Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Residential subdivisions in rural areas: an evaluation of standards for location and design in community… Friesen, Dennis Bernard 1971

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 F75.pdf [ 12.05MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102174.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102174-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102174-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102174-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102174-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102174-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102174-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102174-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102174.ris

Full Text

RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IN RURAL AREAS: AN EVALUATION OF STANDARDS FOR LOCATION AND DESIGN IN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA NUMBER 14, THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF COMOX-STRATHCONA by DENNIS BERNARD FRIESEN B.A., Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1 9 7 1 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 r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the 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 , I a g r e e t h a t t h e 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 a g r e e 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 c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u rposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f 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 s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Dennis B. Friesen Department o f Community and Regional Planning The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date A p r i l 30, 1971 This study examines the r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision of land i n r u r a l areas within the context of Community Planning Area Number 14 i n the Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona, B r i t i s h Columbia. Two separate elements comprise the major portion of the study. Interviews with a se l e c t sample of developers who practise within the Community Planning Area provide information about the extent and practise of r e s i d e n t i a l land development i n the study area. The interview schedule i s designed to e l i c i t both facts and opinions. The analysis of these interviews supplies the necessary background f o r the study. A random sample of r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions provides the basis for subdivision case studies. Each sample subdivision i s subjected to a physical evaluation i n terms of commonly accepted p l a n n i n g standards and p r i n c i p l e s f o r l o c a t i o n and d e s i g n . The extent to which the sample subdivisions meet the needs of the residents i s discovered through interviews with the r e s i d e n t S o These interviews are d e s i g n e d to e l i c i t f a c t s , opinions and l e v e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n pertaining to the subdivisions. The background to the problem and the methodology of the study are describedc Concepts of r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision l o c a t i o n and design are discussed,, The r e s u l t s of the comparative physical evaluation of the sample subdivisions and the r e s u l t s of the interviews with residents are also discussed. Conclusions are made about the lo c a t i o n and design of the subdivisions and about the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n which the residents express. I t i s shown i n the study that " r u r a l area r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions" i n Community Planning Area Number Ik do not conform with accepted planning standards and p r i n c i p l e s . However, i t i s also shown that the needs of residents who have chosen to l i v e i n these subdivisions are s a t i s f i e d despite those d e f i c i e n c i e s . C h a p t e r Page I. APPROACH TO THE STUDY . . . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . 1 The R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t Concept I n B r i t i s h Columbia 3 Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14- 6 The Problem 1 2 H y p o t h e s i s . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Methodology . 2 2 Data C o l l e c t i o n . . . . . . . . 2 2 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Surveys . . . . . . . 2 3 A n a l y s i s o f f i n d i n g s 2 5 R e a c h i n g C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . . . 2 6 Scope . . . . . . . . . . 28 How t h i s Study R e l a t e s t o P l a n n i n g . . . . . . 3 0 I I . THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 3 2 The S u b d i v i s i o n P r o c e s s 3 2 S u b d i v i s i o n L o c a t i o n . . . . . . . . 3 7 L o c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n . . . . . . . ^ 0 S u b d i v i s i o n D e s i g n 41 E v a l u a t i o n o f S u b d i v i s i o n D e s i g n s k6 E v a l u a t i o n o f the R e s i d e n t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t . . . ^ 7 C h a p t e r Page I I I . A SURVEY OF THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 S u b d i v i s i o n i n Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14 . : 5 3 The D e v e l o p e r I n t e r v i e w s . . . . . 5 8 A n a l y s i s 5 9 D e v e l o p e r s ' C r i t i c i s m s and S u g g e s t i o n s . . . . . 6 7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 The R e s i d e n t i a l I n t e r v i e w s . . . . . 7 2 F a c t s , O p i n i o n s and L e v e l o f S a t i s f a c t i o n . , 7 4 Methodology f o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A n a l y s i s . . . 7 5 R e s i d e n t s * C r i t i c i s m s and S u g g e s t i o n s . . . . 8 5 . IV. PHYSICAL EVALUATIONS . . . . . 88 S u b d i v i s i o n E v a l u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 S u b d i v i s i o n 1 9 2 G e n e r a l I m p r e s s i o n s . 9 2 R e s i d e n t s * O b s e r v a t i o n s . . . . 9 3 S u b d i v i s i o n 2 , 9 6 G e n e r a l I m p r e s s i o n s . 9 6 R e s i d e n t s ' O b s e r v a t i o n s . 9 7 S u b d i v i s i o n 3 • • • 1 0 1 G e n e r a l I m p r e s s i o n s 1 0 1 R e s i d e n t s ' O b s e r v a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2 S u b d i v i s i o n 4 . . . . . . . . .105 G e n e r a l I m p r e s s i o n s 105 R e s i d e n t s ' O b s e r v a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . 106 C h a p t e r Page IV ( c o n t i n u e d ) S u b d i v i s i o n 5 » 1 0 9 G e n e r a l I m p r e s s i o n s , . 1 0 9 R e s i d e n t s ' O b s e r v a t i o n s , . .110 S u b d i v i s i o n 6 0 . . . . . . . .114 G e n e r a l I m p r e s s i o n s . . . . » , . 114 R e s i d e n t s ' O b s e r v a t i o n s < > 1 1 5 S u b d i v i s i o n 7 . . 1 1 9 G e n e r a l I m p r e s s i o n s 1 1 9 R e s i d e n t s ' O b s e r v a t i o n s . 1 2 0 " I n n o v a t i v e " S u b d i v i s i o n s . . . . 1 2 2 S u b d i v i s i o n 8 1 2 5 S u b d i v i s i o n 9 . 0 128 Comparative E v a l u a t i o n o f S u b d i v i s i o n s , . . . 1 2 9 V CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY • 136 Summary 1 3 6 C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . . . . . ' . - . 140 Sources C o n s u l t e d . . . . . . . . . . 0 . J . . . . .142 Appendix Page. A. R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia 1 5 0 An O u t l i n e o f the Role o f the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t • i n the L o c a l Government S t r u c t u r e , , 151 Appendix Page B. Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14 R e g u l a t i o n s . . .15^ C. Copy o f Minute Approved March 12, 1971 , 163 D. S u b d i v i s i o n L o c a t i o n and D e s i g n E v a l u a t i o n S t a n d a r d s . . < > . . . I65 E. P r o c e d u r e f o r S u b d i v i d i n g Land w i t h i n M u n i c i p a l i t i e s 175 F. Schedule f o r Open-ended I n t e r v i e w s w i t h D e v e l o p e r s 181 Schedule f o r Open-ended I n t e r v i e w s w i t h H o u s e h o l d e r s 182 1 . Land D e v e l o p e r A c t i v i t y by Years Ahead o f the Market . . . . . . 6 0 • 2 , The E s t a b l i s h m e n t o f L o t P r i c e s by D e v e l o p e r s , » 6 2 3 . Development P r a c t i s e . 6 3 kt D e s i r a b l e F e a t u r e s i n Land f o r S u b d i v i s i o n . . . . 6 3 5. D e v e l o p e r s ' Land C l e a r i n g P o l i c i e s . 64 6 . S e r v i c e s Suggested by D e v e l o p e r s . . . . . . . . . 6 5 7 . F a c t s about Respondents and Households . . . . . . 7 3 8. M a t r i x o f C o r r e l a t i o n s T e s t e d . 7 7 9 . S a t i s f a c t i o n o f Respondents , . . . . . 7 9 1 0 . Sample S u b d i v i s i o n L o c a t i o n s i n M i l e s 1 3 0 1 1 . R a t i n g and Ranking o f Sample S u b d i v i s i o n L o c a t i o n s .' . 1 3 1 1 2 . R a t i n g and Ranking o f Sample S u b d i v i s i o n . D e s i g n s „ . 1 3 2 1 3 . P l a n n i n g S t a n d a r d s f o r L o c a t i o n a l C r i t e r i a . . . . 1 6 6 14. L o c a t i o n R a t i n g and Ranking Guide: Convenience . . 1 6 7 1 5 . L o c a t i o n R a t i n g and Ranking Guide: Amenity . . . . 1 6 8 1 6 . L o c a t i o n R a t i n g and Ranking Guide: S a f e t y . . . . . 1 6 9 1 7 . P l a n n i n g S t a n d a r d s and P r i n c i p l e s f o r S u b d i v i s i o n D e s i g n 1 7 0 18. Summary o f R a t i n g and Ranking o f the S u b d i v i s i o n Layout D e s i g n s . . . . . . . . 1 7 2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional D i s t r i c t s i n British'Columbia . , 2 . The Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona . . 0 . 7 3 . Community Planning Area Number 14 . . . . 9 4. Sample Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 5 . Subdivision 1 . . . . . . 9 0 6. Subdivision 1 . . . 9 1 7 . Subdivision 2 . . . . . qh, 9 t e t • s 8. Subdivision 2 . . . . . 9 5 9 . Subdivision 3 . . . . . . . . 9 9 10. Subdivision . . . . 1 0 0 11. Subdivision 4 . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3 12. Subdivision 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ° ^ 1 3 . Subdivision 5 . . . . 1 0 7 l4„ Subdivision 5 . . . . . . . 108 1 5 . Subdivision 6 . . . . 1 1 2 16. Subdivision 6 . . ' . ' . . 1 1 3 1 7 . Subdivision 7 . . • . . . . . 1 1 7 18. Subdivision 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^18 19. Subdivision 8 . . . . . . . . ' . . . . 1 2 3 2 0 . Subdivision 8 . . • o . o . . . . 1 2 4 21. Subdivision 9 . . . . 0 C . . . . . . . . . . , . 1 2 6 2 2 o Subdivision 9 . < . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . . 1 2 7 AC KN 0'7 LE D GE PvTE NTS I am i n d e b t e d t o P r o f e s s o r Brahm Wiesman, my a d v i s o r , f o r h i s p a t i e n c e and i n v a l u a b l e g u i d a n c e d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f t h i s s t u d y , I a l s o acknowledge w i t h g r a t i t u d e the s u g g e s t i o n s and a s s i s t a n c e o f Dr, Robert C o l l i e r , , To the s t a f f o f the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Cornox-S t r a t h c o n a , I e x t e n d my thank s f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e and k i n d p e r m i s s i o n i n the use o f f a c i l i t i e s . I a l s o thank my f a t h e r , B e r n a r d F r i e s e n , f o r a s s i s t i n g me i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a . W i th most s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n I acknowledge my w i f e , R o s e l l a , f o r h e r g r a c i o u s s u p p o r t and u n d e r s t a n d i n g d u r i n g t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s . CHAPTER I APPROACH TO THE STUDY I n t r o d u c t i o n The P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia c o v e r s a v a s t a r e a o f some 3 6 6 , 0 0 0 square m i l e s . Because o f i t s mountainous topography, p e o p l e have s e t t l e d m a i n l y i n numerous communities a l o n g the v a l l e y s and c o a s t a l p l a i n s 0 The e a s t c o a s t o f Vancouver I s l a n d ( L o c a t i o n shown i n f i g u r e 1) o f f e r s s u b s t a n t i a l l y more c o a s t a l p l a i n f o r s e t t l e m e n t t h a n does the m a i n l a n d c o a s t a l r e g i o n . R e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n and development o f l a n d s i n the p r o v i n c e , however, i s seldom c o n f i n e d t o the i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t a r e a s o f towns and c i t i e s < , I n newly u r b a n i z i n g r e g i o n s , development f r e q u e n t l y t a k e s p l a c e w e l l beyond the u r b a n f r i n g e . V a r i o u s f a c t o r s a r e h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s k i n d o f u n i n h i b i t e d growtho Among the s e a r e the o b v i o u s f a c t o r s such as l a n d c o s t s , s p e c u l a t i o n , and the ease o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Less o b v i o u s f a c t o r s may a r i s e from g e n e r a l economic c o n d i t i o n s , s o c i a l p r e f e r e n c e s , and the absence o f comprehensive c o n t r o l s . The p r o c e s s o f s u b d i v i s i o n and development i n r u r a l a r e a s a b r u p t l y c r e a t e s new n e i g h b o r h o o d e n v i r o n m e n t s . When th e s e approach urban r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t i e s , a c c e p t e d s t a n d a r d s f o r t h e i r development may not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from urban s u b d i v i s i o n s . Where r e g i o n a l development b e g i n s t o approach t h i s p o i n t , p e o p l e become i n c r e a s i n g l y concerned about the q u a l i t y o f the environment w h i c h t h e y have i n some measure h e l p e d t o c r e a t e . I t i s commonly u n d e r s t o o d t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s must, above a l l , be l i v a b l e i n o r d e r to f u l f i l l the v a r i o u s needs o f the r e s i d e n t s , L i v a b i l i t y can be viewed as a r a t h e r b a s i c q u a l i t y . I t has been d e s c r i b e d a s j . o . the sum t o t a l o f the q u a l i t i e s o f the urban environment w h i c h t e n d t o i n d u c e i n a c i t i z e n a s t a t e o f w e l l b e i n g and s a t i s f a c t i o n . I n 3 r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t h e r e a re a t l e a s t f o u r groups o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n c r e a t i n g the environment i n r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . These might be l i s t e d as the r e s i d e n t s t h e m s e l v e s d e v e l o p e r s , , l e g i s l a t o r s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . I n the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t c o n t e x t o f B r i t i s h C o lumbia, b o t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l s , c o n c e r n has been e x p r e s s e d about the g e n e r a l l i v a b i l i t y o f r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s w h i c h have d e v e l o p e d i n the p a s t two decades. To a l a r g e e x t e n t , the l i v a b i l i t y o f a s u b d i v i s i o n i s a f u n c t i o n o f i t s l o c a t i o n i n terms o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t s f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s , as w e l l as i t s p h y s i c a l d e s i g n . 1Comox D i s t r i c t Free P r e s s , ( J u l y 2 9 , 1 9 7 0 ) e d i t o r i a l i z e s t h a t "The proposed moratorium on s u b d i v i s i o n s on a l l the l a n d s a l o n g our d e s i r a b l e c o a s t i s a sane move a t a time when even grandma i s g e t t i n g h e r f i n g e r i n the l a n d s p e c u l a t i o n p i e . " 2Robert L. W i l s o n , " L i v a b i l i t y o f the C i t y : A t t i t u d e s and Urban Development," i n Urban Growth Dynamics i n a R e g i o n a l  C l u s t e r o f C i t i e s , ed. F. S t u a r t C h a p i n J r . , and S h i r l e y F. Weiss (New York: John W i l e y and Sons, I n c . , 1962) p. 3 5 9 While i t i s apparent that the natural amenities which provide the set t i n g f o r a r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision are also important, the process of subdivision development frequently decimates or alienates the very amenity which made the development desirable i n the f i r s t place. Public concern also arises out of t h i s r e a l i z a t i o n . The pressures of population and r u r a l development i n many areas of B r i t i s h Columbia have been too intense to allow f o r proper consideration of subdivision l o c a t i o n and design fa c t o r s . There i s a growing r e a l i z a t i o n that present trends and developments i n r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision must be examined i n the l i g h t of such factors. By so doing i t w i l l be possible to provide a more r a t i o n a l basis f o r development i n the future. The Regional D i s t r i c t Concept i n B r i t i s h Columbia In 1 9 6 5 the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia introduced l e g i s l a t i o n to provide for improvements i n l o c a l control over problems which were wider than immediate municipal boundaries. Twenty-eight regional d i s t r i c t s were established for t h i s purpose, with boundaries as shown i n Figure 1 . The function of the regional d i s t r i c t i s seen as a federated approach to l o c a l government, where both municipal and non-municipal areas can be represented on the board of di r e c t o r s , on a quota basis. In t h i s was i t has been possible f o r regional d i s t r i c t s to e s t a b l i s h common services both for muni c i p a l i t i e s and for unorganized t e r r i t o r y within t h e i r boundaries. In order to provide the means of financing for these regional d i s t r i c t undertakings, the Municipal Finance Authority of B r i t i s h Columbia was set up i n 1 9 6 9 through l e g i s l a t i o n . The Municipal Finance Authority i s composed of members appointed by Regional D i s t r i c t Boards throughout the Province. Appendix A discusses the concept of regional d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia more f u l l y . Community Planning Area Number 14 Within the Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona on Vancouver Island l i e s a coastal "spread community" approximately 60 miles i n length. The Regional D i s t r i c t i t s e l f can be described as occupying the midsection of Vancouver Island as well as a substantial area of adjacent mainland. (See Figure 2 ) The coastal community was o r i g i n a l l y defined by s p e c i f i c j u r i s d i c t i o n a l boundaries i n 196l, and was c a l l e d Community Planning Area Number 14. (Appendix 3) ' Functions and regulations f o r development were then administered by the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s . With the establishment of regional d i s t r i c t s i n 19&5f however, i t was intended that administration of Community Planning Area Number 14 would eventually be transferred to the Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona. The north east boundary of the Community Planning area i s described by an imaginary l i n e 1000 feet seaward from the high water mark. The south west boundary follows d i s t r i c t l o t l i n e s at i t s extreme ends, but otherwise follows the diagonal course of the B r i t i s h Columbia Power Commission right-of-way, with.a four mile projection to encompass the Cumberland area. Viewed i n t o t a l , the Community Planning Area i s a coastal s t r i p . o f one or two miles width at either end and widening i n the middle regions to approximately seven miles. (Figure 3) I t i s s i x t y miles long, stretching northwestward from Deep Bay to Menzies Bay. Topographically, the area i s mainly on a coastal p l a i n with a gentle c o a s t l i n e . The forested, mountainous areas of Vancouver Island l i e immediately to the west, and at some points forest lands such as p r i v a t e l y owned tree farms and tree farm licensed crown lands extend well into the Community Planning Area. Informed opinion l o c a l l y has suggested that one of the reasons f o r the i n t e n s i t y of development i n the coastal s t r i p has "been the prevention of westward expansion into the f o r e s t industry areas. Within the Community Planning Area are contained several incorporated places as well as number of independently functioning water d i s t r i c t s , The long h i s t o r y of mining, fo r e s t r y , and coastal shipping has established settlements which are recognized l o c a l l y even though they have never been incorporated. Such areas have l o c a l l y recognized place names: Fanny Bay; Union Bay; Royston^; Me r v i l l e ; Black Creek; Oyster Bay; Willow Point; and Bloedel. The present incorporated places i n Community Planning Area'Number 14 are Courtenay, Comox, Cumberland and Campbell River. In s p a t i a l terms Campbell River i s the largest of the incorporated places, so that extension of services to expanding 3Royston w i l l vote March 27, 1971 to incorporate as a v i l l a g e municipality. Notice of p o l l was given i n the Comox D i s t r i c t  Free Press (March 17, 1971) B U O B P E L . r - f ©"1 C A M P B E L L . R I V B R \ W I L L O W P O I N T \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ B L A C K C R E E K . M E R V 1 L U 6 C O U R T B N A Y . / I ' C O M O X fiiSROYSTON C U M S 6 R L A N O \ U N I O N B A Y '£& J F A N N Y B A Y C o m m u n i t y P l a n n i n g A r e a N u m b e r 14 f i g . 3 r e s i d e n t i a l c e n t e r s i s most w i d e s p r e a d i n t h a t a r e a . T h i s , i n p a r t , may e x p l a i n why l a n d v a l u e s a r e r e p u t e d l y h i g h e r i n t h e Campbell R i v e r a r e a t h a n i n o t h e r p a r t s o f the Community P l a n n i n g A r e a . Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number Ik i s the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o r r i d o r t o the r e s o u r c e h i n t e r l a n d o f Vancouver I s l a n d . I n a s e n s e , p o r t i o n s o f the Community P l a n n i n g A r e a a r e an i n t e g r a l k p a r t o f t h a t h m t e r l a n d o I t has been s u g g e s t e d t h a t w h i l e p r i m a r y i n d u s t r y remains s t a b l e , t h e r e may be a modest growth i n s e c o n d a r y p r o c e s s i n g o f t i m b e r p r o d u c t s as w e l l as an i n c r e a s e i n r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , w h i c h must r e s u l t i n expanded s e r v i c e employment.5 I t t h u s becomes e v i d e n t t h a t c e r t a i n d e v e l o p m e n t a l problems may be e n c o u n t e r e d i n Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number lk as a p a r t o f the g r e a t r e s o u r c e h i n t e r l a n d . ^ One o f t h e s e problems i n v o l v e s the p r o v i s i o n o f s e r v i c e s and the s u p p l y o f an adequate range o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o a s p a r s e and s c a t t e r e d p o p u l a t i o n . Connected w i t h t h i s i s the problem o f c o n t r o l l i n g f u r t h e r u n n e c e s s a r y s c a t t e r a t i o n w h i c h would m e r e l y compound the f i r s t p r o blem. A f u r t h e r c o n c e r n i s the s a t i s f a c t o r y m u l t i p l e ^ T h i s r e f e r s t o the f o r e s t l a n d s around Menzies Bay and O y s t e r Bay, the p u l p m i l l a t Duncan Bay, c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g f l e e t s a t Campbell R i v e r , as w e l l as s e c o n d a r y p r o c e s s e s o f the lumber i n d u s t r y i n b o t h the Courtenay-Comox and the Campbell R i v e r a r e a s . 5s c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , P l a n n i n g f o r  R e g i o n a l Development on Vancouver I s l a n d ; S t u d e n t P r o j e c t 7 (Vancouver s U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o lumbia, 1968) makes the s e p r o j e c t i o n s . 6 I b i d . use of resources, such as timber, mining, and recreation,' and to t i e a l l of t h i s i n with r e s i d e n t i a l opportunities. Since Community Planning Area Number 14 i s i d e n t i f i a b l e as a d i s t i n c t area with precise l e g a l boundaries, and i t i s known to contain the majority of urban and r u r a l development i n the Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona, i t i s considered to be a very important area to the region as a whole. Here, more than anywhere else, s o c i a l p o l i c i e s w i l l be needed to achieve . . . a balanced development . . . f o r the whole region. Such a development means that we must protect good a g r i c u l t u r a l and wood land, and the r u r a l dweller? preserve landscapes f o r t h e i r beauty and- l e i s u r e p o t e n t i a l for present and future generations with/more leis u r e time on t h e i r hands? encourage c l u s t e r i n g of urban development instead of "scatter" and permanently surround built-up areas with open spaces of farmland or woodland; a l l are the key i n our choice of places to l i v e i n , work i n , v i s i t and enjoy.8 ''Conflict i s already evident from the f a c t that t o u r i s t s complain of pulp m i l l odor and smoke when vacationing i n the Campbell River area. Forest operators are inconvenienced by r e c r e a t i o n a l use of logging roads, both i n terms of trucking safety and f i r e protection. Sschool of Community and Regional Planning, Planning for Regional Development on Vancouver Island, pp. 3 , 4 . The Problem I t has a l r e a d y "been i n t i m a t e d t h a t i n r e g i o n a l growth and development, b o t h l o c a t i o n and d e s i g n o f r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e m a t t e r s o f c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p o r t a n c e . W h i l e t h i s i s t r u e f o r a number o f r e a s o n s , the f o r e m o s t i s the w e l l -b e i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l communities w i t h i n the r e g i o n . I n c e r t a i n c a s e s , haphazard development o f r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s r e s u l t s i n the l o s s o f much a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . Where such l a n d i s v e r y l i m i t e d i n q u a n t i t y , (and t h i s i s the case i n most a g r i c u l t u r a l a r e a s o f prime q u a l i t y ) an i r r e v e r s i b l e 9 s i t u a t i o n can be v e r y q u i c k l y c r e a t e d . I t has a l s o been s u g g e s t e d t h a t i n some r e g i o n s r e s o u r c e s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f a g r i c u l t u r e may be d i s p l a c e d by r e s i d e n t i a l development. N a t u r a l r e c r e a t i o n a l s p a ce, w i t h v a r i o u s unique and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y s a t i s f y i n g f e a t u r e s may be one o f t h e s e r e s o u r c e s . More complex and u n u s u a l e c o l o g i c a l u n i t s w h i c h p r o v i d e a unique h a b i t a t f o r some s p e c i e s o f f l o r a and f a u n a can a l s o be d i s t u r b e d . I n the case o f Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14, prime a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i s m i n i m a l . I t i s m a i n l y on the f l o o d p l a i n r e g i o n between 'the c e n t e r s o f C o u r t e n a y and Comox where l a r g e - s c a l e v e g e t a b l e g r o w i n g o c c u r s . The d a i r y i n d u s t r y i s c o n c e n t r a t e d on the m i d d l e p l a i n n o r t h o f C o urtenay. I t becomes o b v i o u s t h a t the major t h r u s t o f r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n °This c o n c e r n has been e x p r e s s e d i n the F r u i t B e l t o f the N i a g a r a P e n i n s u l a i n S o u t h e r n O n t a r i o . has n o t o c c u r r e d i n t h e s e a r e a s 0 I t i s seen from e x a m i n a t i o n o f composite maps f o r the a r e a t h a t the most " r u r a l a r e a r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n " has o c c u r r e d on and nea r the w a t e r f r o n t , W h i l e the a r e a c o v e r e d by such development r e p r e s e n t s a s m a l l p e r -centage o f the t o t a l Community P l a n n i n g A r e a , i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t a n o t h e r r e s o u r c e o f c o n s i d e r a b l e importance has been encroached upon - t h a t o f w a t e r f r o n t r e c r e a t i o n a l space. A s i n g l e o c e a n f r o n t p r o v i n c i a l p a r k s e r v e s the e n t i r e s i x t y - m i l e s t r e t c h o f Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14.1° When t h e - l a r g e number o f l o c a l r e s i d e n t s i s combined w i t h a l a r g e number o f summer t o u r i s t s from a l l p a r t s o f the c o u n t r y , i t becomes o b v i o u s t h a t the. a l i e n a t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n a l w a t e r f r o n t i s a m a t t e r o f some c o n c e r n . I n the s p r i n g o f 1970 a s p e c i a l r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t p l a n n i n g committee was s e t up t o c o n s i d e r l a n d development i n Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14, The committee, a f t e r assessment o f the s i t u a t i o n , termed development i n the a r e a t o be "out o f c o n t r o l " . H T h i s r e p o r t was based on a knowledge o f the m i n i m a l r e g u l a t i n g c o n t r o l s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n i n the a r e a as w e l l as a p r e l i m i n a r y assessment o f the development a c t i v i t y t o t h a t d a t e . " M i r a c l e Beach P r o v i n c i a l Park i s l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i f t e e n m i l e s n o r t h o f Cou r t e n a y . 11 Campbell R i v e r Upper I s l a n d e r , ( J u l y 15 , 1970) h e a d l i n e s : "Land Use Curbs Urged."* The board of directors f o r the regional d i s t r i c t urged a , . e subdivision moratorium . , . June 2 i n a l e t t e r to Municipal A f f a i r s Minister Dan Campbell. It recommended a five-acre minimum area f o r subdivision i n Community Planning area from Bowser to Bloedel i n the east coast watershed. x^ While the board of directors was not e x p l i c i t i n the reason f o r i t s request, there was the implication that the subdivision moratorium was to serve the same purpose as the moratorium already i n existence on the northern g u l f 13 islands of the regional d i s t r i c t . J The Honorable Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s stated that . . . he would be agreeable provided there i s "a cl e a r public understanding that the chief reason f o r a moratorium i s to provide an opportunity for e f f e c t i v e planning to take p l a c e . " x ^ 12ibid. ^ R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona, A Land Use  Plan and Development Controls: E l e c t o r a l Area " I " ( V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Regional Planning D i v i s i o n , Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , 1 9 7 0 ) i s the p i l o t project for plans and development controls on the isla n d s : Quadra, Cortes, Denman and Hornby. These projects w i l l r e s u l t i n the l i f t i n g of the moratorium imposed on these islands by the powers of the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , v/hich l i m i t s subdivision to the creation of parcels not less than 1 0 acres i n s i z e . i^David George: "Realtors Hit Moratorium" i n the Comox D i s t r i c t Free Press, (July 2 9 , 1 9 7 0 ) I t t h e r e f o r e became the o f f i c i a l i n t e n t i o n o f the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t t o use the moratorium as an i n t e r i m c o n t r o l l i n g d e v i c e . 1 5 D e v e l o p e r s i n the a r e a were d i s p l e a s e d w i t h the p r o p o s a l , b u t no f o r m a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was made t o the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t e d I t i s assumed t h a t d e v e l o p e r s f e l t t h a t any at t e m p t a t c o u n t e r a c t i o n would be f u t i l e , and i t may be f u r t h e r assumed t h a t t h e y were a l r e a d y engaged i n s u f f i c i e n t a c t i v i t y t o c a r r y them t h r o u g h t o the l i f t i n g o f the " i n t e r i m " m o ratorium. I n r e q u e s t i n g t h e mora t o r i u m , the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t had a l s o g i v e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a t u s o f Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14. At the June 8 , 1970 r e g u l a r m e e t i n g o f the board o f d i r e c t o r s a r e s o l u t i o n was adopted u n a n i m o u s l y . "That s u p p l e m e n t a r y L e t t e r s P a t e n t be sought t r a n s f e r r i n g Community P l a n n i n g A r e a No. 14 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . 1 7 CARRIED 1 5 i t>id. , " S u b d i v i s i o n and z o n i n g bylaws would p r o b a b l y r e p l a c e the f i v e - a c r e m o r a t o r i u m p o r t i o n by p o r t i o n . P l a n n i n g would be a l l o c a t e d t o a r e a s i n whi c h t h e r e was more development." The m o r atorium " . . . would n o t impede development, but would g i v e time t o e v o l v e s a t i s f a c t o r y p l a n s . . . " l ^ E n q u i r y a t R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Comox-Strathcona o f f i c e s r e v e a l e d t h a t no d e v e l o p e r s had approached the D i s t r i c t t o v o i c e p r o t e s t s , even though i n d i v i d u a l d e v e l o p e r s had made s t r o n g s t a t e m e n t s t o the p r e s s . 17The r e s o l u t i o n was f o r w a r d e d i n a l e t t e r t o Mr. C.H.L, Woodward, D i r e c t o r , M u n i c i p a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n D i v i s i o n , Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , on June 16, 197C The r e s o l u t i o n did not automatically cancel the request f o r imposition of the moratorium. I t was the opinion of the regional d i s t r i c t that the moratorium could be enacted much more quickly through the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s than through l o c a l action. The Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , however, was not convinced that s u f f i c i e n t p u b l i c i t y had been given the moratorium proposal. Therefore the regional d i s t r i c t request was not complied with. On September 24, 1970 the Honorable Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s made i t c l e a r i n a l e t t e r to the regional d i s t r i c t that the transfer of Community Planning Area Number 14 was "imminent" and that " e f f o r t s should be concentrated on 1 Pi concluding the t r a n s f e r . " At t h i s date transfer procedures are complete, 1^ and i t i s anticipated that the moratorium could be i n force by September of 1971. I t i s not c e r t a i n , however, that the regional d i s t r i c t w i l l continue to pursue t h i s course of action. The opinion that development i n Community Planning Area Number 14 i s "out of c o n t r o l " continues to e x i s t , reinforced i yFrom the f i l e s : Community Planning Area Number 14, Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona. x 9 s e e Appendix C "Copy of Minute Approved March 12, 1971 -Lieutenant Governor." by the o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r e i s a l s o a s h o r t a g e o f s u i t a b l e h o u s i n g , u While t h e s e o p i n i o n s are u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d by f o r m a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d e p t h , i t i s e v i d e n t from' the p r e s e n t l e v e l o f l a n d s p e c u l a t i o n and the upward t r e n d i n l a n d c o s t s t h a t t h e s e o p i n i o n s a r e b a s i c a l l y v a l i d . ~ -I t i s contended t h a t the problems i n Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14, as p e r c e i v e d by the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , may be d e t e r r e n t s t o r e g i o n a l development.^2 The r e a s o n s why t h i s i s c o n s i d e r e d a p o s s i b i l i t y a r e as f o l l o w s : 1) The r e s i d e n t i a l " s p r a w l " o f s u b d i v i s i o n as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y e x p e r i e n c e d by some m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s can a l s o p l a c e undue demands f o r s e r v i c e s on the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t . ^ C h a r l e s Abrams, " R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g i n an U r b a n i z i n g W o r l d : Problems and P o t e n t i a l s , " i n Taming M e g a l o p o l i s , Volume  I I : How to Manage an U r b a n i z e d World, ed. H. Wentworth E l d r e d g e , (New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, I n c . , I 9 6 7 ) p. 1 0 3 9 s u g g e s t s t h a t b o t h h o u s i n g a.nd development i n u r b a n i z i n g r e g i o n s a r e r e a l c o n c e r n s , and t h a t h o u s i n g s h o r t a g e and r a p i d r e g i o n a l development may go hand i n hand, 2 l E n q u i r y among l o t owners i n two s u b d i v i s i o n s ' r e v e a l s t h a t many l o t s have been s o l d and r e s o l d " t h r e e o r f o u r " t i m e s by s p e c u l a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s . D e v e l o p e r s c o n c u r t h a t a f a i r l y c o n s t a n t y e a r l y a p p r e c i a t i o n o f l a n d v a l u e s has o c c u r r e d . ^ A b r a m s , " R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g i n an U r b a n i z i n g World: Problems and P o t e n t i a l s , " p. 1 0 3 9 • C o m p l i c a t i n g the h o u s i n g problem i n the l e s s d e v e l o p e d a r e a s i s l a n d s p e c u l a t i o n , w h i c h has been i n t e n s i f i e d by p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e , freedom from l a n d t a x a t i o n , by p r o v i s i o n o f roads and u t i l i t i e s by governments, by i n f l a t i o n a r y t r e n d s and by the d e a r t h o f a l t e r n a t i v e i n v e s t m e n t s . " 2) The p o t e n t i a l f r i c t i o n between c o n f l i c t i n g land uses (in t h i s case, recreation and r e s i d e n t i a l ) must in e v i t a b l y increase, 3) The transportation network, now dependent on a single highway i s not designed to serve as a c o l l e c t o r route f o r "sprawl" development. Hypothesis Community Planning Area Number lk has c e r t a i n unique features r e l a t i v e to the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Its problems are not unique, however, except i n the f a c t that rapid development within i t s boundaries has outstripped the a b i l i t y of government to e s t a b l i s h l e g i s l a t i v e controls. Two areas of i n v e s t i g a t i o n are seen as e s s e n t i a l to the prevention of future developmental problems i n Community Planning Area Number 24. The f i r s t must seek an understanding of the incentives to development, and the practises of the developers; the other an understanding of how the r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l environment i s perceived by the residents. Both of the above investigations have been included i n t h i s studyo The latter- i s examined by means of the formulation and t e s t i n g of an hypothesis. The preceding account, together with observations and enquiries made i n the course of t h i s study, has given r i s e to a number of postulates which appear to have v a l i d i t y . The l a s t two postulates of the l i s t below form the basis f o r the hypothesis tested i n t h i s study. 1) Rural area development has proceeded mainly without control by the Regional D i s t r i c t . 2) The formulation of p o l i c i e s f o r future development i s both, necessary and desirable. 3 ) Topographic considerations and market preferences have li m i t e d development to the coastal p l a i n regions. Waterfront locations are seen as p a r t i c u l a r l y desirable. 4) Waterfront f o r public enjoyment i s i n r e l a t i v e l y scarce supply, 5 ) Developers i n r u r a l areas are meeting market demands, . but to date the market i s dictated more heavily by speculative demands on land than by actual housing needs. 6) Subdivision practises have been based on minimal regulations and controls, which are functions of the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s . 7) Location and design c r i t e r i a which are commonly accepted i n urban areas receive small consideration i n r u r a l area r e s i d e n t i a l development,, 8) The values and preferences of residents i n r u r a l subdivisions are s a t i s f i e d by less r i g i d standards than those applicable to urban environments. A r i s i n g out of the two areas of inv e s t i g a t i o n already suggested, and based on the postulates l i s t e d , an hypothesis has been developed as follows: RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IN RURAL AREAS OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA NUMBER 14- NOT CONFORMING TO COMMONLY ACCEPTED PLANNING STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES FOR LOCATION AND DESIGN SATISFY'THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS. In order to develop a methodology to f a c i l i t a t e the tes t i n g of the hypothesis, i t has been necessary to explore the general concepts of r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision. Chapter II w i l l be devoted to a b r i e f examination of the subdivision process, the forces which act to bring about land development for r e s i d e n t i a l purposes, and c e r t a i n environmental considerations as they are linked, to location, design, and human response. The following section describes the methodology employed i n this study. \ Me thodology On the "basis of the foregoing postulates and the hypothesis requirements, the following methodological steps are suggested: 1) To discover the extent and type of r u r a l area r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions i n Community Planning Area Number 14. 2) To attempt to i d e n t i f y the forces which have operated to produce the present l e v e l of r e s i d e n t i a l development, 3) To evaluate the e x i s t i n g r u r a l area r e s i d e n t i a l development i n terms of accepted planning standards and p r i n c i p l e s related to subdivision location and design, 4) To attempt to measure how well the r u r a l subdivisions i n question meet s o c i a l ^ requirements. Data C o l l e c t i o n Preliminary i n v e s t i g a t i o n was accomplished through examination of the p r o v i n c i a l assessment r o l l s at Courtenay, B.C. i n 1970o Composite maps for the study area were consulted i n the o f f i c e s of the Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona, ^The Merriam-Vvebster d e f i n i t i o n i s used: "SOCIAL . . . of or r e l a t i n g to human society, the i n t e r a c t i o n of the group and i t s members, and the welfare of these members . . . " also i n Courtenay. Rural area r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions were 2'' defined f o r the purposes of t h i s study. ^ No land use data has been prepared f o r the study area, but use.of the assessor's r o l l s and the composite maps provided a l i s t i n g of: ' 1 ) a l l subdivision l o t s 2) a l l dwellings (both vacation and permanent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ) 3) l e g a l descriptions f o r a l l parcels. From t h i s information i t was possible to obtain a t o t a l picture of e x i s t i n g r u r a l subdivision i n the study area. The l i s t i n g s also provided the basis f o r sampling procedures. A tentative l i s t i n g of land developers active i n the study area was made through personal contacts i n Courtenay. Comox and Campbell River. This was supplemented by observation of development advertising b i l l b o a r d s on the Island Highway, and by a l o c a l newspaper search. Questionnaire surveys When i t became obvious that a f a i r l y small number of developers were active i n the study area, a select sample (to include a l l the major developers) was chosen and contacts were made with each firm f o r interview appointments. The questionnaire schedule was constructed to provide for These are small l o t r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions i n r u r a l areas as referred to i n the scope of t h i s study. The subdivision contains ten or more lo t s of approximately one acre i n size or le s s . I t i s not contiguous with established centers of the community. open-ended interviews which would indicate the kind of involvement and also the various p o l i c i e s . The questionnaire was tested for completeness and effectiveness, a f t e r which a l l interviews were ca r r i e d out according to schedule. L i s t i n g s of major blocks-of l a n d ^ which.contained r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions as defined by the scope of t h i s study were used as the basis for a sample s e l e c t i o n of subdivisions. The block sampling method was used for reasons of convenience, because of considerable distances involved. A l l blocks were consecutively numbered, and a sample of seven blocks was selected with the use of random number tables. Subdivision maps of the sample blocks were obtained from Regional D i s t r i c t o f f i c e s . A s e l e c t sample of two subdivisions not yet r e s i d e n t i a l l y developed was a d d i t i o n a l l y chosen. This was done on the basis of f i e l d observation which revealed c e r t a i n "innovative" aspects i n these subdivisions. Maps of t h i s sample were also obtained. A l l residences were located within the sample blocks, and a random subsample of t h i r t y - e i g h t residences ( c l a s s i f i e d permanent)^ was obtained. This represents approximately 3.5 percent of the r e s i d e n t i a l universe as outlined i n the scope of the study. "'The blocks of land referred to are i n the form of d i s t r i c t l o t s , sections within townships, and blocks according to f o r e s t r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . They are usually more than eighty acres i n extent, and represent the kinds of subdivision found i n e a r l i e r a g r i c u l t u r e , f o r e s t r y , and mining history, ^Residences were located from assessment records, which l i s t e d both permanent and vacation dwellings. A questionnaire schedule was designed for use i n open-ended interviews with householders i n the sample residences, A test run of f i v e interviews was made to determine the effectiveness and workability of the schedule. A f t e r minor r e v i s i o n , the sample survey was ca r r i e d out during a two week periodo Three callbacks was a r b i t r a r i l y set as a maximum for such cases as were not at home or were unable to respond when c a l l s were made. The test run was used as part of the t o t a l survey, since i t had been part of the sample. Analysis of findings Information obtained from assessment r o l l s , composite maps, and f i e l d observation was f i r s t used to assess the type and extent of r u r a l area r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision i n the study area. This provided the o v e r a l l picture of r e s i d e n t i a l land development for the study. The interviews with developers (usually the' branch managers f o r development companies) were used to determine p o l i c i e s , a ttitudes, opinions, and methods of pr a c t i s e . They were also used to i d e n t i f y the extent of current a c t i v i t y and the market forces which are influencing t h i s a c t i v i t y . Comparative tables were prepared to indicate the range of s p e c i f i c p o l i c i e s and methods of pr a c t i s e , (Developers' c r i t i c i s m s and suggestions about present and future development i n Community Planning Area Number 14 were l i s t e d . In the block sample, each subdivision was examined as an i n d i v i d u a l case study, using f i e l d observation, plans and questionnaire notes. The general neighborhood composition and the attitudes of residents to t h e i r subdivision were noted. A physical evaluation of the subdivision i n terms of i t s location i n the community and i t s design was based on standard evaluative c r i t e r i a . ^ 7 The select sample of two subdivisions with "innovative" features was treated as a separate case study. A physical evaluation was made. Questionnaire responses from the subdivision survey were tabulated f o r o v e r a l l analysis. Correlation between cer t a i n variables were considered as pertinent to the study. Tests were made for significance.. Respondents' c r i t i c i s m s and suggestions pertaining to e x i s t i n g and future 'development i n t h e i r neighborhoods and i n the general area were l i s t e d . Reaching Conclusions Subsequent to separate analyses, o v e r a l l conclusions were sought by bringing together the areas of investigation. 1) Physical evaluation of subdivisions was compared with the general lev e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n as revealed by the r e s i d e n t i a l questionnaire responses. ^Appendix D l i s t s l o c a t i o n and design standards used for the purpose of this study. 2) The success o f e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l developments i n terms of s o c i a l requirements was compared with the o p e r a t i o n o f the market and the performance of d e v e l o p e r s . 3) C r i t i c i s m s and s u g g e s t i o n s from both r e s i d e n t s and developers were s u b j e c t e d to comparison. 4) The h y p o t h e s i s was t e s t e d a g a i n s t g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s . Scope As already indicated the purpose of t h i s study i s to examine e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l developments i n Community Planning Area Number 14. The r e s u l t s of the study can be expected to provide quidelines for the formulation of p o l i c i e s to shape future development. Viewed.in t o t a l , t h i s represents a proposal of rather u n r e a l i s t i c magnitude. I t has been necessary, therefore, to make c e r t a i n refinements to the scope of the study. The f i r s t step i n the refinement has already been achieved by concentrating on the parts of the Regional D i s t r i c t where urbanization i n r u r a l areas- i s most consistently occurring, i . e . , Community Planning Area Number 14. Because the Community Planning Area contains a number of small scale established urban centers, a further refinement i n scope i s achieved by l i m i t i n g t h i s study to outlying (or r u r a l ) areas. The assumption i s made that r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision occurring i n , or adjacent to established urban centers represents, to a great extent, the l o g i c a l expansion of these centers. Problems associated with such expansion need to be dealt with separately from those of r u r a l areas, and are therefore considered to be outside the scope of t h i s study. I t i s contended that the expansion of established centers i s not undeserving of study both on the i n d i v i d u a l and the regional basis, and that these provide the elements for continued planning research i n Community Planning Area Number 1^. Preliminary examination of development patterns reveals that an extremely high percentage of r u r a l small l o t subdivision i n the Community Planning Area has taken place within one mile of the c o a s t l i n e . In urban terms, r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision implies l o t sizes of considerably less than one acre. I t i s therefore subdivisions with l o t sizes of generally less than one a c r e , 2 ^ and l y i n g within one mile of the coastline, to which t h i s study d i r e c t s i t s e l f . While the term "subdivision of land" i s simply defined as the l e g a l creation of two or more parcels from a single parcel, f o r the purpose of t h i s study r e s i d e n t i a l sub-d i v i s i o n can be a r b i t r a r i l y regarded as ten or more p a r c e l s . 2 9 Cases are exceedingly rare where r u r a l area subdivisions of small l o t sizes are less than ten l o t s i n extent. 2^A wide range of l o t sizes i s found i n most r u r a l subdivisions. The average l o t size i s approximately one h a l f acre, but often both smaller and larger l o t s are found within the same subdivision. 2^Arthur 3. G a l l i o n and Simon Eisner, The Urban Pattern, (Toronto: D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., 1950) use the subdivision d e f i n i t i o n of the Subdivisions Map Act, C a l i f o r n i a , which says that any parcel of land divided into f i v e or more parcels within a year i s considered a subdivision. How t h i s Study Relates; t o P l a n n i n g The development o f r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s i n v a r i a b l y b r i n g s about e n v i r o n m e n t a l change. A t some p o i n t , the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s must c o n c e r n i t s e l f w i t h r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , and t h e r e f o r e i t must p r o v i d e g u i d a n c e and c o n t r o l s f o r the c r e a t i o n o f s u i t a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t s . I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e such g u i d a n c e , t h e r e must f i r s t be a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the g o a l s t o be a t t a i n e d . " I n t h e p a s t few y e a r s a g r e a t d e a l o f e f f o r t i n c i t y p l a n n i n g has been g o i n g i n t o d e f i n i n g g o a l s f o r growth and development".-^ 0 T h e r e f o r e i t i s the t a s k o f the p l a n n e r t o use such methods as are a t h i s d i s p o s a l t o a r r i v e a t w o r k a b l e g o a l s . I n p l a n n i n g f o r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , t h e r e must be a b a s i c c o n c e r n f o r human needs. The method o f t h e .'« . q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e a r c h f o r consensus i n a t t i t u d e s o r p r e f e r e n c e s . . . t o make p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n on p u b l i c improvement programs more s e n s i t i v e t o the p r e f e r e n c e p a t t e r n s o f v a r i o u s segments o f the p o p u l a t i o n . . .31 i s a c c e p t e d as p a r t o f the methodology o f p l a n n i n g S o c i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , such as i s p r oposed by t h i s s t u d y i s c o n s i d e r e d a v a l i d p l a n n i n g p r o c e d u r e . I t may be used as an e f f e c t i v e t o o l i n the 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 i e s , and w i l l be l e s s a r b i t r a r y t h a n o t h e r d i r e c t 3 ° ? , S t u a r t C h a p i n , J r . , and Thomas H. Logan, " P a t t e r n s o f Time and Space Use," i n The Q u a l i t y o f the  Urban E n v i r o n m e n t , p. 307 methods. Although planners talk f r e e l y and loosely about the goals they are seeking to implement, » . . t h e i r actual plans usually s t i l l feature the t r a d i t i o n a l solutions of physical p l a n n i n g . 3 2 I t i s the planner's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to in t e r p r e t the goals of the general public, even though they prove to be v a s t l y diverse and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g . The methodological problems of quantifying so-called s o c i a l goals are serious, and even i f they can be solved, the planner's recommendation on goal choice must s t i l l be reconciled with the goals chosen by elected o f f i c i a l s and with those of the c i t i z e n s , which are, a f t e r a l l , the goals the planners and elected o f f i c i a l s ought to be pursuing, 3 3 This study looks at public attitudes and preferences i n e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l areas. I t also examines the forces which have brought about these e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . In t h i s way i t i s possible to discover whether the forces which are shaping the landscape mesh with the public i n t e r e s t . 3? J Herbert Jo Gans, People and Plans: Essays On Urban Problems and Solutions, (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1 9 6 8 ) p. 5 5 3 3 i b i d . THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION The Subdivision Process The person who creates a subdivision i s not only i subdividing the land but i s also creating a community. His early decisions w i l l have long-range e f f e c t s . Therefore, while p r o f i t may be his primary concern, he must give attention to the way the land Is subdivided and the kind of environment he creates with the provision of f a c i l i t i e s and services. These things provide the market a t t r a c t i o n s which w i l l make his product the most r e a d i l y salable. There are necessary steps which must be followed i n the subdivision process. The developer cannot assume absolute freedom to do with his assembled land as he pleases, although th i s was once I m p l i c i t under the common law. A statutory change i n the common law p o s i t i o n has come about . . . which regulates area, shape and dimension of parcels. 1Arthur M. Weimer and Homer Hoyt, Real Estate, (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1 Q 6 6 ) p. 3 3 5 , " • -. . the developer of a large subdivision i s i n e f f e c t the developer of a community. The developer of a small subdivision'creates at least a part of a neighborhood." 2From a lecture by W.T. Lane, in s t r u c t o r i n Lav/ for Local Public Administration, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, February 1 9 7 1 . Appendix E l i s t s the procedure for subdividing land within municipalities in British Columbia. Regulations are designed to control land development which occurs because of influencing factors. Population increase is generally accepted as the major factor which gives impetus to land development for any purpose. This factor is expected to be c r i t i c a l when population increases also coincide with economic changes such as increase in business activity, employment, and family i n c o m e , T h i s became especially apparent in the 1950's in North America, when The plotting of large acreas of raw land for future use and the selling of these for "speculative investment" in anticipation of rapid population increases-became a very common procedure. The speculative investor has several alternatives open to him when he purchases raw land,-^ He can 1) hold the land for a suitable time and r e s e l l at a profit, 2) subdivide into lots and streets, 3) subdivide as above and provide u t i l i t i e s and improvements at some level, 4) or also build houses. One of the factors influencing the developer in making a decision on the preceding alternatives is considered to be the rate of change in land values. While " , , . land ^Sanders A, Kahn et a l , Real Estate Appraisal and Investment, (New York: The Ronald Press Co,, 1963) p. ^ ^Ibid., p. 376 values themselves ari s e out of the appetites, fears and hope of men"^ such values are also influenced by land use " . . . and at the same time operate to determine use."''7 This e f f e c t i v e l y explains why raw land which has not been committed to the production of any resource can s t i l l command a p r i c e . In a g r i c u l t u r e , land p r o d u c t i v i t y i s measured by s o i l f e r t i l i t y and distance to markets. This p r i n c i p l e can also be applied to r e s i d e n t i a l land, where.potential p r o d u c t i v i t y depends on the land's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (such as topographical features and climate) as well as i t s distance from relevant o markets. Using the two basic factors of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and distance to the market, one can begin to l i s t a number of factors or forces which operate to determine land values and the Q appreciation of these values. They are as follows: 1) t o t a l population 2) population rate of growth 3) l o c a t i o n 4) new inventions ( d i r e c t l y applicable to means of transportation) ^ 2 . Gordon Ericksen, Urban Behavior, (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1 9 5 4 ) p. 2 2 6 "Land Values: A Framework fo r Understanding Urban L i f e " . ?Ibid.., p. 233 8Edwin S. M i l l s , "The Value of Urban Land," i n Harvey S, P e r l o f f , ed,, The Quality of the Urban Environment, (Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1 9 o 9 J p. 2 3 3 ?Ad apted from Ericksen, Urban Behavior, p. 235 5) climate 6) water (an important esthetic consideration) 7) human preferences 8) d i s t r i b u t i o n of purchasing power 9) tax burden Recent empirical studies indicate that the Highest simple c o r r e l a t i o n s e x i s t between the population change variables and the percentage appreciation i n raw land prices » • . The growth rate of the housing areas seems to be positively-r e l a t e d to the l e v e l of appreciation. This means that areas which are growing r a p i d l y may have d i f f i c u l t y keeping appreciation down.l° Schmid also l i s t s other variables such as the growth rate of percentage change i n land use and family income which show s i g n i f i c a n t c o r relations with land value appreciation. I t should be noted, however, that one of the population d i s t r i b u t i o n variables tested ( i . e . , the percentage of the urbanized area population l i v i n g i n the fringe) revealed a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p with land value appreciation. As the percentage of population l i v i n g i n the fringe increased, the appreciation l e v e l dropped. It i s seen, from the above examples, that success i n raw land speculation may be assured to a point, because of the subtle forces acting on appreciation l e v e l s . However, i t i°A e A l l a n Schmid, Converting Land from Rural to Urban Uses, (Washington, D.C.s Resources fo r the Future, Inc., 1968) p7"58 has been shown that the increase i n percentage of fringe area population tends to slow the l e v e l of appreciation. Thus, the speculator must at some point also become a developer i n order to maximise the p o t e n t i a l p r o f i t of a parcel of raw lando I t i s postulated that t h i s s i t u a t i o n can quickly lead to a state of over-subdivision, as raw land-speculation ceases and developed l o t speculation takes o v e r . x 2 The r e s u l t of uncontrolled and indiscriminate speculative practices has brought about unsatisfactory s i t u a t i o n s i n some r e s i d e n t i a l l y subdivided areas. This i s evidenced by r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision i n c e r t a i n coastal areas of Vancouver Island where i n s u f f i c i e n t attention was given to ensuring adequate water supplies f o r increased populations, as i n c e r t a i n waterfront areas of Hornby Island. The public at large i s frequently inconvenienced by the loss of ready waterfront access through large subdivisions, as i n Astra Bay near Comox, and the Painter-Barclay subdivision north of Campbell River. Here access routes were provided, but obstructions and physical b a r r i e r s made them unusable. 1 Richard M. Yearwood, "Land, Speculation, and Development: American Attitudes" i n Plan: Journal of the Town Planning  In s t i t u t e of Canada Vol. 9 , Spring 1 9 6 8 , p. 2 2 , " . . . i t i s the multitude of small scale speculators who constitute the bete noire of orderly development of our communities. These f a r outnumber the large developers and the influence of these operations i s f a r more pervasive and malevolent." Regardless o f the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s on a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e , the developer o f r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d must c a t e r to the market by p r o v i d i n g f o r the market l o c a t i o n a l demands. Ke can, o f course, by p u b l i c i t y and a d v e r t i s i n g •campaigns seek to i n f l u e n c e the market, and i t i s conceded t h a t he does so. At the same time, i t i s l o g i c a l to assume t h a t there i s some s p e c i f i c l i m i t to h i s i n f l u e n c e i n re g a r d to s u b d i v i s i o n l o c a t i o n . The p o t e n t i a l purchaser o f r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y makes a d e c i s i o n about h i s u l t i m a t e l o c a t i o n i n terms o f the d i s t a n c e to v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s and i n s t i t u t i o n s he depends upon. I t i s understood t h a t he a l s o g i v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n to oth e r q u a l i t i e s o f the l o c a t i o n , such as neighborhood c h a r a c t e r , e s t h e t i c a t t r a c t i o n s , and l e v e l o f s e r v i c e s . In the main, however, he i s . . . an "economic man" d e f i n e d and s i m p l i f i e d i n such a way t h a t we can handle the a n a l y s i s o f h i s decision-making. . . . ( h i s ) f a m i l y w i l l spend whatever money i t has a v a i l a b l e i n maximizing i t s s a t i s f a c t i o n . 1 3 In Alonso's uncomplicated approach to l o c a t i o n a l decision-making the s i t u a t i o n i s such t h a t employment and a l l such v a r i a b l e s are co n t a i n e d w i t h i n one s p e c i f i c c e n t e r or -'William Alonso, L o c a t i o n and Land Use: Toward'a General  Theory o f Land Rent (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964) p. IB I t i s obvious t h a t t h i s model i s e x c e p t i o n a l l y s i m p l i s t i c , but i n view of the importance of economic c o n s t r a i n t s i n an i n d i v i d u a l ' s every day l i f e , i t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s v a l i d . p o i n t i n space. In the r e a l world there are l i k e l y to be a number of s p a t i a l l y s e p a r a t e d v a r i a b l e s v y i n g v/ith one another as major i n f l u e n c e s on l o c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s . In r u r a l a r e a s u b d i v i s i o n i t can be assumed t h a t l o c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s are r e l a t e d to o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f f e r e d by the n e a r e s t e s t a b l i s h e d c e n t e r s , the d i s t a n c e to these c e n t e r s , the c o s t o f l a n d and the n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s o f the s i t e . In t h e o r y , a b i d p r i c e curve i n v o l v i n g c e r t a i n t r a d e o f f s might be v i s u a l i z e d . The curve i s d e f i n e d as . . o the s e t o f p r i c e s f o r l a n d the i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d pay a t v a r i o u s d i s t a n c e s w h i l e d e r i v i n g a constant l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n . . , Thi s curve i s n o r m a l l y expected to v a r y between i n d i v i d u a l s , a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r p e r s o n a l v a l u e s and t h e i r a b i l i t y to spend d o l l a r s . In the con t e x t o f t h i s study, r u r a l areas have much to o f f e r i n the way of n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s , so t h a t p a r t i c u l a r l y those people who value a r u r a l atmosphere and a t the same time d e s i r e a c e r t a i n l e v e l o f urban-type s e r v i c e s can be expected to a v a i l themselves of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f f e r e d by r u r a l 1 ^ " s m a l l " l o t s u b d i v i s i o n s . J This i s undoubtedly a n t i c i p a t e d by deve l o p e r s who have attempted to assemble r u r a l lands which o f f e r the f i n e s t o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Subsequently there has been much i ^ I b i d o , p. 59. l-^Rural " s m a l l " l o t s r e f e r s to l o t s o f approximately one acre i n s i z e or l e s s . subdivision and development of these lands. I t has been suggested that "subdivision i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t primer i n the land development process . , , so that when c e r t a i n areas of r u r a l land are subdivided and serviced,^? a market i s immediately created and the expansion pattern begins. A chain reaction i s set up with further subdivision and extension of "services", which can develop into the sprawl problems of over-subdivision which are commonly recognized i n many metropolitan s i t u a t i o n s . ^ i DNorman Pearson, "The Servicing Cost Consequences of Several Residential Development Patterns and t h e i r Implications f o r Municipal Goals and P o l i c i e s , " (Vancouver: M.A. Thesis, University of B.C., 1965) p. 18 17piped water i s usually considered a basic service. When t h i s service i s provided i n r u r a l area subdivision i t supplies an added a t t r a c t i o n for people to a v a i l themselves of the natural amenities of r u r a l places. iSpearson, "Servicing Cost Consequences", p. 20, indicates that "water l i n e s create development expectations, higher values, and higher taxes. Urban subdivision and development create demands f o r other urban services. Each successive subdivision or s e r v i c i n g step creates demands f o r the next step i n the land development process". Locational Evaluation Locational standards have been developed for subdivisions, using various sources of information, A 9 These are based on general goals which take into account the factors of public health, safety, convenience, urban amenity and efficiency of development. These are accepted for the purpose of this study. It should be noted, however, that evaluative standards cannot entirely eliminate the problems of sprawl and alienation of lands with prime a g r i c u l t u r a l or recreational value» Such problems can only by countered by . . . regulations for the control, of land subdivision i n order to provide common grounds of understanding that w i l l result i n sound community development . . . l9School of Community and Regional Planning, Residential  Land Subdivision; A Physical Evaluation, Staff Research Project 2 , (Vancouver: University of B.C. , I965) P» 3 2 . See Appendix D of this study for Location Standards. 2 0 Joshua H. Vogel, Design of Subdivisions, (Seattle: Bureau of Governmental Research and Services, University of Washington, June, 1965) p. 7 S u b d i v i s i o n Design The q u a l i t y of a r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n i s dependent on many f a c t o r s besides the p h y s i c a l q u a l i t i e s of the raw land. H i s t o r i c a l l y , s u b d i v i s i o n of land was u s u a l l y done according to a g r i d system, without s p e c i f i c regard f o r t o p o g r a p h i c a l f e a t u r e s . The s u b d i v i d e r was f r e q u e n t l y j u s t a s u b d i v i d e r . 2 ^ He subdivided and s o l d l o t s without improvements of any k i n d . C e r t a i n problems were connected w i t h the o l d system. I t was o f t e n d i f f i c u l t to accomodate and preserve unique or d e s i r a b l e topographic f e a t u r e s . More o f t e n s t i l l , there were extreme d i f f i c u l t i e s v/ith the p r o v i s i o n of g r i d p a t t e r n roads and proper drainage f a c i l i t i e s , simply because topographic c o n d i t i o n s were too extreme. Today i t i s the s u b d i v i d e r who t y p i c a l l y provides roads and s t r e e t s and makes p r o v i s i o n f o r e s s e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s . This i s so even i n r u r a l areas. In more recent times a c u r v i l i n e a r concept has a l s o been introduced i n s u b d i v i s i o n d e s i g n . 2 2 This has been p o s s i b l e i n two ways: 1) by developing areas of vacant land not a l r e a d y p l o t t e d i n the o l d c o n v e n t i o n a l g r i d system, and 2) by r e p l o t t i n g o l d e r plans where p o s s i b l e . ^ N e w s u b d i v i s i o n on vacant land has ^Weimer and Hoyt, Real E s t a t e , p. 348. 2 2 I b i d . , p. 349. 2 ^ R e p l o t t i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y easy where very l i t t l e of the land i s a c t u a l l y b u i l t upon. Where the a c q u i s i t i o n of many b u i l d i n g s i s i n v o l v e d , t o t a l r e p l o t t i n g sould be i m p r a c t i c a l . been very common following World War I I , Such developments have been on the periphery of c i t i e s , and sometimes i n vacant areas between older sections of the c i t y . More thought has been given to the creation of e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing and varied neighborhoods as well as to the provision of more economical services. Streets which generally follow land contours are not only more i n t e r e s t i n g , but they can also put an end to sideyard drainage problems. They can be used to eliminate problems of excessive road i n c l i n e s , r e p e t i t i v e v i s u a l monotony and confusing i n t e r s e c t i o n s . Contour designs f o r r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision may be introduced into areas where a basic g r i d pattern of c o l l e c t o r streets and a r t e r i a l s e xists outside the subdivision. Through t r a f f i c i s thus discouraged and i n t e r i o r streets are merely access s t r e e t s . Systems of cul-de-sacs can reduce the t o t a l length of roads and services i n a subdivision and are generally oh, compatible with contour design. Less land devoted to streets often means more land f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l space, and i t i s generally conceded that the p r o v i s i o n of open space within neighborhoods i s desirable, A problem which continues to e x i s t i n subdivision development of r u r a l areas has not been solved or even recognized 2^Joshua H. Vogel, Design of Subdivisions, (Seattle: Bureau of Governmental Research and Services, University of Washington, 1 9 6 5 ) , pp. 14 - 2 3 . by many developers to t h i s date. This problem concerns the a l i e n a t i o n of land w i t h d e s i r a b l e f e a t u r e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n or pure e s t h e t i c enjoyment. The newer concepts of i n t e r i o r s u b d i v i s i o n design have done much to improve h i l l s i d e and "view" developments by p r o v i d i n g a gr e a t e r e q u a l i z a t i o n of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r enjoyment of each property. In regard to streams and water frontage, however, there seems to be a c e r t a i n apathy toward designs which permit the s h a r i n g of such amenities as wa t e r f r o n t access and view. Imaginative s u b d i v i s i o n design can provide open space a t the w a t e r f r o n t and permit mutual enjoyment of t h i s amenity even by persons whose p r o p e r t i e s l i e w e l l toward the i n t e r i o r areas. Designs e s p e c i a l l y created f o r the purpose of drav/ing i n t e r i o r l o t s i n t o improved s i t u a t i o n s w i t h the w a t e r f r o n t have been p u b l i c i z e d s i n c e the 1950's,^ but such s o l u t i o n s are not o f t e n put to use. Instead, w a t e r f r o n t i s t y p i c a l l y subdivided i n t o l a r g e , e x c l u s i v e l o t s f r o n t e d by a s t r e e t p a r a l l e l w i t h the wat e r f r o n t . This p r a c t i s e has e f f e c t i v e l y reduced the n a t u r a l amenity (and t h e r e f o r e the value) of second-row l o t s , even though w a t e r f r o n t property may command premium p r i c e s . The p r o v i s i o n of access right-of-way at r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s i s a r u l e g e n e r a l l y adhered t o , but t h i s does not provide a wholly s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n f o r i n t e r i o r l o t s . 25urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Home B u i l d e r s Manual f o r Land  Development, (Washington: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Home B u i l d e r s , 1953) Po 156 Designs have been created for cluster systems which focus i n t e r i o r lots toward the waterfront by the use of road systems and cul-de-sacs set at angles to the waterfront. With a narrow s t r i p of waterfront land dedicated for public use, a much more satisfactory arrangement exists for the neighborhood as a whole. Improved opportunities for i n t e r i o r lots would suggest that the potential value of these lots would be 2 6 increased. It is considered useful to examine several aspects of such designs which may in some way also apply to conventional subdivision and the treatment of desirable waterfront space. Planned unit and cluster subdivision designs are noted for their attention to the preservation of open space areas. Attention is given to smaller lot sizes (and in the case of the planned unit to a satisfactory housing mix) 2 ^ i n order to provide for more open space for common use. A number of factors combine to produce desired environmental quality, These are: 1 ) density, 2 ) minimum area of the project, 3 ) topographic features, 4 ) location of open space, 5 ) recreation opportunities, 6 ) and the street system. ^"Insufficient examples exist in the study area of this thesis to provide conclusive evidence of this assumption. ^Housing m ± x i n planned unit developments may range from single family to apartment blocks and towers, depending on the size of project. 2 8 V o g e l , p. 2 7 , 28. Relatively large sites are required for cluster developments, more open space is possible than with conventional subdivision of similar overall density. 2 ^ Open space is so arranged that access is convenient from a l l units. Recreation space can be integrated with open space. Planned unit and cluster designs can lend themselves well to waterfront situations. In the past, however, there has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been a good supply of waterfront land in r u r a l areas. It is possible to assume that this is one reason why more innovative subdivision has not been promoted in water-30 front areas to date. It should be noted that certain problems concerning the maintenance of public open space exist. The responsibi l i ty and expense for open space maintenance must be assumed by someone. In unorganized t e r r i t o r y , this could best be handled by an 31 association of individual homeowners in the subdivision. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of waterfront land in rural areas is constantly decreasing. As the amenity grows scarce, however, i t is possible that an interest in more innovative subdivision design w i l l be shown. 9Jack Harbeston and Gerald R, Schlatter, Large Lot  Residential in the Central Puget Sound Region: Project Open  Space, (Seattle: Puget Sound Regional Planning Council, 1964) pp. 6 , 7. 3°In B r i t i s h Columbia legal restraints also prevent planned unit and cluster subdivisions. -^Harbeston and Schlatter, Large Lot Residential, p . 9 Evaluation of subdivision design Planning standards and principles for subdivision design can only be established after identi f icat ion of design c r i t e r i a . Such c r i t e r i a have been identi f ied, and units of measurement for these c r i t e r i a have been devised.^ 2 These are accepted for the purposes of this study. It should be noted that the measurement method is best accomplished by a combination of f i e l d observation and plan analysis. Since one of the objectives of this study is to gain an understanding of how residents feel about their neighborhoods, the following section discusses some of the more subtle considerations i n the evaluation of existing residential places. - School of Community and Regional Planning, Residential  Land Subdivision, pp. 80 - 83, Tables 10 and 11. These are shown in Appendix D of this study. Evaluation of the Residential Environment The nature of man's response to his environment i s understood only s u p e r f i c i a l l y as yet. In e a r l i e r times, s o c i a l systems were thought to be r e l a t i v e l y uncomplicated. The complex systems of today's urban regions, however, have produced d i s t i n c t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t l i f e s t y l e s and sets of human values. The s p a t i a l environment which an i n d i v i d u a l or group of i n d i v i d u a l s perceives i s somewhat smaller than the t o t a l natural environment.33 Man's basic desires for the comforts of l i f e and f o r mobility have led him to produce a r t i f i c i a l environments within his s p a t i a l environment. This i s the network of roads and u t i l i t i e s which are the func t i o n a l parts of an urbanizing region. Inside the functional network are found i n d i v i d u a l neighborhood environments. Since neighborhoods are " E s s e n t i a l l y . , . d i s t i n c t i v e areas into which larger s p a t i a l units may be subdivided , . 0"3^ they can i n some measure be distinguished from one another by both physical and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The neighborhood may be a r t i f i c a l l y created, or i t may be the r e s u l t of some natural phenomenon such as topography, and i t may also be the combination of both, ^^Harvey S, P e r l o f f , "Framework for D e a l i n g with the Urban Environment", i n The Quality of the Urban Environment, ed. Harvey S. P e r l o f f (Maryland! The Johns Hopkins Press, I 9 6 9 ) l i s t s f i v e elements (or environments) as the natural, s p a t i a l (perceived), t r a n s p o r t a t i o n - u t i l i t i e s , community (Neighborhood), and micro-environment. 3'^ Suz anne K e l l e r , The Urban Neighborhood; A. S o c i o l o g i c a l  Perspective, (New York: Random House, Inc.i 1968) p. 87 " At definite places within and adjacent to the neighborhood environment are found even smaller environments of ma.n. These are homes, insti tutions and work places. They are also the " . • o settings for the individual 's most intimate s o c i a l relations as v/ell as for his most direct and frequent contacts with the man-made physical environment.35 It is theoretical ly possible to gain an understanding of the neighborhood through an evaluation of i t s location relative to the larger community, and i t s physical design. On the surface, an evaluation of location and design factors i n existing r e s i d e n t i a l areas appears as a r e l a t i v e l y simple operation. It would be expected that such an evaluation would provide a type of l i v a b i l i t y index.3^ This would indicate the relative success (or fai lure) of individual r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions. A purely physical evaluation can be achieved by relat ing location and design factors to broadly accepted planning standards and p r i n c i p l e s . These are quantifiable c r i t e r i a , but are extremely limited in their usefulness i n terms of sociological factors. They are unable to take into account the specific attitudes and values of people i n a particular r e s i d e n t i a l place. 3 5 p e r l o f f , "Urban Environment", p. 19 36Jerome R. Saroff and Alberta Z. Leyitan, Survey Manual  for Comprehensive Urban Planning, (Alaska: Institute of Social , Economic and Government Research, Univ. of Alaska, 19&9) p. 1 points out that "The planning process begins with an analysis of existing conditions". LlQ ' s The personal values which people have are assumed to be the elements of their basic characteristic q u a l i t i e s . Personal values represent r e a l l ikes and dislikes-, which have been a lifetime i n forming and once formed do not change quickly.-^ This tendency to r e s i s t change may be of considerable importance to persons or agencies who are attempting to define values within a certain community. People who have been i n a neighborhood for a long time may be expected to retain the same basic values which they possessed when they o r i g i n a l l y became part of that neighborhood. An attempt to define neighborhood quality, however, need not be a complete exercise i n i t s e l f , but should rather serve as part of a larger exercise to provide guidelines for the development of future neighborhoods. A mere preference survey is not entirely sufficient for this purpose. People tend to base their own preferences (or what they say they prefer) on what they see others around them doing. Thus, real preferences uninfluenced by other forces, can often be obtained by more subtle means of opinion gathering. This is only achieved by obtaining a better understanding of people. 3?E. Gordon Ericksen, Urban Behavior, (New York: The MacMillan Company/ 1 9 5 4 ) p. 9 6 , ~ . men are in a position to dig for roots just l ike the lower animal forms (and they do), but the more explanatory roots are those of t r a d i t i o n , sentiments, values, s k i l l s and prejudices," 3^Ibid. , p. 1 9 2 , " . . , through observing the location in the community 'where a person sett les, v/e gain early insight into his conceptions of ambition and success . . . " The more common values which people exhibit have been c l a s s i f i e d by various s o c i a l science methods.39 Following are the major group c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : 1) People who emphasize the economical use of goods and services,, 2) People who f i t into a s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and t ightly knit family. 3) Those who are deeply sensitive about their physical wellbeing. 4) People who stress the personal enjoyment of their leisure time. 5) Those who evaluate their environment esthetical ly , by the order and harmony they see i n i t . 6) Those who are sensitive to others' needs and just in their conduct. 7) Those who place a high value on the freedom to make their own decisions. 8) People who are anxious to control their own .environment. 9) People v/ho emphasize s o c i a l prestige. It is i m p l i c i t also that certain groups might be identif ied whose personal values are represented by a combination of the above c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The choice of a residential place for many people represents a large investment i n terms of money, time and personal 3 9 d e n n H. Beyer, Housing and Society, (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1965) discusses these major c lassi f icat ions as outlined. satisfact ion. Therefore i t may be assumed that i f there are no constraints i n choice of location, people w i l l generally choose to l ive in areas where the opportunity to maximise their own personal values are most l i k e l y to exist.^® Accepted planning standards and principles derive i n part from broad s o c i a l goals, as nearly as these can be ascertained 4 l from individual values and preferences. It is possible to assume, however, that those standards and principles which apply to certain metropolitan residential situations do not necessarily apply to every other case. Both social goals and individual values and preferences can vary by area. What is needed is to consult with people who l ive in a particular place. By this means i t is possible to relate a certain level of s o c i a l response to the purely physical characteristics and location of the residential subdivision. If a great amount of physical d e t a i l were required, consideration would have to be given to such design-related factors as physical site characterist ics, services, and possibly even housegrouping and landscaping. Arthur B, Gallion and Simon Eisner, The Urban Pattern, (Toronto: D, VanNostrand Company (Canada), L t d . , 1 9 5 0 ) p. 2 5 0 , suggest that "Being a s o c i a l enti ty man seeks the companionship of his fellowmen. Generally desiring the association of others as much l ike themselves as possible, people with common interests assembled in groups to secure for themselves protection and the maximum amenities of l i f e . " ^ S c h o o l of Community and Regional Planning, Residential Land Subdivision, p. 3 8 . It is conceded that the values and true preferences of people are not readily ascertained. Complex sociological characteristics are recognized which are not easi ly measurable, nor have they been f u l l y explored to date. The r e a l i z a t i o n , however, that available methods of analysis are not as sophisticated as they may eventually become should not act as a deterrent to 42 the use of such s o c i a l survey techniques as are available. it 2 * Saroff and Levitan, Survey Manual, p. 1, "It is our contention that the planner does not r e a l l y know what " i s " i f he f a i l s to include, also, a systematic survey of public reactions to the existing physical environment." CHAPTER III A SURVEY OF THE STUDY AREA Subdivision in Community Planning  Area Number 14 At the present time i t is evident that a great amount of subdivision and land development has taken place in Community Planning Area Number 14. 1 The major thrust of this a c t i v i t y is c learly seen as development i n or adjacent to long-established centers• 2 The major centers have grown rapidly in the past two years. Cumberland's population is 153^; Courtenay and Comox have populations of 5 8 6 l and 2833 respectively; C ampbell River has a population of 8261. The trading area population of these centers, however, represents more than double their internal populations.^ The secondary thrust of development in r u r a l areas has occurred on a rather large scale as well ,^ Although •'•Campbell River assessment in 1969 total led $104,600,000.00 compared to 1959 totals of $5,800,000.00 ^This was most readily seen by f i e l d observation and exploration of the peripheral regions of these centers, with the aid of composite maps to indicate the most recent subdivision a c t i v i t y . •^Trade and Commerce Magazine, (Canvpbell River, A p r i l , 1969) ^Since the Island Highway is a coastal route through much of Community Planning Area Number 14, the extent of r u r a l sub-d i v i s i o n is t y p i c a l l y indicated by realty advertising signboards. This information is supplemented by examination of assessment r o l l s . breakdowns of r u r a l populations are not immediately a v a i l a b l e , i t i s estimated that i n excess of 4000 persons l i v e i n r u r a l subdivisions located less than one mile from the waterfront.^ Of the r u r a l areas unconnected with urban center expansion, the waterfront areas are most a c t i v e l y being developed. Residential subdivisions vary greatly i n scale near the waterfront, ranging from small ten-lot developments to massive developments involving more than one hundred l o t s . These are generally small-lot developments, i . e . , l o t s of approximately one acre i n size or l e s s . In many cases, due to the sporadic nature of development, the occasional l o t of two or three acres may be interspersed with many l o t s of perhaps one-half acre i n s i z e . The methods of subdivision generally found i n Community Planning Area Number 14 may be roughly c l a s s i f i e d i n three categories: 1) Landowner and B.C. Land Surveyor: These are usually large l o t s , up to ten acres i n size and occasionally larger. (Informed opinion suggests that such l o t s are very popular with c i t y dwellers.) Purchase i s made very easy by the owner-subdivider. One percent down 5This figure i s based on the examination of assessment r o l l s f o r 1 9 7 0 . ^Information here i s condensed from a series of informal interviews with a q u a l i f i e d 3.C. Land Surveyor, landowners, developers, and i n d i v i d u a l speculators i n Community Planning Area Number 14. payments with one percent monthly payments can sometimes he arranged. The c i t y dweller may thus simply purchase a large r u r a l plot and thoroughly enjoy the use of his own exclusive retreat at a r e l a t i v e l y low cost and inconvenience. In the meanwhile, the owner-subdivider has relieved himself of large parcels of undeveloped land which he may have held for many years. He is no longer burdened by taxes, while at the same time he is able to retain for his own use a small acreage. He also enjoys the returns of an extended income from the sale of his subdivided lots . A number of l a r g e - r u r a l lots are also used as homesites. These are p a r t i c u l a r l y desirable for those persons who strongly crave the seclusion and esthetic advantages of r u r a l l i f e . 2) Rural area subdivision by developers: The enterprising developer may deliberately search for a piece of raw land with q u a l i t i e s as near to what he considers ideal as possible. He approaches the owner with an offer, negotiates, and purchases i f the price is r ight . Having worked out his probable costs and profits carefully, he subdivides into what he considers ideal r u r a l lots and provides the required 7 services. He w i l l sometimes exceed the requirement, i f he feels that the lots w i l l s e l l w e l l . The services most commonly i n s t a l l e d are gravelled roads, ditching as necessary for drainage, and overhead wiring. Water extension is confined to areas where a water main is 7The minimum requirements for subdivision i n Community Planning Area Number 14 are given i n Appendix B. adjacent to the development. A d r i l l tap test for groundwater is occasionally used to insure the p o s s i b i l i t y of individual wells. A s o i l percolation test is conducted to insure satisfactory septic tank operation. In extreme cases, the developer may i n s t a l l his own water system, operated at the expense of the homeowners. 3) Urban area subdivision by developers: This involves the creation of subdivisions i n and adjacent to towns and established centers. It represents the extension of urban services and i n some cases the extension of the urban boundaries. It i s not unusual for a building contractor to act as his own developer. He may acquire a small parcel of land and develop i t into several l o t s , with the necessary extension of services. He can then build either on speculation or by contract. Real estate agents are active, and since there is some scarcity of good quality older homes in the area generally, a new house may be sold before i t is f inished. It is unusual for a house to remain unsold over an extended period. Real estate agencies also direct a certain amount of subdivision for owners of larger parcels. As agents for the owner, they direct development, and s e l l lots for a commission. In such cases they exert a strong influence on the design of the subdivision. Their cash outlay amounts to interim financing which is recaptured through property sales. The following section describes interviews with a select sample of developers i n Community Planning Area Number 14 . A general analysis of these interviews is also made. The Developer Interviews I t i s ' u n l i k e l y t h a t any one person i s able to p e r c e i v e the combination o f f o r c e s which generate l a n d development and shape the market i n the study a r e a . I t i s a l s o u n l i k e l y t h a t one person would have a t o t a l grasp o f e x i s t i n g p r a c t i s e i n d e v e l o p i n g l a n d f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes. For these reasons, i t was c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y to c o n s u l t w i t h a number o f persons who are conversant w i t h development a c t i v i t i e s i n the ar e a . An open-ended q u e s t i o n n a i r e schedule was devised,' by which three b a s i c areas o f en q u i r y could, be e x p l o r e d : 1 ) The land market 2) Development p r a c t i s e s 3) A t t i t u d e s and o p i n i o n s o f developers about p r e s e n t and f u t u r e development i n - t h e . area. The open-ended i n t e r v i e w method was used because i t was f e l t t h a t p r o b i n g f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be t a c t f u l l y accomplished. I t was reasoned t h a t d i r e c t q u e s t i o n i n g would y i e l d l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n , but i t was kept i n mind a t a l l times t h a t the respondent must not be made to f e e l t h a t he was be i n g c r i t i c i z e d i n any way. Q The s e l e c t sample o f developers" y i e l d e d t en i n t e r v i e w s , w i t h no r e f u s a l s . Appointments were made wherever necessary i n °Appendix F. ^ I t i s f e l t t h a t the sample i n c l u d e s a l l major developers or land development companies a c t i v e i n the study a r e a . The companies r e p r e s e n t e d are g e n e r a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the r e a l e s t a t e s a l e s aspect o f i n d i v i d u a l landowner s u b d i v i s i o n as w e l l . order to minimize inconvenience to the persons "being interviewed. The interviewer was well received, and enjoyed uninterrupted conversations lasting from forty-five minutes to one and a half hours. Eight of the interviews were with branch representatives of development companies based in Vancouver and Nanaimo. Two interviews were with r e l a t i v e l y small-scale developers based i n Campbell River and Courtenay. Analysis A map showing Community Planning Area Number 14- and i t s boundaries was used in conjunction with the opening question, "Are you familiar with Community Planning Area Number 14?" Only two of the ten respondents expressed f a m i l i a r i t y with the Community Planning Area as a specified j u r i s d i c t i o n a l entity. A l l of the respondents, however, were adequately familiar with the portions of coastal d i s t r i c t i n which they work. Several are lifetime residents of the area. There is evidence that development a c t i v i t y is directed from the centers of Courtenay-Comox or Campbell River, with the Oyster River as the natural divis ion boundary. Seven developers in the sample are currently active i n r u r a l area residential land development, on a t o t a l of eighteen individual projects. Projects range in size from twenty to two hundred lots . In terms of future development, developers appear to be making long-range decisions. The question was used: "How much are you working ahead of the market i n terms of - raw land? - developed lots? What i s preferred?" The following pattern was revealed by eight responses. Two did not respond. TABLE 1 LAND DEVELOPER ACTIVITY BY YEARS AHEAD OF THE MARKET Developer Raw Land Subdivided Lots Preferred For Subdivided Lots A 5 years 2 years 1 year B 5 - 2 0 3 2 maximum C 3 — -D 7 - 8 - 1 E 3 3 3 maximum F 5 + 2 2 G — 3 - 5 2 H 8 1 1 This would indicate that long-range prospects are being considered, and that the cost of holding land i s expected to be adequately o f f s e t by the prospective market. The search f o r raw land to develop i s not strongly directed. Employee f a m i l i a r i t y with the general sales a c t i v i t y i n the area y i e l d s s a t i s f a c t o r y opportunities f o r raw land purchase through a "constant watch" p o l i c y . An o f f e r to purchase i s made on the basis of estimated returns. Where purchase i s not possible, several companies w i l l consider cooperative development with the landowner. An active , competitive market has kept land values f a i r l y uniform throughout the area, although values are considered to be s l i g h t l y higher i n the Campbell River area. One respondent suggested that this difference was not "too l o g i c a l " . Two respondents remarked on the exceptional difference between waterfront and i n t e r i o r land. Waterfront lots command a current price of $100.00 to $110.00 per frontage foot, while i n t e r i o r properties are estimated at less than half this value. All respondents agreed that the costs of development do not vary s ignif icantly throughout the area. The only variation noted is d i r e c t l y related to the level of services provided. Yearly appreciation i n land values has been f a i r l y constant. One respondent estimated appreciation at five percent yearly, while three respondents expressed the opinion that appreciation has levelled off in the past twelve month period. It was suggested that this v/as probably related to "national economic conditions". It was also noted that appreciation was more noticeable on properties with d i s t i n c t l y desirable features, and on developed lots within urban centers. This was attributed to a general "over-supply" of r u r a l lots . Several factors are considered i n establishing lot prices. Raw land costs receive preliminary consideration. (If they are considered too high, purchase w i l l not be made). Two respondents explained the "rule-of-thumb analysis" in price setting, i . e . , one-third raw land cost, one-third development cost, and one-third p r o f i t . Other considerations were as follows: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOT PRICES BY DEVELOPERS Method Number of Respondents By market comparison - 4 By pricing what the market w i l l hear - 4 Six respondents conceded that there is a housing shortage in the area. Five believe that present subdivision a c t i v i t y is a l l e v i a t i n g the shortage. Two respondents suggested that there is no shortage of "high and middle-income homes", and three implied that there is an oversupply of subdivided l o t s . No formal market studies for residential lots have been conducted, x 0 Two respondents indicated that they have conducted independent studies for their own use. It was generally conceded that a market study would be desirable. Respondents were asked to describe their operations i n terms of the approximate ratio between subdivision and house building. The following ratios were indicated: i U A n independent market study of land costs in the area is indicated as a very useful area of extended research. DEVELOPMENT PRACTISE Interview Number Subdivide Build ' 1 mostly occasionally 2 100" % _ 3 90 9? 10 % 100 % subcontract 5 95 % 5 * 6 100 # subcontract 7 50 % 50 % 8 — 9 100 # 10 100 $ -The kind of raw land sought for development reflects market demands. One respondent indicated that f lat land is wholly undesirable. Another suggested that land with marketable timber could pay i t s own way i n subdivision. The items mentioned as desirable features are l i s t e d as follows: TABLE 4 DESIRABLE FEATURES IN LAND FOR SUBDIVISION Feature Number of References Rural quality 2 Waterfront View 6 Trees 2 Slope 3 View to water l Respondents were asked to outline their pol ic ies for c learing land. The following practices were indicated* DEVELOPERS' LAND CLEARING POLICIES Policy Number of Respondents Total Clearing Selective clearing 4 No clearing- 2 No set policy 1 Dependent on circumstance 3 The practice of subdivision design is varied. Three developers depend on the B.C. Land Surveyor for designs, subject to approval. Three indicate that the surveyor and the manager work together to produce designs. In two cases managers do the designing. Two companies have special planning divisions. Location of subdivisions is considered only as i t relates to anticipated p r o f i t s . Factors considered are l i s t e d i n the order of their importance as extracted from the interviews! 1) roads, 2) cost, 3) jobs (workplaces) and schools, 4) community f a c i l i t i e s and recreation, 5) business and stores. One respondent"remarked quite candidly that " i f land is cheap enough, location is not given any significant consideration". There Is a significant variation in opinion about the level of services which should be provided in r u r a l areas. The question used v/as: "'/That services do you feel should be supplied in r u r a l areas?" Response was as follows: SERVICES SUGGESTED BY DEVELOPERS Service Number of Times Suggested Gravelled roads Percolation test (for septic tank) 3 Ground water test V/ater l ine extension 6 Underground wiring 1 Paved roads 1 Sewer-It was suggested by two respondents that the present subdivision regulations are adequate for r u r a l areas. Ideal lot sizes for r u r a l area subdivision were discussed. One respondent suggested that there is no present need for "small" r u r a l l o t s . Six suggested a one-half acre minimum size, and one suggested a one acre minimum. It is significant that only two respondents f e l t that lots should be less than one-half acre, These respondents expressed a strong opinion that one and two acre lots are "wasteful", and that people do not "look after" large lots . Another respondent indicated that i n r u r a l areas "a mere f i f t y foot frontage is appalling and criminal". Dedication is practised in r u r a l areas only as required, i . e . , rights-of-way for waterfront access and streets. One respondent indicated that "unbuildable areas" might be dedicated as open space. It was suggested that park dedication would be impractical because of future maintenance problems. Respondents were asked for their opinion about subdivision regulations i n r u r a l areas. Only one respondent commented unfavorably, by stating that regulations are "over-stringent". His reference was to r u r a l areas within Campbell River municipal boundaries, and did not apply to regulations for unorganized t e r r i t o r y i n Community Planning Area Number 1^. Taxation is considered to be equitable by eight respondents. One respondent, however, indicated that present taxation is burdensome to land holding and may operate to slow development i n future. Another respondent expressed the opinion that taxes strongly operate to. make a developer "careful how many lots go on the market at one time". The r i s k element of subdivision was discussed. The following factors were mentioned as responsible for perceived r i s k s : 1 ) competition 2) market saturation 3) taxes 4 ) high cost of development 5) location 6) costing estimates 7) threat of subdivision moratorium 8) l o c a l and national economy. The proper legal channels for subdivision of land are well understood,, There is no d i f f i c u l t y in the interpretation of regulations. Developers'' C r i t i c i s m s and Suggestions Most developers were quite free with c r i t i c i s m s and suggestions pertaining to e x i s t i n g and future development i n Community Planning Area Number 14. These views have been categorized into sections dealing with p o l i c y , l e g i s l a t i o n , administration, and development pr a c t i s e . I t should be noted that the c r i t i c i s m s and suggestions r e f l e c t the views of in d i v i d u a l s , and f o r t h i s reason there are some re p e t i t i o n s as well as contradictory statements. Present Development Po l i c y ! "Sprawl" development i s occurring, with improper i n f i l l i n g . The whole area i s being developed into " l i t t l e Chunks". P r o v i n c i a l government involvement i n subdivision disrupts free enterprise. L e g i s l a t i o n : Waterfront Tree Farm holdings are not taxed equitably with other land uses. Public U t i l i t i e s regulations are inadequate. Administration: Too much delay and "red tape" i n subdivision approval. No o v e r a l l coordinating body i s concerned with land development. The regional d i s t r i c t i s an "octopus". Development practise; Isolated cases of poor s o i l percolation. Too much small lot r u r a l subdivision. Lots i n some subdivisions are much too small. The best use of land is not always considered. Rural character is disappearing. Land costs are too high. There is too much subdivision and development exploitation. Unimaginative subdivision design has occurred. Future Development Policy; Create more small parcels (two and one-half to five acres). Control size of developments. Establish more provincial government reserve in waterfront areas. Increase r u r a l lot sizes. Continue the gravelled road requirement for outlying subdivisions. Retain more waterfront for public use including "waterways, • r ivers and lakes". Promote " i n f i l l i n g " i n municipalit ies. Maintain the Black Creek area as a " l o g i c a l r u r a l break" between Campbell River and Courtenay centers. Establish Crown Land reserves for public use. Integrate street systems of adjacent subdivisions. Confine industry to "organized t e r r i t o r y " . Create a regional plan for secondary roads. L e g i s l a t i o n : Eliminate the threat of the moratorium on subdivision. Development planning i s an immediate need. Subdivision controls are needed. Consolidation of the ten percent required waterfront access routes should be permitted. Provide zoning regulations. Regional controls are needed to zone "certain areas as parkland, as non-salable land". • Persuade timber companies to r e l i n q u i s h prime development lands through taxation. Administration: Planning should be done by a central body. Planning Boards should cut "red tape". A coordinating body i s needed for land development. Regional representation i s needed on new highway planning. Subdivision seminar f o r developers i s needed. Development p r a c t i s e : Subdivision l o c a t i o n should be considered i n terms of distance to centers. Increase r u r a l l o t s i z e s . Slow down r u r a l area subdivision. Provide better access to the waterfront. Better provision for recreation should be considered. Give more attention to sa n i t a t i o n and sewage disposal. It was found that developers were quite w i l l i n g to discuss their involvement i n the study area. They are somewhat unfamiliar with j u r i s d i c t i o n a l boundaries, but are very familiar v/ith subdivision a c t i v i t y l o c a l l y and with the legal requirements for subdivision. Rural area regulations are considered reasonable. Long range development plans of more than five years are common. Land acquisit ion is possible through employee f a m i l i a r i t y with the area. Land costs are quite uniform throughout the study area, and yearly appreciation has been evident to 1970. Lot s e l l i n g prices stem from market comparisons, but may also be pushed to the l i m i t of what the market w i l l bear. No complete market studies are made. There may be a shortage of inexpensive housing, but "good" housing is readily available. Developers rarely build houses. Small contractors get the building trade, and occasionally subdivide on a limited scale. Houses b u i l t on speculation are often sold before they are finished. Where r u r a l land is concerned, developers are mainly interested i n land with a "view" amenity. Very l i t t l e clearing is done during subdivision, and design methods are quite unsophisticated. There are differing opinions about the level of services to be provided i n r u r a l subdivision. These range from a bare minimum to levels almost approximating those of urban areas. Developers feel that lot sizes in excess of one-half acre are most suitable for rural areas. Locational convenience in subdivision is given only-sl ight consideration, since the major factor in decisions seems to be raw land cost and population pressure. Taxation measures do not appear to deter subdivision a c t i v i t y , but do influence staging. Competition and the p o s s i b i l i t y of more stringent controls are seen as greater threats,, Rural area r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision is extensive in areas with "unique" amenities (especially waterfront) and w i l l continue at a rapid rate for some time i f present conditions remain unchanged. There seems to be a somewhat reluctant opinion that continuing uncontrolled rural area residential subdivision may have undesired effects. The Residential Interviews The r e s i d e n t i a l questionnaire schedule was designed to permit three kinds of imformation to he gathered.H These can he simply c l a s s i f i e d as follows: 1. Facts about the respondent and his/her household. 2 . Facts about the neighborhood or subdivision. 3. Attitudes, opinions and the level of satisfaction. Facts about respondents and households: Simple, direct questions were used to e l i c i t the facts l i s t e d below. It was f e l t that these would prove the most useful facts for use as indicators of basic community s o c i a l structure. l e length of residence in the general area. 2 . length of residence in the present dwelling. 3. place of previous residence. 4. occupation. 5. distance to work. 6. place of work. 7 . number of children - preschool - elementary - high school. These facts were supplemented by noting whether the household was in a waterfront or i n t e r i o r lot s i tuation, . The following table l i s t s facts about the respondents and the households: Appendix F, TABLE 7 In terview No, 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pre.. E 7 lem. Sec. 1 2 0 2 l o c a l logging -V. 2 2 2 2 3 l o c a l millwork 2 Pulp M i l l 3 3 0 1 3 Vancouver tradesman 1 Pulp M i l l 3 1 + 4 5 0 1 5 l o c a l teacher 2 Campbell R. 5 l i f e 8 l o c a l fisherman 2 Campbell R. 1 2 6 l i f e l o c a l longshoring 2 Elk F a l l s 1 1 7 l i f e 1 * l o c a l tradesman 2 Pulp M i l l 8 1 5 4 l o c a l operator 3 Campbell R. 2 1 9 l i f e 4 l o c a l millwork 2 Pulp M i l l 1 + 1 0 l i f e 7 Minstrel Is. O O o 2 + i l Q • 3 Tabsis managerial . 8 Campbell R. i 1 1 2 X ? 3 0 l i f e 1 mo. 1 1 l o c a l Cumberland shipyard tradesman 1 0 1 3 Campbell R. Pulp M i l l 14 l i f e 5 mo. l o c a l managerial 1 0 Campbell R»: 1 1 5 7 4 Terrace tradesman 2 1 + 16 14 1 1 Vancouver tradesman 1 7 l i f e 1 l o c a l business 8 Courtenay 18 l i f e 9 mo. l o c a l tradesman 2 0 Campbell R. 2 2 1 9 l i f e 3 l o c a l business J Courtenay + 2 0 2 1 1 2 l i f e o 2 § Ontario l o c a l A i r Force r e t i r e d 2 Forces Base 2 2 l i f e o l o c a l business 5 Courtenay 1 2 2 3 6 mo o 6 mo. Ottawa professional l Forces Base 24 A o -O 1 0 V/, Coast . r e t i r e d 2 5 1 0 5 Vancouver professional 7 Courtenay 1 2 6 1 2 1 2 Prince Rupert tradesman 2 7 5 4 ' Surrey mining 2 - indicates not fixed + Indicates waterfront l o t CODS : 1 . Length of residence i n area D' Distance to work. 2 . Length of residence i n present house. 6 , Place of work. 3 . Place of previous residence 7 . Number of children. 4. Occupation • 7k Facts, Opinions and Level of Satisfaction With the use.of open-ended questions, delivered i n free, conversational style, i t was possible to gain essential knowledge about the physical characteristics of the neighborhoods and the patterns of a c t i v i t y within them. Spontaneous responses made i t possible to note key phrases and major points of emphasis, while at the same time assessing reactions of the respondents. No d i s t i n c t i o n was made in the interview between questions dealing with facts about the neighborhood, attitudes and opinions of the respondents, or the level of satisfaction with various i n s t i t u t i o n s , services and f a c i l i t i e s . A l l of these were separated out in later tabulation. The numerous facts which were revealed were related to the following: 1. Where the children play. 2. Distance to school (or school bus). 3. Recreational f a c i l i t i e s available. k. General shopping pattern. 5. Community h a l l f a c i l i t i e s and use. 6. Church location and use. 7. Typical neighboring patterns. 8 . Size of neighborhood (perceived). 9. Neighborhood attributes. 10. Neighborhood l i a b i l i t i e s . 11. General a.rea attributes and l i a b i l i t i e s , 12. Services and u t i l i t i e s . The attitudes and opinions expressed about the following points provided the basis f o r measurement of the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n : 1, The area as a place to l i v e . 2. The neighborhood as a place to l i v e . 3» The neighborhood as a place to bring up children. 4 . The l e v e l of services. 5. The l e v e l of u t i l i t i e s . 6. The neighborhood lo c a t i o n . 7. The cost of land. • 8 . Taxes. 9 . Community h a l l f a c i l i t i e s . 10. Neighboring i d e a l s . 11. Tourists and t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s . 12. The p o s s i b i l i t y of l i v i n g i n town. Further opportunity for expression of opinion was given at the end of the interview. Respondents were asked f o r c r i t i c i s m s and suggestions pertaining to present and future development i n the neighborhood and i n the general area. Methodology f o r Questionnaire Analysis The questionnaire schedule f o r residents was designed to e l i c i t information about i n d i v i d u a l neighborhoods, and to measure the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n of people within those neighborhoods, -However, i t i s also e s s e n t i a l to make an o v e r a l l analysis of correlations which may ex i s t between variables found i n the sample population. Twenty-seven responses were obtained from the sample of thirty-eight residences. Although this appears to be a low percentage response, i t should be noted that a significant number of permanent homes i n the study area are i n fact used as vacation homes. It was not possible to anticipate this fact from assessment information, since ninety-nine percent of dwellings are l i s t e d as permanent dwellings. Four winter vacancies were recorded i n the sample, as well as one vacant for sale. There were two refusals, and four could not be reached at home during the survey period. Response to the questionnaire was usually excellent. Residents were hospitable and w i l l i n g to give information and opinion. It is the opinion of the interviewer that the general reception was better than might normally be expected i n urban areas. Rural area residents may be assumed to be more sociable than their urban counterparts. Since the number of responses is quite small, (twenty-seven responses) there are certain constraints to be considered i n the selection of a testing method for correlation between variables, Chi-square testing was rejected since many expected frequencies f e l l below five. Tests for correlation were thus designed for selected variables, 2 X 2 tables were prepared for those variables selected, and Fisher's Exact Test^ 2 v/as used to test for signif icant correlations. Correlations between a number of other variables aris ing from the questionnaire responses were regarded as non-essential l^Sidney Siege 1, Nonparametric S t a t i s t i c s for the Behavioral  Sciences, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956) p. 110 to the purpose of this study. The group of variables pertaining to length of residence i n the general area, place of previous residence, and place of work were seen to be reasonably constant, and were not subjected to testing procedures. The correlations which are considered central to this study are shown i n a matrix as follows; TABLE 8 Matrix of Correlations Tested A B C D 3 F G H 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X MATRIX CODE Lot site (waterfront or i n t e r i o r ) . 3. Length of residence in area. C. Length of residence i n dwelling. D. Place of previous residence, E 0 Occupation, F, Distance to work. Go Place of work. H. Number of children. Opinions of respondents: 1. Of the area as a pla.ce to l i v e . 2. Of the neighborhood as a place to l ive 3. Of the neighborhood as a place to bring up children. 4. Of the level of services, 5 . Of the level of u t i l i t i e s . 6 . Of the subdivision location. 7. Of the cost of land. 8. Of taxes. 9. Of community h a l l f a c i l i t i e s . 10, Of neighboring. 11, Of tourists using the area. 12, Of.the idea of l i v i n g i n town. The necessity of providing a measurable' scale for attitudes and opinions requires an objective examination of individual responses. This is accomplished by employing the respondent's choice of words and phrases to construct opinion •scales. It is conceded that words and phrases must Indeed be interpreted subjectively, but i n general the approach r e l i e s most strongly on recorded information, A five-point scale of measurement is used and applied to each of the opinion questions l i s t e d i n the matrix (in the preceding section). The unit of measurement is the level of satisfaction, scaled as follows: very very dissat isf ied/dissat isf ied/neutral/sat isf ied/sat isf ied The question about l i v i n g i n town was simply measured by no - yes responses. It should be noted that a l l measures used in this section reflect opinions of people and are not necessarily indicators of the physical quality of the neighborhood. Scaled responses are tabulated as follows: TABLE 9 SATISFACTION OF RESPONDENTS OPINION 4 6 8 1 0 1 1 1 2 SUBDIVISION 4 7 INTERVIEW NUMBER 1 2 s> 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 19 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 2 5 2 6 2 7 v v ddnss X X X X X X X X X X X y v i d n s s X X r X X X X _X r X X X x X X X X X X X X X X V ddnss x x x x x r x c _x r x x X X X X X X X X X X X _X X X v v x X X X X X X X X  X X X V X X X X. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X V V ddnss X XX X X X X ' X X X X X X ' "x: I X X X X X X X X X X x|x x_ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X V V Idnss x x x X x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X. X V V ddns x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X V V Idnss X X X X X X X X X X X X X x: X x X X X X X V ddnss cx X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X cx X _x_ _x_ X X x> •J r -\ X X X Code for Table 9 OPINION r e l a t i n g to: 1 X , The area as a place to l i v e . V 2, The neighborhood as a place to l i v e . d - very d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. The neighborhood as a place to bring k. up children. d - d i s s a t i s f i e d The l e v e l of services. The l e v e l of u t i l i t i e s . n - neutral 6. . The subdivision loca t i o n . 7. The cost of land. s - s a t i s f i e d 3, Taxes, 9- Community h a l l f a c i l i t i e s . V A r\ X u « Neighboring. s - very s a t i s f i e d 11. Tourists using the area. 12. The idea of l i v i n g i n town. The Area as a Place to Live: Of twenty-seven respondents, four expressed some d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the general area as a place to l i v e . Tests for c o r r e l a t i o n between levels of s a t i s f a c t i o n and l o t s i t e s were made. I t was found that: 1) a greater proportion of waterfront l o t residents were more s a t i s f i e d with the general area. 2) a greater proportion of residents who had l i v e d i n t h e i r neighborhoods f o r more than f i v e years were s a t i s f i e d with the area. The NeighborhoodJ None of the residents expressed even s l i g h t d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighborhoods. Nineteen were very s a t i s f i e d . Tests revealed that: 1) waterfront l o t residents were more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r neighborhoods than were i n t e r i o r l o t residents. 2) residents who had l i v e d more than f i v e years i n t h e i r neighborhoods were more s a t i s f i e d , 3) residents who t r a v e l l e d less than f i v e miles to t h e i r jobs were more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r neighborhoods, 4) a greater proportion of whitecollar workers than b l u e c o l l a r workers were s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r neighborhoods. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the le v e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by families with childr e n and those without children. Children i n the Neighborhoods No respondents were d i s s a t i s f i e d with the neighborhood as a place to bring up children. Twenty expressed greater s a t i s f a c t i o n than the others. Level of Services: A l l respondents expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n with the l e v e l of services provided for t h e i r subdivisions. Twelve were recorded as being s l i g h t l y less than t o t a l l y s a t i s f i e d . A test revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by those residents who had l i v e d i n t h e i r neighborhoods f o r over f i v e years. U t i l i t i e s : Only two respondents expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the l e v e l of u t i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e to them. Sixteen were very s a t i s f i e d and nine were less s a t i s f i e d , A te s t showed that residents who had l i v e d more than f i v e years i n t h e i r neighborhoods were less s a t i s f i e d with the l e v e l of u t i l i t i e s provided. Location of the Subdivision: Six respondents expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the location of t h e i r neighborhoods. Of the remainder, twelve were very s a t i s f i e d . Tests revealed that: 1) a greater proportion of residents more than f i v e miles from t h e i r jobs were d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r neighborhood location. 2) families with children tended to he less satisf ied with their neighborhood location. There was no significant difference in the level of satisfaction with neighborhood location as expressed by waterfront and i n t e r i o r lot residents. The Cost of Land: Sixteen respondents were dissat isf ied with the current, cost of land. Of these, fourteen were very d i s s a t i s f i e d . There was no significant difference in opinion between: • 1) waterfront and i n t e r i o r lot residents, 2.) residents who had l ived i n their neighborhoods 'less than five years and those who had l ived there more than five years. Taxes: Nine respondents were dissat isf ied with current taxes. Five expressed some satisfaction, and thirteen were very s a t i s f i e d . Tests showed no significant difference in the levels of satisfaction with taxes between: 1) waterfront and i n t e r i o r lot residents, 2) residents who had l i v e d - i n their neighborhoods less than five years and those who had been there longer. Community H a l l F a c i l i t i e s : A l l respondents were sat isf ied with the present Community H a l l f a c i l i t i e s available to them0 There was no • • p,h s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the lev e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by families with c h i l d r e n and f a m i l i e s without children. Neighboring: Twelve respondents indicated that they preferred only casual neighboring. F i f t e e n engaged i n more extensive neighboring patterns. Tests revealed that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n neighboring habits between: 1 ) those who had l i v e d i n t h e i r neighborhoods more than f i v e years and those who had been there less than f i v e years. 2 ) those f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n and those without children. Tourists: Eight respondents expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t o u r i s t s using t h e i r area. Six indicated moderate s a t i s f a c t i o n and thirteen were very s a t i s f i e d . Tests showed that there was no difference i n the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with t o u r i s t s between waterfront and i n t e r i o r l o t residents. Choosing to Live i n Town: Only s i x respondents indicated that they would consider l i v i n g i n town i f given the opportunity. Te.sts f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e revealed that: 1 ) a greater proportion of respondents who had l i v e d i n t h e i r neighborhoods f i v e years or less would consider l i v i n g i n town, 2) a greater proportion of those who l i v e d more than f i v e miles from t h e i r jobs would choose to l i v e i n town. Residents' C r i t i c i s m s and Suggestions Respondents i n the sample residences were asked for c r i t i c i s m s and suggestions concerning the e x i s t i n g and future development of the area and of t h e i r neighborhoods. I t was noted that more suggestions than c r i t i c i s m s were offered, but i t may be assumed that suggestions also r e f l e c t c r i t i c i s m s . Suggestions and c r i t i c i s m s are l i s t e d as follows: C r i t i c i s m s about the general area Lack of sophisticated entertainment. Pulp m i l l odor and f a l l o u t . Slow action on public works. Too many people. Highway t r a f f i c too heavy. Highway unsuited f o r the amount of t r a f f i c . Not enough employment opportunities. Lack of planning and development regulations. Poor t e l e v i s i o n reception. Too much catering to higher income groups. Too i s o l a t e d . Trees being destroyed. Too much American ownership of land. Oyster leases alienate beaches. Criticisms about neighborhoods Stores are too distant. Storm drainage is poor. Recreational opportunities are l imited. Waterfront lots are too deep. Street l ighting is inadequate, . Waterfront taxes are too high. Steep roads. Parks are not maintained 0J Speculation drives land prices up. Lonely for children. Muddy roads. Schools are too d i s t a n t e Community f a c i l i t i e s are too distant. Suggestions for the general area Sewage treatment. Less building on the waterfront. Curb r e s i d e n t i a l development. Government reserve on waterfront for public use. More sewer i n s t a l l a t i o n . Slow down development. Fish hatcheries to restock sport f ishing. More boating f a c i l i t i e s . Reroute highway. Curb pulp m i l l pol lut ion. Restrooms for tourists . More camping f a c i l i t i e s . Permit unrestricted development. Increase recreational f a c i l i t i e s . Expand.tourist f a c i l i t i e s . Conserve natural areas. Create a marine park. Curb water pollution,, Planning for future development. Provide better te levision reception. Hire recreation director. Suggestions for neighborhoods Develop more small parks and playgrounds. Regulations for esthetic improvement. Eliminate t r a i l e r parks from residential areas. Expand school opportunities. Prevent t r a i l e r s on l o t s . Preserve trees. Create smaller residential l o t s . Better road repair. Avoid very small l o t s . Provide community water systems. Prevent tourists from using residential areas. Provide better public access to the waterfront. Local recreation f a c i l i t i e s needed. Drainage improvement. Limit population density. PHYSICAL EVALUATIONS Subdivision Evaluation The following section includes a general evaluation of each of the seven subdivisions in the random sample. Two "innovative" subdivisions are also discussed. Photographs and plans are shown. A comparative physical evaluation in terms of location and design c r i t e r i a follows the general evaluations of this section. The Painter-Barclay i s the largest subdivision i n the sample. I t covers two major blocks of land on the waterfront, two miles north of Campbell River. Only one of the blocks was included i n the random sample. Eighty-nine permanent dwellings were recorded i n the sample block, with approximately t h i r t y empty l o t s . The questionnaire responses indicate that most residents have l i v e d there from two to f i v e years, although parts of the neighborhood are older than f i v e years. The subdivision i s two miles south of Elk F a l l s pulp m i l l , a major employer. General.Impressions The neighborhood i s generally pleasant and i n good repa i r . Streets are l a i d out i n contour with the slope toward the waterfront. The slope i s gentle, but s l i g h t l y more pronounced on the waterfront block. Streets are not well paved, and no sidewalks are provided. Wiring i s overhead, and water i s the only underground service. Storm drainage i s by a ditch and c u l v e r t system. An elementary school gymnasium and p l a y f i e l d provide recreation space for the neighborhood. The i l l u s i o n of space i s heightened by numerous vacant l o t s , although these are not well maintained. Waterfront l o t s are e x c e p t i o n a l l y deep, and houses on them are w a t e r - o r i e n t e d , so t h a t the p a r t s of the l o t s f r o n t i n g on the s t r e e t are seen as untended bush,, I n t e r i o r l o t s do not get a view of the sea. Pulp m i l l odor i s n o t i c e a b l e . Neighboring p a t t e r n s are v a r i e d , Some s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n occurs between m i l l w o r k e r s , but r e s i d e n t s are g e n e r a l l y a l o o f . There i s a d e f i n i t e p h y s i c a l break between w a t e r f r o n t and i n t e r i o r l o t s . R esidents are g e n e r a l l y s a t i s f i e d w i t h the s u b d i v i s i o n . R e s i d e n t s ' Observations A neighborhood park i s undeveloped because no system f o r maintenance was worked out by the s u b d i v i d e r who d e d i c a t e d i t . S e p t i c d i s p o s a l i s "patchy" as some l o t s have b e t t e r s o i l p e r c o l a t i o n . School i s v e r y convenient. S t r e e t l a y o u t i s adequate and s a f e f o r i n t e r n a l t r a f f i c and p e d e s t r i a n s . The l a c k o f a neighborhood s t o r e i s no problem. Beach access i s g e n e r a l l y inadequate. Storm drainage i s no problem. Shopping and Community h a l l f a c i l i t i e s i n Campbell R i v e r are "handy enough". Pulp m i l l odor and ash are a d a i l y n u i s a n c e c 800' 1600 The Oyster Bay H i l l s u b d i v i s i o n i s a t y p i c a l w a t e r f r o n t s t r i p s u b d i v i s i o n w i t h minimal i n t e r i o r l o t development. I t i s s i t u a t e d on the I s l a n d Highway t e n m i l e s south of Campbell R i v e r , and i s one m i l e i n l e n g t h . Approximately f i f t y p e r c e n t o f the l o t s are two-acre l o t s , and the r e s t range between o n e - h a l f acre and one acre i n s i z e . F i f t y permanent r e s i d e n c e s are r e c o r d e d , w i t h approximately f i f t e e n empty l o t s . The s u b d i v i s i o n was developed over a p e r i o d o f more than t e n y e a r s , so t h a t d w e l l i n g s range i n age c o n s i d e r a b l y . Length of r e s i d e n c e v a r i e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y . The n e a r e s t e s t a b l i s h e d c e n t e r i s Willow P o i n t , f i v e m i l e s to the n o r t h . General Impressions The w a t e r f r o n t p o r t i o n s o f the neighborhood are d i s t i n c t l y cut o f f from the i n t e r i o r by the highway, which runs p a r a l l e l to the w a t e r f r o n t . Waterfront r e s i d e n c e s are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y w a t e r - o r i e n t e d , while i n t e r i o r development i s highway-oriented. There i s a somewhat jumbled and d i s o r g a n i z e d appearance about r e s i d e n t i a l • d e v e l o p m e n t oh i n t e r i o r l o t s , while w a t e r f r o n t r e s i d e n c e s are almost t o t a l l y obscured by t r e e s . The t r e e s e f f e c t i v e l y reduce view opportunities for the i n t e r i o r neighborhood. Slope on the one e x i s t i n g side street i s excessive, and since i t i s unpaved, there appears to be a d i s t i n c t hazard fo r the motorist. The highway i s i n good repair, but a po t e n t i a l hazard exists with numerous drivev/ays opening d i r e c t l y onto the shoulder of the highway. During hours of heavy t r a f f i c , noise and exhaust nuisances are very d e f i n i t e l y present f o r the highway-oriented portions of the neighborhood. Overhead wiring and a community water system are supplied. A d i t c h system adequately handles storm drainage, and septic tank drainage i s good i n a l l areas. There are some very good homes on the waterfront. One residence i n the sample was temporarily vacant, and a number of retirement homes were indicated by residents. Residents are generally s a t i s f i e d with- the environment. Residents' Observations Campbell River i s too f a r away f o r shopping convenience, but most major shopping i s done there. Summer water pressures are inadequate. The highway i s a nuisance and a safety problem. A neighborhood store i s only a mile away, and quite handy. The elementary school i s quite convenient, one and a h a l f miles distant. Bus service i s provided both f o r the elementary school and f o r the secondary school i n Campbell River. There is good use (for youngsters and adults) of the elementary school gymnasium. Community h a l l f a c i l i t i e s are rarely used. Children play on the beach, and on vacant surrounding land. The beach is not as clean as i t once was, and is not ideal for swimming. Neighbors are friendly, but l i t t l e real neighboring occurs. There are a number of retirement homes along the waterfront, but generally the neighborhood is made up of younger families. Fire protection is a problem because of distance. Mothers provide a "taxi" service for children with a c t i v i t i e s i n Campbell River, The Miracle Beach subdivision is slightly less than one mile in length, with most development occurring along the waterfronto There is a single row of interior lots. The •subdivision is two miles east of the Island Highway, and almost midway between Campbell River and Courtenay. Thirty-two residences are recorded, and approximately f i f t y empty lots. Several dwellings are s t i l l in the construction stage, while others range in age up to more than ten years. The subdivision l i e s within one mile of the Miracle Beach Provincial Park. Two private waterfront resorts also occupy the area. General Impressions Most lots are slightly under one-half acre in size. Waterfront lots are generally larger than interior lots. The area is heavily wooded, and l i t t l e clearing has been done. Roads are well paved, and drainage is not seen as a problem, although standing water was noted at one roadside area. The terrain is quite f l a t , but no ditching is noted. The atmosphere is very pleasant, and the i l l u s i o n of space is maintained because of the numerous empty lots. Several waterfront vacation homes were noted, vacant for the winter. Access roads to the waterfront are unimproved and unmarked, so that they are indistinguishable from vacant lots . Most waterfront dwellings are water-oriented. Out-buildings on the street side of waterfront lots present a s l i g h t l y cluttered appearance. The neighborhood generally lacks cohesiveness because of extremely scattered development, especially on i n t e r i o r .portions. Overhead wiring is provided but there is no water service. Individual wells and septic tanks are used, with good success. The view of the water i s largely obscured from i n t e r i o r properties by trees. Residents' Observations Children are very happy here with wooded areas and waterfront as a playground. They are very independent. Traffic and pedestrian safety is excellent because of the dead-end road. Distance to employment is a definite inconvenience. Residents appreciate their privacy. Distance to school is inconvenient, even though bus- service is provided. Taxes are inequitable for services provided. There is a considerable spread i n age of residents. Major shopping is"done i n both Courtenay and Campbell River. Fire protection is a problem since only tank truck service is available at a great distance. Community h a l l f a c i l i t i e s at Black Creek are not widely used. Good use is made of Miracle Beach Provincial Park, 1. ok S U B D I V I S I O N 4 f i g . HALL ROAD 12 The H a l l Road subdivision is a very small subdivision located on the coast five miles d i r e c t l y north of Comox. It is contiguous with more extensive s t r i p subdivision along the waterfront to the north. Seven dwellings are noted, with twelve empty lots . Although a l l residences are c l a s s i f i e d permanent, observation reveals that only one is permanently occupied. The nearest major employment center is Courtenay, approximately five miles away. General Impressions The subdivision cannot yet be called a neighborhood, except during the season when the vacation homes are occupied. It has the appearance of simply having "happened", without much rational forethought. H a l l Road is p a r a l l e l to the waterfront, immediately at the top of a forty-five degree bank approximately f i f t y feet high.. It does not provide access to the eleven lots below the banko The lower lots are accessible by a steep extension of H a l l Road leading down to a waterfront right of way. A large lot in the middle of the subdivided s t r i p cuts H a l l Road in two. Roads are minimally graded and gravelled. The access pattern is not l o g i c a l . Drainage has not been well controlled, so that there is a tendency to soften road beds. Public access to the waterfront has been a l l o t t e d , but is quite impractical because of the excessive slope. Overhead wiring is provided. Individual well systems and septic tanks are used. A l l lots are water-oriented, since no i n t e r i o r lots have been created. The subdivision is largely uncleared of i t s dense tree stand, which effectively blocks the view of the water. Temporary residents and the one permanent resident are generally happy with the seclusion and privacy of their homes, but are not entirely happy with the road system. Residents' Observations The beach is the main attraction of the subdivision. There is a problem with septic disposal because of s i d e h i l l s o i l conditions. Fire protection is minimal. The waterfront access right of way is impossible to improve. Location in terms of work and business is no problem. Convenience shopping can be done at a store only two miles away, near the Comox a i r base. There is insufficient beach frontage for public use. Neighboring opportunities are l imited. "The natural environment is a treasure". Boat mooring f a c i l i t i e s are scarce. It would be desirable to keep the subdivision as natural as possible for as long as possible. The Astra Bay subdivision is large, with f a i r l y extensive development i n the i n t e r i o r as well as on the waterfront. Approximately f i f t y percent of the lots are s l i g h t l y less than one-quarter acre i n size. The others range between one-quarter and one-half acre. The subdivision is located three miles north of Gomox0 Sixty-one dwellings are recorded, and approximately forty empty l o t s . Six vacation homes are also noted. There is a considerable age spread of dwellings within the subdivision, since the Astra Bay waterfront has been occupied for many years. Some of the houses are more than twenty years old, but they are in good repair. Major employment opportunities are at the a i r base and i n Courtenay. General Impressions The neighborhood is very pleasant, with a curving street pattern conforming to the waterfront. Waterfront lots are mainly smaller than i n t e r i o r l o t s . The trees have been thinned to provide a pleasant natural setting without undergrowth. Some i n t e r i o r properties enjoy p a r t i a l views of the water, . although slopes are gentle. Only the major streets are paved. Side streets are firm and well gravelled. Overhead wiring and a community water system are provided. A gr a v e l l y s o i l base provides good natural drainage and excellent septic tank disposal. A large waterfront playground l i e s adjacent to the neighborhood, and i s reasonably well maintained by a service club. An i n t e r i o r creek with a b e l t of trees provides a backdrop f o r the i n t e r i o r portions of the subdivision. Waterfront dwellings have a dual or i e n t a t i o n , since the l o t s are not excessively large. Curving roads and trees provide an i n t e r e s t i n g use of space. Waterfront access rights-of-way are unmarked and sometimes cl u t t e r e d . There i s an abrupt, eight-foot drop to the beach, so that these rights-of-way are not altogether p r a c t i c a l unless steps are provided. Three groups of people are represented i n the neighborhood. These are a i r base personnel, r e t i r e d persons, and non-services f a m i l i e s . Casual neighboring i s quite common. Residents are very pleased with t h e i r neighborhood environment. Residents' Observations Children are very happy v/ith the neighborhood. There i s some t o u r i s t congestion every summer. Shopping i n Courtenay i s "only a ten-minute drive". The neighborhood i s e s p e c i a l l y good f o r retirement. Fishing i s a d e f i n i t e a t t r a c t i o n . H i Septic tank disposal may become a problem i n time, when a l l l o t s are b u i l t on. Community f a c i l i t i e s are convenient at the a i r base. Parents drive c h i l d r e n to Comox or Courtenay for some a c t i v i t i e s . The neighborhood s e t t i n g i s "picturesque". Natural amenities can be enjoyed without a f e e l i n g of i s o l a t i o n . The neighborhood i s a pleasant place to come home to. Creek flooding occasionally floods basements. Waterfront residents value t h e i r privacy, but i n t e r i o r residents would prefer better access to the v/aterfront. Access r i g h t s -of-way to the waterfront are sometimes clu t t e r e d . T r a f f i c problems are almost non-existent. Street l i g h t i n g at intersections i s adequate. The subdivision i s situated on a topographically rugged block of land which runs contiguous with Goose Spit i n Comox Bay. Geographically, the area l i e s approximately one mile east of Comox, Seven dwellings are noted, and approximately t h i r t y empty l o t s . Residences are f i v e years old or l e s s . The nearest major area of employment i s Courtenay, seven miles distant. General Impressions Because of factors related to topography and vegetation t h i s subdivision seems much more remote than i t r e a l l y i s . There are two d i s t i n c t areas within the subdivision. F i f t y percent of the area i s on a high slope overlooking Goose Spi t . I t has patchy stands of mixed trees, and several steep, grassy slopes are noted. The r e s t of the subdivision l i e s i n the i n t e r i o r , covered i n a healthy stand of moderately t a l l timber. This part i s l a i d out i n g r i d fashion, while the portion of the subdivision on the slopes has contoured s t r e e t s . No dwellings have been b u i l t i n the i n t e r i o r portion. Lot sizes range between one-half acre and one acre. Street slopes are quite extreme i n some areas, and may present seasonal problems. Ditching has not been used. Roadbeds have a firm gravelly base, but are exceptionally narrow in many spots. Residences are exclusively designed and are oriented to the view down the slope. Overhead wiring is provided, but individual well systems are used. Septic tank disposal is excellent because of sandy s o i l conditions. The dedicated roads have not been f u l l y developed. Unimproved slopes are rather wild-looking and untended. Level play space is somewhat l imited, and the topographical separation between dwellings may act as a deterrent to casual neighboring. There is a strong impression of abundant space and i n d i v i d u a l i t y . The view from the slope is excellent, and the forested i n t e r i o r is pleasant.' People are very pleased with the natural amenities of their environment. Residents' Observations The v/oods and the beach are good places for children, but the subdivision is perhaps somewhat lonely for children. Shopping and recreation centers are three miles away by road. Fire protection is inadequate because of the lack of sufficient water. Ground water is scarce i n dry years. Tourist traff ic i n summer is a minor annoyance because of the deadend street. Neighbors are both friendly and helpful. The neighborhood is a very relaxing place. Streets are muddy i n winter. Access to the heach i s inadequate. "There i s always something i n t e r e s t i n g " i n the view over the hay. The Fanny Bay subdivision i s an old s t r i p development almost t o t a l l y fronting on the Island Highway, f i f t e e n miles south of Courtenay. Seventeen residences are recorded, with only two empty l o t s . Dwellings range i n age from three years to more than f i f t e e n years. Questionnaire responses indicate that some residents have l i v e d there a long time, A shake m i l l i n the immediate v i c i n i t y provided some employment i n the past, but major employment now i s In Courtenay. A r a i l r o a d right-of-way touches the back of most l o t s . General.Impressions The neighborhood i s very r u r a l i n appearance, with some signs of aging and d i s r e p a i r . A l l driveways open onto the highway which i s heavily t r a v e l l e d i n peak periods. Some lo t s slope rather sharply toward the highway. The view of the bay i s p a r t i a l l y obscured by a mixed second growth of trees and scrub, A flooded stump f i e l d presents a somewhat unpleasant view f o r those residents immediately opposite. Lots range i n size from one-half acre to more than one acre. Overhead wiring is provided. Water is obtained from individual well systems and from a small creek. Septic tank disposal is not entirely satisfactory. Ditching along the highway is moderately well maintained. An old school site and a community h a l l provide indoor and outdoor recreation opportunities, and since lots are large there is an abundance of space generally, A neighborhood store and service station are located at the north end of the subdivision. The nearest public access to a beach is two miles away. An elementary school is located at Union Bay, six miles distant. Fire protection is l imited. Residences are very much highway-oriented, and t r a f f i c noises are seen as a l o c a l nuisance. Casual neighboring appears to be quite common, and a l o c a l "pub" within a mile provides some s o c i a l opportunities for the adult population. Residents are moderately happy with the r u r a l atmosphere, but not altogether sat isf ied with the neighborhood. Residents' Observations The r u r a l aspects of the subdivision offer good opportunities for children to enjoy themselves outdoors. Schools are too far av/ay for convenience. Residents are "proud" of their community h a l l . Beach access is inadequate. The neighborhood is isolated and somewhat "lonely". Individual water systems sometimes cause problems. T r a f f i c n o i s e s are a nuisance u n t i l r e s i d e n t s become accustomed to them. There i s a l a c k of l o c a l employment. The c o s t of housing would be much h i g h e r i n town. R e t i r e d people can b e t t e r a f f o r d to l i v e here. Some r e s i d e n t s would p r e f e r to l i v e i n town, or a t l e a s t c l o s e r to town. "Innovative" Subdivisions A select sample of two subdivisions.with "innovative" features was chosen for discussion. It should be noted that these "innovative" features are not innovative i n the broad sense of the word, They are, however, features which have not been observed elsewhere i n the study area, and for this reason they merit a b r i e f , subjective discussion. Since the subdivisions in question are very l i g h t l y sett led, to date, i t is not yet possible to assess the reactions of residents to the design features used. The developers of the projects are reasonably optimistic about the success of their subdivisions. The Craigdarroch Eeach subdivision is located seven miles south of Courtenay, on the Island Highway. The entire property intended for subdivision is a s t r i p of waterfront, approximately two thousand feet by six hundred feet. The i n i t i a l phase of subdivision involves a waterfront s t r i p of one hundred by nine hundred feet. Special permission was obtained by the developer to permit the consolidation of the required public access r i g h t s -of-way to the waterfront. Thus the developer was able to create a single, two hundred foot access s t r i p in place of the f i f t y foot rights-of-way at regular intervals as normally required. Alternating "panhandle" lots were then created. The "handle" is a twenty foot s t r i p . With this method of lot design, two rows of lots enjoy direct access to the beach. In conventional designs, second-row residents have had to rely on public access points. Third-row residents i n this subdivision w i l l be somewhat restricted i n their use of the waterfront. They w i l l , however, have direct access to the two hundred foot public s i t e . Third-row lots w i l l back onto the highway for better i n t e r i o r orientation. Overhead wiring and a water system are provided. Most lots are selectively cleared and wide gravelled streets have been constructed. Second growth deciduous trees provide a pleasant setting for the potential neighborhood. Ships Point subdivision l i e s on a peninsula f i f t e e n miles south of Courtenay. The subdivision covers almost the entire body of the peninsula. Lot sizes average approximately one-half acre. The waterfront access roads have been mainly consolidated at three separate s i t e s . In addition, one t h i r t y foot access road and one pedestrian walkway have been provided to the waterfront. Two i n t e r i o r parks have been dedicated. This feature i s not commonly found i n the study area. The parks are unimproved "nature" parks, and have been made accessible from a l l parts of the subdivision by the use of pedestrian walkways. I t i s assumed that residents w i l l f i n d these to be an a t t r a c t i v e part of t h e i r neighborhood. Very l i t t l e c l e a r i n g has been done i n t h i s whole development. Overhead wiring and a community water system are provided. Roads are firm and heavily gravelled. Drainage i s not considered to be a problem i n the area, since there i s a g r a v e l l y s o i l base. Curving drives and a healthy stand of second-growth trees help to create an e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing environment. Comparative Evaluation of Subdivisions The methods used to arrive at a f i n a l comparative evaluation of the location and design of the sample subdivisions are based on a study conducted i n the Vancouver Metropolitan area i n 1965.^ Appendix D gives a detailed description of these methods. The following tables show: 1) the location (in miles) of employment, community f a c i l i t i e s , schools, and shopping for each sample subdivision,, 2) The weighted locational evaluation for each sample subdivision i n terms of. convenience, amenities, and safety. 3) The weighted3 evaluation of the subdivision design for each sample subdivision i n terms of land use; block and lot pattern; vehicular and pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n . x School of Community and Regional Planning, Residential  Land Subdivision. ^Weighting is described i n Appendix D. SAMPLE SUBDIVISION LOCATIONS. IN MILES SUBDIVISION "MODEL 1 2 •3 4 5 6 7 EMPLOYMENT 1-20 2 £ 10 16 5 5 7 1 5 MAJOR SHOPPING 1-4 2 i 10, 16 5 5 3 1 5 CONVENIENCE SHOPPING f - 3 / 4 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i - i I lh 3 5 2 3 6 SECONDARY SCHOOL 3A-2-! 21 10 16 5 5 7 17 PLAYGROUND j. i - i — 2 1 1* 3 3 i . • i 3 i_ PLAYFIELD 3/4-1i JL H 3 5 3 1 2" COMMUNITY PARK i-2 10 3 5 D 3 1 5 DISTRICT PARK 3 3 5 1 10 1 7 1 7 17 CHURCHES 1 - 3 * 2 10 3 3 2 3 6 COMMUNITY HALL 3 / 4 - U 2h 10 3 2 3 2 RATING AND RANKING OF SAMPLE SUBDIVISION LOCATIONS SUBDIVISION MODEL 1 2 3 4 ' . 5 6 7 CONVENIENCE 60% 6 0 2 3 . ^ 1 2 3 . 0 1 3 5 . 3 2 3 2 . 2 7 2 9 . 6 3 2 5 . 1 2 AMENITY (ADJACENT LAND USE) 15% 3 6 12 6 3 9 3 AMENITY (ACCESS ROUTES) 15vo 6 6 1 2 6 3 . 6 9 SAFETY (FIRE PROTECTION) 10% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL % RATING 100% 7 0 3 6 . 4 1 4 8 . 0 1 48.82 3 9 . 2 7 4 5 . 6 3 3 8 . 1 2 RANKING 1 7 3 2 5 4 6 TABLE 12 RATING AND RANKING OF SAMPLE SUBDIVISION DESIGNS SUBDIVISION MODEL 1 • 2 3 4 5 . 6 7 f in streets _ + l4 +9 +7 + 1 3 +21 + 1 9 +12 LAND USE ' f c o l l e c t o r s — - 1 6 -20 -13 - 5 . 5 -14 -16 -20 f public open space - - 1 . 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 2 . 5 - 5 -2 Lot size - - - — _ l - - -Lot shape - - - - - - - -Easements - -1 -2 - - - - -BLOCK AND Block length - -2 - 3 - - 1 -2 LOT PATTERN Curving streets - - 5 -3 -2 - -4 -2 -2 Lots abutting side and rear yards - - - - - - - -Buffer s t r i p s - - -1 — • — - - -1 Intersections — -1 - - . 5 - - . 2 5 - . 2 5 -Blind Corners - - -1 - - l - 3 -2 -VEHICULAR Steep grades - - - - - l - - 1 • -CIRCULATION Points of entry - - - - - - • - -Offstreet parking - - - - - - _4 -Street width - - - 6 - -2 - -Slope _ _ — _ — — — ' — PEDESTRIAN Sidewalks _ -1 _1 -1 - 1 -1 -1 -1 TOTAL 0 -13.5 -33 -19.5 -3.5 -6.75 -14.2 5 -16 RANKING 3 7 6 1 2 4 5 It should be noted that the location and design comparisons of the sample subdivisions are based on a hypothetical "model" subdivision which might be found i n a typical metropolitan urban setting. In the case of location evaluation, the "model" has a weighted evaluation equal to one hundred percent. For design evaluation, the "model" has weighted characteristics equal to zero. Ranking of the sample subdivisions was accomplished by comparison to the "model" subdivision. It is seen that ranking differs s ignif icantly between location and design characterist ics. This implies that some subdivisions are more satisfactory in terms of design, but less satisfactory in terms of location. At the same time others may be more s a t i s f a c t o r i l y located, but may be less s a t i s f a c t o r i l y designed. The comparative tables also reveal that the highest ranking subdivisions f a l l considerably short of the desired characteristics exhibited i n the "model" urban subdivision. The f i n a l combined ranking of the sample subdivisions for location and design is as follows: Subdivision: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rank: 2 7 5 1 3 4 - 6 The descriptive evaluations in this chapter have shown that most subdivisions are minimally serviced. Paved roads are not provided in a l l cases, nor is a community water system common to a l l subdivisions. Septic tank systems are normally used, with success dependent on s o i l characterist ics. It has been hypothesized that subdivisions in the r u r a l areas of Community Planning Area Number 14 do not conform to location and design standards for urban subdivisions. Evaluations have shown this to be true. It is seen, however, that the sample subdivisions a l l contain at least some features which conform with accepted standards. Employment distance for a l l subdivisions f a l l s well within the range permitted by the "model". The location of other f a c i l i t i e s is greatly varied i n each subdivision, and i t is apparent that this factor has not been of great importance either to the subdivider or to the residents i n their locational decisions. Design features also - generally f a l l short of the hypothetical requirements of the "model". It is seen, however, that a l l the subdivisions f a l l well within the acceptable range of land percentage al lotted to streets. The non-conformity appears to be i n collector roads, which appear to have the capacity of serving greater concentrations of people. Public open space is consistently lacking within the subdivisions. In the eyes.of the residents, however, this may be offset by the wealth of private, but undeveloped open space around them. The residents are pleased with the existing residential environment, and have made a conscious decision to accept their s i tuation. This suggests that their personal values and preferences are more f u l l y s a t i s f i e d by r u r a l amenities than by the urban a t t r i b u t e s which are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the " i d e a l " r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision. CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY Summary It has "been shown i n the course of this study that Community Planning Area Number lk has undergone significant urbanization in r u r a l areas during the past decade. These changes have been largely i n the nature of speculative subdivision of land for residential purposes. Development in r u r a l areas has been accompanied by similar growth In and adjacent to established urban areas. From the observations made i n the sample subdivisions of this study, i t is suggested that approximately forty percent of subdivided lots i n r u r a l areas do not yet have dwellings on them, nor is there any indication that dwellings w i l l be immediately b u i l t . It has been observed, however, that the land market has been extremely vigorous and competitive to the present time. Some sources have indicated a continuing readiness on the part of one-lot speculators to buy and hold vacant lots i n the hope of a quick and substantial p r o f i t . The turnover of vacant lots on waterfront sites during the past five years would suggest that such speculators have been amply rewarded for their efforts. Land development companies and individual developers have implied that they feel land development is pursuing a normal and desirable course i n Community Planning Area Number 14, and that the problem of uncontrolled development does not exist. They acknowledge, however, that there is a great abundance of subdivided land, and that speculative .development continues to thrive.on the creation of r u r a l residential lots with unique amenities such as those found i n waterfront areas. Developers have revealed a definite preference for raw land with natural amenities, and i t is implied that they are s l i g h t l y resentful of crown reserves and timber holdings which remain effectively unavailable for development. The strong philosophy of unrestricted growth appears to obscure the consideration of possible irreversible and irremediable consequences, as in the loss of public waterfront access and recreation space. The concern of l o c a l p o l i t i c a l bodies has been shown by the Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona 3oard of Directors' attempts to curb "out of control" development by the immediate imposition of a moratorium to r e s t r i c t subdivision within the unorganized t e r r i t o r y of Community Planning Area Number 14. The intention was not to impede regional development, but rather to "buy" sufficient time to permit the planning and establishment of rat ional pol ic ies and controls. On the basis of such p o l i t i c a l concern, i t became expedient to examine existing r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l areas in the course of this study, as a preliminary step i n providing guidelines for policy formulation. It was reasoned that the "success" of existing neighborhoods could be measured, and physical evaluations of subdivisions would then indicate what services and amenities were essential to make subdivisions i n r u r a l areas "work". The hypothesis was put forward that r u r a l area residential subdivisions do not conform to the standards of urban subdivisions, but that they f u l f i l l the needs of the residents nevertheless. In order to test the hypothesis, both physical and s o c i a l surveys were made i n subdivisions sampled from the study area. In the physical survey, subdivisions were found to be considerably lacking i n the services and amenities which urban dwellers take for granted. It was found, on the other hand, that there were some natural amenities (particularly the waterfront and the v/oods) which def initely enhanced the environment. The location of subdivisions was not found to be excessively remote, i n most cases, and access was reasonably good. layout designs generally gave evidence to the fact that subdivisions were wholly l a i d out in patterns conforming to such major features as waterfront or.highway. It was also seen that i n t e r i o r lot development was much slower than was waterfront development. Hence, the effective alienation of vast stretches of shoreline from future public enjoyment. During the s o c i a l survey of residents in the subdivisions, i t was immediately noted that they were very hospitable and cooperative during door-to-door c a l l s . It was also learned that many residences, although c l a s s i f i e d permanent, were temporarily vacant during the winter months. Residents were found to definitely appreciate the semi-rural atmosphere which prevailed in their neighborhoods. It was also found that they were exceptionally attached to the general area in which they l i v e . Few, however, would choose a l i f e i n town within the same area. Residents found i t d i f f i c u l t to perceive of a future, when a l l the lots now empty around them would be f u l l . Most would resist such changes, i f given the opportunity to do so. Conclusions Several overall conclusions are made in relat ion to the preliminary investigations of this study. The f i r s t is that the Regional D i s t r i c t Board of Directors was correct i n •assuming that development in Community Planning Area Number 14 is "out of control". This is borne out both by observation and by the developers' own acknowledgement of extensive current activity? A second conclusion suggests that while developers have a genuine concern for sound regional development and conservation, the profi t motive and the growth ideal continues to overrule good intentions. The third conclusion is that the consequences of past uncontrolled development are extensive and i r r e v e r s i b l e , but both developers and legis lat ive bodies w i l l accept planning measures for future development. For the developer this would mean market s t a b i l i t y and specific guidelines, and for the l e g i s l a t o r i t would mean more rat ional development.' A f i n a l overall conclusion suggests that environmental considerations are growing concerns even in the r e l a t i v e l y sparse settlements of the study area. Further conclusions are made which are central to the hypothesis of this study. It has been possible to show that the subdivisions examined in this study do not conform to accepted planning standards and principles for location and design. It is also concluded that the obvious lack of certain services and f a c i l i t i e s is greatly offset by equally obvious natural.amenities. The resident's appreciation for these natural amenities tends to make him accept, without complaint, any physical inconvenience which he may experience. The needs and wants of residents in the subdivisions under study appear to dif fer from the needs of people who choose to settle in urban environments. A high level of satisfaction prevails among residents of the r u r a l subdivision neighborhoods of Community Planning Area Number Ik. Where deficiencies are seen, they are accepted as normal, and suggestions for change and improvement are expressed quite tentatively. There appears to be a marked tendency to r e s i s t change or further extensive development because of- a strong emphasis on personal space and privacy. The hypothesis has stated that: RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IN RURAL AREAS OF COMMUNITY PLANNING' AREA NUMBER Ik NOT CONFORMING TO COMMONLY ACCEPTED PLANNING STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES FOR LOCATION AND DESIGN SATISFY THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS. From the foregoing conclusions i t is possible to say that the hypothesis is true. It is therefore concluded that pol ic ies for future development i n the r u r a l areas of Community Planning Area Number Ik must take into account the needs and wants of that particular group of persons who w i l l choose to l ive in the semi-rural circumstances described by this study. Sources Consulted A. BOOKS Alonso, William. Location and Land Use; Toward a General Theory of Rent. Cambridge! Harvard University Press, 1964. Bergel, Egon Ernest. Urban Sociology. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955. 3eyer, Glenn H. Housing and Society. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1965. 31alock, Hubert M. S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, i960 Boskoff, A l v i n , The Sociology of Urban Regions. New York: Meredith Publishing Company, 1962 Chapin F. Stuart, J r . , and Weiss, Shi r l e y F., ed. Urban Growth Dynamics, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962 Doran, Herbert B. and Hinman, Albert G. Urban Land Economics. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1928. . . Duncan, Otis Dudley and Reiss, Albert J., Jr, So c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Urban and Rural Communities, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956. Eldredge, H. Went'worth, ed. Taming Megalopolis, Vol. I I . Anchor Books. New York: Doubldday and Company, Inc., 1967 Ericksen, E, Gordon. Urban Behavior. New York: The MacMillan Company, 195^• Finney, D . J . , Latscha, R. , Bennett, 3.M. , and Hsu,. P., ed. Tables for Testing Significance i n a 2 X 2 Contingency Table. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Gall ion, Arthur 3. The Urban Pattern. Princeton, N . J . : D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., 1962 Gans, Herbert J . People and Plans. New York: Basic Books, Inc. , 1968 Goode, William J . and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1952. Gottman, Jean and Harper, Robert A. Metropolis on the Move. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967. Hennessy, Bernard C. Public Opinion. C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1965. Higbee, Edward. The Squeeze. Toronto: George J . McLeod L t d . , i960 Johnson, James H. Urban Geography. New York: Pergamon Press L t d . , I 9 6 7 . Kahn, Sanders A . , Case, Frederick E . , and Schimmel, Alfred. Real Estate Appraisal and Investment. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1963. K e l l e r , Suzanne. The Urban Neighborhood. Toronto: Random House of Canada L t d . , 1968. Lean, William. Economics of Land Use Planning. London: The Estates Gazette L t d . , 1969. Perloff, Karvey S., ed. The Quality of The Urban Environment. Resources for the Future, Inc. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins' Press, 1969. , and Wingo, Lowden, J r . , ed. Issues i n Urban Economics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968, Robinson, Edward J , Public Relations and Survey Research. Appleton - Century - Crofts. New York: Meredith Corporation, 1 9 6 9 . Saroff, Jerome R. and Levitan, Alberta Z. Survey Manual for Comprehensive Urban Planning. Institute of Social , Economic and Government Research. College, Alaska: University of Alaska, 1969. Schmid, A, A l l a n . Converting -Land from Rural to Urban Uses. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1968. S e l l t i z , C l a i r e : Jahoda, Marie; Deutch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart W. Research. Methods i n Social Relations. Revised. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I 9 6 7 . Siegel, S, Non-Parametric Stat ist ics for the Behavioral Sciences. New .York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. Urban Land Institute. Home Builders 1 Manual for Land Development. Second Revised E d i t i o n , Washington: National Association of Home Builders, 1 9 5 3 . Vogel, Joshua H. Design of Subdivisions. Bureau of Governmental Research and Services, Seattle: University of Washington, Warren, Roland L . , ed. Perspectives on the American Community. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966, Webber, Melvin Explorations into Urban Structure. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Press, 1 9 6 4 . Weimer, Arthur M. and. Hoyt, Homer,, Real Estate. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1 9 6 6 . Wheeler, Michael, ed. The Right to Housing;. Montreal: Harvest ' House, I969. 3. NEWSPAPERS AND JOURNALS Campbell River Upper Islander. (July 1 5 , July 2 2 , 1 9 7 0 ) Comox D i s t r i c t Free Press. (July 1 5 , J u l y 2 9 , 1 9 7 0 ; March 1 7 , 1 9 7 1 ) Yearwood, Richard M. "Accepted Controls of Land Subdivision". Journal of Urban Law Vol, 4 5 ('Winter 1 9 6 7 ) . "Land, Speculation, and Development: American Attitudes." Plan: Journal of T . P . I . C . Vol. 9 (Spring 1 9 6 8 ) . "Performance Bonding for Subdivision Improvements". Journal of Urban Law Vol. 46 ( F a l l 1969) . "Subdivision Lav/: Timing and Location Control". Journal of Urban Law Vol. 44 (Summer 1 9 6 7 ) . C. STUDIES AND REPORTS Armiger, Louis E a r l . "Toward a Model of the Residential Location Decision Process: A Study of Recent and Prospective Buyers of New and Used Homes." Chapel H i l l : Thesis. University of North Carolina, i 9 6 0 . Benjamin, K.C. "An Aspect of the Social Implications of Residential Area Planning: A Technique to Assess the „ Ideal Role of Neighbor." Vancouver: Thesis. University •of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970. Chapin, F. Stuart, J r . ; Hemrnens, George C. ; and Weiss, Shirley F. . _ , Land Development Patterns i n the Piedmont Industrial Crescent. Chapel H i l l : Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina, i 9 6 0 . , , and Weiss, Shirley F, Factors Influencing Land Development: Evaluation of Inputs 'for a Forecast Model. Chapel H i l l : Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina, 1962. Endersby, Stanley. "Kitimat, B.C. : An Evaluation of i t s Physical Planning and Development." Vancouver: M.Sc. Thesis. University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1965. Harbeston, Jack and Schlatter, Gerald R. Large Lot Residential i n the Central Puget Sound Region: Project Open Space. Seattle: Puget Sound Regional Planning Council, 1964. Kaiser,"Edward J . , and Massie, Ronald W. Landowner Behavior: Factors in the Decision to Hold or S e l l Property on 'the Urban Fringe. Chapel H i l l : Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, I 9 6 S . Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of B.C. Countryside to Suburb. New Westminster: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1963. l . Dynamics of Residential Land Settlement. New Westminste .Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1963. . Land for Living. New Westminster? Lower Mainland .Regional Planning Board, 1 9 6 3 . The Urban Frontier, Parts 1 and 2. New Westminster? Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1 9 6 3 . Pearson, Norman. "The Servicing Cost Consequences of Several Residential Development Patterns and their Implications for Municipal Goals and P o l i c i e s . " Vancouver: M.A. Thesis. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 5 . What Price Suburbia? New Westminster: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1 9 6 7 . School of Community and Regional Planning, Residential Land Subdivision? A Physical Evaluation. Community- and Regional Planning Studies. Staff Research Project 2. Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 5 . , Planning for Regional Development in B r i t i s h Columbia; With Special Application to Northern Vancouver Island. Community and R e gional Planning Studies.' Student Project 5» Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 5 . . Planning for Regional Development on Vancouver Island. Community and Regional Planning Studies. Student Projec 7 , Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 8 . Stollenwerk, Donald A, Cost Factors in the Choice of Subdivision Locations by Residential Developers. Chapel H i l l : University of North Carolina, 1964. Weiss, Shirley F . ; Kenny, Kenneth B.; and Steffens, Roger C. Consumer Preference in Residential Location: A Preliminary Investigation of the Home Purchase Decision. Chapel H i l l : C e nter for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, 1 9 6 6 , Williams, ""Robert. ""Social" Effect of Subdivision Design.* '•'-'^ a>?sou'v:er: ''i-f;A. t h e s i s , • University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 5 3 . D. OTHER SOURCES Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , B r i t i s h Columbia. S t a t i s t i c s  Relating to Regional and Municipal Governments in "•-' B r i t i s h Columbia". V i c t o r i a : Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , 197 0 . **An Outline of''"the Role of the Regional D i s t r i c t i n the Local Government Structure." V i c t o r i a : Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , 1 9 7 1 . Lane, W.T. ""Procedure for Subdividing Land within Municipalit ies. F i l e : Richmond: The Corporation of the Township of Richmond., 1 9 7 0 . .Regional 'District of Comox-Strathcona. A Land Use Plan and Development Controls: E l e c t o r a l Area " I " . V i c t o r i a : R e gional Planning D i v i s i o n , Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , 1 9 7 0 . -File : '""Community Planning Area Number 14. " Courtenay, 1 9 7 0 . A P P E N D I X A REGIONAL DISTRICTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA This foreword is intended to be an addendum to the material contained in this prospective. For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the Province of British Columbia, particularly as it may be related to local government, the following facts arc intended to place the situation in some perspective:— The Province covers a very large area of some 366,000 square miles, being roughly 700 miles long by 500 miles wide. It is almost entirely within the Cordilleran Region and because of its mountainous nature less than 2 per cent is arable farm land. The major base resources are the vast softwood timber lands, minerals, oii, and natural gas, and some 32,000,000 kilowatts of potential water power—about .one-third of the national total. Because of the to-pography, people have settled mainly in numerous communities in the various valleys. Portions of these valleys have been established as municipalities and these comprise just over one-half of 1 per cent of the land area but contain 80 per cent of the population. Our local government structure consists of incorpo-rated municipalities (cities, towns, villages, and dis-tricts), school districts, regional districts, improvement districts, and a number of special purpose districts. Excluding the northwest corner of the Province which borders the Alaska panhandle, the remainder of the Province is divided up into 70 school districts and 28 regional districts. This in effect means that a number of regional dis-tricts encompass the same area as two or three school districts. These, if you like, are superimposed upon the municipalities and the non-municipal areas of the Province. Improvement districts have been created to provide usually a single service such as water or fire protection for a non-municipal community. Lastly, the single-purpose districts have been likewise estab-lished to provide a common service for a number of municipalities, for example, water on a wholesale basis to the members. In the course of time the regional districts "should gradually take over from the single-purpose districts and the improvement districts. It will be noted that the local government structure is fairly straightforward and uncomplicated and in time should become even more so. Turning now to regional districts, legislation was introduced in 1965 which made it possible to provide a federated approach to local control over problems transcending municipal boundaries in eilher a metro-politan area or in a non-metropolitan trading area. The structure was patterned after that employed in the case of single-purpose districts such as the Greater Vancouver Water District. However, two basic changes were made to this pattern. First, a single regional district and its governing board could be responsible for more than one activity or function, and secondly, non-municipal areas could be represented on the board and participate in its activities as if it were a municipality. Representation on the board is by appointment of the municipal council of one or more of its members as determined by its quota on the board and by direct election in the case of non-municipal areas which for the purpose of these districts are designated electoral areas. Voting strength or rights on the board are roughly proportional to the population of the member municipality or electoral area. Decisions of the board are usually on the basis of a majority of the votes, although for some purpose it may require a majority of directors having a majority of the votes. One member of the board (called a director) may carry a maximum of five votes. In 1967, legislation was introduced which pro-vided for a companion corporation to assume the local responsibility for. providing hospitals, with the two corporations having a common board. In 1968, provision was made for the consolidation of the two corporations, but to date this has not been imple-mented. : One distinction between the two is that in the case of the hospital function all member areas must partici-pate on a common basis. For regional districts a member area may or may not participate in any given function at its own option, and costs for a function are shared only by those who are participating. Most of the powers of a regional board are set out in Letters Patent because they both do and continue to vary as between regions. Regional districts recover their expenditures either by the sale of a commodity or service, for example, water, or by requisitioning from the member municipality, or from the Provincial Government in the case of non-municipal areas, for ultimate imposition by taxation through the Provincial properly tax or through municipal taxes. Since regional districts in a real sense are a substi-tution for individual municipal costs and expenditures, they do not represent an added cost and to the extent that there are economies of scale they should represent a reduction over what might otherwise be the situation. Legislation was enacted in . 1969 establishing the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, the members of which are appointed by the Regional District Boards throughout the Province. The object of the Authority is to provide financing of water, sewers, and pollution control and abatement facilities for the regional districts and their member munici-palities by the issue of debentures or other evidence of indebtedness and lending the proceeds to those areas on whose request the financing is undertaken. Further information regarding the operation and activities of regional districts may be found in the annual report of the Department of Municipal Affairs and in the annual report of financial and other statistics of municipalities and regional districts in British Co-lumbia. Both of these publications are available through the Department. AN OUTLINE OF THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE A regional d i s t r i c t has two primary roles»-FIRSTLY -I t i s the regional governmental i n s t i t u t i o n . In t h i s r o l e - the region i s welded into a single governmental unit - the views of a l l the people can be expressed (both municipal and non-municipal) - representation and a voice i n regional a f f a i r s i s given to the non-municipal members of the region. SECONDLY -The regional d i s t r i c t provides the means of co-ordinating e x i s t i n g services and may undertake to provide services or f a c i l i t i e s used j o i n t l y by two or more member areas. In t h i s role - the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y divides into two parts. (1) co-ordination of e x i s t i n g services between two or more m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , or a municipality and i t s non-municipal f r i n g e . (2) provision of new services common to the whole region or to "greater communities", comprising perhaps two or more municipalities or a municipality and i t s non-municipal fringe, without regard to e x i s t i n g boundaries but with regard to the benefit of the service to the "greater community". THE FOUR SERVICE ROLES OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICT (1) Regional Services - works or services for the whole of the region. - regulatory powers extending to a l l of the non-municipal areas of the region and to those municipalities within the region which choose to delegate s p e c i f i c regulatory powers to the regional d i s t r i c t . (2) Sub-Regional Services - works or services f o r parts of the region (greater community areas comprising one or more mu n i c i p a l i t i e s and neighbouring non-municipal communities) - regulatory powers fo r parts of the region (3) Contract Services - c e n t r a l i z e d services (equipment and/or personnel) on a contract basis for m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and improvement d i s t r i c t s within the region,, (4) Local Community Services - works and services for non-municipal communities within the region. A FEW APPLICATIONS OF THE SERVICE ROLES OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICT  A. FULLY REGIONAL SERVICES (over the whole) - hospitals (by way of companion Regional Hospital D i s t r i c t (Regional Hopsital D i s t r i c t s Act) - regional parks (Regional Parks Act) - environmental management (regional planning services and the development of the regional plan) - community planning services -(building regulations and land use controls i n the non-municipal areas) - fireworks and firearms regulation - health and s a n i t a t i o n regulations and pest control - recreation programmes - grants-in-aid (tourism/industrial promotion etc.) - co-ordination of multi-regional services (Federal/Provincial development or aid programmes) - l i b r a r y service - c i v i l defence (and those services i n B 0.below that lend themselves to f u l l y regional application) B. SUB-REGIONAL SERVICES (for greater communities) - water supply and/or d i s t r i b u t i o n f a c i l i t i e s - sewage disposal and/or c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t i e s - garbage disposal f a c i l i t i e s - recreation f a c i l i t i e s - f i r e protection service - ambulance service (and those services i n A. above that lend themselves to sub-regional application) C. CONTRACT SERVICES (for mu n i c i p a l i t i e s and improvement d i s t r i c t s ) - c e n t r a l i z e d s t a f f i n g (planning of engineering, and assessment services, b u i l d i n g inspection, etc.) - ce n t r a l i z e d purchasing - equipment pools, data centers - borrowing on behalf of member muni c i p a l i t i e s D. LOCAL COMMUNITY SERVICES (for non-municipal communities) - waterworks systems - sewer systems - f i r e protection service - garbage c o l l e c t i o n and disposal service - recreation f a c i l i t i e s - s t r e e t l i g h t i n g service A few examples of services that may be provided on a j o i n t basis through the regional d i s t r i c t and shared between one or more muni c i p a l i t i e s and/or a municipality and neighbouring non-municipal areas. - water supply - sewage disposal - recreation programmes - f i r e protection - ambulance service - refuse disposal and/or c o l l e c t i o n - recreation f a c i l i t i e s - parks - s p e c i a l i z e d personnel - s p e c i a l i z e d equipment and services February, 1 9 7 1 Department of Municipal A f f a i r s . APPENDIX B COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA NUMBER 14 REGULATIONS D i v i s i o n (1) General 1.01 In accordance with the provisions of the "Local Services Act" being chapter 224 of the Revised Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia, i 9 6 0 , these regulations apply to Community Planning Area Number 14 from the date of pub l i c a t i o n i n the Gazette. 1.02 B r i t i s h Columbia Regulation 228/59 i s amended by s t r i k i n g out Section 1 and su b s t i t u t i n g : "1 . These regulations apply to Community Planning Areas Numbers 4, 9 , 12, 13, 15 and 16V. 1.03 These regulations s h a l l apply to the area described as follows: Commencing at the north-east corner of Lot 13» Newcastle D i s t r i c t , being a point on the highwater mark of Deep Bay on the easterly shore of Vancouver Island: thence southerly along the easterly boundaries of Lots 13, 72 and 87 to the south-east corner of said Lot 87; thence westerly along the southerly boundary of said Lot 87 to the most southerly south-west corner thereof; thence northerly and westerly along the westerly and southerly boundaries of said Lot 87 to the south-east corner of Lot 95 J thence westerly and northerly along the southerly and westerly boundaries of said Lot 95 to the north-west corner thereof; thence northerly, westerly and northerly along the westerly, woutherly and westerly boundaries of Lot 87 to the north-west corner thereof; thence westerly, northerly and easterly along the southerly, westerly and northerly boundaries of Lot 79 to the south-west corner of Lot 47; thence northerly along the westerly boundary of said Lot 47 to the north-west corner thereof; thence westerly and northerly along the southerly and westerly boundaries of Lots 6A and 48 to the north-west corner of said Lot 48; thence westerly and northerly along the southerly and westerly boundaries of Lot 3 7 G , Section2, and Lots 31G, 12, 9 and 8, Nelson D i s t r i c t to the north-west corner of Lot 8; thence westerly along the southerly boundaries of Section 6 and Lot 18 to the south-west corner of said Lot 18j thence northerly along the westerly boundary of said Lot 18 to the north-easterly l i m i t of the B.C. Power Commission Right-of-Way as shown on Plan 931 on f i l e i n the Land Registry O f f i c e , V i c t o r i a ; thence north-westerly along the said north-easterly l i m i t of the B.C. Power Commission Right-of-W ay as shown on Plans 9 3 1 R W and 934 R , / to the southerly boundary of Section 29, Township 11j thence westerly along the woutherly boundaries of Sections 29 and 30, Township 11 to the north-east corner of Lot 24; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly boundaries of Lot 24 and Section 3 to the highwater mark on the easterly shore of A l l e n Lake; thence i n a general north-westerly d i r e c t i o n along the highwater mark on the easterly and northerly shores of said A l l e n Lake to the middle l i n e of Perseverance Creek; thence i n a general north-westerly d i r e c t i o n along the said middle l i n e of Perseverance Creek.to the southerly boundary of Lot 24; thence westerly and northerly along the southerly and westerly boundaries of said Lot 24 to the north-west corner thereof; thence westerly along the southerly boundary of F r a c t i o n a l Section 28, Township 10, Comox D i s t r i c t to the easterly boundary of Block 239; thence northerly along the said e asterly boundary of Block 239 to the highwater mark on the southerly shore of Comox Lake; thence i n a general easterly, northerly and westerly d i r e c t i o n along the highwater mark on the southerly, easterly and northerly shores of Comox Lake to the middle l i n e of Puntledge River; thence i n a general northerly d i r e c t i o n along the said middle l i n e of Puntledge River to the north-easterly l i m i t of the B..C. Power Commission Right-of-Way as shown on Registered Plan 510 R W» thence i n a general north-westerly d i r e c t i o n along the said north-easterly l i m i t of the B.C. Power Commission Right-of-Way as shown on P]_ans 5 1 0 R W , 5 0 9 R W to the northerly boundary of Lot 704, Sayward D i s t r i c t ; thence easterly along the said northerly boundary of Lot 704 to the north-east corner thereof; thence due east to the westerly boundary of Lot 1476; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 1476 to the north-east corner thereof; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of Lot 66 to a point due south of the south-east corner of Block 'A' of Lot 67. Registered Plan 8916; thence northerly and westerly along the easterly and northerly boundaries of said Block 'A0 of Lot 67, Plan 8916 to the north-west corner thereof; thence northerly along the westerly boundaries of Lots 67 and 52 to the south-east corner of Lot 151; thence westerly along the southerly boundary of said Lot 151 to the south-west corner thereof; thence northerly along the westerly boundaries of Lots 151 and 26 to the south-east corner of Lot 130; thence westerly and northerly along the southerly and westerly boundaries of said Lot 130 to the north-west corner thereof; thence westerly, northerly and easterly along the southerly, westerly and northerly boundaries of Lot 15 to the south-west corner of Lot 9? thence northerly along the westerly boundary of said Lot 9 to the most westerly north-west corner thereof? thence westerly and northerly along the southerly and westerly boundaries of Lots 1, 28 and 16 to the north-west corner of said Lot 16, thence easterly and southerly along the northerly and easterly boundaries of Lots 16 and 28 to the most easterly south-east corner of said Lot 28, being a point on the highwater mark of Menzies Bay on the easterly shore of Vancouver Island? thence i n a general south-easterly d i r e c t i o n along the center l i n e of Menzies Bay and the prolongation thereof to a point on a l i n e drawn 1,000 feet perpendicularly distant northerly from and p a r a l l e l to the highwater mark on the westerly shore of Discovery Passage; thence i n a general southerly d i r e c t i o n 1,000 feet from and p a r a l l e l to the aforesaid highwater mark to a point 1,000 feet perpendicularly distant from the aforesaid north-east corner of Lot 13» Newcastle D i s t r i c t , said point being i n a northerly d i r e c t i o n perpendicularly to the general d i r e c t i o n of the southerly highwater mark of Deep Bay? thence southerly i n .a s t r a i g h t l i n e to the said north-east corner of Lot 13, Newcastle D i s t r i c t being the point of commencement. 1 <8 D i v i s i o n (2) Building 2.01 The regulations i n Parts 2 to 8 inclusive of the r a t i o n a l Building Code of Canada, 1953 and amendments made from time to time thereto apply to: (a) buildings and structures; and (b) plumbing i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; insofar as these regulations deal with the si z e , shape a.nd dimensions of buildings and. structures and the i n s t a l l a t i o n of plumbing f i x t u r e s and equipment including the kind, composition, strength and. dimensions of materials used, i n such buildings and structures, 2.02 Sewage disposal s h a l l be i n accordance with Section 3.01(e). 2.03 The provisions of Part I cf the National Building Code of Cana.da, 1953 and amendments made from time to time, thereto apply except: a) the word "building" includes "structure"; b) the words "administrative o f f i c i a l " mean "building inspector" 0 2.04 The schedule of fees to be charged for the issuance of a permit under these regulations and including the expense of inspections connected with the issuance of a permit are as follows: (a) a fee of tv/o d o l l a r s f o r each one thousand d o l l a r s or f r a c t i o n thereof of the estimated cost of a b u i l d i n g or structure up to an estimated cost of t h i r t y f i v e thousand d o l l a r s and f i f t y cents for each one thousand d o l l a r s or f r a c t i o n thereof of the estimated cost of a building or structure i n excess of t h i r t y f i v e thousand d o l l a r s ; (b) a fee of one d o l l a r f o r every plumbing f i x t u r e ; (c) a fee of three d o l l a r s for every septic tank; (d) a fee of three d o l l a r s for moving a building or structure. 2.05 The building inspector s h a l l not issue a permit u n t i l the prescribed fee has been paid. 2 . 0 6 Any person who constructs, a l t e r s , repairs any building or structure, plumbing or septic tank, without f i r s t having obtained a permit or who does not hold a v a l i d permit s h a l l be deemed to be i n contravention of these regulations. D i v i s i o n ( 3 ) Subdivision 3 . 0 1 No subdivision a f t e r the passing of these regulations s h a l l be approved unless: (a) i t i s suited to the configuration of the land being subdivided; (b) i t i s suited to the use to which i t i s intended; (c) i t does not make impracticable the future subdivision of the land within the proposed subdivision or of any adjacent land; (d) the minimum frontage that any parcel of land i n the proposed subdivision has with respect to the highway upon which the parcel fronts i s f i f t y feet or one-tenth of the perimeter of the parcel whichever i s greater, unless i n an exceptional case the Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s exempts the subdivider from the provision of th i s clause: (e) each parcel of land s h a l l have an area of s o i l suitable for absorption of septic tank effluent to be determined by percolation tests i n accordance with Appendix 7»c. of the National Building Code of Canada, 1 9 5 3 « - Such area of s o i l s h a l l be above any water table or high water mark of any body of water or watercourse. The owner s h a l l submit evidence of percolation t e s t s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , disposal may be made by sand f i l t e r or other private sewage disposal system designed i n accordance with recognized engineering standards. Plans for such system s h a l l be submitted by the owner. 3 . 0 2 The minimum area of a parcel of land into which land may be subdivided i s : (a) seventy-five hundred square feet where a community water system but no community sewer system are ava i l a b l e ; (b) f i f t e e n thousand square feet where neither a community water system or a community sewer system are ava i l a b l e , 3 . 0 3 The minimum highway allowance permitted i n any proposed subdivision i s s i x t y - s i x feet i n width;, except that with the assent of the D i s t r i c t Engineer, Department of Highways, the minimum highway allowance for any highway or highways contained within a proposed subdivision i s f i f t y feet. 3.04 In any proposed subdivision a highway which ends i n a cul-de-sac s h a l l : (a) not have a length of more than f i v e hundred feet measured from the l a s t i n t e r s e c t i o n with a highway; (b) have a terminal area for a turn around with a radius of not less than f i f t y feet measured at any point. 3 . 0 5 Any highway within a proposed subdivision s h a l l be so located that the gradient of any portion of the highway i s not greater than: (a) eight percentum where the highway i s deemed by the approving o f f i c e r to be a major t r a f f i c route; (b) twelve percentum i n a l l other cases. 3 o 0 6 A plan of a proposed subdivision that i s not i n compliance with t h i s regulation s h a l l not be approved by the approving o f f i c e r . D i v i s i o n (4) Penalty 4,01 Any person who v i o l a t e d the provisions of these regulations i s l i a b l e on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding $100.00 and a person so convicted i s l i a b l e on summary conviction to a further penalty of $10.00 for every week thereafter during which the v i o l a t i o n continued. "W.D. 3LACK" MINISTER OF .MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS July 2 ? t h , 1 Q 6 1 . AMENDMENT COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA NUMBER Ik SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s made by BC Reg. 228/59 pursuant to the " L o c a l S e r v i c e s Act" are amended by:-1. D e l e t i n g the p e r i o d at the end of subsection 3 . 0 2 (b) and s u b s t i t u t i n g a semicolon. 2. Adding to s e c t i o n 3 * 0 2 the f o l l o w i n g subsections-"(c) notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) above, e x i s t i n g p a r c e l s which are s m a l l e r than permitted i n these regulations.may be c o n s o l i d a t e d and r e s u b d i v i d e d i n t o new p a r c e l s provided t h a t : -( i ) a l l p a r t s of a l l new p a r c e l s are contiguous; ( i i ) as many new p a r c e l s as p r a c t i c a b l e s h a l l meet the area requirements of these r e g u l a t i o n s ; ( i i i ) the degree of compliance w i t h the area requirements of these r e g u l a t i o n s i s not lessened on any new p a r c e l ; ( i v ) the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t sewage can be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y disposed of on an area of s o i l on each new p a r c e l (A) which i s not l i k e l y to be b u i l t upon, paved or used as a roadway, (B) which meets the requirements of s e c t i o n 8 . 0 3 ( l o c a t i o n of a b s o r p t i o n f i e l d s ) i n the Sewage D i s p o s a l Regulations i n f o r c e i n the Community Planning Area," "DAN CAMPBELL" MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS August ?, I 9 6 7 . APPENDIX Copy of Minute Approved March 12, 1971 - Lieutenant-Governor THAT by supplementary L e t t e r s Patent dated February 17, 1967, as amended by supplementary L e t t e r s Patent dated September 24, 1968, the Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona was granted the f u n c t i o n of Regional and Community Planning and the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n s 795 to 798D, i n c l u s i v e , of the M u n i c i p a l Act apply to the s a i d r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t ! AND THAT the g r e a t e r p o r t i o n of Community Planning Area re-e s t a b l i s h e d under the L o c a l S e r v i c e s Act i s w i t h i n the boundaries of the s a i d r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t ! AND THAT under the L o c a l S e r v i c e s Act c e r t a i n r e g u l a t i o n s apply to the area known as Community Planning Area l4s AND TO RECOMMEND THAT pursuant to the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 766 of the M u n i c i p a l Act the supplementary L e t t e r s Patent hereto attached do issue to amend the supplementary L e t t e r s Pa.tent dated February 17, 1967, as amended by supplementary L e t t e r s Patent dated September 24, 1968, to apply the r e g u l a t i o n s which are i n force and e f f e c t i n the area of Community Planning Area 14 as i f they were by-laws adopted by the Regional Board of the Regional D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona u n t i l they are amended or repealed by by-law i n accordance w i t h the M u n i c i p a l Act. DATED t h i s 12 day of March A.D. 1971 924. r e p o r t "Dan Campbell 11 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 . APPROVED t h i s 12 day of March A.D. 1971. W.A.C Bennett" P r e s i d i n g Member of the Executive C o u n c i l A P P E N D I X D SUBDIVISION LOCATION AND DESIGN EVALUATION STANDARDSl To rate each subdivision for convenience of loca t i o n c r i t e r i a the time measured from the home to the f a c i l i t y was determined and weighted as indicated i n Table 14, The t o t a l of the weighted time measurements recorded for a l l convenience c r i t e r i a was calculated for each subdivision, and the subdivisions were thus rated f o r d e s i r a b i l i t y of convenience of location, i n propor-t i o n to the least amount of time devoted to t r a v e l . Each subdivision was also rated according to r e l a t i v e amenity of l o c a t i o n i n the amount of 3 ° ^ of the t o t a l l o c a t i o n r a t i n g . This included consideration of land uses adjacent to the subdivision and land uses abutting major access routes to the subdivision, (Refer to Table 15» Location Rating and Ranking Guide (11) Amenity). Each subdivision was also rated for safety, p r i m a r i l y i n terms of f i r e protection service as indicated by response time, i n the amount of 10$ of the t o t a l l o c a t i o n r a t i n g . (Refer to Table 16, Location Rating and Ranking Guide (111) Safety), A summary of the r e s u l t s of the l o c a t i o n a l analyses of. the 'model* subdivision i s also given i n Table 16, 'Summary of Rating and Ranking of Locations of Subdivision Cases'; Tables 1? and. 18 l i s t design standards and p r i n c i p l e s and the summary of ra t i n g and ranking. 1 Source of text and tables i n t h i s Appendix: School of Community and Regional Planning, Residential  Land Subdivision: A Physical Evaluation, Staff Research Project 2 . (Vancouver: University of 3.C., 1965) TABLE 13 PLANNING STANDARDS FOR LOCATIONAL CRITERIA Sources o f S t a n d a r d s * C r i t e r i o n Emp1oyment Ma jo r Shopp ing C o n v e n i e n c e Shopp ing E l e m e n t a r y Schoo l J r . H i g h Schoo l S r . H i g h Schoo l P1ayg round P i a y f i e l d s Community Pa rk D i s t r i c t Pa rk Churches No. 1 No. 2 No, No. k Range o f Commonly A c c e p t e d S tds D i s t a n c e Time Di s t . Time Mi 1es Mi n s , D i s t . T i me Mi n. Max Mi 1 es Mi ns . (Mi 1 es ) *+0 mi n . h mi . h mi . 1 mi . 2 im i . 2 i m i . 1 - 1 * h~ 2 $ m i 1 mi 2 mi §• mi 1 jmi 1-1* 1. 2 mi . T;~2 3 mi 2 0 - 3 0 2 0 - 3 0 20 15-25 2 0 - 3 0 3 > i . 1-1* 3 0 -60 2 0 - 3 0 2 0 - 3 0 10 20 2 0 - 3 0 20 30-60 j. 3 k 3 3 •4-2 i 2 l i " 2 3 3* Mi n. Max. (Mi l e s ) 20 20 15 20 30 20 ^0 30 10 20 25 30 20 60 30 S o u r c e s : No . 1- Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . The Community B u i l d e r s ' Handbook, The I n s t i t u t e , Wash ing ton- 195*+. No. 2 . A r t h u r B. Gal l i o n & Simon E i s n e r . The Urban P a t t e r n , D. Van N o s t r a n d C o . , Inc T o r o n t o : I 9 6 3 . No. 3. The Amer i can P u b l i c H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n P l a n n i n g t h e N e i g h b o r h o o d , P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n S e r v i c e , C h i c a g o : I 960 . No. k. F. S t u a r t Chap in J r . , Urban Land Use P l a n n i n g , H a r p e r & Row, New Y o r k : 1957. LOCATION RATING AND Types o f J ou rney ( V ) = V e h i c u l a r t r i p ( P ) = P e d e s t r i a n t r i p TABLE 14 RANKING GUIDE (1) CONVENIENCE C o n v e n i e n c e R a t i n g — to 10 • Q. • Q_ fD 4-> CL_* — ^ • — XI 0 •!_ — 2 • • +-> 0 o 4-> ZD CL ZD • 2 2 0 MD • • • 4-> . X Q cu •— — cu — cr J : QJ ro • ro > l - v D 0) D_ 1_ ZS c — i -t-> i _ > 0) s_ . X O ^ Q.LA u_ °- =fe CL o CO 4-1 (.») Major Employment C e n t r e s (V) 5 . 6 1 x 0 . 507 M e t r o . C . B . D . 3 3 . 4 8 .4 13. 10 Loca l C . B . D . (V) 2 5. 6 5 .6 8. 75 (2 ) S c h o o l s : 5 . 6 1 x 0 . 048 E1ementary (P) 5 .0 5 .0 7. 80 Jun i o r Hi gh (V) (P) 1 . 25 0 . 34 2 ..16 2 .5 3. 90 S e n i o r H igh (V) CP) 1 . 25 0 . 34 2 .16 ? • 5 3. 90 (3) Re c r ea t i on Areas : 5 . 6 1 x 0 . 214 P1 ayground (P) 2 .0 N' 2 . 0 3. 15 P l a y f i e l d (P) 4 .0 4 .0 6 . 25 Ne ighbourhood Pa rk (V) 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 .6 0 . 95 Major Park (V) 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 .6 0. 95 Commerc ia l R e c r e a t i o n (V) 2 . 0 2. 4 2 .4 3. 75 (4) Shoppi ng A r e a s : 5 . 6 1 x 0 . 119 Conven i ence (P) 4 .0 4 .0 6 . 25 Major Shopp ing (V) 1 . 0 0 . 47 0 .47 0 . 75 (5) O t h e r s : 5 . 6 1 x 0 . 112 Churches 0 . 5 0 . 32 0 • 32 0 . 50 T o t a l r a t i n g f o r Conven i ence " ' M o d e l ' S u b d i v i s i o n a l l o w e d 60% o f 3 8 . 39 6 0 . 0 0 * t o t a l l o c a t i o n r a t i n g , f o r ' c o n v e n i e n c e ' o f TABLE 15 LOCATION-, RATING AND RANKING GUIDE (11) AMENITY (1) Type o f Land Use A d j a c e n t t o S u b d i v i s i o n R a t i n g Gui d e * (a ) Garbage dumps; heavy i n d u s t r y w i t h h i g h d e g r e e o f n u i s a n c e O A (b) Heavy i n d u s t r y w i t h s l i g h t d e g r e e o f n u i s a n c e ; l i g h t i n d u s t r y ; ma jo r thoroughfares 3 A ( c ) L a rge I n s t i t u t i o n s ; c o m m e r c i a l a r e a s ; low v a l u e hous i ng 6/4 (d) Medium v a l u e r e s i d e n t i a l ; v a c a n t l a n d zoned r e s i d e n t i a l 9 A (e ) H i g h v a l u e r e s i d e n t i a l ; l a r g e u n d e v e l o p e d p a r k and open space r e s e r v e s ; p r i v a t e • open spaces such as g o l f c o u r s e s 12/4 ( f ) Ve ry h i g h v a l u e r e s i d e n t i a l ; d e v e l o p e d p a r k s and h i g h a m e n i t y a r ea s such as l a k e f r o n t a g e 1 5 A * ' M o d e l ' s u b d i v i s i o n a l l o w e d 15% f o r A d j a c e n t Land Uses on f o u r s i d e s , p l u s 15% f o r Land Uses A b u t t i n g A c c e s s R o u t e s , w i t h t o t a l o f 30% a l l o w e d f o r A m e n i t y . (2 ) P r edom inan t Land Uses A b u t t i n g Ma jor A c c e s s Rou tes t o S u b d i v i s i o n  R a t i n g G u i d e ; T h i s i s t o be a measure o f (a ) w h e t h e r i t has a ' good a d d r e s s ' and (b) whe the r i t i s p l e a s a n t t o d r i v e t o . T h i s w o u l d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t r e l a t i v e p r o p e r t y v a l u e s and c o n d i t i o n o f m a i n t e n a n c e o f . p r o p e r t i e s i n c l u d i n g s t r e e t s . The g u i d e g i v e n i n (1) above s h o u l d be used t o e s t a b l i s h a r a t i n g v/ i th 15% o f t o t a l l o c a t i o n r a t i n g a l1 owed f o r • p r e d o m i n a n t l a n d uses a b u t t i n g major a c c e s s r o u t e s to the s u b d i v i s i o n . LOCATION RATING AND RANKING GUIDE ( I I I ) SAFETY R a t i n g F i r e P r o t e c t i o n Response Time ( m i n u t e s ) . G u i d e * 0 - 2 5 2 - 3 4 3 - 4 3 4 - 5 2 5 - h i gher 1 * ' M o d e l ' s u b d i v i s i o n a l l o w e d 5% f o r f i r e s a f e t y w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l 5% t o a c c o u n t f o r o t h e r o b s e r v a b l e s a f e t y f a c t o r s , w i t h t o t a l o f 10% f o r s a f e t y . SUMMARY OF RATING AND RANKING OF LOCATIONS OF SUBDIVISION CASES R a t i n g ' M o d e l ' f o r : Subd i v i s i on Conven i ence 60 Amen i t y (1) ( A d j a c e n t Land Use) 15 Amen i t y (2) ( A c c e s s R t e s . ) 15 S a f e t y 10 TOTAL % RATING 100 RANKING TABLE 17 PLANNING STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES FOR SUBDIVISION DESIGN CRITERION COMMONLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OR STANDARD Land Use % o f t o t a l l and use i n s t r e e t s C . G . R . A . - 3 0 % max. % o f s t r e e t s as c o l l e c t o r s C . G . R . A . - 3 0 % o f t o t a l s y s t em max. % o f a r e a i n p u b l i c open space C . M . H . C . - 5 % o f t o t a l l a n d a r e a m i n . B l o c k and Lot P a t t e r n Lot S i z e C . M . H . C . m i n . d e p t h 9 0 ' ( 2 5 - 7 5 l o t s ) ; . Not more than 1 / 3 o f l o t s at m i n . d e p t h 8 0 ' 5- w i d t h 7 5 ' ( f o r 7 6 o r more 1ots ). Lot Shape Easements t h r o u g h l o t s A v o i d easements on l o t s i f poss i b1e B l o c k l e n g t h C . M . H . C . - 1200' max; 7 5 0 ' max. f o r c u l - d e - s a c L o t s a b u t t i n g s i d e £• r ea r y a r d s C . M . H . C . - l o t s s h o u l d not abut more than 3 - 4 a d j a c e n t l o t s on s i d e o r r e a r y a r d s B u f f e r s t r i p s P l a n t i n g and b u f f e r s t r i p s des i rab1e TABLE 1 7 ( C o n t ' d ) PLANNING STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES FOR SUBDIVISION DESIGN CRITERION COMMONLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OR STANDARD C I r c u l a t i o n - V e h i c u l a r I n t e r s e c t i oris C . M . H . C . - n o t c l o s e r t han 200' B1 i.nd c o r n e r s No a n g l e s l e s s than 70° S teep g rades 15% max. f o r l o c a l s t r e e t s P o i n t s o f e n t r y S h o u l d be 3 minimum O f f - S t r e e t p a r k i n g One o f f - s t r e e t . s p a c e f o r house minimum Street w i d t h s C . M . H . C . 66' ma jor s t r e e t 50' m i n o r s t r e e t Ci r c u l a t i o n - P e d e s t r i a n S teep g rades - (no s t e p s ) S i dewa1ks Must be l e s s t han 15% On one s i d e o f r o a d , a s p h a I t , m i n i mum. SUMMARY OF RATING AND RANKING OF THE SUBDIVISION LAYOUT DESIGNS CRITERION RATING SCALE Land Use % o f t o t a l l and a r e a i n + 1 f o r e ve r y % o v e r o r s t r e e t s under 3 0 % % o f a r e a i n c o l l e c t o r s - 2 / 3 f o r e ve r y % o v e r o r under 3 0 % % o f a r e a in p u b l i c open space + 1 f o r e v e r y % o v e r o r unde r 5 % T o t a l f o r l a n d Use B l o c k and Lot P a t t e r n Lot s i z e Lot shape Easements t h r o u g h l o t s B l o c k l e n g t h C u r v i n g s t r e e t s S i d e o f l o t a b u t t i n g r e a r o f a d j a c e n t l o t L o t s a b u t t i n g s i d e S-r e a r y a r d s B u f f e r s t r i D S each l o t l e s s than minimum s i z e - 1 -1 f o r each % o f l o t s l e s s than m i n . d e p t h o r f r o n t a g e - 1 / b l o c k i n e x c e s s o f 1 2 0 0 ' - 1 / s t r a i g h t run o f s t r e e t i n e x c e s s o f 7 5 0 ' -1 f o r e ve r y % g r e a t e r than 1 0 % o f t o t a l l o t s 1 f o r e ve r y % g r e a t e r t han 'X o f t o t a l l o t s -1 where r e a u i r e d but absen t T o t a l f o r B l o c k & Lot P a t t e r n TABLE 18 ( C o n t ' d ) SUMMARY OF RATING AND RANKING OF THE SUBDIVISION LAYOUT DESIGNS CRITERION RATING SCALE C i r c u l a t i o n - V e h i c u l a r Int e r s e c t i ons B l i nd C o r n e r s S t eep g rades P o i n t s o f e n t r y O f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g S t r e e t w i d t h s C i r c u l a t i o n - P e d e s t r i a n S teep g r ades (no s t eps ) S i d ewa1k s -1 f o r each i n t e r s e c t i o n i n e x c e s s o f k 1egs f o r each four-way i n t e r -s e c t i o n -1 f o r each b l i n d c o r n e r -1 i f l e s s than 150 ' run & i n e x c e s s o f m a x . m u n i c i p a l g r ades s t d . -1 f o r each e n t r y i n e x c e s s o f t h r e e - 1 A f o r each l o t w i t h o u t adeoua te space f o r one o f f -s t r e e t p a r k i n g space -1 f o r eve ry 5' o f w i d t h l e s s than 6 6 ' f o r c o l l e c t o r &• 5 0 ' f o r l o c a l s t r e e t s -\/k f o r each w a l k f o r each % g r ade i n e x c e s s o f 15% -1 i f no s i d e w a l k s p r o v i d e d 0 i f s i d e w a l k s on one s i d e o n l y +1 i f s i d e w a l k s b o t h s i d e s s t . T o t a l f o r C i r c u l a t i o n T o t a l R a t i n g Rank i ng APPENDIX E PROCEDURE FOR SUBDIVIDING LAND WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES. The subdivider should ascertain at the Land Registry Office : 1. In whose name i s the land r e g i s t e r e d . Land Registry Act, Sec. 2 ("owner" and "registered owner"), Sec. l 4 l . 2. The f u l l and exact l e g a l d escription of the land. Land Registry A c t , Sec. 101 (for form K) 3. Is a l l the land proposed to be subdivided registered. Land Registry Act, Sec. 102(1). 4. In whose possession i s the owner's copy of the C e r t i f i c a t e of T i t l e . Land Registry Act, Sec. 101. 5. Whether there are any convenants which would prevent subdivision. 6. Is subdivision, f o r the purpose of conveyance or charge, necessary. Land Registry A c t , S ec. 83. The subdivider should then ascertain from Municipal Records: 1. Is there a Municipal Zoning By-law which prevents the contemplated use of the land proposed to be subdivided. Municipal Act, Sec. 702. 2. Is there an " o f f i c i a l community plan" which would prevent the construction of public works which might be necessary to serve the proposed subdivision. Municipal Act, Sec. 695 ( d e f i n i t i o n ) , 697, 698 and 699. 3. Is there a municipal by-law regulating subdivision. Municipal Act, Sec. 711 ( l ) ( a ) , (b) and (c) and 712. 4. Is there a municipal by-law prescribing the standard to which highways within the subdivision must be cleared, drained, and surfaced. Municipal A c t , Sec. 711 (1) (d). 5. Is there a municipal by-law requiring the subdivision to be provided with water mains and, or, sanitary sewers„ Municipal Act, Sec. 711 (5) . The Municipal Approving O f f i c e r ' s duties* 1. In addition to considering a l l of the points i n B, above, the Approving O f f i c e r should s a t i s f y himself that the matters which the Registrar of T i t l e s w i l l be concerned with have been properly dealt with: (a) Is necessary and reasonable access provided to a l l new parcels created, and through the lands subdivided to lands l y i n g beyond or around. (b) Are e x i s t i n g highways continued without unnecessary jogs. (c) Where the land subdivided borders on navigable waters,' are s u f f i c i e n t public highways to such navigable waters provided — at not more than 660 feet (10 chains) apart. (See too Sec. 87, Land Registry Act for rela x a t i o n provision.) (d) Are suitable lanes provided i n continuation of e x i s t i n g lanes or established where lanes considered necessary by the Approving O f f i c e r . Land Registry A c t , Sec. 86. (Shared with Registrar) 2. Consider the s u f f i c i e n c y of highway allowances depending on whether the land i s subdivided f o r : (a) business, r e s i d e n t i a l or country lands, and (t>) also consider: - the configuration of the land, - r e l a t i o n of new highway to e x i s t i n g highways or approaches (by land or water), - l o c a l circumstances, - the future expected use of highways i n regard to the question of width of highway required. Land Registry Act, Sec. 95. 3. Hear objections from any interested persons and refuse to approve the subdivision i f i n his opinion the anticipated development of the subdivision would i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t the established amenities of adjoining or adjacent properties or would be against the municipality's i n t e r e s t . Land Registry Act, Sec. 96. The Land Surveyor's Tasks: 1. Survey the Land and lay out the proposed subdivision on the ground. (The proposed subdivision should be designed subsequent to the subdivider*s consultation with the Plans Approving O f f i c e r and must r e f l e c t the statutory requirements of the Registrar of T i t l e s . 2. To compare the measurements he has taken with "The measurements shown on any plan covering the same land i n whole or i n part having a common boundary, already deposited ..." Land Registry A c t , Sec. 110, 3 t To prepare a survey plan acceptable to the Registrar of T i t l e s and following the o f f i c i a l plans presentation standards. Land Registry A c t , Se c. 80, 80A, 81, 84 and 106. 4. I f the Approving O f f i c e r so demands: (a) Furnish p r o f i l e s of every new highway shown on the plan and such topographical d e t a i l s as may indicate the engineering problems to be dealt with i n opening up the highways shown upon the plan. (b) Furnish a sketch showing that the parcels into which the land i s subdivided by the plan can conveniently be further subdivided into further small parcels ( i f ) there i s reason to anticipate i t s re-subdivision. Land Registry Act, Sec. 9 2 . 5. Layout of the subdivision on the ground. The subdivider should then: 1. Tender the subdivision plan to the Clerk of the Municipality, for examination and approval by the Approving O f f i c e r , accompanied by: . • (a) A $2.00 examination fee, (b) A c e r t i f i c a t e v e r i f y i n g that on the land to be subdivided, a l l taxes are paid, and where l o c a l improvement taxes, rates, or assessements are payable i n annual instalments that a l l instalments owing at the date of the c e r t i f i c a t e have been paid. Land Registry Act, Sec, 89. 2, The Municipal Act contemplates the subdivider completing the public works required by by-lav/ as a condition precedent to the approval of the subdivision plan. The custom has grown up whereby the subdivider agrees with the Municipality, by contract, to carry out the required works. Generally, as soon as the Contract i s signed by the subdivider, the subdivision plan i s approved, or On the basis of compliance with any e x i s t i n g municipal by-laws covering standards of construction of highways and other services, may begin construction accordingly. Municipal Act, Sec.711 ( l ) ( d ) , (4). The Municipal Approving O f f i c e r ' s duties: 1. Determine whether the f i n a l subdivision plan presented complies with the regulations and p o l i c i e s previously outlined to the subdivider and which form the basis of approval. 2. Insure that any subdivision agreement i n l i e u of actual construction has been properly completed by the subdivider. 3. Approve the plan by w r i t i n g "Approved under the Land Registry Act" with the date of approval-and signature of Approving O f f i c e r , together with h i s o f f i c i a l designation. 4. Insure that the seal of the Municipality has been a f f i x e d to the plan o f f i c i a l l y submitted to the Municipality f o r approval. Land Registry Act, Sec. 97• Appeal Appeal from the decision of the Municipal Approving O f f i c e r l i e s to a Judge of the Supreme Court i n Chambers i n a summary way by p e t i t i o n . Land Registry Act, Sec. 91 and 98• Subdivider submits plan to Registrar of T i t l e s Land Registry Act Form 13-b, together with 2 blue linens and 1 white l i n e n . The Registrar of T i t l e s ' duties: 1. Makes c e r t a i n that the subdivision plan has been prepared according to the o f f i c i a l plans presentation standards. Land Registry A c t , Sec. 80, 81, 84 - 86. 2, He s a t i s f i e s himself that the plan has been "signed by each owner of the lands subdivided or his agent duly authorized by a written authority s a t i s f a c t o r y to the Registrar ...". Land Registry A c t , Sec. 103 (1). 3. He may "refuse to accept any plan, the measurements uf which do not correspond with the measurements shown on any plan covering the same land i n whole or i n part or having a common boundary ..." 4. He makes c e r t a i n that a l l subdivision plans accepted f o r deposit provide: - reasonable access to a l l new parcels and to lands l y i n g beyond, highways without unnecessary jogs, access to navigable water, continuation of e x i s t i n g lanes. Land Registry Act, S e c 86. 5« He must examine "the a p p l i c a t i o n and the instruments and plan produced i n support thereof, and i f s a t i s f i e d that they are i n order s h a l l assign the plan a s e r i a l deposit number and issue such new c e r t i f i c a t e s of t i t l e f o r the parcels shown upon the plan as may be necessary." Land Registry Act, Sec. 105. 6. Assure that the plan has been approved by the. Approving O f f i c e r . Land Registry Act, Sec. 88 and 97. (From the f i l e s of Mr. W.T. Lane, Municipal S o l i c t o r , The Corporation  of the Township of Richmond) APPENDIX SCHEDULE FOR OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEWS WITH DEVELOPERS Part 1. Are you f a m i l i a r with CPA 14? How much subdivision have you been involved with i n t h i s area? How much are you working ahead of the market - raw land? - unsold lots? Is t h i s the way you prefer i t ? How do you go about getting raw land? Does the price vary throughout the area? - the cost of development? Is there a yearly appreciation i n value? - raw land? - developed? How i s l o t s e l l i n g price established? - related to raw land cost? - development cost? - market? Part 2. Do you f e e l that present subdivision a c t i v i t y i s easing the housing shortage? Do you depend on market studies as a guide to your a c t i v i t y ? Do you subdivide only? - develop? - build? What kind of land do you prefer for development? Do you cle a r or r e t a i n natural landscaping? How do you design the subdivision? - who designs? How important to you i s the location of raw land i n terms of - cost? - roads? - jobs (workplaces)? - schools? - community f a c i l i t i e s ? - recreation areas? - business and stores? What services do you f e e l should be supplied i n r u r a l areas? What do you f e e l are i d e a l r u r a l l o t sizes? Why? Do you dedicate - park? - school? Part 3. How do you f e e l about present subdivision regulations i n the r u r a l areas? How do you f e e l about taxation arrangements? P roblems? Is there r i s k involved i n subdivision? Are the proper channels c l e a r l y understood? Do you have any c r i t i c i s m to make of present development i n the area? Do you have any suggestions for future development of t h i s area? SCHEDULE FOR OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEWS WITH HOUSEHOLDERS How long have you l i v e d here? - the general area? - the house? Where did you l i v e before? What kind of work do you do?-where? -distance? How many children i n the family? - preschool? - school age? What do you think of t h i s whole area as a place to l i v e ? Would you choose to l i v e i n town? Part 2. Do you think your neighborhood i s a good place to bring up children? - where do they play? - distance to school? - safety for children? What re c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s are available here? - Playground?) - park? beach?) - other? How do you f e e l about the following items: - your water system? - your drainage system? - your sewage disposal system? - f i r e protection? - police protection? - t r a f f i c ? s t r e e t layout? How do you f e e l about your l o c a t i o n i n regards to: - neighborhood store? - distance? - supermarket? - businesses l i k e r e p a i r shops etc.? - shopping center? (a) What do you think of the cost of land? (b) How do you f e e l about your taxes? Part 3. Is there a community'hall? - distance? Do you use i t ? How? Is there a church? - do you go? Do you know your neighbors? - do you v i s i t your neighbors? - do you f e e l t h i s i s t y p i c a l here? How big i s your neighborhood? Part 4. How do you f e e l about t o u r i s t s using t h i s whole area? Should f a c i l i t i e s be provided? What do you l i k e most about l i v i n g here? ( i n t h i s neighborhood?) Wnat do you d i s l i k e most about l i v i n g here? ( i n t h i s neighborhood?) Suggestions for future development - i n t h i s general area? - i n your neighborhood? Would you choose to l i v e i n town i f the cost were equal? 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102174/manifest

Comment

Related Items