h o u t the b e n e f i t o f a comprehensive p l a n .  e s t i n g l y , f o u r o f t h e r e m a i n i n g l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s who yet of 702A volunteered  Inter-  r e p o r t e d no use  the o p i n i o n t h a t such l a c k o f a c t i v i t y  as  was  directly  o c c a s i o n e d by the absence o f e i t h e r p o l i c y g u i d e l i n e s or a p r o f e s s i o n a l  planning  staff.  70?A s h o u l d n o t planning  An  a d d i t i o n a l f o u r r e p l i e s g e n e r a l l y commented t h a t  be used w i t h o u t b a s i c g u i d e l i n e s or  comprehensive  .  From t h i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t attempt t o i n c o r p o r a t e hensive planning, i n l a n d use planning  i t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o conclude t h a t comprehensiveness  c o n t r o l remains an a c t i v e c o n c e r n w i t h i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l  staff.  The p r o v i s i o n s o f 702A have not  anywhere i n t h e p r o v i n c e  l a n d use  c o n t r a c t w i l l be used on any  s u f f i c i e n t planning of the l e g i s l a t i o n  so f a r been u t i l i z e d  w i t h o u t a t l e a s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n by  s t a f f or adherence t o a comprehensive p l a n , and the  compre-  i t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t  large scale basis without  consideration to insure against i n the  future.  planning  i r r e s p o n s i b l e use  LUO  The attitude and p o l i c i e s of the p r o v i n c i a l government, on the other hand, p a r t i c u l a r l y as thus f a r implemented, seem somewhat inconc l u s i v e and i n need of c l a r i f i c a t i o n .  While successful employment of  English development c o n t r o l requires the preparation and observation of community development plans, few B.C.  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s or regional d i s t r i c t s  have yet produced such comprehensive plans, and the Province has made no e f f o r t s to encourage the exercise ...  Except f o r a few addresses to  conferences and meetings of l o c a l o f f i c i a l s and planners,  Provincial  Government s t a f f has been loathe to provide much assistance i n the of interpreting the new  way  l e g i s l a t i o n , much to the consternation of a number  of municipal and area administrators.  Without such guidelines, there has been some confusion and temerity i n the use of  702A  by these l o c a l o f f i c i a l s and there could be  some serious question here as to the s u f f i c i e n c y of the planning process which precedes implementation  of the provisions.  Indeed, continuing  confusion on the part of planners and administrators seems to have now extended well past the normal "introduction period" f o r l e g i s l a t i o n of t h i s sort and probably exemplifies not only the vagueness of the P r o v i n c i a l Government p o l i c y but also an incomplete understanding l o c a l communities, both i n terms of the l e g i s l a t i o n i t s e l f and i t s r e l a t i o n to the o v e r a l l planning scheme f o r t h e i r area.  by  CHAPTER VI  CONCLUSIONS  Section 702A i s development control.  I t appears however that  there i s l e s s than a f u l l awareness or understanding of the method: neither the planners, the general p u b l i c or even the P r o v i n c i a l Government seem to know why the l e g i s l a t i o n was introduced or how. i t i s to be used, and are unaware of i t s f u l l implications. Development c o n t r o l i s best characterized by the B r i t i s h l e g i s l a t i o n , serving as i t does as a template f o r s i m i l a r enactments and proposals i n other common-law j u r i s d i c t i o n s .  It differs significantly  from zoning by t r e a t i n g each application f o r development or a change i n use on i t s own merits, and the permit to proceed with such development can be s p e c i f i c a l l y conditioned to that use.  There are no general pre-  conceived regulations which apply to a class or description of uses, nor i s there any attempt to delineate beforehand the s p e c i f i c types of uses permitted i n an area.  The fundamental provisions of S. 702A approximate the B r i t i s h l e g i s l a t i o n f o r they provide f o r a b i l a t e r i a l agreement pertaining to a p a r t i c u l a r piece of property, and containing conditions which are not only unique to that application but are capable or enforcement notwithstanding any other by-law of the municipality, including the zoning ordinance. ' The agreement i s , of course a contract and so subj e c t t o a l l the p r i n c i p l e s , rights and remedies of the "common law of  contracts.  Both the English and A l b e r t a l e g i s l a t i o n , oh the other  hand, provides c o n t r o l i n the form of a permit issued by the r e q u i s i t e l o c a l authority. Development control deals with the merits of each application by reference to a plan.  While e a r l i e r B.C. l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i e d that  the land use contract provisions could be exercised only where there was a community plan, the l a t e r deletion of t h i s requirement represents a major and p o t e n t i a l l y serious departure from t r a d i t i o n a l development control techniques.  Nonetheless, the survey r e s u l t s indicate. that  v i r t u a l l y a l l communities so f a r a c t i v e l y u t i l i z i n g the land use.contract procedure have either now adopted an o f f i c i a l plan or are at l e a s t i n the process or preparing or observing some form of•comprehensive plan, and most employed a p r o f e s s i o n a l planning s t a f f .  I t i s assumed that  these f a c t o r s , together with the necessity of declaring a development area p r i o r to the r e c e i p t of land use contract applications, serve t o encourage a comprehensive and planned use of the land use contract legislation. A further feature of B r i t i s h development control i s i t s r e l a t i v e l y high degree of c e n t r a l government control and supervision. Although t h i s p r o v i n c i a l government has achieved some consolidation of the c o n t r o l function through c e r t a i n review procedures, requirements of government approval i n other areas pertinent t o the control of land (eg. The Controlled Access Highway Act,  and f l o o d - p l a i n c o n t r o l ) , and  regional d i s t r i c t l e g i s l a t i o n , the land use contract remains not an administrative permit to proceed but a contract executed between a developer and the municipal council..  As such i t would probably seem  1U3  l e s s amenable to d i r e c t administrative supervision and c o n t r o l . While the land use contract i s not a carbon copy of B r i t i s h development c o n t r o l , neither does i t resemble American zoning. Contract or conditional zoning does have some a p p l i c a t i o n and s i m i l a r i t y to the land use contract, but because of a decidedly d i f f e r e n t l e g a l basis such application i s somewhat l i m i t e d .  Even contract  zoning, when used i n concert with a comprehensive plan, c l o s e l y approximates development control.  S. 702A, though perhaps a progeny of  both develppment c o n t r o l and zoning, bears the most s t r i k i n g resemblance to the English side of the family. -  Why then has development control been introduced to B r i t i s h Columbia i n t h i s fashion?  Municipal A f f a i r s personnel maintain that  there was a r e a l necessity f o r some new form of land use c o n t r o l based on municipal  demands f o r change.  A number of planners and d i s t r i c t  o f f i c i a l s admit that there was some need f o r a more f l e x i b l e control form, and that there was some a g i t a t i o n f o r l e g i s l a t i o n which would enable a more equitable contribution from developers to o f f s e t r i s i n g municipal  s e r v i c i n g costs.  Most of these o f f i c i a l s maintain however  that what they r e a l l y wanted was a form of conditional zoning, s i m i l a r to the f l e x i b i l i t y introduced i n 1957  to the Vancouver charter,  together  with the r i g h t to charge development fees as currently permitted i n Ontario.  Most were surprised at the form of S- 702A and i t s attendant  introduction of development c o n t r o l .  The i n i t i a l idea f o r the land use contract appears to have  ihh  come from within the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , independent of s i g n i f i c a n t outside suggestions.  Few, i f any, studies ..appear to have  been conducted on the f e a s i b i l i t y or effects of t h i s new control form, f o r at l e a s t none have been i n d i c a t e d or made available, and.the l e g i s l a t i o n seems t o have been conceived and introduced, without any p r i o r consultation with municipal and d i s t r i c t planner and administra-. tors.  Analysis of data-obtained from the questionnaire -tends t o  underline c e r t a i n misunderstandings and considerable confusion i n the use and purpose of a land use contract. t h e i r understanding  Most planners reported that  of S. 702A theory and procedure d i d not come from  p r o v i n c i a l government sources but had to be derived elsewhere, and that they i n f a c t received very l i t t l e or no encouragement to employ the land use contract from the government.  Although Department of Municipal  A f f a i r s o f f i c i a l s indicated that they had hoped that the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s would discuss problems inherent i n the new l e g i s l a t i o n p r i o r to any use (South - Interview), planners agree that the government's r e a l intent i o n was to take a "wait-and-see" stance. ( S t a l l a r d , 1972, h )  There  were also i n d i c a t i o n s that the general public was  p a r t i c u l a r l y confused by the new l e g i s l a t i o n , and recent personal experience c l e a r l y substantiates t h i s observation.  C e r t a i n l y the  precedent Development Permit was not well received by e i t h e r the developer or the community and even with the land use contract there i s some evidence of a p u b l i c reluctance to give up the s e c u r i t y of zoning f o r the uncertainties of S. 702A development control.  I t seems reasonable to conclude that Section 702A has been  introduced e n t i r e l y without s u f f i c i e n t preliminary i n v e s t i g a t i o n and understanding of its theory and p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t s , and that the government has not only f a i l e d to properly prepare and inform  municipal  o f f i c i a l s but has been s e r i o u s l y remiss i n keeping the general p u b l i c informed of s i g n i f i c a n t and major changes i n land use and development control.  Had there been proper consultation i t i s conceivable  that  the implementation of l e g i s l a t i o n e f f e c t i n g such a change i n the t r a d i t i o n a l c o n t r o l patterns might not have been necessary.  Although  the introduction of S. 702A r e f l e c t s an increasing trend towards use of development control l e g i s l a t i o n i n North America, i t s introduction into t h i s province may  have been somewhat premature.  Nevertheless,  S. 702A i s now  i n active use i n B.C.  and i t  perhaps germain to inquire into the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of the land use contract i n combatting the problems i t was  apparently  to solve.  surveyed agree  Most of the planners and administrators  designed  that the most serious complaint against zoning, i t s r e l a t i v e lack of f l e x i b i l i t y , has been successfully countered by the new  legislation.  Developers as w e l l are reported to prefer the more f l e x i b l e terms possible with S. 702A, and a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion, of the projects proceeding v i a the land use contract would have been d i f f i c u l t to achieve with e x i s t i n g zoning  legislation.  However, the c r i t i c i s m that zoning has f a i l e d to adequately co-incide with the planning function can equally bele.vied at the land use contract, p a r t i c u l a r l y as there i s now no necessity f o r general or comprehensive plan.  In a l l other instances where development control  1U6  has been discussed or i n s t i t u t e d , major emphasis has been placed on the necessity of proceeding i n accordance with a comprehensive plan, and the f a i l u r e of t h i s province to so l e g i s l a t e can be considered the most t e l l i n g and p o t e n t i a l l y troublesome d e f i c i e n c y of S. 702A • A t h i r d major c r i t i c i s m of zoning i s that i t f a i l s to adequately involve the public and to protect the community i n t e r e s t with s u f f i c i e n t review procedures.  Section 702A, l i k e the existing zoning l e g i s l a -  t i o n , does provide f o r a public hearing before the Council can authorize entry i n t o a land use contract, and i n t h i s way the l e g i s l a t i o n i s perhaps somewhat superior to the l i m i t e d r i g h t s of hearing permitted i n the British legislation.  The act of executing a contract i s however a  p o l i t i c a l action somewhat d i f f e r e n t from the administrative act of granting a permit, and i t may be that t r a d i t i o n a l r i g h t s of j u d i c i a l review do not have the same application to t h i s council decision.  There are further problems i n the application of S. 702A which may not yet be c l e a r l y understood.  Neither the government or the plan-  ners, f o r instance, anticipated any problems with the statutory r e s t r i c t i v e -covenant aspect of the l e g i s l a t i o n .  A number of municipal lawyers  however indicated concern because such covenants are t r a d i t i o n a l l y negative or p r o h i b i t i o n a r y i n t h e i r aspect, while land .use contracts generally require, rather than p r o h i b i t , action by the p a r t i e s . Another procedural problem with p o t e n t i a l impact, on the continued use of S. 702A concerns i t s present pre-occupation with zoning matters. land use contract provisions are contained within the  The  Zoning section of  Municipal Act, allegedly because i t represents "refined zoning f o r many communities" (South - Interview), and there i s some opinion that S. 702A  be r e s t r i c t e d i n application to what would t r a d i t i o n a l l y be considered as zoning concerns.  As a r e s u l t there have been r e l a t i v e l y few  instances where the section has been used f o r sub-division, t h i s despite claims by the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s that S. 702A i s intended to be uised f o r such purposes.  As well, some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  have been u t i l i z i n g ' S. 702A as a matter of course i n a l l rezonings, apparently to obtain development charges from the applicants, but of course t h i s procedure would  only be available where development i s  occuring on land not zoned f o r the contemplated  use.  In general, these and other p a r t i c u l a r uses of S. 702A have been proceeding without the benefit of j u d i c i a l authority or guidance. A very recent Supreme Court r u l i n g on Vancouver Island (Re. By-law •lU80, N. Cowichan, February 1973,  Unreported) considered the nature of  the contract being considered at the public hearing, and t h i s case might be interpreted as establishing that no amendments subsequent to that hearing would be permitted.  I f such i s the case, the f l e x i b i l i t y  of permitting minor amendments and the submission of completed archit e c t u r a l and engineering design drawings subsequent to some assurance of being permitted to proceed w i l l be l o s t .  Although S. 702A has been  the subject of very few other l e g a l issues to date, i t i s apparent that much of the existing procedure coinld be s u b s t a n t i a l l y affected by future j u d i c i a l considerations.  I f the p r o v i n c i a l government had more c a r e f u l l y  addressed i t s e l f to the p r a c t i c a l problems and procedures of the land use contract, municipalities could now be proceeding with considerably more assurance and confidence.  The provision of government p o l i c y and  procedural guidelines would be a decided asset to communities i n t h e i r '.use of S. 702A.  11*8  As i t i s , B r i t i s h Columbia communities, while at f i r s t somewhat cautious i n t h e i r use of S. 702A, are now i n c r e a s i n g l y using the legislation in  a variety of ways.  Many of these were not intended by  the government, some might be considered l e g a l l y dubious, and a large proportion could probably have been achieved with t r a d i t i o n a l zoning methods.  Nonetheless, there would seem to be evidence of a clear  trend towards use of the land use contract despite the nature of i t s p r a c t i c a l problems and procedural uncertainties.  I t appears to be  f u l f i l l i n g the needs f o r greater f l e x i b i l i t y and control i n municipal and d i s t r i c t land use and development p o l i c i e s .  Its-unique contractual  stance seemingly avoids the problems of contract zoning and i t might, with sympathetic l e g a l support, achieve solutions f o r the problems as perceived by the province and experienced by the communities.  Are however B.C. land use contract?  communities mature enough to handle the  Both the p o l i t i c a l involvement of Council and the  administrative c a p a b i l i t i e s of municipal s t a f f are more involved i n the use of S. 702A than previously.  The r i s k i n u t i l i z i n g the land  use contract as development control without the attendant comprehensive plan i s large, but at l e a s t to date development areas are generally being declared i n concert with suitable planning studies and the land use contract i s being considered i n accordance with comprehensive planning p r i n c i p l e s .  Nonetheless, i t may be that the province should  give consideration to ensuring that only those communities that can provide assurance of some form of comprehensive planning should be given c l e a r access to the land use contract l e g i s l a t i o n .  Ih9  BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Gerald M., "A Review of Babcock's The Zoning Game." XLVI, 1968 Canadian Bar Review, No. 1, 159. (March 1968) Adler, Gerald M., Land Planning by Administrative Regulation, Toronto: 1971' University of Toronto Press, 1971. American Law I n s t i t u t e , "Commentary on A r t i c l e 8 - Administration of 1970 Development Controls by the Local Government - of the Model Land Development Code", in„Marcus, 1970, p.191. Appendix A. American Law I n s t i t u t e , Model Land Development Code, 1968 American Law I n s t i t u t e , A p r i l 1968.  Draft #1, Philadelphia, Pa.  American Law I n s t i t u t e , Model Land Development Code, Draft #2, 1970 P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pa.: American Law I n s t i t u t e , A p r i l 1970 American Law I n s t i t u t e , Model Land Development Code, 1971 American Law I n s t i t u t e , A p r i l 1971.  Draft #3,Philadelphia, Pa. : -  American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , Problem of Zoning and Land Use 1968 Regulations, Prepared f o r U.S. National Commission on Urban Problems, Washington, D.C., 1968. Anderson, Robert M., American Law of Zoning: 1968 Division Control. Rochester, N.Y.:  Zoning, Planning, Sub-Division Lawyers Co-op., 1968.  Anonymous. "Administrative D i s c r e t i o n i n Zoning",' 1968 ' Review, p.668. (1969) Ascher, Charles. 1953 Coleman.  82 Harvard Law  "Private Covenants i n Urban Redevelopment" i n Woodbury, Urban Redevelopment Problems and P r a c t i c e s , 1953.  Aykroyd, Peter H. Land Use Control i n B r i t a i n , the U.S. and Canada, 1969 Mimeo, Ottawa! Babcock, Richard R. The Zoning Game Municipal P r a c t i c e s and P o l i c i e s . 1966 Madison:'"• U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconson Press, 1966. Bailey, Bruce R. "The Use and Abuse of Contract Zoning". 1965 Law Review, No. 3 , (March 1 9 6 5 ) , pp.897-916.  12 U.C.L.A.  Bair, Frederick H., and Ernest R. Bartley, Commentators. The Test of a 1966 Zoning Ordinance. 3 r d E d i t i o n , Chicago: A.S.?.0.~, I960 Bair, Frederick H., "Improving Zoning - Some New Approaches", i n 1969 N.Y. State Planning News, V. 3 3 , No.2, March 1969, p.3.  150  BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, A l d e n , "0MB i s c r i t i c i z e d i n e x e c u t i v e b r i e f , " 1972 and M a i l , , p. 5. September 16, 1972.  T o r o n t o Globe  Barnett, Jonathan, "An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Case S t u d i e s i n C r e a t i v e Urban 1970 Z o n i n g " , i n Marcms, Xhe 'New Z o n i n g , I I I , p. 125. B a r r , J.G. "Enforcement o f P l a n n i n g C o n t r o l s i n E n g l a n d and Wales" i n 196U Haar's Law and Land, p.162, 196U. B a s s e t t , Edward M., Z o n i n g - The Laws, A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and C o u r t D e c i s i o n s 1936 D u r i n g t h e F i r s t 20 Y e a r s . ~N.Y.: R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1936. B e u s c h e r , J.H., Land Use C o n t r o l s - Cases and M a t e r i a l s . 196U W i s c o n s o n l C o l l e g e T y p i n g Co. , 1961;.. Blucher, Walter, " I s Z o n i n g Wagging t h e Dog?", 1955 A.S.P.O., p.96.  3rd.  i n Planning "  Ed.  Madison,  1955.  Bosselman, F r e d P., " S t a t e Land Development L e g i s l a t i o n : Problems and 1968 Potentialities" i n P r i v a t e P r o p e r t y and P u b l i c I n t e r e s t Conflict. University of I l l i n o i s -p.12, 1968. B r o o k s , Mary E., " E x c l u s i o n a r y Zoning", A.S.P.O. R e p o r t No. 25U. 1970 C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s : American S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , F e b r u a r y , 1970. Bryden, R o d e r i c k M.,  1967  "Zoning: F r i g i d , F l e x i b l e on F l u i d " , kk J o u r n a l  o f Urban Law , p287, (1967).  Clawson, M a r i o n , "Why N o t S e l l Zoning and R e z o n i n g " , C r y C a l i f o r n i a , 1966-67 V o l . 2 , N o . l , Sacremento: C a l i f o r n i a Tomorrow, W i n t e r 1966-67. 1  C l a r k , R o b e r t M., " Z o n i n g i n Canada" Supp. t o O n t a r i o P l a n n i n g , p.10 1958 O n t a r i o Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s . Counts, R i c h a r d , P l a n n i n g Law: Some P r o p o s a l s f o r Change. Report 1966 #215. C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s : American S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g Officials, 1966. 1  Cramer, R i c h a r d D., "Zoning and What We Can Do t o Improve I t " i960 J o u r n a l , American I n s t i t u t e o f A r c h i t e c t s , V o l . 33, No 1, p.90, Washington, D.C. J a n u a r y , I960.  151  BIBLIOGRAPHY Crawford, Clan J r . , Strategy and Tactics i n Municipal Zoning, 1969 C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice H a l l " TS&T. '  Englewood  !  Cumming, Lome R., 1955 Chicago:  "Is Zoning Wagging the Dog?", A.S.P.O.  Zoning 1955, p. 112.  Cumming, Lome R., "Urban and Suburban Living - Development Control", 1950 Layout f o r L i v i n g , Vol. 33, Community Planning Association of Canada. March 1950. Cunningham, Roger A., "Land Use Control - The State and Local Programs", 1965 50 Iowa Law Review, p.367. (Land Use Symposium), (1965). Curtin, 1970 .  "Zoning and Planning", i n Nimlo Municipal Law Review, Vol. 33, p.1*53, Washington, D.C. 1970.  Dallstream, Andrew J . , and Robert S. Hunt, "Variations, Exceptions and 195U S p e c i a l Uses". 195U U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Law Faculty, p.213 at 236. Davidoff, Paul and Linda. "Opening the Suburbs: Towards'Inclusionary 1971 Zoning", 22 Syracuse Law Review, No. 2, (1971) Delafons, John, Land-Use Controls i n the United States, 2nd. Ed. 1969 Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusett I n s t i t u t e of Technology Press, 1969. Fonoroff, A l l e n , "Special D i s t r i c t s : A Departure from the Concept of 1970 Uniform Controls", i n Marcus, The New Zoning, p.82. Freund, E r i c C , "Past, Present and Emergent Problems and Practices i n Land Use Control", Xerox - n.p., n.d. Gerecke, J . Kent, "Comprehensive Unit Development: A Review of L e g i s l a t i o n 1971 i n Vancouver." Unpublished Paper, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning. Spring 1971. Geronazzo, M.P., "Problems of Private Developers r e Development Permit" I96I4. Unpublished Paper. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty  of Law.  196I+.  152  BIBLIOGRAPHY Gertler,.L.O. Editor, 1968 Harvest House,  Planning the Canadian Environment,  Montreal:  196"8\  Goodman, William I. and Eric C. Freund, Editors, P r i n c i p l e s and Practice 1968 of Urban Planning, Washington, D.C: International C i t y Managers' Association, 1968. Greer, Harold, "A Tribunal Hauled on the Mat", 1972 August 8, 197.  Vancouver Sun, p.5,  Haar, Charles M., "In Accordance With a Comprehensive Plan", 1955 Law Review, p.ll51+, (1955).  68 Harvard  Haar, Charles M. Editor, Law and Land, Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1961; I n s t i t u t e of Technology Press, 1961;. Heap, Desmond, "English Development Plans f o r the Control of Land Use", 196U i n Haar's Law and Land, p. 79, 1961;. Heap, Desmond, An Outline of Planning Law, Uth Ed., 1969 and Maxwell. 1969. Heeter, David G., 1969 of Land",  London:  Sweet  "Toward a More E f f e c t i v e System f o r Guiding the Use i n Zoning i s Planning, pp. 56-7U, 1969.  Heyman, I. Michael, "Innovative Land Regulation and Comprehensive 1970 Planning'.;, i n Marcus, The New Zoning, p.23. Johnston, J . D. J r . , 1970 Law U5;399,  "Developments i n Land Use Control", (Spring 1970).  Notre Dame  Krasnowiecki, Jan, "Legal Aspect of Planned Unit Residential Development 1965 with Suggested L e g i s l a t i o n " , Tech. B u l l e t i n , #52, Washington, D.C.: UrbanILandvIhstitute, 1965. Krasnowiecki, Jan, "The Basic System of Land Use Control: L e g i s l a t i v e 1970 Pre-regulation v. Administrative Discretion", i n Marcus, The New Zoning,  p.3, Landels, Edward D., "Zoning: An Analysis of I t s Purposes and i t s Legal 1963 Sanctions", i n 17 American Bar Association Journal, 1963. Laux, F.A., "Zoning Game: Part I - Alberta Style." 1971 Law Review, p. 268, (1971).  9 Alberta  .BIBLIOGRAPHY Laux, Frederick A., 1972  "The Zoning Game:  10 A l b e r t a Law Review,  Part I I - Development Control."  (1972).  1..  Lawrence, William S., "A Constructive Evaluation of Land Use Regulations 1969 i n Zoning i s Planning, p.U9, 1969. University of Illinois'. L e a l , A l l a n , "Land Use Control", Lectures to the Law Society of I960 Upper Canada, p.l&T, Toronto: De Boo, I960. Levin, E a r l A., "Zoning i n Canada - Are We Moving Towards a Development 1957 Permit System", i n Community Planning Review, V o l . 7, No.2, p. 8 5 - 9 0 , June 1 9 5 7 T Lewis, Harold,M., Planning the Modern City, V o l . 1, New York: Wiley and 1963 6 t h P r i n t i n g , 1963. London Ontario Planning Dept., " P r i n c i p l e s and Method of Land Use 1969 Planning and Zoning i n fche C i t y of London, Ontario. Mimeo, September 1969 ~. London Ontario Planning Dept., Outline f o r a Staged Development Program f o r the C i t y of London, Mimeo, May 196"87  1968  Makielski, S.J., "Zoning: Legal Theory and P o l i t i c a l Practice", ' 1967 h5 Journal of Urban Law, 1967, University of Detroit, 1. Mandelker, Daniel R., Green Belts and Urban Growth: English Town and 1962 Country Planning i n Action, Madison: University of Wisconson Press, 1962. Mandelker, Daniel R.,  1970  Restraint",  "The Basic Philosophy of Zoning: i n Marcus , • The'New Zoning,  19.70,  Incentive or p.lij.  Marcus, Norman, "Introduction to Part I I : Current Zoning Administration" 1970 i n Marcus,..The New Zoning , 1970, p. 97. Marcus, Norman, The New Zoning - Legal Admin, and Economic Concepts and 1970 Techniques, New York: Praeger, 1970. Martin, A.G., "Land Development i n Calgary", 1962 15, Ottawa: C.M.H.C., May 1962.  Habitat,  Vol. V., No. 3,  15U  BIBLIOGRAPHY McNairnay, J.D., " R e g u l a t i o n b y L o c a l Government; t h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f 1967 o f P l a n n i n g and Zoning L e g i s l a t i o n " . Isaac P i t b a l d o Lectures t o M a n i t o b a B a r A s s o c i a t i o n , p.111;. Megarry, R.E. and H. W.R. Wade, 1959 S t e v e n s a n d Sons L t d . ,  The Law o f R e a l P r o p e r t y , 2nd. Ed. London: 1959-  Megarry, .R.E., "Compensation F o r t h e Compulsory A c q u i s i t i o n o f Land i n 1-961; England" i n Haar's Law and Land, p.212. ' ' M e r r i f i e l d , Samuel S. "The C u r r e n t Use o f R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants as a 1963 Planning Tool". Unpublished Paper, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , F a c u l t y o f Law, 1963. M i l n e r , James B., " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A p p e a l s Under P l a n n i n g L e g i s l a t i o n , 1956 Law S o c i e t y o f Upper Canada, S p e c i a l L e c t u r e s , T o r o n t o ; p. 117-1U8. M i l n e r , James B., "An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Zoning E n a b l i n g L e g i s l a t i o n " . 1962a P l a n Canada, V o l . 3, No. 3, p . l U l . Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e of Canada, 1962. M i l n e r , James B., "An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Zoning E n a b l i n g L e g i s l a t i o n " . 1962b UO Canada B a r Review, p . l ( 1 9 6 2 ) . M i l n e r , James B., Community P l a n n i n g ; A Case Book on Law and A d m i n i s t r a 1963 tion. T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto P r e s s ! 1963. Milner, James B., "An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l L e g i s l a t i o n i n 1965 Canada". U3 Canada B a r Review, p . U 9 , (1965). M i l n e r , James B., "The Lawyers R o l e s i n Land Use P l a n n i n g " , 1966-67 Law Review, p. 119, (1966-67).  5 Alberta  Nash, A.L.S., " L e g a l A s p e c t s o f Community P l a n n i n g " , S p e c i a l Lecture, 1953 Law S o c i e t y o f Upper Canada, Toronto: De Boo, p.77, 1953. O l s o n , W i l l i a m A., " C i t y P o p u l a t i o n i n t h e Enforcement o f P r i v a t e Deed 1967 Restrictions", i n P l a n n i n g 1967, pp.266-270. Chicago: American S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s . O n t a r i o , Law Reform Commission, 1971 J u s t i c e , Ont. 1971. Owens, Dean,  1967  R e p o r t on Development C o n t r o l ,  "Removing O l d R e s t r i c t i v e Covenant",  p.582, (1967).  Dept. o f  15 Kansas Law Review,  155  BIBLIOGRAPHY Plager, Sheldon J . , "Planned and Land Use Controls - An I l l e g a l 1908 Relationship", i n P r i v a t e Property and P u b l i c Interest, University of I l l i n o i s , p.3U, 1908. Pooley, Beverly J . , Planning and Zoning i n the United States, Ann 1961 Michigan: University of Michigan Law School, 1961. Rashleigh, E.T., 1968  "Observations on Canadian C i t i e s " i n Gertler, Canadian Environment", 168, p.203.  Arbor,  "Planning the  Regional Planning Association Inc. "Zoning i s Not f o r Sale", i n Zoning 1955 B u l l e t i n , , No. 75, Reprinted i n Beushcher, p. VILL, 165. Reps, John W., "Legal and Administrative Aspects of Conditional Zoning 195l Variances and Exceptions", 2 Syracuse Law Review, 1951, p.5U. Reps, John ¥., "Requiem for.Zoning", Reprint A r t i c l e #9, Center f o r 1961* Housing and Environmental Studies, C o r n e l l University, Ithaca, N.Y., Reprint Planning 196U, Chicago: A.S.P.O. Reps, J.W. and J.L. Smith, Control of Urban Land Subdivision, 1963 University, R e p r i n t ^ 1963.  Cornell  -  R e t t i g , D i e h l R., Comment -."Zoning and Concomitant Agreements", 3 1968 Gonzaga Law Review, 197, pp. 21* (Spring 1968). Royal A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of Canada, 1965 R e f l e c t i o n on Zoning, Ottawa,  Zoning Study Committee, 1965.  Sager, Lawrence G. "Tight L i t t l e Islands; Exclusionary Zoning; Equal 1969 P r o t e c t i o n and the indigent", 21 Stanford Law Review, No.U,  p. 767,  ( A p r i l 1969).  Sandler, D.H., "Planning the L i m i t a t i o n of Zoning Powers - Case Comment on 1961;-65 Re Mississauga Golf, and Country Club", 1*3 Canada Bar Review, Schaeffer, Enos P., "Contract Zoning and Conditional Zoning", p. 1*3. 1965 The P r a c t i c a l Lawyer, (May 1965). Shapiro, Ronald M.,  1968  "The Case f o r Conditional Zoning",  Quarterly, p.267,  (1968).  Vol.11,  1*1 Temple Law  Smith R. Marlin, "Plan Implementing L e g i s l a t i o n : What's Wrong, What to 1969 Do.", Zoning i s Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , p. 1*2, 1969.  •BIBLIOGRAPHY Smutz, Huber E., "Is Zoning Wagging the Dog?" Planning 1955, 1955 American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , p,102.  Chicago:  Snyder, J . Herbert, "Toward Land Use S t a b i l i t y Through Contracts", p. 1+06, 1966 ' Natural Resources Journal, , 1966. T  S t a i r , Richard S., "Note - R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants and Zoning Regulations", 1961+ 31 Tennessee Law Review, p. 353, (1961+). S t a l l a r d , Graham, "Introducing B i l l 100", Vol. 13, P.I.B.C. News, 1971 No. 8, p.3, A p r i l 1971. Stein, L e s l i e A., "The Municipal Power to Zone i n Canada and the U.S.", 1971 XLIX Canada Bar Review #1+, p.53l+, (December 1971). Stevens, Joseph P.,  1969  "Use and Abuse of the S p e c i a l Permit i n Zoning Law"  35 Brooklyn Law Review,  p.258,  (1969)•  Stevenson, W.A., "Problems i n Alberta's Town Planning L e g i s l a t i o n " , 1961 A l b e r t a Law Review, p. 1+31, (1961). S t i c k e l , "Zoning and Planning Notes" Nimlo Proceedings, I968, 1969 Municipal Law O f f i c e r s , 1969• Strine,  1963  "The Use of Conditions i n Land-Use Control", Review, (1963), p. 109-11+3-  Sussna, Stephen, New Developments i n Zoning Law, 1969 Sussna Associates, 1969Trager, David G.,  1963  "Contract Zoning' , 1  1  I  p.l+?3.  67 Dick Law  Trenton, N.J: Stephen  23 Maryland' Law Review, 121.  United Kingdom. M i n i s t r y of Housing and Local Government, Report o f the 1965 Planning Advisory Group: The Future of Development Plans. London: H.M.S.O.' ~ United Kingdom. Central Office of Information, Town and Country Planning 1968a i n Britain. Reference D i v i s i o n , London: H.M.S.O., 1968. United Kingdom. M i n i s t r y of Housing and Local Government, The Use of The Use of Conditions i n Planning Permissions, C i r c u l a r 5/68,  1968b  February 6, 1968. H.M.S.O.  Fnited Kingdora. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Planning 1969h Appeals;• A Guide to Procedure. London: H.M.S.C 1969.  157  BIBLIOGRAPHY U n i t e d Kingdom. M i n i s t r y o f H o u s i n g and L o c a l Government, Development 1969a C o n t r o l P o l i c y Notes. C i r c u l a r 23/69. P t 1 - G e n e r a l P r i n c i p l e s , H.M.S.O, 1969. U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , I n s t i t u t e o f Zoning, Zoning i s P l a n n i n g , Conference 1969 Proceedings, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , Urbana -Champaign, 1969. University of I l l i n o i s , I n s t i t u t e o f Law and P l a n n i n g , The P r i v a t e 1968 P r o p e r t y and P u b l i c I n t e r e s t C o n f l i c t . Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, December~*1968. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Community B u i l d e r s ' C o u n c i l . The Community B u i l d e r s 1960 Handbook, Washington,, D.C: Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , I960. Weaver, R o b e r t C., " N a t i o n a l Land P o l i c i e s - H i s t o r i c and Emergent". 1965 12 U.C.L.A. Law Review, No. 3, p.719, (March 1965). Welch, L o u i s , " A l t e r n a t i v e s t o Z o n i n g : The Houston S t o r y " , i n P l a n n i n g 1967, p.2'57. Chicago: American S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , Williams,, Norman, J r . , "Development C o n t r o l s and P l a n n i n g C o n t r o l s : 196U View From I96I+". 19 R u t g e r s Law Review, 86 ( F a l l 1961+).  The  W i l l i a m s , Norman, J r . , " E x c l u s i o n a r y Land Use C o n t r o l s : The Case o f N.E. .' 1971 New J e r s e y " 22 S y r a c u s e Law Review, No. 2, 1+75, (1971). W i l s o n , G a i t , "The Land Use C o n t r a c t " . P r o c e e d i n g s , 32nd. C o n f e r e n c e 1971 o f t h e M u n i c i p a l O f f i c e r s A s s o c i a t i o n , p. 1+8, 1971. Wolffe, LenardL., New Z o n i n g Landmarks i n P l a n n e d United-Developments. 1968 Tech. B u l l e t i n #62, W a s h i n g t o n , D.C: Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1968. Wood, R o b e r t F., " Z o n i n g Amendments and V a r i a n c e s S u b j e c t t o C o n d i t i o n s " . 1961 12 S y r a c u s e Law Review, p.230, 1961. Woodbury, Coleman, Urban Redevelopment Problems and P r a c t i c e s . 1963 U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1953.  Interviews  Chicago:  and Correspondence:  South? Donald. Chief Planning O f f i c e r , Department of Municipal A f f a i r s . Governaent of B r i t i s h Columbia, V i c t o r i a .  158  APPENDIX A  THE QUESTIONNAIRE  On the basis of preliminary discussions with f a c u l t y advisors and others conversant with S. 702A, i t was decided that a questionnaire should be devised to c o l l e c t information both on the use of the land use contract and to test i t s v a l i d i t y as a land use and development control. Several lower mainland planner with known f a m i l i a r i t y with S. 702A were approached with the preliminary form, and t h e i r comments occasioned some amendments.  The f i n a l questionnaire was forwarded during January and  February of 1972 to a l l Regional D i s t r i c t s , and because early r e p l i e s indicated that a larger survey sample might be .desirable, a d d i t i o n a l questionnaires were sent out to municipalities with suspected S. 702A experience.  Replies were generally prompt, although a number of Regional D i s t r i c t s did require one or more reminder l e t t e r s .  A number of t e l e -  phone interviews and eight personal interviews were used to support, amplify and substantiate data received. was  Additional  correspondence  directed to the Ontario and B r i t i s h Columbia Departments of Municipal  A f f a i r s , the Ontario Law Reform Commission, the C i t y of London Planning Department, the B r i t i s h M i n i s t r y of Housing and Local Government, and J . Gait Wilson, a Prince George B a r r i s t e r and S o l i c i t o r with extensive experience with S. 702A.  F i n a l l y , personal interviews were held with  the Registrar, New Westminister Land Registry, and the D i r e c t o r of  159  Regional Planning, B.C.  Department of Municipal A f f a i r s .  The response rate was  favourable:  twenty-five of the twenty-  seven r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s and t h i r t e e n of the f i f t e e n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e p l i e d by mail.  An additional two regional d i s t r i c t s and eleven munic-  i p a l i t i e s were contacted by telephone or interviewed, f o r a grand t o t a l reply of f i f t y - o n e ( 5 l ) .  Twenty-nine of those r e p l i e s were from  s t a f f planners and eight from consultant planners, while fourteen r e p l i e s were received from administrators i n communities lacking a planning s t a f f . i t was  anticipated that a number of the regional d i s t r i c t s  would as yet have had no experience with S. 702A, and section C was  there-  fore included i n the questionnaire to assay opinions on i t s prospective use or e l i c i t reasons why  i t hadn't yet been employed.  It.transpired  that t h i r t e e n d i s t r i c t s and seventeen municipalities, f o r a t o t a l of t h i r t y (30), have had some experience with the land use contract procedure, and the remaining twenty-one were therefore directed to t h i s l a t t e r portion of the information form.  Their r e p l i e s d i d not however prove  s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the others, and therefore d i d not merit separate analysis.  Accompanying the questionnaire was  a request f o r supporting  material, such as draft land use contracts or authorizing by-laws. Eleven procedural by-laws or guidelines were received, together with fourteen i n d i v i d u a l or blank form land use contracts, and these were studied with reference to t h e i r content and form.  Although the questionnaire was generally e f f e c t i v e i n accomplishing i t s purposes, and a number of planners r e p l i e d at some length i n  160  elaboration or amplification of t h e i r views, several d e f i c i e n c i e s were noted i n the course of analyzing returns:  1. A-request t o i n d i c a t e the actual number of contract applications received was not made s u f f i c i e n t l y clear. However, the covering l e t t e r d i d request t h i s information and t o t a l could, i n most cases, be i n f e r r e d where not provided. 2. Only those without S. 702A experience and replying t o the l a t t e r portion of the questionnaire, were p o l l e d on the degree of e x i s t i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n with zoning procedures and methods, and t h i s information would have had greater v a l i d i t y i f obtained from a l l questionnaires returned. 3. Even although a number volunteered opinions, planners were not asked f o r t h e i r reaction to the early d e l e t i o n of the community plan requirement of S. 702A. This information would have been a valuable addition. U. A typographic error i n Q.15, r e l a t i n g to the form of bonding required f o r a land use contract, prevented accurate r e p l i e s to t h i s section. However, few contracts had a c t u a l l y reached t h i s point and the information could, i n any event, be obtained d i r e c t l y from the contracts submitted.  Other errors or misconceptions  l i k e l y d i d occur i n the  questionnaire, but they d i d not appear t o have had any substantial effect on the quantity or q u a l i t y of the data received.  161  Please return to Brian J Porter  tm  bchool of Coamunitj and Regional Planning University of British Goluabia, Vancouver 8, British Columbia  LAND ubK CONTRACT  it, 7Q2A Municipal Act Information bheet  P.l of k Please answer the following wherever applicableo  lour Name and Position  3,  2*  Name of Municipality or. Regional District  Is there an o f f i c i a l regional or d i s t r i c t ^ H A S the old Development Permit proceduBSp p l * i enacted for jour area? previously authorised by b 702k ever bees u t i l i z e d in your d i s t r i c t or region? j.'es No Yes No _ I f '•no" i s thera a comprehensive o r overm  i  a l l plan of development in preparation or generally observed? "ies_ Not set What proportion, i f any, of your Region or District i s presently covered by a zoning by-law?  If "Xes" please indicate generally the number of times and types of situations i n which i t was employed**  THE LAND BSE CONTRACT  Has, the "land use contract" as authorised by the new i i . 702A of the Municipal Act been prepared, used, or drafted for use anywhere In your d i s t r i c t or region? " ' No  (88  I f answer i s "no" please disregard this section and proceed to part C.  Ploase provide information on each contract, or If more than two land use contracts hava been prepared used, or drafted for use, please provide information on the f i r s t and most recent con tracts only „ s  >Jho was the contracting author!^? a. Municipal Council j b , Regional District Council 0 Other(please tpecify t  o  .Jo  Please indicate the type of development covered by this contract, townhouse, comprehensive development, condominium e t c )  Ac What, i f any* particular aspects o f these developments warranted use o f the land use contract?  Wh^ prepared the contract? If more than one aaswer please indicate approximate proportions eg. f , £ or 1/3. a. Planing Dept. or btaif b. Consultant Planner(s) 1. on general contract with Reg on or District i i . for purposes of land use contract onl^ _____ c. Legal Dept. - btaff d. Consultant Iawyer(s) 1. on general contract with Region or District _____ 11. for purposes of land use contract only 6o Owner/Developer (or his lawyers, architects etc _____ f . Other Regional or I utile. Officer.; peciiy g. Other (Please specify) i  :  i  162 ifi LAW Vim, CONTRACT  5o Pleas© indicate the sfc*ging* either with s p e c i f i c or approximate dates where appropriate^ and/or by i n d i c a t i n g the approximate time i n months f o r the completion of each phase« (Note « I f the contract was abandoned or the process defeated at any stags please indicate a t the appropriate place with *) Time  #1  t«  c  0  c a  o  Date #n  tin  a« Owner/developer informally submits development plans to _ * * f r °f regional authorities* d  b  0  B t a r ,  #1  c  Consideration by s t a f f or consultants  c» Owner applies f o r declaration of"development area" d. Declaration of "Development Area" e. Application f o r "Land T se Contract" T  Preliminary d r a f t i n g and negotiation or contract" g. F i r s t , second and t h i r d readings by Council oiHSy^avT authorizing the land use contract or resolution f o r the public hearing on proposed land use Contract* h* Public Hearing held 1. F i n a l reading of b/~law?autn8rSlln g' entry i n t o land use contract. ,  j« Contract executed bj both parties  t—  k« Contract deposited with L.R.O. for r e g i s t r a t i o n 1. 6,  Registration completed  Isv th<B building permit been issued? See .Approximate!* how raany people a t t e n d e d t h e p u b l i c hearing?  8o Compared to attendance at normal i-ubllc hearings, was t h i s i . average . i i * below average . i i i * above average , Did any s i g n i f i c a n t a l t e r a t i o n s r e s u l t from the public hearing? YoE NO I f "jes" please indie te generally the nature of these changes« <  • Ho  Dates  9c a. What was the general mood of the meeting r e l a t i n g to the use of the contract? Agreement „ Neutral or indeterminate Opposition b. I f "opposition", compared to e normal resoning public hearing, was it> ; ive average i i . below average l i i above average 0  c. Bow would you beet describe the basis of t h i s pppoaltion: i . a e s t h e t i c grounds ii» s o c i a l grounds i i i . physical grounds iv» "axe to grind * 1  Ho  Please indicate any general comments yc$ nay have on the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the public hearing procedure to the land use contract — or any other general comments*  a  FORMS AND  v  GENERAL COKKJiNTS  '«Meh one or more of the following wore motivating l&me tor the use (indicate with \/ ) and the form ( Indicate with >< ) of the "land use contract"? 0  A  The Municipal Act, as amended i n 1971  b  0  The Department of Kunicipal A f f a i r s , V i c t o r i a  ,  Oo Discussions, forma or drafts presented at conferences or meetings: eg« Municipal O f f i w v a Association Union of B r i t i s h Columbia M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Regional D i s t r i c t Meetings Law or Planning Conferences Others (please specify) _________ 1 3 o Has there been any overt encouragement from the Depto of Municipal A f f a i r s , or any o f f i c i a l therefoea, to use the land use contract? 2es_ No 14., Compared to the standard rezoning procedure, i f any, how has the land use contract and i t s procedure been regarded by the owner/developer, and/or h i s lawyers, architects or planners? 10 s i m i l a r l y received 1 1 more favourably received _______ H i l e s s favourably received Comments?  16  Have any technical problems been raised by the Land Registry Office or others concerning the ^restrictive covenant aepect of a l l or any portion of the land use contract? les No I f "Yes*, please s p e c i f y .  15» Please i n d i c a t e which of the following are generally Included i n the land ute contractus) as required perfoimanc© by t i owner/developer, and which of those i t arc? are covered by performance bonds or cthsx forms of security (*/</) a. on-site p u b l i c works and u t i l i t i e s , ownership of which to remain with municipality b o f f - s i t e publils works and u t i l i t i e s , ownership of which t o remain with municipality , c. landscaping and scroe^ng for purposes of general public ., d. generally, the whole project ^ 0  I f any of the above are not included in the land use contract but controlled by other means or methods please describe u  '7* Please Indicate the neture of the plans or drawings which must accompany the application f o r land use contract and/or must be submitted before f i n a l "execution (eg f u l l scale arch* and engineering plans* exterior design s i t i n g and colour only e t n  0  18o  p  Please provide any general remarks or comments you may have concerning the theory and/or procedure o f the land use eontract and development area which may not have been canvassed thusfar» v  Thank  y«*i  fee your cooperation  I6h  Infers®tion art G  feheet  P,4  - To be completed onlj where no land use contract has yet been prepared*.  i«  I i nc, land use contract" has yet been prepared* u»ed or fir&fted for use 1  n  in year region or d i s t r i c t which of the? following reasons, i f any  best  f  apply? a, lack of development projects or areas s u i t a b l e f o r a p p l i c a t i o n of land use contrast ,„•,„-.,-,.,,.n-.^w,,,.. b. Present s a t i s f a c t i o n with zoning and development procedures c« lack of f a m i l i a r i t y with p r a c t i c a l or procedural aspects o f the lend use contract and/or uncertainty as to p o t e n t i a l effects d. Other (please specify)  2  a  ,^ ^  Assuming that none of the above l i m i t a t i o n s would apply, i n what instances would you contemplate the us© of a "land use contract" i n yenr d i s t r i c t or  3u  region?  Pie se provide any general comments you may 'development control and the land use  havegeneraliy  on soning  f  contract*  -thank you for your coopers.tion and asi.it-tj>n«ec-  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101435/manifest

Comment

Related Items