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.

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 1 4 ,  THE  REGIONAL DISTRICT OF COMOX-STRATHCONA  by DENNIS BERNARD FRIESEN B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 S c h o o l of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g We accept t h i s required  t h e s i s as conforming  to the  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1 9 7 1  In p r e s e n t i n g an  this  thesis  advanced degree at  the  Library  I further for  shall  agree  the  his  of  this  that  written  University  of  permission  representatives. thesis  f u l f i l m e n t of  make i t f r e e l y  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  by  in p a r t i a l  for  be  British  available  for extensive  granted  by  the  It i s understood  financial  for  gain  shall  Columbia,  Head o f my  be  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  A p r i l 30,  1971  Columbia  or  publication  allowed without  Regional Planning  that  thesis  Department  permission.  D e p a r t m e n t o f Community and  for  Study.  this  copying or  Dennis B.  Date  requirements  copying of  that  not  the  Friesen  my  T h i s study examines the r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n o f land i n r u r a l areas w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14 i n the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Comox-Strathcona, B r i t i s h Columbia. p o r t i o n o f the  Two  separate elements  comprise  the major  study.  I n t e r v i e w s w i t h a s e l e c t sample of developers  who  p r a c t i s e w i t h i n the Community P l a n n i n g Area p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n about in  the extent and p r a c t i s e o f r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d development  the study a r e a .  The  both f a c t s and o p i n i o n s .  i n t e r v i e w schedule i s designed to  elicit  The a n a l y s i s o f these i n t e r v i e w s  s u p p l i e s the n e c e s s a r y background f o r the study. A random sample 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 p r o v i d e s the b a s i s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n case s t u d i e s . is  Each sample  s u b j e c t e d to a p h y s i c a l e v a l u a t i o n i n terms o f commonly  accepted  planning  design.  The  standards and p r i n c i p l e s f o r l o c a t i o n  residentSo  and  e x t e n t to which the sample s u b d i v i s i o n s meet the  needs o f the r e s i d e n t s i s d i s c o v e r e d through the  subdivision  These i n t e r v i e w s are  designed  interviews with to e l i c i t  facts,  o p i n i o n s and l e v e l s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n p e r t a i n i n g to the subdivisions. The background to the problem of  the study are describedc  Concepts  and the methodology  of r e s i d e n t i a l  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 are discussed,, of  the comparative  The  results  p h y s i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f the sample  s u b d i v i s i o n s and the r e s u l t s of the i n t e r v i e w s w i t h r e s i d e n t s  are a l s o d i s c u s s e d .  C o n c l u s i o n s are made about the l o c a t i o n  and d e s i g n o f the s u b d i v i s i o n s and about the l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n which the r e s i d e n t s express. I t i s shown i n the study t h a t " r u r a l a r e a  residential  s u b d i v i s i o n s " i n Community P l a n n i n g Area Number Ik do not conform w i t h accepted p l a n n i n g standards and p r i n c i p l e s .  However, i t  i s a l s o shown t h a t the needs o f r e s i d e n t s who have chosen to live  i n these s u b d i v i s i o n s are s a t i s f i e d d e s p i t e those  deficiencies.  Chapter I.  Page  APPROACH TO THE STUDY . . .  1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . .  The R e g i o n a l British  District  1  Concept I n 3  Columbia  Community P l a n n i n g  6  A r e a Number 14-  1 2  The P r o b l e m Hypothesis  . . . . . . . . . . .  .  Methodology  .  Data C o l l e c t i o n Questionnaire  Surveys  2 3  . . . . . . .  2 5  Reaching Conclusions Scope  II.  . . . . . 2 6  .  . . . . . . . . . . Study Relates  Subdivision  3 2 3 2  Process  Location  . 3 7  . . . . . . .  Locational Evaluation  . . . . . . . ^ 0  Subdivision Design Evaluation Evaluation  28  . . . . . . 3 0  to Planning  THE R E S I D E N T I A L S U B D I V I S I O N The S u b d i v i s i o n  2 2  2 2  . . . . . . . .  Analysis of findings  How t h i s  19  o f S u b d i v i s i o n Designs  41 k6  of the R e s i d e n t i a l Environment . . . ^ 7  Chapter  Page  III.  5 3  A SURVEY OF THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subdivision  i n Community P l a n n i n g A r e a  Number 14 . The D e v e l o p e r  5 3  :  . . . . . 5 8  Interviews  5 9  Analysis Developers'  C r i t i c i s m s and  Suggestions  . . . . 6 7  .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0  Summary  7 2  The R e s i d e n t i a l I n t e r v i e w s . . . . . Facts,  Opinions and L e v e l o f S a t i s f a c t i o n  Methodology f o r Questionnaire A n a l y s i s Residents*  C r i t i c i s m s and S u g g e s t i o n s  I V . PHYSICAL EVALUATIONS  . , 7 4 7 5  . . . . . . .  . . . . .  88  Subdivision Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  88  Subdivision 1  9 2 .92  General Impressions Residents*  85.  Observations  . .  .  . 9 3  2  , 9 6  General Impressions  . 9 6  Residents'  . 9 7  Subdivision  Observations  Subdivision 3 • • •  1 0 1 1 0 1  General Impressions Residents'  Observations  . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2  Subdivision 4  . . . . . . .  .  General Impressions Residents'  Observations  .105 105  . . . . . . . . . .  106  Chapter IV  Page  (continued) Subdivision 5  »  1 0 9 , . 1 0 9  General Impressions Residents' Observations  , . .110  Subdivision 6  0  General Impressions Residents'  . . . . . .  . .114  . . . . » , .  114 <>115  Observations  Subdivision 7  . .119 1 1 9  General Impressions Residents'  . 1 2 0  Observations  "Innovative" Subdivisions  1 2 2  . . . .  Subdivision 8 Subdivision 9  1 2 5 .  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 • 136  V CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY  1 3 6  Summary Conclusions Sources Consulted  . . . . . . . . '  . . . . . . . . . .  . 0  . 140 .  J  . . .  . .142  Appendix A.  Page.  Regional D i s t r i c t s  i n British  Columbia  An O u t l i n e o f t h e R o l e o f t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t i n t h e L o c a l Government S t r u c t u r e , ,  1 5 0 • 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 M i n u t e A p p r o v e d  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 Standards  E.  March  12,  1971  163  I65  ..<>...  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 175  Municipalities F.  ,  S c h e d u l e f o r Open-ended I n t e r v i e w s  with  Developers S c h e d u l e f o r Open-ended I n t e r v i e w s Householders  181 with 182  1.  Land D e v e l o p e r A c t i v i t y by Y e a r s Ahead o f the  • 2 ,  Market  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  3.  Development P r a c t i s e  k  Desirable  t  6 0  ......  F e a t u r e s i n Land  D e v e l o p e r s ' Land  6.  Services  7.  Facts  8.  Matrix  9.  S a t i s f a c t i o n o f Respondents  f o rSubdivision  . . . . 6 3  Clearing Policies  .  about  Respondents  and Households  . . . . . .  7 3  .  7 7  o f C o r r e l a t i o n s Tested  Sample S u b d i v i s i o n  11.  Rating  a n d R a n k i n g o f Sample  Locations  1 3 0  i n Miles Subdivision  1 3 1  .' .  and R a n k i n g o f Sample  Designs  . . . . . 7 9  ,  Locations  Subdivision. . 132  „  13.  Planning  Standards f o r L o c a t i o n a l C r i t e r i a  14.  Location  Rating  and Ranking Guide: Convenience  15.  Location  Rating  and Ranking Guide: Amenity  16.  Location  Rating  and Ranking Guide: S a f e t y  17.  Planning  S t a n d a r d s and P r i n c i p l e s f o r  Summary o f R a t i n g Subdivision  . . .  . 1 6 6  .  . 1 6 7  . . .  . 1 6 8  .... . 1 6 9  1 7 0  Subdivision Design 18.  64 6 5  Suggested by D e v e l o p e r s . . . . . . . . .  10.  Rating  6 3  .  5.  12.  , »6 2  and Ranking o f t h e  Layout Designs  . . . . . . . . 1 7 2  LIST OF FIGURES Figure  Page  1.  Regional D i s t r i c t s  2.  The Regional D i s t r i c t  3 .  Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14 . . .  4.  Sample S u b d i v i s i o n s  5 .  Subdivision 1  6.  Subdivision 1 . . .  7 .  Subdivision 2 . . . . .  8.  Subdivision 2  9 .  Subdivision  10.  Subdivision  11.  Subdivision 4 . . . . .  12.  Subdivision  4  1 3 .  Subdivision  5  l4„  Subdivision  5  1 5 .  Subdivision  6  16.  Subdivision  6  .  1 7 .  Subdivision  7  .  .  18.  Subdivision  7  .  .  19.  Subdivision 8 . . . . . . . .  3  2 0 .  Subdivision 8  21.  Subdivision  9  2 2  Subdivision  9  o  .  .  .  . ,  o f Comox-Strathcona  .  .  .  0  .  7  9  . . . . . . . . . . .  .  .  .  .  8 9  .  .  .  .  .  . 9 0  9 1  .  qh,  . .  .  .  .  9  t  e  t  .  .  .  .  . 9 5  .  .  .  .  . 9 9  .  .  .  .  1  .  .  .  .  1 0 3  .  .  .  .  1 ° ^  .  .  .  .  1 0 7  . . . .  .  •  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  i n British'Columbia  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  •  .  .  .  .  0  C  .  .  <  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  ' o  .  .  .  >  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  o  .  .  .  •  s  0  0  108  .  .  .  .  1 1 2  .  '.'  .  .  1 1 3  .  .  .  .  1 1 7  . . . .  ^18  .  .  .  . 1 2 3  .  .  .  .124  .  .  ,  .  .  .  .  .  1 2 6  1 2 7  AC KN 0'7 L E D GE PvTE NTS  I am i n d e b t e d advisor,  to Professor  f o r h i s patience  course o f t h i s  study,  Brahm Wiesman,  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 t h e  I a l s o acknowledge w i t h  s u g g e s t i o n s and a s s i s t a n c e  permission  D i s t r i c t o f Cornox-  I e x t e n d my t h a n k s f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n the use o f f a c i l i t i e s .  Bernard F r i e s e n , f o r a s s i s t i n g of  g r a t i t u d e the  o f Dr, Robert Collier,,  To t h e s t a f f o f t h e R e g i o n a l Strathcona,  my  me  and k i n d  I a l s o t h a n k my  i n the preliminary  father, collection  data. W i t h most s i n c e r e  wife, during  a p p r e c i a t i o n I acknowledge  Rosella, f o r her gracious the preparation  of this  my  s u p p o r t and u n d e r s t a n d i n g thesis.  CHAPTER I APPROACH TO THE  STUDY  Introduction The  Province  of British  Columbia covers a  a r e a o f some 3 6 6 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e m i l e s .  vast  Because o f i t s mountainous  t o p o g r a p h y , p e o p l e have s e t t l e d m a i n l y i n numerous c o m m u n i t i e s a l o n g t h e v a l l e y s and c o a s t a l p l a i n s Vancouver I s l a n d  (Location  The e a s t c o a s t o f  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 coastal  0  t h a n does t h e m a i n l a n d  region. 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  province,  however, i s seldom c o n f i n e d  a d j a c e n t a r e a s o f towns and c i t i e s < , development f r e q u e n t l y  takes place  Various factors are held growtho  to the immediately  I n newly u r b a n i z i n g  regions,  w e l l beyond t h e urban f r i n g e .  responsible  f o rthis kind of uninhibited  Among t h e s e a r e t h e o b v i o u s f a c t o r s s u c h a s l a n d  speculation,  and t h e ease o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .  f a c t o r s may a r i s e f r o m g e n e r a l preferences,  areas abruptly  obvious  economic c o n d i t i o n s ,  and t h e absence o f comprehensive  The  Less  costs,  social  controls.  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 creates  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 .  these approach urban r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t i e s , accepted  When standards  f o r t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t may n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m  urban  subdivisions.  Where r e g i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t b e g i n s t o a p p r o a c h  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 c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e quality  o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t w h i c h t h e y h a v e i n some m e a s u r e  helped to create. It  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  m u s t , a b o v e a l l , be l i v a b l e needs o f t h e r e s i d e n t s , basic q u a l i t y .  i n order to f u l f i l l  Livability  the various  c a n be v i e w e d a s a  rather  I t has been d e s c r i b e d a s j  . o . t h e sum t o t a l o f t h e q u a l i t i e s o f t h e u r b a n environment which tend t o induce i n a c i t i z e n a state o f w e l l b e i n g and s a t i s f a c t i o n . In 3 r i t i s h  Columbia there  of i n d i v i d u a l s involved r e s i d e n t i a l areas.  i n c r e a t i n g the environment i n  legislators,  In the regional d i s t r i c t  and  administrators.  context of B r i t i s h  and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  expressed about the g e n e r a l  livability  the l i v a b i l i t y  o f r e s i d e n t i a l areas To a  large  of a subdivision i s a function of 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 , as w e l l a s i t s p h y s i c a l  Columbia,  l e v e l s , c o n c e r n has been  w h i c h h a v e d e v e l o p e d i n t h e p a s t two d e c a d e s . extent,  groups  T h e s e m i g h t be l i s t e d a s t h e r e s i d e n t s  themselvesdevelopers,,  both a t l e g i s l a t i v e  are a t least four  its facilities  and s e r v i c e s ,  design.  Comox 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 p r o p o s e d m o r a t o r i u m o n s u b d i v i s i o n s o n a l l t h e l a n d s a l o n g o u r d e s i r a b l e c o a s t i s a s a n e move a t a t i m e when e v e n grandma i s g e t t i n g h e r f i n g e r i n t h e l a n d s p e c u l a t i o n p i e . " 1  2 R o b e r t L. W i l s o n , " L i v a b i l i t y o f t h e C i t y : A t t i t u d e s a n d 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 , e d . F. S t u a r t C h a p i n J r . , a n d S h i r l e y F. W e i s s (New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s , I n c . , 1 9 6 2 ) p. 3 5 9  While i t i s apparent t h a t the n a t u r a l  amenities  which p r o v i d e the s e t t i n g f o r a r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n a r e a l s o important, the p r o c e s s o f s u b d i v i s i o n development  frequently  decimates o r a l i e n a t e s the very amenity which made the development desirable  i n the f i r s t p l a c e .  P u b l i c concern a l s o a r i s e s 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 o f B r i t i s h Columbia have been too intense f o r proper c o n s i d e r a t i o n factors. and  to allow  o f 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  There i s a growing r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t present t r e n d s  developments i n r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n must be examined  i n the l i g h t o f such f a c t o r s .  By so doing i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e  to p r o v i d e a more r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r development i n the f u t u r e . 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 In 1 9 6 5  Columbia  the P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia  introduced  l e g i s l a t i o n to p r o v i d e f o r improvements i n l o c a l c o n t r o l over problems which were wider than immediate m u n i c i p a l Twenty-eight r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s were e s t a b l i s h e d  boundaries.  for this  purpose, w i t h boundaries as shown i n Figure 1 . The federated and  f u n c t i o n o f the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t  i s seen as a  approach to l o c a l government, where both  municipal  non-municipal areas can be r e p r e s e n t e d on the board o f  d i r e c t o r s , on a quota b a s i s .  In t h i s was i t has been p o s s i b l e  f o r r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s to e s t a b l i s h common s e r v i c e s both f o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and f o r unorganized t e r r i t o r y w i t h i n t h e i r boundaries.  In o r d e r to p r o v i d e the means o f f i n a n c i n g f o r these r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t u n d e r t a k i n g s , the M u n i c i p a l Finance A u t h o r i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia  was s e t up i n 1 9 6 9 through  legislation.  The M u n i c i p a l Finance A u t h o r i t y i s composed o f members appointed by R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t Boards throughout  the P r o v i n c e .  Appendix A d i s c u s s e s the concept o f 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  more f u l l y .  Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14 W i t h i n the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Comox-Strathcona on Vancouver I s l a n d l i e s a c o a s t a l "spread 60 m i l e s i n l e n g t h .  approximately  can be d e s c r i b e d as occupying  The  community"  Regional D i s t r i c t  itself  the m i d s e c t i o n o f Vancouver  I s l a n d as w e l l as a s u b s t a n t i a l a r e a o f a d j a c e n t mainland. (See F i g u r e  2)  The specific  c o a s t a l community was  jurisdictional  boundaries  Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14.  originally  d e f i n e d by  i n 196l, and was  called  (Appendix 3) ' F u n c t i o n s  r e g u l a t i o n s f o r development were then a d m i n i s t e r e d by Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s .  the  With the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s i n 19&5f however, i t was  and  of  intended t h a t  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14 would e v e n t u a l l y be t r a n s f e r r e d to the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f ComoxStrathcona. The n o r t h e a s t boundary o f the Community P l a n n i n g a r e a i s d e s c r i b e d by an imaginary the h i g h water mark. lot  lines  The  l i n e 1000  south west boundary f o l l o w s d i s t r i c t  a t i t s extreme ends, but otherwise  d i a g o n a l course  f e e t seaward from  f o l l o w s the  o f the B r i t i s h Columbia Power Commission  r i g h t - o f - w a y , w i t h . a f o u r m i l e p r o j e c t i o n to encompass the Cumberland a r e a . Viewed i n t o t a l , the Community P l a n n i n g Area i s a coastal strip.of  one  or two m i l e s width  a t e i t h e r end  and  widening  i n the middle  ( F i g u r e 3)  r e g i o n s to approximately  seven m i l e s .  I t i s s i x t y m i l e s l o n g , s t r e t c h i n g northwestward  from Deep Bay  to Menzies Bay.  T o p o g r a p h i c a l l y , the a r e a i s  mainly on a c o a s t a l p l a i n w i t h a g e n t l e c o a s t l i n e .  The f o r e s t e d ,  mountainous areas o f Vancouver I s l a n d l i e immediately  to the  west, and a t some p o i n t s f o r e s t lands such as p r i v a t e l y owned t r e e farms and t r e e farm l i c e n s e d crown lands extend w e l l i n t o the Community P l a n n i n g Area. suggested  t h a t one  Informed o p i n i o n l o c a l l y  o f the reasons  has  f o r the i n t e n s i t y o f development  i n the c o a s t a l s t r i p has "been the p r e v e n t i o n of westward  expansion  i n t o the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y a r e a s . W i t h i n the Community P l a n n i n g Area are s e v e r a l i n c o r p o r a t e d p l a c e s as w e l l as number o f f u n c t i o n i n g water d i s t r i c t s ,  The  f o r e s t r y , and c o a s t a l s h i p p i n g has  long h i s t o r y of  contained independently mining,  e s t a b l i s h e d settlements  which are r e c o g n i z e d l o c a l l y even though they have never been incorporated. Fanny Bay; Bay;  Such areas have l o c a l l y r e c o g n i z e d p l a c e names:  Union Bay;  Willow  Royston^; M e r v i l l e ; Black Creek;  Oyster  P o i n t ; and B l o e d e l .  The p r e s e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d p l a c e s i n Community P l a n n i n g Area'Number 14 are Courtenay, Comox, Cumberland and River.  Campbell  In s p a t i a l terms Campbell R i v e r i s the l a r g e s t o f the  i n c o r p o r a t e d p l a c e s , so t h a t e x t e n s i o n of s e r v i c e s to expanding  3Royston w i l l vote March 27, 1971 to i n c o r p o r a t e as a v i l l a g e municipality. Notice o f p o l l was g i v e n i n the Comox D i s t r i c t Free Press (March 17, 1971)  BUOBPEL.  r - f ©"1  \  CAMPBELL.  RIVBR  WILLOW  POINT  \  \  \ \  \  BLACK  \  CREEK  . MERV1LU6  \  \  'COMOX  COURTBNAY./ I  fiiSROYSTON  CUMS6RLANO  \  UNION  BAY  '£& J F A N N Y B A Y  Community A rea  Planning  N u m b e r 14  fig.  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 . i n p a r t , may  e x p l a i n why  This,  land values are reputedly higher i n  t h e C a m p b e l l 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 t h e Community Planning Area. C o m m u n i t y P l a n n i n g A r e a Number Ik i s t h e c o r r i d o r to the r e s o u r c e h i n t e r l a n d o f Vancouver  transportation  Island.  a s e n s e , p o r t i o n s o f t h e Community P l a n n i n g A r e a a r e a n  In integral  k part of that hmterlando  I t has been s u g g e s t e d t h a t  primary i n d u s t r y remains s t a b l e ,  t h e r e may  be a m o d e s t  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 a s 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 service  growth an  i n expanded  employment. 5 It  p r o b l e m s may lk  while  t h u s becomes e v i d e n t t h a t c e r t a i n  developmental  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  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  of  these problems  i n v o l v e s t h e 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  scattered  population.  Connected w i t h t h i s  i s the problem o f  controlling  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 w o u l d m e r e l y compound the f i r s t problem.  A f u r t h e r concern i s the s a t i s f a c t o r y  multiple  ^ T h i s r e f e r s t o t h e f o r e s t l a n d s a r o u n d M e n z i e s Bay a n d O y s t e r Bay, t h e p u l p m i l l a t D u n c a n 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 C a m p b e l l 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 t h e Courtenay-Comox and t h e C a m p b e l l R i v e r a r e a s . 5s c h o o l o f C o m m u n i t y 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 D e v e l o p m e n t on V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d ; S t u d e n t P r o j e c t 7 ( V a n c o u v e r s 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 , 1968) makes t h e s e projections. 6  Ibid.  use of r e s o u r c e s , such as timber, mining, and r e c r e a t i o n , ' to t i e a l l o f t h i s i n w i t h r e s i d e n t i a l  and  opportunities.  Since Community P l a n n i n g 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 a r e a w i t h p r e c i s e l e g a l and  boundaries,  i t i s known to c o n t a i n the m a j o r i t y o f urban and  rural  development i n the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Comox-Strathcona, i t i s c o n s i d e r e d to be a v e r y important area to the r e g i o n as a whole. Here, more than anywhere e l s e , 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 r e g i o n . Such a development means t h a t we must p r o t e c t good a g r i c u l t u r a l and wood l a n d , and the r u r a l dweller? p r e s e r v e 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 f o r p r e s e n t and f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s with/more l e i s 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 i n s t e a d o f " s c a t t e r " and permanently surround b u i l t - u p areas w i t h open spaces o f farmland or woodland; a l l are the key i n our c h o i c e o f p l a c e s to l i v e i n , work i n , v i s i t and enjoy.8  ''Conflict i s a l r e a d y e v i d e n t from the f a c t t h a t t o u r i s t s complain of pulp m i l l odor and smoke when v a c a t i o n i n g i n the Campbell R i v e r a r e a . F o r e s t o p e r a t o r s are inconvenienced by r e c r e a t i o n a l use of l o g g i n g roads, both i n terms of t r u c k i n g s a f e t y and f i r e p r o t e c t i o n . S s c h o o l of 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 , pp. 3 ,  4.  The I t has g r o w t h and  already  Problem  "been i n t i m a t e d  that  d e v e l o p m e n t , b o t h l o c a t i o n and  subdivisions  are  this  f o r a number o f r e a s o n s , t h e  i s true  matters of considerable  in  regional  design of r e s i d e n t i a l importance.  While  f o r e m o s t i s the  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  well-  region.  I n c e r t a i n cases, haphazard development of r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions  r e s u l t s i n the  Where s u c h l a n d  l o s s o f much a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d .  i s very l i m i t e d i n quantity,  (and  this  is  the  c a s e i n most a g r i c u l t u r a l a r e a s o f p r i m e 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  I t has resources quite displaced  by  space, w i t h features  may  very q u i c k l y  created.  a l s o been suggested t h a t d i f f e r e n t from that  be  one  u n i q u e and  Natural  o f f l o r a and  of these resources.  I n the  f a u n a can  p l a i n region large-scale  b e t w e e n 'the  the  becomes o b v i o u s t h a t  the  a l s o be  i s minimal. centers  the  f o r some  disturbed. A r e a Number  o f C o u r t e n a y and  middle p l a i n north  and  a unique h a b i t a t  I t i s m a i n l y on  vegetable growing occurs.  c o n c e n t r a t e d on  recreational  More c o m p l e x  c a s e o f Community P l a n n i n g  prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land  be  psychologically satisfying  unusual e c o l o g i c a l u n i t s which provide species  regions  o f a g r i c u l t u r e may  r e s i d e n t i a l development. various  i n some  The  14,  the  flood  Comox w h e r e  dairy industry  of Courtenay.  is  It  major t h r u s t of 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 h a s b e e n e x p r e s s e d i n t h e Niagara Peninsula i n Southern Ontario.  Fruit Belt  of  has  not occurred i n these a r e a s  composite  0  I t i s seen  from e x a m i n a t i o n o f  maps f o r t h e a r e a t h a t t h e m o s t " r u r a l a r e a  s u b d i v i s i o n " h a s o c c u r r e d on and n e a r  the waterfront,  residential While  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  of 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 another resource o f c o n s i d e r a b l e importance encroached single  has been  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.  oceanfront p r o v i n c i a l park serves the e n t i r 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°  A  sixty-mile  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 c o m b i n e d w i t h a l a r g e number o f summer t o u r i s t s  f r o m a l l p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t r y , i t becomes  obvious  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  concern. I n t h e s p r i n g o f 1970  a special regional  district  p l a n n i n g c o m m i t t e e was s e t up t o c o n s i d e r l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t i n Community P l a n n i n g A r e a Number 14, assessment o f the s i t u a t i o n , be  "out o f c o n t r o l " . H  of the minimal  The c o m m i t t e e ,  after  termed development i n t h e a r e a t o  T h i s r e p o r t was b a s e d  on a knowledge  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 area  as w e l l as a p r e l i m i n a r y assessment o f t h e development  activity  to t h a t date.  " M i r a c l e Beach P r o v i n c i a l Park f i f t e e n m i l e s n o r t h o f Courtenay. 11 C a m p b e l l R i v e r U p p e r I s l a n d e r , " L a n d Use C u r b s U r g e d . " *  i s located ( J u l y 15,  approximately 1970) h e a d l i n e s :  The urged  board  o f d i r e c t o r s f o r the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t  a , . s u b d i v i s i o n moratorium . , . June 2 i n a to M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s M i n i s t e r Dan Campbell. e  letter  It recommended a f i v e - a c r e minimum area f o r s u b d i v i s i o n i n Community P l a n n i n g area from Bowser to B l o e d e l i n the e a s t c o a s t w a t e r s h e d . ^ x  While the board  o f d i r e c t o r s was  the reason f o r i t s r e q u e s t , there was the s u b d i v i s i o n moratorium was  not e x p l i c i t i n  the i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t  to serve the same purpose as  the moratorium a l r e a d y i n e x i s t e n c e on the n o r t h e r n  gulf  13 i s l a n d s o f the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t .  J  The Honorable M i n i s t e r  of Municipal A f f a i r s stated that . . . he would be agreeable p r o v i d e d there i s "a c l e a r p u b l i c understanding t h a t the c h i e f reason f o r a moratorium i s to p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g 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 C o n t r o l s : E l e c t o r a l Area " I " ( V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Regional P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , 1 9 7 0 ) i s the p i l o t p r o j e c t f o r p l a n s and development c o n t r o l s on the i s l a n d s : Quadra, C o r t e s , Denman and Hornby. These p r o j e c t s w i l l r e s u l t i n the l i f t i n g o f the moratorium imposed on these i s l a n d s by the powers of the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , v/hich l i m i t s s u b d i v i s i o n to the c r e a t i o n of p a r c e l s not l e s s than 1 0 a c r e s i n s i z e . i ^ D a v i d George: " R e a l t o r s H i t Moratorium" i n the Comox D i s t r i c t Free Press, ( J u l y 2 9 , 1 9 7 0 )  It  therefore  district  became t h e o f f i c i a l  i n t e n t i o n of the r e g i o n a l  t o use t h e moratorium as an i n t e r i m  controlling  device.15 D e v e l o p e r s i n t h e a r e a were d i s p l e a s e d w i t h t h e proposal,  b u t no f o r m a l  districted  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was made t o t h e r e g i o n a l  I t i s assumed t h a t d e v e l o p e r s  attempt a t counteraction  w o u l d be f u t i l e ,  f u r t h e r assumed t h a t t h e y were a l r e a d y activity  felt  t h a t any  a n d i t may be  engaged i n s u f f i c i e n t  t o c a r r y them t h r o u g h t o t h e l i f t i n g o f t h e " i n t e r i m "  moratorium. In requesting had  also given  the moratorium, the r e g i o n a l  district  consideration to the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l status of  Community P l a n n i n g  A r e a Number 14.  A t t h e June 8 , 1970  regular  m e e t i n g o f t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s a r e s o l u t i o n was a d o p t e d unanimously. " T h a t 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 s o u g h t 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 to the Regional D i s t r i c t . 1 7 CARRIED  15it>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 t h e 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 . Planning w o u l d be a l l o c a t e d t o a r e a s i n w h i c h t h e r e was more d e v e l o p m e n t . " The m o r a t o r i u m " . . . w o u l d n o t impede d e v e l o p m e n t , b u t would g i v e time t o evolve s a t i s f a c t o r y plans . . . " l ^ E n q u i r y a t Regional 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 h a d a p p r o a c h e d t h e D i s t r i c t t o v o i c e p r o t e s t s , e v e n t h o u g h i n d i v i d u a l d e v e l o p e r s h a d made strong statements to the press. 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 , D e p a r t m e n t o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , o n June 16, 197C  The  r e s o l u t i o n d i d not a u t o m a t i c a l l y c a n c e l the request  i m p o s i t i o n of the moratorium. district  I t was  for  the o p i n i o n o f the r e g i o n a l  t h a t the moratorium could be enacted  much more q u i c k l y  through the Department of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s than through local action. The convinced  t h a t s u f f i c i e n t p u b l i c i t y had  proposal. complied  Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , however, was  Therefore with.  been g i v e n the moratorium  the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t  On September 24,  1970  not  request was  not  the Honorable M i n i s t e r  o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s made i t c l e a r i n a l e t t e r to the r e g i o n a l district was  t h a t the t r a n s f e r of Community P l a n n i n g Area Number  "imminent" and  t h a t " e f f o r t s should be c o n c e n t r a t e d  14  on  1 Pi concluding  the t r a n s f e r . " At t h i s date t r a n s f e r procedures are  and  complete, ^ 1  i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the moratorium c o u l d be i n f o r c e by  September o f 1971.  I t i s not c e r t a i n , however, t h a t the r e g i o n a l  d i s t r i c t w i l l continue The  to pursue t h i s course  of a c t i o n .  o p i n i o n t h a t development i n Community  Area Number 14 i s "out o f c o n t r o l " c o n t i n u e s  Planning  to e x i s t , r e i n f o r c e d  F r o m the f i l e s : Community P l a n n i n g Area Number R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t of Comox-Strathcona. i y  14,  9 s e e Appendix C "Copy of Minute Approved March 12, L i e u t e n a n t Governor." x  1971  -  by  the o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r e  housing,  u  While these  i s a l s o a shortage  of suitable  o p i n i o n s a r e u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d by  formal i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n depth,  i t i s e v i d e n t from' t h e 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 t h e upward t r e n d i n l a n d t h a t these  opinions are b a s i c a l l y It  valid.~-  i s c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e p r o b l e m s i n Community  A r e a Number 14, a s p e r c e i v e d b y t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , d e t e r r e n t s t o r e g i o n a l development.^2 considered  costs  Planning  may be  The r e a s o n s why t h i s i s  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 experienced  " 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  b y some m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s  can also  place  undue demands f o r s e r v i c e s o n t h e 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 : P r o b l e m s a n d P o t e n t i a l s , " i n T a m i n g M e g a l o p o l i s , Volume I I : How t o Manage a n U r b a n i z e d W o r l d , e d . H. W e n t w o r t h E l d r e d g e , (New Y o r k : A n c h o r B o o k s , D o u b l e d a y a n d 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 d e v e l o p m e n t 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 d e v e l o p m e n t may go h a n d i n h a n d , 2 l E n q u i r y among l o t o w n e r s 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 h a v e b e e n s o l d a n d 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 . Developers concur that 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 P r o b l e m s a n d P o t e n t i a l s , " p. 1 0 3 9 •  World:  Complicating the housing problem i n the l e s s developed a r e a s i s l a n d s p e c u l a t i o n , which 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 r o a d s and u t i l i t i e s b y g o v e r n m e n t s , b y i n f l a t i o n a r y t r e n d s a n d b y t h e dearth of a l t e r n a t i v e investments."  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 ( i n t h i s case, r e c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l ) must inevitably  increase,  3) The t r a n s p o r t a t i o n network, now highway i s not designed  dependent on a s i n g l e  to serve as a c o l l e c t o r route  f o r "sprawl" development.  Hypothesis Community P l a n n i n g Area Number lk  has  c e r t a i n unique  f e a t u r e s r e l a t i v e to the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. problems are not unique,  however, except  r a p i d development w i t h i n i t s boundaries  i n the f a c t t h a t has  o u t s t r i p p e d the  a b i l i t y o f government to e s t a b l i s h l e g i s l a t i v e Two  Its  controls.  areas o f 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 p r e v e n t i o n o f f u t u r e developmental P l a n n i n g Area Number 24.  The  problems i n Community  f i r s t must seek an  o f the i n c e n t i v e s to development, and d e v e l o p e r s ; the o t h e r an understanding  understanding  the p r a c t i s e s of the of how  the  rural  r e s i d e n t i a l environment i s p e r c e i v e d by the r e s i d e n t s . Both o f the above i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have been i n c l u d e d i n t h i s studyo  The  l a t t e r - i s examined by means o f the  f o r m u l a t i o n and t e s t i n g of an h y p o t h e s i s . The p r e c e d i n g account, and e n q u i r i e s made i n the course  together with  observations  o f t h i s study, has  r i s e to a number o f p o s t u l a t e s which appear to have The  l a s t two  tested i n this  study.  1) R u r a l a r e a development has proceeded mainly c o n t r o l by the Regional  without  District.  f o r m u l a t i o n of p o l i c i e s f o r f u t u r e development  i s both, necessary 3)  validity.  p o s t u l a t e s of the l i s t below form the b a s i s f o r  the h y p o t h e s i s  2) The  given  Topographic  and d e s i r a b l e .  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and market p r e f e r e n c e s have  l i m i t e d development to the c o a s t a l p l a i n r e g i o n s . Waterfront  l o c a t i o n s are seen as p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s i r a b l e .  4 ) Waterfront f o r p u b l i c enjoyment i s i n r e l a t i v e l y s c a r c e supply, 5)  Developers i n r u r a l areas are meeting market demands, . but to date the market i s d i c t a t e d more h e a v i l y by s p e c u l a t i v e demands on land than by a c t u a l housing needs.  6) S u b d i v i s i o n p r a c t i s e s have been based on minimal r e g u l a t i o n s and c o n t r o l s , which are f u n c t i o n s o f the Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s . 7) L o c a t i o n and d e s i g n c r i t e r i a which are commonly accepted i n urban areas r e c e i v e s m a l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n r u r a l a r e a r e s i d e n t i a l development,, 8) The v a l u e s and p r e f e r e n c e s o f r e s i d e n t s i n r u r a l s u b d i v i s i o n s are s a t i s f i e d by l e s s r i g i d standards than those a p p l i c a b l e to urban  environments.  A r i s i n g out o f the two areas o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l r e a d y suggested, and based on the p o s t u l a t e s l i s t e d ,  an h y p o t h e s i s  has been developed as f o l l o w s : 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  o r d e r to develop a methodology to f a c i l i t a t e the  t e s t i n g o f the h y p o t h e s i s , i t has been n e c e s s a r y to e x p l o r e the g e n e r a l concepts o f r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n .  Chapter I I w i l l be  devoted to a b r i e f examination o f the s u b d i v i s i o n p r o c e s s , the f o r c e s which a c t to b r i n g about  land development f o r r e s i d e n t i a l  purposes, and c e r t a i n environmental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s as they are  linked, to l o c a t i o n , design, and human response. The following section describes the methodology employed i n this  study.  \  Me thodology On the "basis o f the f o r e g o i n g p o s t u l a t e s and the h y p o t h e s i s requirements, are  the f o l l o w i n g m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  steps  suggested: 1)  To d i s c o v e r the e x t e n t and type o f r u r a l  area  r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s i n Community P l a n n i n g  Area  Number 14. 2) To attempt to i d e n t i f y the f o r c e s which have to produce the p r e s e n t  l e v e l o f r e s i d e n t i a l development,  3) To e v a l u a t e the e x i s t i n g r u r a l area development i n terms o f accepted and p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t e d  operated  residential  planning  standards  to s u b d i v i s i o n l o c a t i o n and design,  4 ) To attempt to measure how w e l l the r u r a l s u b d i v i s i o n s i n q u e s t i o n meet s o c i a l ^  requirements.  Data C o l l e c t i o n P r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n was accomplished examination  through  o f the p r o v i n c i a l assessment r o l l s a t Courtenay,  B.C. i n 1970o  Composite maps f o r the study a r e a were c o n s u l t e d  i n the o f f i c e s o f the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Comox-Strathcona,  ^The Merriam-Vvebster d e f i n i t i o n i s used: "SOCIAL . . . of o r r e l a t i n g to human s o c i e t y , the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the group and i t s members, and the w e l f a r e o f these members . . . "  a l s o i n Courtenay.  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 s were  2'' d e f i n e d f o r the purposes o f t h i s study. ^ No l a n d use data has been prepared  f o r the study  area,  but use.of the a s s e s s o r ' 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 lots  2) a l l d w e l l i n g s  (both v a c a t i o n and permanent  classifications) 3) l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r a l l p a r c e l s . From t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i t was p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n a t o t a l p i c t u r e o f e x i s t i n g r u r a l s u b d i v i s i o n i n the study The  l i s t i n g s a l s o p r o v i d e d the b a s i s f o r sampling  area.  procedures.  A t e n t a t i v e l i s t i n g o f land developers a c t i v e i n the study a r e a was made through Comox and Campbell R i v e r .  p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s i n Courtenay. T h i s was supplemented by o b s e r v a t i o n  of development a d v e r t i s i n g b i l l b o a r d s on the I s l a n d Highway, and by a l o c a l newspaper s e a r c h . Questionnaire When i t became obvious  surveys t h a t a f a i r l y s m a l l number  o f developers were a c t i v e i n the study area, a s e l e c t  sample  (to i n c l u d e a l l the major d e v e l o p e r s ) was chosen and c o n t a c t s were made with each f i r m f o r i n t e r v i e w appointments.  The  q u e s t i o n n a i r e schedule was c o n s t r u c t e d to p r o v i d e f o r  These are s m a l l l o t r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s i n r u r a l areas as r e f e r r e d to i n the scope o f t h i s study. The s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t a i n s t e n o r more l o t s o f approximately one acre i n s i z e o r less. I t i s not contiguous w i t h e s t a b l i s h e d c e n t e r s o f the community.  open-ended i n t e r v i e w s which would i n d i c a t e the k i n d of and a l s o the v a r i o u s p o l i c i e s . f o r completeness and  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  involvement tested  e f f e c t i v e n e s s , a f t e r which a l l i n t e r v i e w s  were c a r r i e d out a c c o r d i n g to  schedule.  L i s t i n g s of major b l o c k s - o f l a n d ^  which.contained  r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s as d e f i n e d by the scope of t h i s  study  were used as the b a s i s f o r a sample s e l e c t i o n o f s u b d i v i s i o n s . The  b l o c k sampling  method was  used f o r reasons  because o f c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s t a n c e s i n v o l v e d . c o n s e c u t i v e l y numbered, and with the use  of  convenience,  A l l b l o c k s were  a sample of seven b l o c k s was  selected  of random number t a b l e s .  S u b d i v i s i o n maps o f the sample b l o c k s were 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 o f  obtained two  s u b d i v i s i o n s not y e t r e s i d e n t i a l l y developed  was  chosen.  o b s e r v a t i o n which  T h i s was  done on the b a s i s of f i e l d  r e v e a l e d c e r t a i n " i n n o v a t i v e " aspects Maps o f t h i s sample were a l s o  additionally  i n these s u b d i v i s i o n s .  obtained.  A l l r e s i d e n c e s were l o c a t e d w i t h i n the sample b l o c k s , and  a random subsample o f t h i r t y - e i g h t r e s i d e n c e s  p e r m a n e n t ) ^ was percent the  obtained.  (classified  T h i s r e p r e s e n t s approximately  3.5  of the r e s i d e n t i a l u n i v e r s e as o u t l i n e d i n the scope of  study.  "'The b l o c k s of land r e f e r r e d to are i n the form of d i s t r i c t l o t s , s e c t i o n s w i t h i n townships, and b l o c k s a c c o r d i n g to f o r e s t r y classifications. They are u s u a l l y more than e i g h t y acres i n extent, and r e p r e s e n t the kinds of s u b d i v i s i o n 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 h i s t o r y , ^ R e s i d e n c e s were l o c a t e d from assessment r e c o r d s , which l i s t e d both permanent and v a c a t i o n d w e l l i n g s .  A q u e s t i o n n a i r e schedule was designed open-ended i n t e r v i e w s with householders residences, determine  A test run of f i v e  f o r use i n  i n the sample  i n t e r v i e w s was made to  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s and w o r k a b i l i t y o f the schedule.  A f t e r minor r e v i s i o n , the sample survey was c a r r i e d out d u r i n g a two week periodo  Three c a l l b a c k s was a r b i t r a r i l y s e t as a  maximum f o r such cases as were n o t a t home o r were unable to respond when c a l l s were made. The  t e s t r u n was used as p a r t o f the t o t a l  survey,  s i n c e i t had been p a r t o f the sample. Analysis of findings I n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from assessment r o l l s ,  composite  maps, and f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n was f i r s t used to assess the type and extent o f 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 i n the study area.  T h i s p r o v i d e d the o v e r a l l p i c t u r e o f r e s i d e n t i a l land  development f o r the study. The  i n t e r v i e w s w i t h developers  ( u s u a l l y the' branch  managers f o r development companies) were used to determine p o l i c i e s , a t t i t u d e s , o p i n i o n s , and methods o f p r a c t i s e .  They  were a l s o used to i d e n t i f y the e x t e n t o f c u r r e n t a c t i v i t y and the market f o r c e s which a r e i n f l u e n c i n g t h i s a c t i v i t y . t a b l e s were prepared  to i n d i c a t e the range o f s p e c i f i c  and methods o f p r a c t i s e ,  Comparative policies  (Developers' c r i t i c i s m s and s u g g e s t i o n s  about p r e s e n t and f u t u r e development i n Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14 were  listed.  In  the b l o c k sample, each s u b d i v i s i o n was examined  as an i n d i v i d u a l case study, u s i n g f i e l d q u e s t i o n n a i r e notes.  o b s e r v a t i o n , plans and  The g e n e r a l neighborhood  composition and  the a t t i t u d e s o f r e s i d e n t s to t h e i r s u b d i v i s i o n were noted. A p h y s i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f the s u b d i v i s i o n i n terms o f i t s l o c a t i o n i n the community and i t s d e s i g n was based  on standard e v a l u a t i v e  criteria.^7 The  s e l e c t sample o f two s u b d i v i s i o n s with " i n n o v a t i v e "  f e a t u r e s was t r e a t e d as a separate case study.  A physical  e v a l u a t i o n was made. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses  from the s u b d i v i s i o n  were t a b u l a t e d f o r o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s .  survey  C o r r e l a t i o n between  c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s were c o n s i d e r e d as p e r t i n e n t to the study. Tests were made f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e . .  Respondents' c r i t i c i s m s and  s u g g e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to e x i s t i n g and f u t u r e 'development i n t h e i r neighborhoods and i n the g e n e r a l area were l i s t e d . Reaching  Conclusions  Subsequent to separate a n a l y s e s , o v e r a l l c o n c l u s i o n s were sought  by b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r the areas o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  1) P h y s i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f s u b d i v i s i o n s was compared w i t h the g e n e r a l l e v e l s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n as r e v e a l e d by the r e s i d e n t i a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses.  for  ^ A p p e n d i x D l i s t s l o c a t i o n and d e s i g n standards the purpose o f t h i s study.  used  2)  The  success  of existing  terms o f s o c i a l operation  residential  requirements  o f the  m a r k e t and  was the  developments  compared w i t h performance  in  the  of  developers. 3)  4)  Criticisms  and  developers  were s u b j e c t e d  The  hypothesis  suggestions  was  from both to  residents  and  comparison.  tested against general  conclusions.  Scope As a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d the purpose o f 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 Area Number 14.  Planning  The r e s u l t s o f the study can be expected to  p r o v i d e q u i d e l i n e s f o r the f o r m u l a t i o n o f p o l i c i e s to shape f u t u r e development.  Viewed.in t o t a l ,  t h i s represents a  p r o p o s a l o f r a t h e r u n r e a l i s t i c magnitude. t h e r e f o r e , to make c e r t a i n refinements The  first  I t has been  necessary,  to the scope o f the study.  step i n the refinement has a l r e a d y been  achieved by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on the p a r t s o f the Regional  District  where u r b a n i z a t i o n i n r u r a l areas- i s most c o n s i s t e n t l y o c c u r r i n g , i . e . , Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14. Because the Community P l a n n i n g Area c o n t a i n s a number of s m a l l s c a l e e s t a b l i s h e d urban c e n t e r s , a f u r t h e r refinement i n scope i s a c h i e v e d by l i m i t i n g t h i s study to o u t l y i n g (or r u r a l ) areas.  The assumption i s made t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n  o c c u r r i n g i n , o r a d j a c e n t to e s t a b l i s h e d urban c e n t e r s r e p r e s e n t s , to a g r e a t e x t e n t , the l o g i c a l expansion Problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h such expansion  o f these c e n t e r s . need to be d e a l t w i t h  s e p a r a t e l y from those o f r u r a l a r e a s , and are t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r e d to be o u t s i d e the scope o f t h i s study. contended t h a t the expansion undeserving  Itis  o f e s t a b l i s h e d c e n t e r s i s not  o f study both on the i n d i v i d u a l and the r e g i o n a l  b a s i s , and t h a t these p r o v i d e the elements f o r continued p l a n n i n g r e s e a r c h i n Community Planning Area Number 1^.  P r e l i m i n a r y examination o f development  patterns  r e v e a l s t h a t an extremely h i g h percentage of r u r a l s m a l l l o t s u b d i v i s i o n i n the Community Planning w i t h i n one  mile  of the c o a s t l i n e .  Area has  In urban terms, r e s i d e n t i a l  s u b d i v i s i o n implies l o t s i z e s of considerably I t i s therefore subdivisions with than one  a c r e , ^ and 2  taken p l a c e  l e s s than one  acre.  l o t s i z e s of g e n e r a l l y l e s s  l y i n g w i t h i n one  mile  o f the c o a s t l i n e ,  to which t h i s study d i r e c t s i t s e l f . While the term " s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d " i s d e f i n e d as the  l e g a l c r e a t i o n of two  simply  or more p a r c e l s from a  s i n g l e p a r c e l , f o r the purpose o f t h i s study r e s i d e n t i a l subd 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 . 9 2  Cases are e x c e e d i n g l y  r a r e where r u r a l area s u b d i v i s i o n s o f  l o t s i z e s are l e s s than t e n l o t s i n  small  extent.  ^A wide range o f l o t s i z e s i s found i n most r u r a l subdivisions. The average l o t s i z e i s approximately one h a l f a c r e , but o f t e n both s m a l l e r and l a r g e r l o t s are found w i t h i n the same s u b d i v i s i o n . 2  ^ A r t h u r 3. G a l l i o n and Simon E i s n e r , The Urban P a t t e r n , (Toronto: D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., 1950) use the s u b d i v i s i o n d e f i n i t i o n of the S u b d i v i s i o n s Map Act, C a l i f o r n i a , which says t h a t any p a r c e l o f l a n d d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e or more p a r c e l s w i t h i n a year i s c o n s i d e r e d a s u b d i v i s i o n . 2  How The  this  Study Relates; to  development of r e s i d e n t i a l areas  b r i n g s about environmental process  must c o n c e r n  and  years  guidance,  therefore  a great deal of e f f o r t  i t i s the  t h e r e must  o f t h e g o a l s t o be a t t a i n e d .  suitable  first "In  i n c i t y p l a n n i n g has  i n t o d e f i n i n g g o a l s f o r g r o w t h and  Therefore  planning  c o n t r o l s f o r the c r e a t i o n o f  o r d e r to p r o v i d e such  be a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  going  A t some p o i n t , t h e  environments.  In  p a s t few  change.  invariably  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  i t must p r o v i d e g u i d a n c e residential  Planning  development".-^  t a s k o f t h e p l a n n e r t o use  the been  0  such methods  as  are a t h i s d i s p o s a l to a r r i v e a t workable g o a l s . In  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  basic concern  f o r human n e e d s .  The  method o f  a  the  .'« . q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e a r c h f o r c o n s e n s u s i n a t t i t u d e s or preferences . . . 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 i m p r o v e m e n t p r o g r a m s more s e n s i t i v e t o t h e 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 s e g m e n t s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n . . .31 i s accepted  as p a r t o f t h e m e t h o d o l o g y o f p l a n n i n g  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l areas, such this may  study  as  Social  i s proposed  i s considered a v a l i d planning procedure.  be u s e d as a n e f f e c t i v e  planning policies,  and w i l l  t o o l i n the be  It  formulation of  less arbitrary  3°?, S t u a r t C h a p i n , J r . , and " P a t t e r n s o f Time a n d S p a c e Use," U r b a n E n v i r o n m e n t , p. 307  by  than other  Thomas H. L o g a n , i n The Q u a l i t y o f  the  direct  methods.  Although  p l a n n e r s t a l k f r e e l y and l o o s e l y about the g o a l s they are seeking to implement, » . . t h e i r a c t u a l p l a n s u s u a l l y s t i l l f e a t u r e the t r a d i t i o n a l s o l u t i o n s of p h y s i c a l p l a n n i n g . 3 2 It  i s the p l a n n e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to i n t e r p r e t  the g o a l s o f the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , even though they prove v a s t l y d i v e r s e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y  to be  conflicting.  The m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problems o f q u a n t i f y i n g s o - c a l l e d s o c i a l g o a l s are s e r i o u s , and even i f they can be s o l v e d , the p l a n n e r ' s recommendation on g o a l c h o i c e must s t i l l be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h the g o a l s chosen by e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s and w i t h those o f the c i t i z e n s , which are, a f t e r a l l , the g o a l s the p l a n n e r s and e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s ought to be p u r s u i n g , 3 3 T h i s study looks a t p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s and p r e f e r e n c e s i n e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l areas. have brought is  I t a l s o examines the f o r c e s which  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  p o s s i b l e to d i s c o v e r whether the f o r c e s which are  the landscape mesh w i t h the p u b l i c  shaping  interest.  3? H e r b e r t Jo Gans, People and P l a n s : Essays On Urban Problems and S o l u t i o n s , (New York: B a s i c Books, Inc., 1 9 6 8 ) p. 5 5 J  33ibid.  THE  RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION  The The  Subdivision  person who  Process  c r e a t e s a s u b d i v i s i o n i s not  only i  s u b d i v i d i n g the  land but  i s a l s o c r e a t i n g a community.  e a r l y d e c i s i o n s w i l l have long-range e f f e c t s . p r o f i t may way  the  His  Therefore,  while  be h i s primary concern, he must g i v e a t t e n t i o n to  land Is s u b d i v i d e d  and  the k i n d of environment  c r e a t e s w i t h the p r o v i s i o n of f a c i l i t i e s and t h i n g s provide  services.  the  he These  the market a t t r a c t i o n s which w i l l make h i s  product the most r e a d i l y s a l a b l e . There are n e c e s s a r y steps which must be the s u b d i v i s i o n p r o c e s s .  The  followed  developer cannot assume  freedom to do w i t h h i s assembled land as he p l e a s e s ,  in  absolute although  t h i s was once I m p l i c i t under the common law. A s t a t u t o r y change i n the common law p o s i t i o n has come about . . . which r e g u l a t e s area, shape and dimension of p a r c e l s .  A r t h u r M. Weimer and Homer Hoyt, Real E s t a t e , (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1 Q 6 6 ) p. 3 3 5 , " • -. . the developer o f a l a r g e s u b d i v i s i o n i s i n e f f e c t the developer of a community. The developer of a s m a l l s u b d i v i s i o n ' c r e a t e s at l e a s t a p a r t of a neighborhood." 1  2From a l e c t u r e by W.T. Lane, i n s t r u c t o r i n Lav/ f o r L o c a l P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, February 1 9 7 1 .  Appendix E l i s t s the procedure for subdividing land within municipalities i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  Regulations are  designed to control land development which occurs because of influencing factors. Population increase i s generally accepted as the major factor which gives impetus to land development for any purpose.  This factor i s expected to be c r i t i c a l when population  increases also coincide with economic changes such as increase i n business a c t i v i t y , employment, and family i n c o m e , T h i s became e s p e c i a l l y apparent i n the 1950's i n North America, when The p l o t t i n g of large acreas of raw land for future use and the s e l l i n g of these f o r "speculative investment" i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of rapid population increasesbecame a very common procedure. The speculative investor has several alternatives open to him when he purchases raw land,-^  He can 1) hold the  land f o r a suitable time and r e s e l l at a p r o f i t , 2) subdivide into lots and s t r e e t s , 3) subdivide as above and provide  utilities  and improvements at some l e v e l , 4) or also build houses. One of the factors influencing the developer i n making a decision on the preceding alternatives i s considered to be the rate of change i n land values.  While " , , . land  ^Sanders A, Kahn et a l , Real E s t a t e A p p r a i s a l (New York: The Ronald Press Co,, 1963) p. ^ ^ I b i d . , p. 376  and Investment,  values  themselves a r i s e out  o f men"^ and  such v a l u e s  o f the a p p e t i t e s ,  f e a r s and  are a l s o i n f l u e n c e d by land use  a t the same time operate to determine use."''  7  e f f e c t i v e l y e x p l a i n s why  raw  to the p r o d u c t i o n  resource  o f any  land which has can  still  hope " . . .  This  not been committed command a p r i c e .  In a g r i c u l t u r e , l a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y i s measured s o i l f e r t i l i t y and  distance  to markets.  T h i s p r i n c i p l e can  a l s o be a p p l i e d to r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d , w h e r e . p o t e n t i a l depends on the f e a t u r e s and  land's  by  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (such as  c l i m a t e ) as w e l l as i t s d i s t a n c e  productivity  topographical from r e l e v a n t  o  markets. distance  Using the two  b a s i c f a c t o r s o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  to the market, one  can b e g i n to l i s t a number o f  f a c t o r s or f o r c e s which operate to determine l a n d v a l u e s  and  the  Q  a p p r e c i a t i o n o f these v a l u e s . 1) t o t a l  follows:  population  2)  population  3)  location  4) new  They are as  r a t e o f growth  inventions  ( d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e to means o f  transportation)  ^ 2 . Gordon E r i c k s e n , Urban Behavior, (New York: The M a c M i l l a n Co., 1 9 5 4 ) p. 2 2 6 "Land V a l u e s : A Framework f o r Understanding Urban L i f e " . ?Ibid.., p.  233  E d w i n S. M i l l s , "The Value o f Urban Land," i n Harvey S, P e r l o f f , ed,, The Q u a l i t y of the Urban Environment, (Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1 9 o 9 J p. 2 3 3 8  ?Ad apted from E r i c k s e n , Urban Behavior, p.  235  5)  climate  6) water (an important e s t h e t i c 7) human  consideration)  preferences  8) d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p u r c h a s i n g power 9) tax burden Recent e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t  the  H i g h e s t simple c o r r e l a t i o n s e x i s t between the p o p u l a t i o n change v a r i a b l e s and the percentage a p p r e c i a t i o n i n raw land p r i c e s » • . The growth r a t e of the housing areas seems to be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the l e v e l o f a p p r e c i a t i o n . This means t h a t areas which are growing r a p i d l y may have d i f f i c u l t y keeping a p p r e c i a t i o n down.l° Schmid a l s o l i s t s  other v a r i a b l e s such as the growth  r a t e o f percentage change i n land use  and  f a m i l y income which  show s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h land value I t should  be noted, however, t h a t one  variables tested population  living  i n the  o f the p o p u l a t i o n  ( i . e . , the percentage of the urbanized  living  w i t h land value  appreciation.  i n the  fringe) revealed  appreciation.  fringe increased,  As  a negative  the percentage o f  the a p p r e c i a t i o n  distribution area  relationship population  l e v e l dropped.  I t i s seen, from the above examples, t h a t success i n raw  land s p e c u l a t i o n may  be assured to a p o i n t , because of  the s u b t l e f o r c e s a c t i n g on a p p r e c i a t i o n l e v e l s .  However, i t  i°A A l l a n Schmid, C o n v e r t i n g Land from Rural to Urban Uses, (Washington, D.C.s Resources f o r the Future, Inc., 1968) p7"58 e  has  been shown t h a t the  increase  i n percentage of f r i n g e a r e a  population  tends to slow the  l e v e l of a p p r e c i a t i o n .  speculator  must a t some p o i n t a l s o become a developer i n order  to maximise the p o t e n t i a l p r o f i t o f a p a r c e l of raw It i s postulated  developed l o t s p e c u l a t i o n  speculative  the  lando  t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n can q u i c k l y l e a d to a  state of over-subdivision,  The  Thus,  as raw takes  land-speculation over.  r e s u l t of uncontrolled  p r a c t i c e s has  ceases  and  x 2  and  indiscriminate  brought about u n s a t i s f a c t o r y 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 s u b d i v i d e d  areas.  This i s evidenced  by  r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n i n c e r t a i n c o a s t a l areas o f Vancouver I s l a n d where i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n was adequate water s u p p l i e s waterfront  ensuring  populations,  p u b l i c at large i s frequently  l o s s o f ready w a t e r f r o n t  as i n A s t r a Bay north  to  as  in certain  areas of Hornby I s l a n d . The  the  f o r increased  given  obstructions  and  a c c e s s through l a r g e  near Comox, and  o f Campbell R i v e r .  inconvenienced  the  Painter-Barclay  by  subdivisions, subdivision  Here access r o u t e s were p r o v i d e d ,  but  p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s made them unusable.  Richard M. Yearwood, "Land, S p e c u l a t i o n , and Development: American A t t i t u d e s " i n P l a n : J o u r n a l of the Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e o f Canada V o l . 9 , S p r i n g 1 9 6 8 , p. 2 2 , " . . . i t i s the m u l t i t u d e o f s m a l l s c a l e s p e c u l a t o r s who c o n s t i t u t e the bete n o i r e of o r d e r l y development of our communities. These f a r outnumber the l a r g e developers and the i n f l u e n c e of these o p e r a t i o n s i s f a r more p e r v a s i v e and m a l e v o l e n t . " 1  Regardless o f the d e s i r a b i l i t y on  a particular site,  cater  •campaigns s e e k t o i n f l u e n c e  that to  there  and a d v e r t i s i n g  the m a r k e t , a n d i t i s c o n c e d e d  A t t h e same t i m e ,  i s some s p e c i f i c  must  f o r the market l o c a t i o n a l  Ke c a n , o f c o u r s e , b y p u b l i c i t y  t h a t he d o e s s o .  amenities  the developer o f r e s i d e n t i a l land  t o t h e m a r k e t by p r o v i d i n g  demands.  of natural  limit  i ti s logical  t o assume  to h i s influence  i n regard  subdivision location. The  p o t e n t i a l purchaser of r e s i d e n t i a l property  a d e c i s i o n about h i s u l t i m a t e to v a r i o u s  functions  l o c a t i o n i n terms o f the d i s t a n c e  and i n s t i t u t i o n s  u n d e r s t o o d t h a t he a l s o g i v e s  and l e v e l  he depends upon.  consideration  o f t h e l o c a t i o n , such as neighborhood attractions,  makes  of services.  I ti s  to other q u a l i t i e s  character,  esthetic  I n t h e m a i n , however, he  is . . . a n "economic man" d e f i n e d a n d s i m p l i f i e d i n s u c h a way t h a t we c a n h a n d l e t h e 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 s p e n d w h a t e v e r money i t h a s 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 decision-making  approach to l o c a t i o n a l  the s i t u a t i o n i s such  such v a r i a b l e s are contained  within  that  employment a n d a l l  one s p e c i f i c  center  or  - ' W i l l i a m A l o n s o , L o c a t i o n and Land U s e : Toward'a G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f Land Rent ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964) p . I B 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 , b u t i n view o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f 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 e v e r y day l i f e , i t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s valid.  point  i n space.  In the r e a l world  there  are l i k e l y  t o be a  number o f s p a t i a l l y  separated variables vying  v/ith one a n o t h e r  as  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  major i n f l u e n c e s  s u b d i v i s i o n i t c a n be assumed t h a t related  to opportunities  centers, natural  the distance  l o c a t i o n a l decisions are  o f f e r e d by the n e a r e s t  to these  area  centers,  established  the cost  o f land  and t h e  amenities o f the s i t e . In  theory,  a b i d p r i c e curve  m i g h t be v i s u a l i z e d .  The c u r v e  involving certain  i s defined  tradeoffs  as  . . o the s e t o f p r i c e s f o r land 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 c o n s t a n t level of satisfaction . . , This  curve  according  i s normally expected to t h e i r personal  to vary  values  between i n d i v i d u a l s ,  and t h e i r a b i l i t y  t o spend  dollars. In  the context  of this  study, r u r a l  t o o f f e r i n t h e way o f n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s , t h o s e p e o p l e who v a l u e  a rural  desire  o f urban-type  a certain level  to a v a i l  "small"  l o tsubdivisions.  J  the f i n e s t  i^Ibido,  one  much  particularly time  s e r v i c e s c a n be e x p e c t e d o f f e r e d by r u r a l  ^  This  d e v e l o p e r s who have a t t e m p t e d offer  so t h a t  a t m o s p h e r e a n d a t t h e same  themselves o f the o p p o r t u n i t i e s 1  a r e a s have  i s u n d o u b t e d l y a n t i c i p a t e d by  t o assemble r u r a l  opportunities.  lands  Subsequently there  which  h a s b e e n much  p . 59.  l-^Rural " s m a l l " l o t s r e f e r s t o l o t s acre i n s i z e or l e s s .  of approximately  s u b d i v i s i o n and development o f these I t has been suggested t h a t  lands. "subdivision  i s the most  s i g n i f i c a n t p r i m e r i n the land development process . , , so t h a t when c e r t a i n areas o f r u r a l land are s u b d i v i d e d and serviced,^? pattern  a market i s immediately c r e a t e d  begins.  A chain  and the expansion  r e a c t i o n i s s e t up w i t h f u r t h e r  subdivision  and e x t e n s i o n o f " s e r v i c e s " , which can develop i n t o the sprawl problems o f o v e r - s u b d i v i s i o n  which a r e commonly r e c o g n i z e d i n  many m e t r o p o l i t a n s i t u a t i o n s . ^  Norman Pearson, "The S e r v i c i n g Cost Consequences o f S e v e r a l R e s i d e n t i a l Development P a t t e r n s and t h e i r I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r M u n i c i p a l Goals and P o l i c i e s , " (Vancouver: M.A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C., 1965) p. 18 iD  17piped water i s u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d a b a s i c s e r v i c e . When t h i s s e r v i c e i s p r o v i d e d i n r u r a l a r e a s u b d i v i s i o n i t s u p p l i e s an added a t t r a c t i o n f o r people to a v a i l themselves o f the n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s o f r u r a l p l a c e s . i S p e a r s o n , " S e r v i c i n g Cost Consequences", p. 20, i n d i c a t e s t h a t "water l i n e s c r e a t e development e x p e c t a t i o n s , h i g h e r v a l u e s , and h i g h e r t a x e s . Urban s u b d i v i s i o n and development c r e a t e demands f o r o t h e r urban s e r v i c e s . Each s u c c e s s i v e subdivision or s e r v i c i n g step c r e a t e s demands f o r the next step i n the land development p r o c e s s " .  Locational Evaluation Locational standards have been developed  for  subdivisions, using various sources of information, 9  These  are based on general goals which take into account the  factors  A  of public health, of development.  safety, convenience,  urban amenity and  efficiency  These are accepted for the purpose of this  It should be noted, however,  that evaluative  standards  study.  cannot  e n t i r e l y eliminate the problems of sprawl and a l i e n a t i o n of lands with prime a g r i c u l t u r a l or r e c r e a t i o n a l 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 r e s u l t i n sound community development . . .  l 9 S c h o o l of Community and Regional Planning, Residential Land Subdivision; A Physical Evaluation, Staff Research Project (Vancouver: University of B . C . , I965) P» 3 2 . See Appendix D of this study for Location Standards. J o s h u a H. Vogel, Design of Subdivisions, (Seattle: Bureau of Governmental Research and Services, University of Washington, June, 1965) p. 7 20  2,  Subdivision The  Design  q u a l i t y o f 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 b e s i d e s the p h y s i c a l q u a l i t i e s o f the raw H i s t o r i c a l l y , s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d was  u s u a l l y done  to a g r i d system, w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c r e g a r d features. He  The  subdivided  s u b d i v i d e r was and  frequently  for  land.  according  topographical  just a  subdivider. ^ 2  s o l d l o t s w i t h o u t improvements o f any  kind.  C e r t a i n problems were c o n n e c t e d w i t h the o l d system. I t was  often d i f f i c u l t  to accomodate and  d e s i r a b l e topographic features.  p r e s e r v e unique o r  More o f t e n s t i l l ,  t h e r e 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 o f g r i d p a t t e r n and  proper drainage f a c i l i t i e s ,  c o n d i t i o n s were too  s i m p l y because t o p o g r a p h i c  extreme.  Today i t i s the s u b d i v i d e r who roads and  roads  t y p i c a l l y provides  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 .  T h i s i s so even i n r u r a l a r e a s . I n more r e c e n t been i n t r o d u c e d  t i m e s a c u r v i l i n e a r concept has  in subdivision design.  2 2  T h i s has  been p o s s i b l e  i n two ways: 1) by d e v e l o p i n g a r e a s o f v a c a n t l a n d not 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 o l d e r p l a n s where p o s s i b l e . ^  g r i d system, and N  e w  I b i d . , p.  already  2) by r e p l o t t i n g  s u b d i v i s i o n on v a c a n t l a n d  ^ W e i m e r and Hoyt, R e a l E s t a t e , p. 2 2  also  348.  349.  ^ R e p l o t t i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y easy where v e r y l i t t l e o f the l a n d 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 o f 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 s o u l d be i m p r a c t i c a l . 2  has  been v e r y common f o l l o w i n g World War  I I , Such developments have  been on the p e r i p h e r y  sometimes i n vacant areas  between o l d e r s e c t i o n s  of c i t i e s , and of the  More thought has e s t h e t i c a l l y p l e a s i n g and  city.  been g i v e n  to the c r e a t i o n  v a r i e d neighborhoods as w e l l as  the p r o v i s i o n o f more economical s e r v i c e s . f o l l o w land contours are not a l s o put  an end  to s i d e y a r d  used to e l i m i n a t e  S t r e e t s which  only more i n t e r e s t i n g , but drainage problems.  problems o f e x c e s s i v e  v i s u a l monotony and  of  confusing  They can  can  be  road i n c l i n e s , r e p e t i t i v e  intersections. be  i n t o areas where a b a s i c g r i d p a t t e r n o f c o l l e c t o r  s t r e e t s and traffic  generally  they  Contour designs f o r r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n may introduced  to  a r t e r i a l s e x i s t s outside  i s thus d i s c o u r a g e d and  access s t r e e t s .  the  subdivision.  i n t e r i o r s t r e e t s are  Through merely  Systems o f c u l - d e - s a c s can reduce the  l e n g t h o f roads and  s e r v i c e s i n a s u b d i v i s i o n and  are  total generally  oh,  compatible w i t h contour d e s i g n .  Less land devoted to s t r e e t s  o f t e n means more land f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l space, and conceded t h a t the p r o v i s i o n o f open space w i t h i n is  i t i s generally neighborhoods  desirable, A problem which c o n t i n u e s to e x i s t i n s u b d i v i s i o n  development o f r u r a l areas has  not  been s o l v e d  or even  recognized  2^Joshua H. Vogel, Design o f S u b d i v i s i o n s , ( S e a t t l e : Bureau of Governmental Research and S e r v i c e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington, 1 9 6 5 ) , pp. 14 - 2 3 .  by many d e v e l o p e r s  t o t h i s date.  T h i s problem concerns t h e  a l i e n a t i o n o f land with desirable features 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 interior subdivision  d e s i g n have done much t o improve h i l l s i d e and "view"  developments  by p r o v i d i n g a g r e a t e r e q u a l i z a t i o n o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r enjoyment o f each p r o p e r t y .  I n r e g a r d t o streams and w a t e r f r o n t a g e ,  however, t h e r e seems t o be a c e r t a i n apathy toward d e s i g n s w h i c h p e r m i t t h e s h a r i n g o f such a m e n i t i e s as w a t e r f r o n t a c c e s s and view. I m a g i n a t i v e s u b d i v i s i o n d e s i g n c a n p r o v i d e open space a t the w a t e r f r o n t and p e r m i t m u t u a l enjoyment o f t h i s amenity even by p e r s o n s whose p r o p e r t i e s l i e w e l l toward t h e i n t e r i o r areas.  D e s i g n s e s p e c i a l l y c r e a t e d f o r t h e purpose o f 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 t h e 1950's,^ b u t such s o l u t i o n s a r e not o f t e n p u t t o use.  Instead, waterfront 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 t h e waterfront.  T h i s p r a c t i s e has e f f e c t i v e l y reduced t h e n a t u r a l  amenity (and t h e r e f o r e t h e v a l u e ) o f second-row l o t s , even though w a t e r f r o n t p r o p e r t y may command premium p r i c e s .  The  p r o v i s i o n o f access right-of-way a t 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 , b u t t h i s does n o t p r o v i d e a w h o l l y satisfactory solution for interior  lots.  5urban 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 o f Home B u i l d e r s , 2  1953)  Po  156  Designs have been created for c l u s t e r 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 s a t i s f a c t o r y arrangement exists for the neighborhood as a whole.  Improved opportunities for i n t e r i o r lots would  suggest that the p o t e n t i a l value of these lots would be 26  increased.  It i s considered useful to examine several aspects  of such designs which may i n some way also apply to conventional subdivision and the treatment of desirable waterfront space. Planned unit and c l u s t e r subdivision designs are noted for t h e i r attention to the preservation of open space areas. Attention i s given to smaller l o t sizes  (and i n the case of the  planned unit to a s a t i s f a c t o r y housing mix) ^ i n order to 2  provide for more open space for common use. A number of factors combine to produce desired environmental q u a l i t y ,  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 i n the study area of this thesis to provide conclusive evidence of t h i s assumption. ^Housing planned unit developments may range from single family to apartment blocks and towers, depending on the size of project. m ± x  2 8  i  n  V o g e l , p. 2 7 , 28.  Relatively large s i t e s are required for c l u s t e r developments, more open space is possible than with conventional subdivision of s i m i l a r o v e r a l l d e n s i t y . ^ 2  Open space i s so  arranged that access i s convenient from a l l u n i t s .  Recreation  space can be integrated with open space. Planned unit and c l u s t e r designs can lend themselves well to waterfront s i t u a t i o n s .  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 i n r u r a l areas.  It i s possible to assume that this is one reason  why more innovative subdivision has not been promoted i n water30  front areas to date. It should be noted that certain problems concerning the maintenance of public open space e x i s t .  The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  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 i n d i v i d u a l homeowners i n the subdivision. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of waterfront land i n r u r a l areas i s constantly decreasing.  As the amenity grows scarce,  however,  i t i s possible that an interest i n more innovative subdivision design w i l l be shown.  9Jack Harbeston and Gerald R, Schlatter, Large Lot Residential i n 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 l e g a l r e s t r a i n t s also prevent planned unit and c l u s t e r subdivisions. -^Harbeston and Schlatter,  Large Lot Residential, p . 9  Evaluation of subdivision design Planning standards and p r i n c i p l e s for subdivision design can only be established after criteria.  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of design  Such c r i t e r i a have been i d e n t i f i e d , and units of  measurement for these c r i t e r i a have been devised.^ are accepted for the purposes of this study.  2  These  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 f e e l about t h e i r neighborhoods, the following section discusses some of the more subtle considerations i n the evaluation of existing r e s i d e n t i a l places.  - School of Community and Regional Planning, Residential Land Subdivision, pp. 80 - 83, Tables 10 and 11. These are shown i n Appendix D of this study.  E v a l u a t i o n o f the R e s i d e n t i a l Environment The nature o f man's response to h i s environment i s understood o n l y s u p e r f i c i a l l y as y e t .  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 o f today's urban r e g i o n s , 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 s e t s o f human values. The s p a t i a l environment which an i n d i v i d u a l o r group of i n d i v i d u a l s perceives n a t u r a l environment.33  i s somewhat s m a l l e r than the t o t a l Man's b a s i c d e s i r e s f o r the comforts  o f l i f e and f o r m o b i l i t y have l e d him to produce environments w i t h i n h i s s p a t i a l environment. o f roads and u t i l i t i e s urbanizing  artificial  T h i s i s the network  which are the f u n c t i o n a l p a r t s o f an  region. I n s i d e the f u n c t i o n a l network a r e found i n d i v i d u a l  neighborhood environments.  S i n c e 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 i n t o which l a r g e r s p a t i a l u n i t s may be subdivided  , . " 3 ^ they can i n some measure be d i s t i n g u i s h e d 0  from one another by both p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . neighborhood may be a r t i f i c a l l y  created,  The  o r i t may be the r e s u l t  o f some n a t u r a l phenomenon such as topography, and i t may a l s o be the combination o f both,  ^^Harvey S, P e r l o f f , "Framework f o r D a l i n g w i t h the Urban Environment", i n The Q u a l i t y o f 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 n a t u r a l , s p a t i a l ( p e r c e i v e d ) , 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. e  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 P e r s p e c t i v e , (New York: Random House, I n c . 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, i n s t i t u t i o n s and work places.  They  are also the " . • o settings for the i n d i v i d u a l ' s most intimate s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s as v/ell as for his most d i r e c t and frequent contacts with the man-made physical environment.35 It i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible to gain an understanding of the neighborhood through an evaluation of i t s  location  r e l a t i v e to the larger community, and i t s physical design. On the surface, an evaluation of location and design factors  i n e x i s t i n g 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^ the r e l a t i v e  This would indicate  success (or f a i l u r e ) of i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d e n t i a l  subdivisions. A purely physical evaluation can be achieved by r e l a t i n g l o c a t i o n and design factors to broadly accepted planning standards and p r i n c i p l e s .  These are quantifiable  but are extremely l i m i t e d i n t h e i r usefulness  criteria,  i n terms of  s o c i o l o g i c a l factors.  They are unable to take into account  the s p e c i f i c  and values of people i n a p a r t i c u l a r  attitudes  r e s i d e n t i a l place.  35perloff,  "Urban Environment", p.  19  36Jerome R. Saroff and Alberta Z. Leyitan, Survey Manual for Comprehensive Urban Planning, (Alaska: Institute of S o c i a l , Economic and Government Research, Univ. of Alaska, 19&9) p. 1 points out that "The planning process begins with an analysis of e x i s t i n g conditions".  LlQ ' s  The personal values which people have are assumed to be the elements of t h e i r basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c q u a l i t i e s . Personal values represent r e a l l i k e s 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 c e r t a i n community.  People who have been i n a  neighborhood for a long time may be expected to r e t a i n 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 q u a l i t y , need not be a complete exercise i n i t s e l f ,  however,  but should rather  serve as part of a larger exercise to provide guidelines for the development of future neighborhoods. i s not e n t i r e l y s u f f i c i e n t  A mere preference survey  for t h i s purpose.  People tend to base t h e i r own preferences  (or what they  say they prefer) on what they see others around them doing.  Thus,  r e a l preferences uninfluenced by other forces, can often be obtained by more subtle means of opinion gathering.  This i s  only achieved by obtaining a better understanding of people.  3?E. Gordon E r i c k s e n , Urban Behavior, (New York: The MacMillan Company/ 1 9 5 4 ) p. 9 6 , ~ . men are i n a p o s i t i o n to dig for roots just l i k e 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 ^ I b i d . , p. 1 9 2 , " . . , through observing the location i n the community 'where a person s e t t l e s , 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 i g h t l y  knit family. 3) Those who are deeply sensitive about t h e i r physical wellbeing. 4) People who stress the personal enjoyment of t h e i r l e i s u r e time. 5) Those who evaluate  t h e i r environment  esthetically,  by the order and harmony they see i n i t . 6) Those who are sensitive to others' needs and just in t h e i r conduct. 7) Those who place a high value on the freedom to make t h e i r own decisions. 8) People who are anxious to control t h e i r own .environment. 9) People v/ho emphasize s o c i a l prestige. It i s i m p l i c i t also that c e r t a i n groups might be i d e n t i f i e d whose personal values are represented by a combination of the above  classifications. The choice of a r e s i d e n t i a l 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 l a s s i f i c a t i o n s as outlined.  satisfaction.  Therefore i t may be assumed that i f there are  no constraints i n choice of l o c a t i o n , people w i l l generally  choose  to l i v e in areas where the opportunity to maximise t h e i r own personal values are most l i k e l y to  exist.^®  Accepted planning standards and p r i n c i p l e s derive i n part from broad s o c i a l goals,  as nearly as these can be ascertained 4l  from i n d i v i d u a l values and preferences. assume, however,  It i s possible  to  that those standards and p r i n c i p l e s which  apply to certain metropolitan r e s i d e n t i a l situations do not necessarily apply to every other case. i n d i v i d u a l values and preferences  Both s o c i a l goals and  can vary by area.  What i s needed i s to consult with people who l i v e i n a p a r t i c u l a r place.  By t h i s means i t i s possible to relate  a c e r t a i n l e v e l of s o c i a l response to the purely physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and location of the r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision. I f 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 characteristics,  services,  and possibly even housegrouping  and landscaping.  Arthur B, G a l l i o n and Simon E i s n e r , 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 e n t i t y man seeks the companionship of his fellowmen. Generally d e s i r i n g the association of others as much l i k e 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 i s conceded that the values and true preferences of people are not r e a d i l y ascertained.  Complex s o c i o l o g i c a l  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are recognized which are not e a s i l y 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 a v a i l a b l e .  it 2  *  Saroff and Levitan, Survey Manual, p. 1, "It i s 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, a l s o , a systematic survey of public reactions to the e x i s t i n g physical environment."  CHAPTER III A SURVEY OF THE STUDY AREA Subdivision in Community Planning Area Number 14 At the present time i t i s evident that a great amount of subdivision and land development has taken place i n Community Planning Area Number 1 4 .  1  The major thrust of this  i s c l e a r l y seen as development i n or adjacent centers•  to  activity  long-established  2  The major centers have grown r a p i d l y i n the past two years.  Cumberland's population is 153^;  Courtenay and Comox  have populations of 5 8 6 l and 2833 respectively; has a population of 8261. centers, however,  C mpbell River a  The trading area population of these  represents more than double t h e i r i n t e r n a l  populations.^ The secondary thrust of development in r u r a l areas has occurred on a rather large scale as w e l l , ^  Although  •'•Campbell River assessment in 1969 t o t a l l e d $104,600,000.00 compared to 1959 t o t a l s of $5,800,000.00 ^This was most r e a d i l y 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 activity. •^Trade and Commerce Magazine,  (C nvpbell River, A p r i l , a  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 subd i v i s i o n i s t y p i c a l l y indicated by r e a l t y advertising signboards. This information i s supplemented by examination of assessment rolls.  breakdowns o f r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n s are not immediately  available,  it  in rural  i s estimated  t h a t i n excess  o f 4000 persons  live  s u b d i v i s i o n s l o c a t e d l e s s than one mile from the w a t e r f r o n t . ^ Of the r u r a l areas unconnected w i t h urban c e n t e r expansion,  the w a t e r f r o n t areas are most a c t i v e l y  developed.  being  R e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s v a r y g r e a t l y i n s c a l e near  the w a t e r f r o n t , r a n g i n g from s m a l l t e n - l o t developments to massive developments i n v o l v i n g more than one hundred l o t s . g e n e r a l l y s m a l l - l o t developments, i . e . , l o t s o f one  acre i n s i z e or l e s s .  In many cases, due  approximately  to the s p o r a d i c  nature o f development, the o c c a s i o n a l l o t of two may in  These are  or three a c r e s  be i n t e r s p e r s e d w i t h many l o t s of perhaps o n e - h a l f acre size. The methods o f s u b d i v i s i o n g e n e r a l l y found  P l a n n i n g Area Number 14 may  be r o u g h l y c l a s s i f i e d  i n Community  i n three  categories: 1) Landowner and  B.C.  Land  Surveyor:  These are u s u a l l y l a r g e l o t s , up to ten acres i n s i z e and t h a t such  occasionally larger.  (Informed  opinion  suggests  l o t s are very p o p u l a r w i t h c i t y d w e l l e r s . )  i s made v e r y easy by the owner-subdivider.  One  5This f i g u r e i s based on the examination rolls for 1 9 7 0 .  Purchase  percent down  o f assessment  ^ I n f o r m a t i o n here i s condensed from a s e r i e s of i n f o r m a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h a q u a l i f i e d 3.C. Land Surveyor, landowners, d e v e l o p e r s , and i n d i v i d u a l s p e c u l a t o r s i n Community P l a n n i n g 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 p l o t 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 r e l i e v e d himself of large parcels of undeveloped land which he may have held for many years.  He i s no longer burdened by taxes, while  at the same time he i s able to r e t a i n for h i s own use a small acreage.  He also enjoys  the returns of an extended income  from the sale of his subdivided l o t s . 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  life.  2) Rural area subdivision by developers: The enterprising developer may d e l i b e r a t e l y search for a piece of raw land with q u a l i t i e s as near to what he considers i d e a l as possible. offer,  negotiates,  He approaches the owner with an  and purchases i f the price i s r i g h t .  Having  worked out h i s probable costs and p r o f i t s c a r e f u l l y , he subdivides into what he considers i d e a l r u r a l lots and provides the required 7  services. feels  He w i l l sometimes exceed the requirement,  i f he  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 w i r i n g . Water extension i s confined to areas where a water main i s 7The minimum requirements f o r s u b d i v i s i o n i n Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14 are g i v e n i n Appendix B.  adjacent  to the development.  A d r i l l tap test for groundwater  i s occasionally used to insure the p o s s i b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l wells. A s o i l percolation test i s conducted to insure septic tank operation.  In extreme cases,  satisfactory  the developer may  i n s t a l l h i s 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 b u i l d i n g contractor to act as h i s own developer.  He may acquire a small parcel of land  and develop i t into several l o t s , with the necessary of services. contract.  extension  He can then b u i l d either on speculation or by  Real estate agents are a c t i v e ,  and since there i s  some s c a r c i t y of good q u a l i t y older homes i n the area generally, a new house may be sold before i t i s f i n i s h e d .  It i s unusual  for a house to remain unsold over an extended period. Real estate agencies also d i r e c t a c e r t a i n amount of subdivision for owners of larger parcels.  As agents for the  owner, they d i r e c t 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 i s 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 i s also made.  The D e v e l o p e r  It the  is'unlikely  combination  shape  land  would  i n the study  have  with  purposes.  to consult with  by w h i c h 1)  open-ended  three  to perceive  l a n d development and  I t i s also unlikely  of existing F o r these  practise  reasons,  t h a t one  i n developing  i t was  considered  who a r e c o n v e r s a n t  i n the area.  questionnaire schedule  basic areas  The l a n d  i s able  a number o f p e r s o n s  development a c t i v i t i e s An  area.  a t o t a l grasp  f o rresidential  necessary  t h a t a n y one p e r s o n  o f f o r c e s which generate  the market  person  Interviews  o f enquiry  was d e v i s e d , '  could, be e x p l o r e d :  market  2) D e v e l o p m e n t p r a c t i s e s 3) A t t i t u d e s a n d o p i n i o n s and f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t The was  felt  tactfully  open-ended  that probing  less  t h a t the respondent  being  criticized  present  i n t e r v i e w method was u s e d b e c a u s e i t i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be  I t was r e a s o n e d  that direct  i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t i t was k e p t  times  about  in-the. area.  f o radditional  accomplished.  would y i e l d  o f developers  i n mind  must n o t be made t o f e e l  questioning at a l l  t h a t he was  i n a n y way. Q  The with  select  no r e f u s a l s .  sample  o f developers"  yielded ten interviews,  A p p o i n t m e n t s were made w h e r e v e r n e c e s s a r y i n  ° A p p e n d i x F. ^ I t i s f e l t t h a t t h e sample i n c l u d e s a l l m a j o r d e v e l o p e r s or l a n d development companies a c t i v e i n the s t u d y a r e a . The companies r e p r e s e n t e d a r e 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 a s p e c t 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 l a s t i n g from f o r t y - f i v e  minutes to one and a  h a l f hours. Eight of the interviews were with branch representatives of development companies based i n 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 i n conjunction with the opening question, "Are you f a m i l i a r 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 e n t i t y . A l l of the respondents, however, were adequately f a m i l i a r 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 i s 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 d i v i s i o n boundary.  Seven  developers i n the sample are currently active i n r u r a l area r e s i d e n t i a l land development, on a t o t a l of eighteen i n d i v i d u a l projects.  Projects range i n 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 o f the market i n terms o f - raw land? - developed  lots?  The  What i s p r e f e r r e d ? "  f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n was r e v e a l e d by e i g h t  responses.  Two d i d n o t respond. TABLE 1 LAND DEVELOPER ACTIVITY BY YEARS AHEAD OF THE MARKET Developer A B C D E F G H  Raw Land 5 5  years -  2 0 3  7 - 8  Subdivided 2  Preferred For Subdivided  years  -  3  3  5 +  2  —  3  Lots  1 year 2 maximum  —  3  8  Lots  3  1 maximum 2  -  2  5  1  1  This would i n d i c a t e t h a t long-range p r o s p e c t s are b e i n g and  t h a t the c o s t o f h o l d i n g land i s expected  considered,  to be adequately  o f f s e t by the p r o s p e c t i v e market. The directed.  search f o r raw land to develop  i s not s t r o n g l y  Employee f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the g e n e r a l s a l e s 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 o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r raw land purchase through a "constant watch" p o l i c y . i s made on the b a s i s o f estimated  returns.  An o f f e r t o purchase Where purchase i s  not p o s s i b l e , s e v e r a l companies w i l l c o n s i d e r  cooperative  development w i t h the landowner. An a c t i v e , c o m p e t i t i v e market has kept f a i r l y uniform  throughout the a r e a , although  land  values  values are  c o n s i d e r e d to be s l i g h t l y h i g h e r i n the Campbell R i v e r a r e a .  One respondent suggested that this difference was not "too logical".  Two respondents remarked on the exceptional  between waterfront and i n t e r i o r land. a current price of  $100.00  to  difference  Waterfront lots command  $110.00  per frontage foot,  while  i n t e r i o r properties are estimated at less than h a l f this value. All respondents agreed that the costs of development do not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y throughout the area.  The only  v a r i a t i o n noted is d i r e c t l y related to the l e v e l 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 l e v e l l e d off i n the past twelve month period. It was suggested that t h i s 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 and on developed lots within urban centers. to a general "over-supply" of r u r a l  features,  This was attributed  lots.  Several factors are considered i n establishing l o t 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" i n price s e t t i n g ,  i.e.,  one-third raw land cost, one-third  development cost, and one-third p r o f i t . were as follows:  Other considerations  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOT PRICES BY DEVELOPERS Method By market comparison By p r i c i n g what the market w i l l hear  Number of Respondents - 4 - 4  Six respondents conceded that there i s a housing shortage i n the area.  Five believe that present subdivision  a c t i v i t y i s a l l e v i a t i n g the shortage.  Two respondents  suggested that there i s no shortage of "high and middle-income homes", and three implied that there i s an oversupply of subdivided l o t s . No formal market studies for r e s i d e n t i a l lots have been c o n d u c t e d ,  x0  Two respondents indicated that they have  conducted independent studies for t h e i r own use.  It was  generally conceded that a market study would be desirable. Respondents were asked to describe t h e i r operations i n terms of the approximate r a t i o between subdivision and house b u i l d i n g .  The following r a t i o s were indicated:  A n independent market study of land costs i n the area i s indicated as a very useful area of extended research. i U  DEVELOPMENT PRACTISE Interview Number  Subdivide  Build  mostly  ' 1 2 3  occasionally  100" % 90 9? 100 % 95 % 100 # 50 %  5 6 7 8 9 10  _  10  %  5  *  subcontract subcontract 50  % —  100 100  # $  -  The kind of raw land sought for development market demands.  One respondent indicated that f l a t  wholly undesirable.  reflects  land i s  Another suggested that land with marketable  timber could pay i t s own way i n subdivision. as desirable features are l i s t e d as  The items mentioned  follows:  TABLE 4 DESIRABLE FEATURES IN LAND FOR SUBDIVISION Feature  Number of  Rural q u a l i t y Waterfront View Trees Slope View to water  References 2 6 2 3  l  Respondents were asked to outline t h e i r p o l i c i e s c l e a r i n g land.  The following practices were indicated*  for  DEVELOPERS' LAND CLEARING POLICIES Number of Respondents  Policy Total Clearing Selective c l e a r i n g No clearingNo set p o l i c y Dependent on circumstance  4 2 1 3  The practice of subdivision design is v a r i e d .  Three  developers depend on the B.C. Land Surveyor for designs, to approval.  subject  Three indicate that the surveyor and the manager  work together to produce designs. do the designing.  In two cases managers  Two companies have s p e c i a l planning d i v i s i o n s .  Location of subdivisions i s considered only as relates to anticipated p r o f i t s .  Factors considered are l i s t e d  i n the order of t h e i r importance as extracted from the 1)  it  interviews!  roads, 2) cost, 3) jobs (workplaces) and schools, 4) community  facilities  and recreation, 5) business and stores.  One  respondent"remarked quite candidly that " i f land is cheap enough, l o c a t i o n is not given any s i g n i f i c a n t  consideration".  There Is a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n opinion about the l e v e l of services which should be provided i n r u r a l areas. The question used v/as: "'/That services do you f e e l 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) Ground water test V/ater l i n e extension Underground wiring Paved roads Sewer-  3 6 1 1  It was suggested by two respondents that the present subdivision regulations are adequate for r u r a l areas. Ideal l o t sizes for r u r a l area subdivision were discussed.  One respondent suggested that there i s no present  need for "small" r u r a l l o t s .  Six suggested a one-half acre  minimum s i z e , and one suggested a one acre minimum.  It  is  s i g n i f i c a n t 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 l o t s . indicated that i n r u r a l areas "a mere f i f t y  Another respondent foot frontage  is  appalling and c r i m i n a l " . Dedication i s practised i n 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 t h e i r 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 i s 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 risks: 1 ) competition 2 ) market saturation 3) taxes 4 ) high cost of development 5) l o c a t i o n 6) costing estimates 7) threat of subdivision moratorium 8) l o c a l and national economy. The proper l e g a l channels for subdivision of land are well understood,, regulations.  There i s no d i f f i c u l t y  i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  Developers'' C r i t i c i s m s and Suggestions Most developers were q u i t e f r e e w i t h c r i t i c i s m s and s u g g e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to e x i s t i n g and f u t u r e development i n Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14.  These views have been  categorized i n t o sections dealing with p o l i c y , l e g i s l a t i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and development p r a c t i s e .  I t should be noted  t h a t the c r i t i c i s m s and s u g g e s t i o n s r e f l e c t the views o f i n d i v i d u a l s , and f o r t h i s reason there are some r e p e t i t i o n s as w e l l as c o n t r a d i c t o r y  statements.  Present Development Policy! "Sprawl" development i s o c c u r r i n g , w i t h improper  infilling.  The whole a r e a i s b e i n g 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. Legislation: Waterfront  Tree Farm h o l d i n g s a r e n o t taxed  w i t h o t h e r l a n d uses.  equitably  P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s r e g u l a t i o n s are  inadequate. Administration: Too much d e l a y and " r e d tape" i n s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l . No o v e r a l l c o o r d i n a t i n g body i s concerned development.  The r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t  with  land  i s an "octopus".  Development  practise;  Isolated cases of poor s o i l percolation. Too much small l o t r u r a l subdivision. Lots i n some subdivisions are much too small. The best use of land i s not always considered. Rural character i s  disappearing.  Land costs are too high. There i s too much subdivision and development  exploitation.  Unimaginative subdivision design has occurred. Future Development Policy; Create more small parcels Control size of  (two and one-half to five  acres).  developments.  E s t a b l i s h more p r o v i n c i a l government reserve in waterfront areas. Increase r u r a l l o t  sizes.  Continue the gravelled road requirement for outlying subdivisions. Retain more waterfront  for public use including "waterways,  • r i v e r s and lakes". Promote " i n f i l l i n g " i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 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 E s t a b l i s h Crown Land reserves  for public use.  Integrate street systems of adjacent Confine industry to "organized  centers.  subdivisions.  territory".  Create a regional plan for secondary roads.  Legislation: E l i m i n a t e the t h r e a t o f the moratorium on s u b d i v i s i o n . Development p l a n n i n g i s an immediate need. S u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s are needed. C o n s o l i d a t i o n o f the t e n percent r e q u i r e d w a t e r f r o n t  access  r o u t e s should be p e r m i t t e d . Provide zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . Regional c o n t r o l s are needed to zone " c e r t a i n areas as p a r k l a n d , as n o n - s a l a b l e  land".  • Persuade timber companies to r e l i n q u i s h prime development lands through t a x a t i o n . Administration: P l a n n i n g should be done by a c e n t r a l  body.  P l a n n i n g Boards should c u t "red tape". A c o o r d i n a t i n g body i s needed f o r land development. Regional r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s needed on new highway S u b d i v i s i o n seminar f o r developers Development  planning.  i s needed.  practise:  S u b d i v i s i o n l o c a t i o n should be c o n s i d e r e d i n terms o f d i s t a n c e to c e n t e r s . Increase  rural l o t sizes.  Slow down r u r a l a r e a s u b d i v i s i o n . Provide b e t t e r access  to the w a t e r f r o n t .  B e t t e r p r o v i s i o n f o r r e c r e a t i o n should be c o n s i d e r e d . Give more a t t e n t i o n to s a n i t a t i o n and sewage d i s p o s a l .  It was found that developers were quite w i l l i n g to discuss t h e i r 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 f a m i l i a r v/ith subdivision a c t i v i t y l o c a l l y and with the l e g a l requirements for subdivision.  Rural area regulations are considered reasonable.  Long range development plans of more than five are common.  years  Land a c q u i s i t i o n 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 i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . houses.  Developers r a r e l y b u i l d  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 f i n i s h e d . Where r u r a l land i s concerned, developers are mainly interested i n land with a "view" amenity.  Very l i t t l e  clearing  i s done during subdivision, and design methods are quite unsophisticated.  There are d i f f e r i n g opinions about the  of services to be provided i n r u r a l subdivision.  level  These range  from a bare minimum to levels almost approximating those of urban areas.  Developers f e e l that l o t sizes i n excess of one-  h a l f acre are most suitable for r u r a l areas.  Locational convenience i n subdivision i s given onlys l i g h t consideration, since the major factor i n 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 , influence staging.  but do  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 i s extensive areas with "unique" amenities  (especially waterfront)  in  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 r u r a l area r e s i d e n t i a l 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 can he simply c l a s s i f i e d as  These  follows:  1. Facts about the respondent and his/her household. 2 . Facts about the neighborhood or subdivision. 3. Attitudes,  opinions and the l e v e l of  satisfaction.  Facts about respondents and households: Simple, d i r e c t questions were used to e l i c i t facts l i s t e d below.  It was f e l t  the  that these would prove the most  useful facts for use as indicators of basic community s o c i a l structure. l  length of residence in the general area.  e  2.  length of residence i n 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 i n a waterfront or i n t e r i o r l o t s i t u a t i o n , . The following table  l i s t s facts about the respondents and the households:  Appendix F,  TABLE 7  In t e r v i e w No, 1  2 0  2  2 3  3  3 0  1 3  5 0  1 5  6 7  8  1 *  4 4  il  life life Q  1 2  3 0  1  life life  5  1 0  ?  16  14 life life life  1 7  18 1 9  2 1 2 2  24  6  life life mo o A  o  mo. 4 1 1 1  9  mo. 3  o  1 2  2 0  mo.  1 1  7  1 5  2 3  7 3  •  14  +  8  1 5  9  X  +  2  life life life  5  + +  4  3  5  6  7  Pre.. E lem. Sec.  4  +  2  1  2 §  6  o mo.  -O  1 0  2 5  1 0  5  2 6  1 2  1 2  2 7  5  4  local local Vancouver local local local local local local Minstrel Is. Tabsis local Cumberland local Terrace Vancouver local local local Ontario local local Ottawa V/, Coast . Vancouver P r i n c e Rupert ' Surrey  logging millwork tradesman teacher fisherman longshoring tradesman operator millwork O O  o  managerial shipyard tradesman managerial tradesman tradesman business tradesman business A i r Force retired business professional retired professional tradesman mining  - i n d i c a t e s not f i x e d CODS : 1 . Length of r e s i d e n c e i n area 2 . Length of r e s i d e n c e i n present house. 3 . Place of p r e v i o u s r e s i d e n c e 4. Occupation  -V.  2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2  2  Pulp M i l l Pulp M i l l Campbell R. Campbell R. Elk Falls Pulp M i l l Campbell R. Pulp M i l l  1  2  3  1  1  2  1  2  1  1 2  . 8 1 0 1 3 1 0  8 2 0  J 2  Campbell R. Campbell R. Pulp M i l l Campbell R»: Courtenay Campbell R. Courtenay Forces Base  l  Courtenay Forces Base  7  Courtenay  5  i  1  2  1  2  2  1  2  1  1  2  + Indicates waterfront lot D' D i s t a n c e to work. 6 , Place o f work. Number of c h i l d r e n . 7 .  • Facts, Opinions and Level of  7k  Satisfaction  With the use.of open-ended questions, delivered i n free, conversational s t y l e , i t was possible to gain e s s e n t i a l knowledge about the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 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 i n the interview between questions dealing with facts about the neighborhood, and opinions of the respondents, or the l e v e l of  attitudes  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 i n l a t e r 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 a t t r i b u t e s . 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  a t t i t u d e s and  f o l l o w i n g points provided l e v e l of  o p i n i o n s expressed  about the  the b a s i s f o r measurement of the  satisfaction:  1, The a r e a as a p l a c e to  live.  2.  The neighborhood as a p l a c e to  live.  3»  The neighborhood as a p l a c e to b r i n g up  4.  The  l e v e l of s e r v i c e s .  5.  The  l e v e l of  children.  utilities.  6. The neighborhood 7.  The  8.  Taxes.  9.  Community h a l l  location.  cost of land.  •  facilities.  10.  Neighboring  ideals.  11.  T o u r i s t s and  12.  The p o s s i b i l i t y of l i v i n g  tourist  facilities. i n town.  F u r t h e r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r e x p r e s s i o n of o p i n i o n g i v e n a t the end o f the i n t e r v i e w . c r i t i c i s m s and  suggestions  Respondents were asked f o r  p e r t a i n i n g to p r e s e n t and  development i n the neighborhood and  future  i n the g e n e r a l a r e a .  Methodology f o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e The q u e s t i o n n a i r e schedule to e l i c i t  was  Analysis  f o r r e s i d e n t s was  designed  i n f o r m a t i o n about i n d i v i d u a l neighborhoods, and  measure the l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n of people neighborhoods,  within  those  -However, i t i s a l s o e s s e n t i a l to make an  a n a l y s i s o f c o r r e l a t i o n s which may i n the sample p o p u l a t i o n .  to  overall  e x i s t between v a r i a b l e s found  Twenty-seven responses were obtained from the sample of t h i r t y - e i g h t residences.  Although this appears to be a  low percentage response, i t should be noted that a s i g n i f i c a n t 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 r e f u s a l s , 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 i s 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 t h e i r urban counterparts. Since the number of responses i s quite small, (twentyseven responses) there are c e r t a i n constraints to be considered i n the s e l e c t i o n of a testing method for c o r r e l a t i o n between variables,  Chi-square testing was rejected since many expected  frequencies f e l l below f i v e .  Tests for c o r r e l a t i o n were thus  designed for selected v a r i a b l e s , for those variables selected,  2X2  tables were prepared  and F i s h e r ' s Exact Test^  2  v/as  used to test for s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s . Correlations between a number of other variables a r i s i n g 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 and were not subjected  constant,  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  x  X X  X  7 8 9 10 11 12  X  x X  5 6  X  X X  X X  X  X  X  X  X  X X  X  X  MATRIX CODE 3. C. D. E F, Go H. 0  Lot s i t e (waterfront or i n t e r i o r ) . Length of residence in area. Length of residence i n dwelling. Place of previous residence, Occupation, Distance to work. Place of work. Number of c h i l d r e n .  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 i v e 3. Of the neighborhood as a place to bring up children. 4. Of the l e v e l of services, 5 . Of the l e v e l of u t i l i t i e s . 6 . Of the subdivision l o c a t i o n . 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 t o u r i s t s 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 i n d i v i d u a l responses.  This is accomplished by employing the  respondent's choice of words and phrases to construct opinion •scales.  It i s 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 f i v e - p o i n t 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). satisfaction,  The unit of measurement i s the l e v e l of  scaled as  follows:  very very dissatisfied/dissatisfied/neutral/satisfied/satisfied 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 i n this section r e f l e c t  opinions of people and are not necessarily  indicators of the physical q u a l i t y of the neighborhood. Scaled responses are tabulated as follows:  TABLE 9 SATISFACTION OF RESPONDENTS  SUBDIVISION  OPINION INTERVIEW NUMBER  v vy v V ddnss i d n s s ddnss X X X X  1 2  s>  4 5  X  X Xr  6 7  8 9  X  X X X X  X _X X X X  11 12 1 3  x  X X X  1 5  16 1 7  18 19  X  c  _x X  X  X  2 1  X  24 2 6 7 2 7  X X  X X  X X X X X X X  _X  X  2 5  X  X  X  X  X X  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  XX  V  I d n s s ddns I d n s s 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  X X  X  X X X  X  X  X X X  X X  X  XX  X  X  X.  XX XX XX  X  x X  X  X XX  X X  X  X  X X X X  cx X  _x_ _x_ X  X  •J X  -\  X X  X  x> r  X X  X  X  x:  X X  X  X  X X  X  X  V  ddnss cx  X  X X  1 2  1 1  V V  VV  X  X  X X X X  x|x  x_  X  X  X X  X X  X  X  X  X  X.  X X  X  XX X  X  X  2 2 2 3  x x  X  X  1 0  V  V  ddnss  x  X X  X  2 0  vv  x x  8  6  V V  r  X  x  14  x x  r  r  1 0  4  x  X  4  X  Code f o r Table 9 1 X ,  2,  3. k.  A  6. 7. 3, 9r\  X u «  11. 12.  OPINION r e l a t i n g t o : The a r e a as a p l a c e to l i v e . The neighborhood as a p l a c e to l i v e . The neighborhood as a p l a c e to b r i n g up c h i l d r e n . The l e v e l o f s e r v i c e s . The l e v e l o f u t i l i t i e s . . The s u b d i v i s i o n l o c a t i o n . The c o s t o f land. Taxes, Community h a l l f a c i l i t i e s . Neighboring. T o u r i s t s u s i n g the a r e a . The i d e a o f l i v i n g i n town.  V  d - very  dissatisfied  d - dissatisfied n - neutral s - satisfied V  s - very  satisfied  The Area as a Place to L i v e : Of twenty-seven  respondents,  f o u r expressed some  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the g e n e r a l a r e a as a p l a c e to l i v e . for correlation were made.  between l e v e l s  I t was found  of s a t i s f a c t i o n  Tests  and l o t s i t e s  that:  1) a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f w a t e r f r o n t l o t r e s i d e n t s were more s a t i s f i e d w i t h the g e n e r a l a r e a . 2)  a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f r e s i d e n t s 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 w i t h the a r e a . The  NeighborhoodJ None o f the r e s i d e n t s expressed even s l i g h t  s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the neighborhoods.  dis-  Nineteen were v e r y s a t i s f i e d .  Tests r e v e a l e d t h a t : 1) w a t e r f r o n t l o t r e s i d e n t s were more s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r neighborhoods 2)  than were i n t e r i o r l o t r e s i d e n t s .  r e s i d e n t s who had l i v e d more than f i v e y e a r s i n t h e i r neighborhoods  were more s a t i s f i e d ,  3) r e s i d e n t s who t r a v e l l e d  l e s s than f i v e m i l e s to t h e i r  jobs were more s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r  neighborhoods,  4) a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f w h i t e c o l l a r workers than bluecollar  workers were s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r  There was no s i g n i f i c a n t satisfaction without  expressed by f a m i l i e s  children.  difference  neighborhoods.  i n the l e v e l s o f  w i t h c h i l d r e n and those  C h i l d r e n i n the Neighborhoods No respondents were d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the neighborhood as a p l a c e to b r i n g up c h i l d r e n .  Twenty expressed g r e a t e r  s a t i s f a c t i o n than the o t h e r s . Level of Services: A l l respondents expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the l e v e l of s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d f o r t h e i r s u b d i v i s i o n s .  Twelve were  recorded as b e i n g s l i g h t l y l e s s than t o t a l l y s a t i s f i e d . A t e s t r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by those r e s i d e n t s who had lived  i n t h e i r neighborhoods  f o r over f i v e y e a r s .  Utilities: Only two respondents expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the  l e v e l o f u t i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e to them.  S i x t e e n were v e r y  s a t i s f i e d and n i n e were l e s s s a t i s f i e d , A t e s t showed t h a t r e s i d e n t s who had l i v e d more than f i v e years i n t h e i r neighborhoods  were l e s s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the  l e v e l of u t i l i t i e s provided. L o c a t i o n o f the S u b d i v i s i o n : Six location  respondents expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the  o f 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 g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f r e s i d e n t s more than f i v e m i l e s from t h e i r jobs were d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r location.  neighborhood  2) families with c h i l d r e n tended to he less  satisfied  with t h e i r neighborhood l o c a t i o n . There was 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 with neighborhood location as expressed by waterfront and i n t e r i o r l o t residents. The Cost of Land: Sixteen respondents were d i s s a t i s f i e d with the current, cost of land.  Of these, fourteen were very d i s s a t i s f i e d .  was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference  There  i n opinion between:  • 1) waterfront and i n t e r i o r l o t residents, 2.) residents who had l i v e d i n t h e i r neighborhoods 'less than five years and those who had l i v e d there more than five  years.  Taxes: Nine respondents were d i s s a t i s f i e d with current taxes. very  Five expressed some s a t i s f a c t i o n ,  and thirteen were  satisfied. Tests showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference  i n the levels  of s a t i s f a c t i o n with taxes between: 1) waterfront and i n t e r i o r l o t residents, 2) residents who had l i v e d - i n t h e i r 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 s a t i s f i e d with the present Community H a l l f a c i l i t i e s available to them  0  There was no  •  •  p,h  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the l e v e l s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed  by f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n and  f a m i l i e s without  children.  Neighboring: Twelve respondents only c a s u a l n e i g h b o r i n g .  i n d i c a t e d t h a t they p r e f e r r e d  F i f t e e n engaged i n more e x t e n s i v e  neighboring patterns. Tests r e v e a l e d t h a t there was  no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  i n n e i g h b o r i n g h a b i t s between: 1)  those who  had  f i v e years and five 2)  l i v e d i n t h e i r neighborhoods more than those who  had been there l e s s  than  years.  those f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n and  those without  children.  Tourists: E i g h t respondents t o u r i s t s using t h e i r area. and  t h i r t e e n were v e r y  expressed  dissatisfaction  S i x i n d i c a t e d moderate  with  satisfaction  satisfied.  Tests showed t h a t there was  no d i f f e r e n c e i n the  o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t o u r i s t s between w a t e r f r o n t and  level  interior  lot residents. Choosing  to L i v e i n Town: Only s i x respondents  i n d i c a t e d t h a t they would  c o n s i d e r l i v i n g i n town i f g i v e n the  opportunity.  Te.sts f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e r e v e a l e d t h a t : 1)  a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f respondents  who  had  lived in  t h e i r neighborhoods f i v e years or l e s s would c o n s i d e r l i v i n g i n town, 2 ) a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of those who  l i v e d more than  five  m i l e s from t h e i r jobs would choose to l i v e i n town. R e s i d e n t s ' C r i t i c i s m s and  Suggestions  Respondents i n the sample r e s i d e n c e s were asked f o r c r i t i c i s m s and suggestions c o n c e r n i n g the e x i s t i n g and f u t u r e development o f the area and o f t h e i r neighborhoods.  It  was  noted t h a t more s u g g e s t i o n s than c r i t i c i s m s were o f f e r e d , i t may  be assumed t h a t s u g g e s t i o n s a l s o r e f l e c t Suggestions  criticisms.  and c r i t i c i s m s are l i s t e d as f o l l o w s :  C r i t i c i s m s about the g e n e r a l area Lack of s o p h i s t i c a t e d Pulp m i l l odor and  entertainment.  fallout.  Slow a c t i o n on p u b l i c works. Too many people. Highway t r a f f i c  too heavy.  Highway u n s u i t e d f o r the amount of t r a f f i c . Not enough employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Lack of p l a n n i n g and development r e g u l a t i o n s . Poor t e l e v i s i o n r e c e p t i o n . Too much c a t e r i n g to h i g h e r income Too  but  groups.  isolated.  Trees b e i n g d e s t r o y e d . Too much American ownership o f l a n d . Oyster l e a s e s a l i e n a t e beaches.  C r i t i c i s m s about neighborhoods Stores are too d i s t a n t . Storm drainage i s poor. Recreational opportunities are l i m i t e d . Waterfront lots are too deep. Street l i g h t i n g i s inadequate, . Waterfront taxes are too high. Steep roads. Parks are not maintained  J 0  Speculation drives land prices up. Lonely for c h i l d r e n . 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 b u i l d i n g on the Curb r e s i d e n t i a l  waterfront.  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 i s h i n g . More boating  facilities.  Reroute highway. Curb pulp m i l l p o l l u t i o n . Restrooms for t o u r i s t s . More camping  facilities.  Permit unrestricted  development.  Increase recreational Expand.tourist  facilities.  facilities.  Conserve natural areas. Create a marine park. Curb water pollution,, Planning for future  development.  Provide better t e l e v i s i o n reception. Hire recreation d i r e c t o r . Suggestions for neighborhoods Develop more small parks and playgrounds. Regulations for esthetic  improvement.  Eliminate t r a i l e r parks from r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Expand school opportunities. Prevent t r a i l e r s on l o t s . Preserve  trees.  Create smaller r e s i d e n t i a l  lots.  Better road r e p a i r . Avoid very small l o t s . Provide community water systems. Prevent t o u r i s t s from using r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Provide better public access to the Local recreation f a c i l i t i e s Drainage improvement. Limit population density.  needed.  waterfront.  PHYSICAL EVALUATIONS Subdivision Evaluation The following section includes a general evaluation of each of the seven subdivisions i n the random sample.  Two "innovative" subdivisions are also discussed. Photographs and plans are shown. A comparative physical evaluation i n terms of location  and design c r i t e r i a follows the general evaluations of t h i s section.  The the sample. two  P a i n t e r - B a r c l a y i s the l a r g e s t s u b d i v i s i o n i n I t covers two  major b l o c k s o f l a n d on the w a t e r f r o n t ,  m i l e s n o r t h o f Campbell R i v e r .  Only one  o f the b l o c k s  was  i n c l u d e d i n the random sample. E i g h t y - n i n e permanent d w e l l i n g s were recorded i n the sample b l o c k , w i t h approximately q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses there from two  t h i r t y empty l o t s .  The  i n d i c a t e t h a t most r e s i d e n t s have  lived  to f i v e y e a r s , although p a r t s o f the neighborhood  are o l d e r than f i v e y e a r s .  The  s u b d i v i s i o n i s two m i l e s  south  of E l k F a l l s pulp m i l l , a major employer. General.Impressions The neighborhood i s g e n e r a l l y p l e a s a n t and repair.  S t r e e t s are l a i d out i n contour w i t h the s l o p e toward  the w a t e r f r o n t .  The  slope i s g e n t l e , but s l i g h t l y more  pronounced on the w a t e r f r o n t b l o c k . and no sidewalks  are p r o v i d e d .  i s the o n l y underground s e r v i c e . and c u l v e r t  S t r e e t s are not w e l l paved,  W i r i n g i s overhead, and water Storm drainage  i s by a d i t c h  system.  An elementary  s c h o o l gymnasium and p l a y f i e l d  r e c r e a t i o n space f o r the neighborhood. i s heightened well  i n good  by numerous vacant  maintained.  The  provide  i l l u s i o n o f space  l o t s , although  these are not  Waterfront  lots  are e x c e p t i o n a l l y  on them a r e w a t e r - o r i e n t e d , so t h a t fronting lots  on t h e s t r e e t  do n o t g e t a v i e w  deep,  the p a r t s  a r e seen as untended o f the sea.  and  o f the  bush,,  Pulp m i l l  houses lots  Interior  odor i s  noticeable. Neighboring patterns are varied, interaction  o c c u r s between m i l l w o r k e r s ,  generally aloof. w a t e r f r o n t and  There  interior  i s a definite  Some  social  but r e s i d e n t s  physical  break  are between  lots.  Residents are g e n e r a l l y  satisfied  w i t h the  subdivision.  Residents' Observations  A neighborhood park i s undeveloped maintenance Septic  was  disposal  because  no  system f o r  w o r k e d o u t by t h e s u b d i v i d e r who i s " p a t c h y " as some l o t s  dedicated i t .  have b e t t e r  soil  percolation. School  i s very convenient.  Street  layout  i s adequate  and  safe  for internal  traffic  and  pedestrians. The  lack  of a neighborhood  Beach  access i s generally  Storm  d r a i n a g e i s no  Shopping "handy  and  store  i s no  problem.  inadequate.  problem.  Community h a l l  facilities  i n Campbell  enough".  Pulp m i l l  o d o r and a s h a r e a d a i l y n u i s a n c e  c  River  are  800'  1600  The strip  Oyster  subdivision with  situated  on  River,  and  of  lots  the  one-half  the  are  acre  approximately  in  Hill  minimal i n t e r i o r  mile  i n length.  two-acre  and  one  lots,  acre  fifteen  considerably.  The  nearest  the  north.  in  distinctly runs  waterfront  The  Campbell fifty  range  recorded,  percent  between  with  s u b d i v i s i o n was so  developed  that dwellings  i s Willow  range  varies correspondingly. Point, five  miles  to  Impressions  p o r t i o n s o f the neighborhood interior  t o the w a t e r f r o n t .  characteristically is  rest  Length of residence  c u t o f f from the  parallel  the  ten years,  General  of  It is  size.  empty l o t s .  established center  The  south  Approximately  and  waterfront  l o t development.  permanent r e s i d e n c e s are  a p e r i o d o f more t h a n  age  subdivision is a typical  I s l a n d Highway t e n m i l e s  i s one  Fifty  over  Bay  by  the highway,  Waterfront  water-oriented,  while  are which  residences  interior  are  development  highway-oriented. There  about  i s a somewhat  residential•development  r e s i d e n c e s are  almost  totally  jumbled oh  and  interior  obscured  by  disorganized  appearance  l o t s , while  waterfront  trees.  trees  The  e f f e c t i v e l y reduce view o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the i n t e r i o r neighborhood. Slope on the one e x i s t i n g s i d e s t r e e t i s e x c e s s i v e , and s i n c e i t i s unpaved, there appears to be a d i s t i n c t f o r the m o t o r i s t .  The highway i s i n good r e p a i r , but a p o t e n t i a l  hazard e x i s t s w i t h numerous drivev/ays opening s h o u l d e r o f the highway. and  exhaust nuisances  highway-oriented  hazard  d i r e c t l y onto the  During hours o f heavy t r a f f i c ,  noise  a r e v e r y d e f i n i t e l y p r e s e n t f o r the  p o r t i o n s o f the neighborhood.  Overhead w i r i n g and a community water system a r e supplied. and  A d i t c h system adequately handles  s e p t i c tank drainage  storm  drainage,  i s good i n a l l a r e a s .  There are some v e r y good homes on the w a t e r f r o n t . One r e s i d e n c e i n the sample was t e m p o r a r i l y vacant, and a number o f r e t i r e m e n t homes were i n d i c a t e d by r e s i d e n t s .  Residents  are g e n e r a l l y s a t i s f i e d with- the environment. Residents'  Observations  Campbell R i v e r i s too f a r away f o r shopping most major shopping  convenience, but  i s done t h e r e .  Summer water p r e s s u r e s a r e inadequate. The highway i s a nuisance  and a s a f e t y problem.  A neighborhood s t o r e i s o n l y a mile away, and q u i t e handy. The  elementary  distant.  s c h o o l i s q u i t e convenient,  one and a h a l f m i l e s  Bus s e r v i c e i s p r o v i d e d both f o r the elementary  and f o r the secondary  s c h o o l i n Campbell R i v e r .  school  There i s 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 r a r e l y used.  Children play on the beach, and on vacant surrounding land. The beach i s not as clean as i t once was, and is not i d e a l for swimming. Neighbors are f r i e n d l y , but l i t t l e  r e a l neighboring occurs.  There are a number of retirement homes along the but generally  waterfront,  the neighborhood i s made up of younger  F i r e protection i s a problem because of Mothers provide a " t a x i " service i n Campbell River,  families.  distance.  for children with  activities  The Miracle Beach subdivision i s s l i g h t l y less than one mile i n length, with most development occurring along the waterfronto  There i s a single row of i n t e r i o r  lots.  The  •subdivision i s two miles east of the Island Highway, and  almost  midway between Campbell River and Courtenay. Thirty-two residences are recorded, and f i f t y empty l o t s .  approximately  Several dwellings are s t i l l i n the construction  stage, while others range i n age up to more than ten years. The subdivision l i e s within one mile of the Miracle Beach P r o v i n c i a l Park.  Two private waterfront resorts also  occupy the area. General  Impressions  Most lots are s l i g h t l y under one-half acre i n size. Waterfront lots are generally larger than i n t e r i o r  lots.  The  area i s heavily wooded, and l i t t l e clearing has been done. Roads are w e l l paved, and drainage i s not seen as a problem, although standing water was noted at one roadside area. The t e r r a i n  i s quite f l a t , but no ditching i s noted.  The atmosphere i s very pleasant, and the i l l u s i o n of space i s maintained because of the numerous empty l o t s . Several waterfront vacation homes were noted, vacant f o r the winter.  Access roads to the waterfront are unimproved and unmarked, so that they are indistinguishable from vacant l o t s . 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 appearance.  The neighborhood generally lacks  cluttered  cohesiveness  because of extremely scattered development, e s p e c i a l l y on i n t e r i o r .portions. Overhead wiring i s 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. Traffic  They are very independent.  and pedestrian safety i s excellent because of the  dead-end road. Distance to employment i s a d e f i n i t e  inconvenience.  Residents appreciate t h e i r privacy. Distance to school i s inconvenient, even though bus- service is provided. Taxes are inequitable for services provided. There i s 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 i s made of Miracle Beach P r o v i n c i a l Park,  1. ok  SUBDIVISION HALL ROAD  4  fig.  12  The H a l l Road subdivision i s a very small subdivision located on the coast five miles d i r e c t l y north of Comox. contiguous with more extensive  It  is  s t r i p subdivision along the  waterfront to the north. Seven dwellings are noted, with twelve empty l o t s . Although a l l residences are c l a s s i f i e d permanent, observation reveals that only one i s permanently occupied.  The nearest  major employment center i s Courtenay, approximately five miles away. General Impressions The subdivision cannot yet be c a l l e d a neighborhood, except during the season when the vacation homes are occupied. It has the appearance of simply having "happened", without much r a t i o n a l forethought. H a l l Road i s p a r a l l e l to the waterfront, at the top of a f o r t y - f i v e  immediately  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 r i g h t of way.  A large  l o t i n the middle of the subdivided s t r i p cuts H a l l Road i n two. Roads are minimally graded and gravelled. pattern i s not l o g i c a l .  The access  Drainage has not been well c o n t r o l l e d ,  so that there i s a tendency to soften road beds.  Public access  to the waterfront has been a l l o t t e d , but i s quite impractical because of the excessive slope. Overhead wiring i s provided. and septic tanks are used.  Individual well systems  A l l lots are water-oriented,  no i n t e r i o r l o t s have been created.  The subdivision i s  since largely  uncleared of i t s dense tree stand, which e f f e c t i v e l y blocks the view of the water. Temporary residents and the one permanent resident are generally happy with the seclusion and privacy of t h e i r homes, but are not e n t i r e l y happy with the road system. Residents'  Observations  The beach i s the main a t t r a c t i o n 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 i s minimal. The waterfront access r i g h t of way is impossible to improve. Location i n 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 i n s u f f i c i e n t beach frontage  for public use.  Neighboring opportunities are l i m i t e d . "The natural environment i s 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 i s 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  less than one-quarter acre i n s i z e . one-quarter and one-half acre.  slightly  The others range between  The subdivision i s located  three miles north of Gomox  0  Sixty-one dwellings are recorded, and approximately f o r t y empty l o t s .  Six vacation homes are also noted.  There  i s a considerable age spread of dwellings within the s u b d i v i s i o n , since the Astra Bay waterfront has been occupied for many years. Some of the houses are more than twenty years o l d , but they are in good r e p a i r . Major employment opportunities are at the a i r base and i n Courtenay. General Impressions The neighborhood i s very pleasant, with a curving street pattern conforming to the waterfront. are mainly smaller than i n t e r i o r l o t s .  Waterfront lots  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 s t r e e t s are paved. f i r m and w e l l g r a v e l l e d .  Overhead w i r i n g and a community  water system a r e p r o v i d e d . n a t u r a l drainage  A g r a v e l l y s o i l base p r o v i d e s good  and e x c e l l e n t s e p t i c  w a t e r f r o n t playground  Side s t r e e t s are  lies  r e a s o n a b l y w e l l maintained  tank d i s p o s a l .  A large  a d j a c e n t t o the neighborhood, and i s by a s e r v i c e c l u b .  An i n t e r i o r creek w i t h a b e l t o f t r e e s p r o v i d e s a backdrop f o r the i n t e r i o r p o r t i o n s o f the s u b d i v i s i o n .  Waterfront  d w e l l i n g s have a d u a l o r i e n t a t i o n , s i n c e the l o t s are not excessively large.  C u r v i n g roads and t r e e s p r o v i d e an i n t e r e s t i n g  use o f space. Waterfront sometimes to  cluttered.  access r i g h t s - o f - w a y are unmarked and There i s an abrupt, e i g h t - f o o t drop  the beach, so t h a t these r i g h t s - o f - w a y are n o t a l t o g e t h e r  p r a c t i c a l u n l e s s steps are p r o v i d e d . Three groups o f people neighborhood.  a r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n the  These a r e a i r base p e r s o n n e l , r e t i r e d  and n o n - s e r v i c e s f a m i l i e s .  Casual neighboring  persons,  i s quite  common.  Residents a r e v e r y p l e a s e d w i t h t h e i r neighborhood environment. Residents'  Observations  C h i l d r e n are v e r y happy v/ith the neighborhood. There i s some t o u r i s t c o n g e s t i o n 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 r e t i r e m e n t . Fishing i s a definite  attraction.  Hi  Septic  tank d i s p o s a l may become a problem i n time, when a l l  l o t s a r e b u i l t on. Community f a c i l i t i e s a r e convenient a t the a i r base.  Parents  d r i v e c h i l d r e n to Comox o r Courtenay f o r some a c t i v i t i e s . The  neighborhood s e t t i n g i s  Natural The  "picturesque".  a m e n i t i e s can be enjoyed without a f e e l i n g o f i s o l a t i o n .  neighborhood i s a p l e a s a n t p l a c e  Creek f l o o d i n g o c c a s i o n a l l y Waterfront residents  floods  to come home t o .  basements.  value t h e i r p r i v a c y , but i n t e r i o r  would p r e f e r b e t t e r access to the v/aterfront.  Access r i g h t s -  of-way t o the w a t e r f r o n t a r e sometimes c l u t t e r e d . T r a f f i c problems are almost n o n - e x i s t e n t . Street  l i g h t i n g a t i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s adequate.  residents  The  s u b d i v i s i o n i s s i t u a t e d on a t o p o g r a p h i c a l l y  rugged b l o c k o f land which runs contiguous w i t h Goose S p i t i n Comox Bay.  G e o g r a p h i c a l l y , the a r e a l i e s  approximately  one mile east o f Comox, Seven d w e l l i n g s are noted, empty l o t s .  Residences  and approximately  are f i v e years o l d or l e s s .  thirty The  n e a r e s t major a r e a o f employment i s Courtenay, seven miles distant. General  Impressions  Because o f f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to topography and v e g e t a t i o n t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n seems much more remote than i t really i s . Fifty  There are two  d i s t i n c t areas w i t h i n the s u b d i v i s i o n .  p e r c e n t o f the a r e a i s on a h i g h slope o v e r l o o k i n g  Goose S p i t .  I t has patchy  steep, g r a s s y s l o p e s are The covered  stands o f mixed t r e e s , and s e v e r a l  noted.  r e s t o f the s u b d i v i s i o n l i e s  i n a h e a l t h y stand o f moderately  i n the  tall  interior,  timber.  This  p a r t i s l a i d out i n g r i d f a s h i o n , w h i l e the p o r t i o n of the s u b d i v i s i o n on the s l o p e s has have been b u i l t Lot  contoured  streets.  No  dwellings  i n the i n t e r i o r p o r t i o n .  s i z e s range between o n e - h a l f acre and one  S t r e e t s l o p e s are q u i t e extreme i n some a r e a s , and may  acre. present  seasonal problems.  Ditching has not been used.  Roadbeds have  a firm gravelly base, but are exceptionally narrow i n many spots. Residences are exclusively designed and are oriented to the view down the slope.  Overhead wiring is provided, but  i n d i v i d u a l 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 i s somewhat l i m i t e d , and the topographical separation between dwellings may act as a deterrent to casual neighboring. There is a strong impression of abundant space and individuality.  The view from the slope i s excellent,  forested i n t e r i o r i s pleasant.'  and the  People are very pleased with  the natural amenities of t h e i r environment. Residents'  Observations  The v/oods and the beach are good places for c h i l d r e n , but the subdivision i s perhaps somewhat lonely for c h i l d r e n . Shopping and recreation centers are three miles away by road. Fire protection i s inadequate because of the lack of  sufficient  water. Ground water i s scarce i n dry years. Tourist t r a f f i c  i n summer i s a minor annoyance because of the  deadend street. Neighbors are both f r i e n d l y and h e l p f u l . 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 hay.  interesting"  i n the view over the  The almost  Fanny Bay s u b d i v i s i o n i s an o l d s t r i p development  totally  f r o n t i n g on the I s l a n d Highway, f i f t e e n  south of Courtenay. two  empty l o t s .  Seventeen r e s i d e n c e s are recorded, w i t h o n l y  D w e l l i n g s range i n age  more than f i f t e e n  from three years to  years.  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses have l i v e d  miles  there a long time,  i n d i c a t e t h a t some r e s i d e n t s  A shake m i l l  i n the  immediate  v i c i n i t y p r o v i d e d some employment i n the p a s t , but major employment now  i s In Courtenay.  A railroad  r i g h t - o f - w a y touches  the back o f most  lots.  General.Impressions The neighborhood i s v e r y r u r a l some s i g n s o f a g i n g and d i s r e p a i r . highway which i s h e a v i l y t r a v e l l e d  i n appearance, w i t h  A l l driveways open onto the i n peak p e r i o d s .  Some l o t s  slope r a t h e r s h a r p l y toward the highway. The view o f the bay  is partially  second growth of t r e e s and scrub, p r e s e n t s a somewhat unpleasant opposite. one  acre.  L o t s range i n s i z e  obscured  A f l o o d e d stump  by a mixed field  view f o r those r e s i d e n t s  immediately  from o n e - h a l f acre to more than  Overhead wiring i s provided.  Water i s obtained from  i n d i v i d u a l well systems and from a small creek. disposal i s not e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y .  Septic tank  Ditching along the  highway i s moderately well maintained. An old school s i t e and a community h a l l provide indoor and outdoor recreation opportunities, and since lots are large there i s an abundance of space generally,  A neighborhood  store and service s t a t i o n are located at the north end of the subdivision. The nearest public access to a beach i s two miles away.  An elementary school i s located at Union Bay, six miles  distant.  Fire protection i s l i m i t e d . Residences are very much highway-oriented,  noises are seen as a l o c a l nuisance.  and t r a f f i c  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  s a t i s f i e d 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 t h e i r community h a l l . Beach access i s  inadequate.  The neighborhood i s isolated and somewhat  "lonely".  Individual water systems sometimes cause problems.  Traffic to  noises are a nuisance u n t i l  become a c c u s t o m e d  them.  There  i s a lack  The c o s t people  of l o c a l  can b e t t e r  town.  employment.  o f h o u s i n g w o u l d be much h i g h e r i n town.  Some r e s i d e n t s to  residents  afford  to l i v e  would p r e f e r  Retired  here.  to l i v e  i n town, o r a t l e a s t  closer  "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 t h i s reason they merit a b r i e f , subjective  discussion.  Since the subdivisions i n question are very settled,  to date,  lightly  i t i s 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 t h e i r subdivisions.  The Craigdarroch Eeach subdivision i s located seven miles south of Courtenay, on the Island Highway.  The entire  property intended for subdivision i s 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 of-way to the waterfront.  rights-  Thus the developer was able to create  a s i n g l e , two hundred foot access s t r i p i n place of the foot rights-of-way  fifty  at regular i n t e r v a l s as normally required.  Alternating "panhandle" lots were then created. "handle" i s a twenty foot s t r i p .  The  With this method of l o t design,  two rows of lots enjoy d i r e c t access to the beach.  In  conventional designs, second-row residents have had to r e l y on public access  points.  Third-row residents i n this subdivision w i l l be somewhat r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r use of the waterfront.  They w i l l ,  however, have d i r e c t access to the two hundred foot public  site.  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 s e l e c t i v e l y have been constructed.  cleared and wide gravelled  streets  Second growth deciduous trees provide  a pleasant setting for the p o t e n t i a l neighborhood.  Ships P o i n t s u b d i v i s i o n l i e s on a p e n i n s u l a m i l e s south of Courtenay.  The  e n t i r e body o f the p e n i n s u l a . one-half acre.  fifteen  s u b d i v i s i o n covers almost Lot s i z e s average  the  approximately  The w a t e r f r o n t access roads have been mainly  c o n s o l i d a t e d a t three separate s i t e s . f o o t access road and  In a d d i t i o n , one  thirty  one p e d e s t r i a n walkway have been p r o v i d e d  to the w a t e r f r o n t . Two  i n t e r i o r parks have been d e d i c a t e d .  i s not commonly found  i n the study a r e a .  This feature  The parks are unimproved  "nature" parks, and have been made a c c e s s i b l e from a l l p a r t s of the s u b d i v i s i o n by the use  o f p e d e s t r i a n walkways.  assumed t h a t r e s i d e n t s w i l l f i n d these to be an  It is  attractive  p a r t o f t h e i r neighborhood. Very l i t t l e development. provided.  c l e a r i n g has been done i n t h i s whole  Overhead w i r i n g and a community water system are  Roads are f i r m and h e a v i l y g r a v e l l e d .  Drainage  is  not c o n s i d e r e d to be a problem i n the area, s i n c e there i s a g r a v e l l y s o i l base.  C u r v i n g d r i v e s and a h e a l t h y stand  of  second-growth t r e e s h e l p to c r e a t e an e s t h e t i c a l l y p l e a s i n g environment.  Comparative Evaluation of Subdivisions The methods used to a r r i v e 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 l o c a t i o n (in miles) of employment, community facilities,  schools, and shopping for each sample  subdivision,, 2) The weighted  l o c a t i o n a l 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 l o t pattern; vehicular and pedestrian circulation.  School of Community and Regional Planning, Residential Land Subdivision. x  ^Weighting i s described i n Appendix D.  SAMPLE SUBDIVISION LOCATIONS. IN MILES SUBDIVISION  4  5  6  16  5  5  7  1 5  10,  16  5  5  3  1 5  1  2  2  2  3  lh  3  5  2  3  6  10  16  5  5  7  17  1*  3  3  i. •i  3  3  5  3  1 2"  1  2  1-20  2£  10  1-4  2i  CONVENIENCE SHOPPING  f-3/4  2  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  i-i  EMPLOYMENT  "MODEL  MAJOR SHOPPING  SECONDARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUND PLAYFIELD  I  3A-2-! j.  i  1  -i—2  3/4-1i  COMMUNITY PARK  i-2  DISTRICT PARK  3  CHURCHES  1 - 3 *  COMMUNITY HALL  21  3 / 4 - U  JL  •3  H  7  1  i_  10  3  5  D  3  1 5  3  5  1  10  1 7  1 7  17  2  10  3  3  2  3  6  2h  10  3  2  3  2  RATING AND RANKING OF SAMPLE SUBDIVISION LOCATIONS SUBDIVISION  MODEL  CONVENIENCE  60%  6 0  AMENITY (ADJACENT LAND USE)  15%  3  AMENITY (ACCESS ROUTES)  15vo  SAFETY (FIRE PROTECTION)  10%  TOTAL % RATING RANKING  100%  1  2  3  4'  .  5  2 3 . 0 1  35.32  3 2 . 2 7  6  12  6  3  6  6  1 2  6  3  1  1  1  1  7 0  1  2 3 . ^ 1  36.41  7  48.01  3  6  7  2 9 . 6 3  2 5 . 1 2  9  3  6  9  1  1  1  48.82  3 9 . 2 7  4 5 . 6 3  3 8 . 1 2  2  5  .  4  6  TABLE 12 RATING AND RANKING OF SAMPLE SUBDIVISION DESIGNS  LAND USE  '  BLOCK AND LOT PATTERN  VEHICULAR CIRCULATION  PEDESTRIAN  SUBDIVISION  MODEL  f in streets f collectors f p u b l i c open space Lot s i z e Lot shape Easements Block length Curving s t r e e t s Lots a b u t t i n g s i d e and r e a r yards Buffer s t r i p s Intersections B l i n d Corners Steep grades Points of entry Offstreet parking S t r e e t width Slope Sidewalks TOTAL RANKING  _  + l4  —  - 1 6  -  -—  -  -_ _  0  2  1•  -1.5  -  -1 -2  +9 -20  +7 -13  - 5  -  -2 - 3  --  -2  -  -  -  _  -1 -13.5 3  --1  -  - 6 —  _1 -33 7  - 5  -  -3  --1 --  + 1 3  - 5  -  —  •  - . 5  -  _  -1 -19.5 6  5  - 5 . 5  —  - 5  -1  4  3  _l  -  +21 -14 - 2 . 5  -  -  - 1  -  -4  -  -  —  -  -l -l  -  -  -16  -  - 5  -2 -2  +12 -20 -2  --  -2  --1  - . 2 5 - 3  -2  •--  --  -2 —  —  -3.5 1  + 1 9  7  -  -  -1  6  .  - . 2 5  - 1  • _4 —  '  -1 -1 -6.75 -14.2 5 4 2  -  —  -1 -16 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 t y p i c a l metropolitan urban s e t t i n g .  In the case of l o c a t i o n evaluation, the "model"  has a weighted evaluation equal to one hundred percent. design evaluation, the "model" has weighted  For  characteristics  equal to zero. Ranking of the sample subdivisions was accomplished by comparison to the "model" s u b d i v i s i o n .  It i s seen that ranking  d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y between l o c a t i o n and design c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This implies that some subdivisions are more satisfactory terms of design, but less s a t i s f a c t o r y  i n terms of l o c a t i o n .  At the same time others may be more s a t i s f a c t o r i l y but may be less s a t i s f a c t o r i l y  in  located,  designed.  The comparative tables also reveal that the highest ranking subdivisions f a l l considerably short of the desired c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s exhibited i n the "model" urban subdivision. The f i n a l combined ranking of the sample subdivisions for l o c a t i o n and design i s as follows: Subdivision:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Rank:  2  7  5  1  3  4-6  7  The descriptive evaluations i n this chapter have shown that most subdivisions are minimally serviced.  Paved  roads are not provided i n a l l cases, nor i s a community water system common to a l l subdivisions.  Septic tank systems are  normally used, with success dependent on s o i l  characteristics.  It has been hypothesized that subdivisions i n the r u r a l areas of Community Planning Area Number 14 do not conform to l o c a t i o n and design standards for urban subdivisions. Evaluations have shown this to be true.  It i s 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 l o c a t i o n of other f a c i l i t i e s  is greatly varied  i n each subdivision, and i t i s apparent that this factor has not been of great importance either to the subdivider or to the residents i n t h e i r l o c a t i o n a l decisions. Design features also - generally f a l l short of the hypothetical requirements of the "model".  It i s seen, however,  that a l l the subdivisions f a l l well within the acceptable of land percentage a l l o t t e d to s t r e e t s .  range  The non-conformity  appears to be i n c o l l e c t o r roads, which appear to have the capacity of serving greater concentrations of people. Public open space i s consistently lacking within the subdivisions. be offset  In the eyes.of the residents, however, this may  by the wealth of p r i v a t e , but undeveloped open space  around them.  The residents are pleased with the existing  r e s i d e n t i a l environment, and have made a conscious decision to accept t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .  This suggests that t h e i r personal  v a l u e s and p r e f e r e n c e s are more f u l l y s a t i s f i e d by r u r a l than by the urban a t t r i b u t e s "ideal" residential  which are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  subdivision.  amenities  o f the  CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY  Summary It has "been shown i n the course of t h i s study that Community Planning Area Number lk has undergone s i g n i f i c a n t urbanization i n 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 r e s i d e n t i a l purposes.  Development  in r u r a l areas has been accompanied by s i m i l a r growth In and adjacent to established urban areas. From the observations made i n the sample subdivisions of t h i s study, i t i s suggested that approximately forty percent of subdivided lots i n r u r a l areas do not yet have dwellings on them, nor i s there any i n d i c a t i o n 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 i n the hope of a quick and substantial p r o f i t .  lots  The turnover  of vacant lots on waterfront s i t e s during the past five  years  would suggest that such speculators have been amply rewarded for t h e i r  efforts.  Land development  companies and i n d i v i d u a l developers  have implied that they f e e l land development  i s pursuing a  normal and desirable course i n Community Planning Area Number 14,  and that the problem of uncontrolled  does not e x i s t .  They acknowledge,  however,  development  that there i s a  great abundance of subdivided land, and that  speculative  .development continues to t h r i v e . o n the creation of r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l lots with unique amenities such as those found i n waterfront  areas.  Developers have revealed a definite raw land with natural amenities,  preference  for  and i t i s implied that they  are s l i g h t l y resentful of crown reserves and timber holdings which remain e f f e c t i v e l y unavailable  for development.  The  strong philosophy of unrestricted growth appears to obscure  the  consideration of possible i r r e v e r s i b l e and irremediable consequences, recreation  as i n the loss of public waterfront  access and  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 D i r e c t o r s ' attempts to curb "out of c o n t r o l " 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, to "buy" s u f f i c i e n t  time to permit the planning and  but rather establishment  of r a t i o n a l p o l i c i e s and controls. On the basis of such p o l i t i c a l concern, i t expedient  became  to examine existing r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n the  course of this study, as a preliminary step i n providing guidelines for p o l i c y formulation.  It was reasoned that  the  "success" of e x i s t i n g neighborhoods could be measured, and physical evaluations of subdivisions would then indicate what services and amenities were e s s e n t i a l to make subdivisions i n r u r a l areas  "work".  The hypothesis was put forward that r u r a l area r e s i d e n t i a l subdivisions do not conform to the standards of urban subdivisions, but that they f u l f i l l residents nevertheless.  the needs of the  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  ( p a r t i c u l a r l y the  waterfront and the v/oods) which d e f i n i t e l y enhanced the environment. The location of subdivisions was not found to be excessively good.  remote, i n most cases,  and access was reasonably  layout designs generally gave evidence to the fact  that  subdivisions were wholly l a i d out i n patterns conforming to such major features  as waterfront or.highway.  It was also seen  that i n t e r i o r l o t development was much slower than was waterfront development. stretches  Hence, the effective  of shoreline from future public  a l i e n a t i o n of vast  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 .  also learned that many residences,  although  It was  classified  permanent, were temporarily vacant during the winter months. Residents were found to d e f i n i t e l y appreciate  the  semi-rural atmosphere which prevailed i n t h e i r 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. difficult  Residents found i t  to perceive of a future, when a l l the lots now empty  around them would be f u l l .  Most would r e s i s t such changes,  i f given the opportunity to do so.  Conclusions Several o v e r a l l conclusions are made i n r e l a t i o n to the preliminary investigations  of this study.  The f i r s t i s that  the Regional D i s t r i c t Board of Directors was correct i n •assuming that development i n Community Planning Area Number 14 i s "out of c o n t r o l " .  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 p r o f i t motive and the growth i d e a l continues to  overrule  good intentions.  The t h i r d 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 l e g i s l a t i v e measures for future development.  bodies w i l l accept planning  For the developer this would  mean market s t a b i l i t y and s p e c i f i c guidelines, and for the l e g i s l a t o r i t would mean more r a t i o n a l development.' A f i n a l o v e r a l l conclusion suggests that environmental considerations are growing concerns even i n the sparse settlements  relatively  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 i n this study do not conform to  accepted planning standards and p r i n c i p l e s for location and design.  It i s also concluded that the obvious lack of c e r t a i n  services and f a c i l i t i e s i s greatly offset natural.amenities.  by equally obvious  The r e s i d e n t ' 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 i n the subdivisions under study appear to d i f f e r from the needs of people who choose to s e t t l e i n urban environments.  A high l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n  p r e v a i l s 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 improvement are expressed quite t e n t a t i v e l y .  for change and 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 i s possible to say that the hypothesis i s true.  It i s therefore concluded that p o l i c i e s  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 p a r t i c u l a r group of persons who w i l l choose to l i v e i n the semi-rural circumstances described by this study.  Sources C o n s u l t e d A. BOOKS Alonso, W i l l i a m .  L o c a t i o n and Land Use; Toward a G e n e r a l  Theory o f Rent.  Cambridge! Harvard U n i v e r s i t y  Press,  1964. B e r g e l , Egon E r n e s t .  Urban S o c i o l o g y .  Toronto: McGraw-Hill  Book Company, I n c . , 1955. 3eyer, Glenn H. Housing and S o c i e t y .  New York: The M a c M i l l a n  Company, 1965. 31alock, Hubert M. S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . Book Company, Boskoff, A l v i n ,  New York: McGraw-Hill  i960  The S o c i o l o g y o f Urban Regions.  New York:  Meredith P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1962 Chapin F. S t u a r t , J r . , and Weiss, S h i r l e y F., ed. Urban Growth Dynamics, Inc.,  New York: John Wiley and Sons,  1962  Doran, H e r b e r t B. and Hinman, A l b e r t G. Urban Land Economics. New York: The M a c M i l l a n Company, 1928.  . .  Duncan, O t i s Dudley and R e i s s , A l b e r t J . , J r , S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Urban and R u r a l New York: John Wiley and Sons, E l d r e d g e , H. Went'worth, ed. Anchor Books. Inc.,  1967  Communities,  1956.  Taming M e g a l o p o l i s , V o l .  New York: Doubldday and Company,  II.  Ericksen, E , Gordon. Company,  Urban Behavior.  New York: The MacMillan  195^•  Finney, D . J . , Latscha,  R. , Bennett,  3.M. , and Hsu,. P . ,  Tables for Testing Significance Table.  i n a 2 X 2 Contingency  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,  G a l l i o n , Arthur 3. The Urban Pattern. D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., Gans, Herbert J . People and Plans. Inc.,  Princeton, N . J . : 1962  1968 Methods in S o c i a l  New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Jean  and Harper, Robert A.  Bernard C. Public Opinion.  Publishing Company, I n c . , Higbee, Edward. Ltd.,  The Squeeze.  Metropolis on the Move. 1967.  C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth  1965.  Toronto: George J . McLeod  i960  Johnson, James H. Urban Geography. Ltd.,  New York:  Pergamon Press  I967.  Kahn, Sanders A . , Case,  Frederick E . , and Schimmel, A l f r e d .  Real Estate Appraisal and Investment. The Ronald Press Company, K e l l e r , Suzanne.  Toronto: Random  1968.  Economics of Land Use Planning.  Estates Gazette L t d . ,  New York:  1963.  The Urban Neighborhood.  House of Canada L t d . , Lean, William.  Research.  1952.  New York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , Hennessy,  1963.  New York: Basic Books,  Goode, William J . and Hatt, Paul K.  Gottman,  ed.  1969.  London: The  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. Comprehensive Urban Planning.  Institute of S o c i a l ,  Economic and Government Research. University of Alaska, Schmid, A, A l l a n .  Survey Manual for  College, Alaska:  1969.  Converting -Land from Rural to Urban Uses.  Washington, D . C . : Resources for the Future, I n c . , Selltiz,  C l a i r e : Jahoda, Marie; Deutch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart W. Revised.  Siegel,  1968.  S,  Research. Methods i n S o c i a l  Relations.  New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I 9 6 7 .  Non-Parametric S t a t i s t i c s for the Behavioral Sciences.  New .York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , Urban Land I n s t i t u t e .  Home B u i l d e r s  Second Revised E d i t i o n ,  1  1956.  Manual for Land Development.  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, I 9 6 9 . 3.  NEWSPAPERS AND JOURNALS  Campbell River Upper Islander. Comox D i s t r i c t Free Press.  (July 1 5 , July 2 2 , 1 9 7 0 )  (July 1 5 , J l y 2 9 , 1 9 7 0 ; u  March 1 7 ,  1971)  Yearwood, Richard M.  "Accepted Controls of Land Subdivision".  Journal of Urban Law .  "Land, Speculation,  V o l , 4 5 ('Winter  1967)  and Development: American A t t i t u d e s . "  Plan: Journal of T . P . I . C . V o l . 9 (Spring .  "Performance Bonding for Subdivision Journal of Urban Law  .  Improvements".  1969)  "Subdivision Lav/: Timing and Location Control". Journal of Urban Law  C.  V o l . 46 ( F a l l  1968)  V o l . 44 (Summer 1 9 6 7 ) .  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 :  University of North Carolina, i 9 6 0 .  Thesis.  Benjamin, K.C.  "An Aspect of the S o c i a l Implications of  Residential Area Planning: „  Ideal Role of Neighbor." •of B r i t i s h Columbia,  Chapin, F. Stuart, . _  ,  Vancouver: Thesis.  University  1970.  J r . ; Hemrnens, George C. ; and Weiss, S h i r l e y F.  Land Development Patterns  Crescent.  Chapel H i l l :  S o c i a l Science, ,  A Technique to Assess the  i n the Piedmont I n d u s t r i a l  Institute for Research i n  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 i n S o c i a l  University of North Carolina, Endersby, Stanley.  Science,  1962.  "Kitimat, B . C . : An Evaluation of i t s  Planning and Development."  Vancouver: M.Sc. Thesis.  University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Harbeston, Jack and Schlatter,  Physical  1965.  Gerald R.  Large Lot Residential  i n the Central Puget Sound Region:  Project  Open Space.  S e a t t l e : Puget Sound Regional Planning Council, Kaiser,"Edward J . , and Massie, Ronald W.  1964.  Landowner Behavior:  Factors i n the Decision to Hold or S e l l Property on 'the Urban Fringe. Regional Studies,  Chapel H i l l :  Center for Urban and  University of North Carolina,  Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of B.C. Suburb.  .  Countryside  to  New Westminster: Lower Mainland Regional  Planning Board, l  I96S.  1963.  Dynamics of Residential Land Settlement. .Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board,  New Westminste  1963.  .  Land for L i v i n g .  New Westminster? Lower Mainland  .Regional Planning Board, 1 9 6 3 . The Urban F r o n t i e r , 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 t h e i r Implications for Municipal Goals and P o l i c i e s . " Thesis.  Vancouver: M.A.  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, Subdivision?  Residential Land  A Physical Evaluation.  Regional Planning Studies.  Staff  Community- and  Research Project 2.  Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 5 . ,  Planning for Regional Development i n B r i t i s h Columbia;  With Special Application to Northern  Vancouver Island. Studies.'  Community and R gional Planning  Student Project 5»  e  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. 7,  Student  Projec  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,  Consumer Preference  Roger C.  i n Residential Location: A  Preliminary Investigation of the Home Purchase Decision. Chapel H i l l : C nter for Urban and Regional e  Studies,  University of North Carolina, 1 9 6 6 , Williams, ""Robert.  ""Social" Effect  of Subdivision Design.*  '•'-'^a>?sou'ver: ''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.  Statistics  Relating to Regional and Municipal Governments i n "•-' B r i t i s h Columbia". Affairs,  V i c t o r i a : Department of Municipal  197 0 .  **An Outline of''"the Role of the Regional D i s t r i c t i n the Local Government Structure." of Municipal A f f a i r s , Lane, W.T.  V i c t o r i a : Department  1971.  ""Procedure for Subdividing Land within M u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  F i l e : Richmond: The Corporation of the Township of Richmond., 1 9 7 0 . .Regional'District  of Comox-Strathcona.  Development Controls:  A Land Use Plan and  E l e c t o r a l Area  "I".  V i c t o r i a : R gional Planning D i v i s i o n , Department of e  Municipal A f f a i r s , 1 9 7 0 . -File : '""Community Planning Area Number 14. " Courtenay, 1 9 7 0 .  APPENDIX  A  R E G I O N A L DISTRICTS IN BRITISH 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 topography, 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 incorporated municipalities (cities, towns, villages, and districts), 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 districts 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 established 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 singlepurpose 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 metropolitan 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.  COLUMBIA  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 provided 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 implemented. : One distinction between the two is that in the case of the hospital function all member areas must participate 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 substitution 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 i n . 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 municipalities 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 C o 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 r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t has two primary roles»FIRSTLY I t i s the r e g i o n a l governmental i n s t i t u t i o n . In t h i s r o l e - the r e g i o n i s welded i n t o a s i n g l e governmental u n i t - the views o f a l l the people can be expressed (both m u n i c i p a l and nonmunicipal) - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and a v o i c e i n r e g i o n a l a f f a i r s i s g i v e n to the non-municipal members o f the region. SECONDLY The r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t p r o v i d e s the means o f c o - o r d i n a t i n g e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s and may undertake to p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s o r f a c i l i t i e s used j o i n t l y by two o r more member a r e a s . In t h i s r o l e - the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y d i v i d e s i n t o two p a r t s . (1) c o - o r d i n a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s between two or more m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , or a m u n i c i p a l i t y and i t s non-municipal fringe. (2) p r o v i s i o n o f new s e r v i c e s common to the whole r e g i o n o r to " g r e a t e r communities", c o m p r i s i n g perhaps two o r more m u n i c i p a l i t i e s or a m u n i c i p a l i t y and i t s non-municipal f r i n g e , without r e g a r d to e x i s t i n g boundaries but w i t h regard to the b e n e f i t o f the s e r v i c e to the " g r e a t e r community". THE  FOUR SERVICE ROLES OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICT  (1) R e g i o n a l  Services  - works o r s e r v i c e s f o r the whole o f the r e g i o n . - r e g u l a t o r y powers extending to a l l o f the non-municipal areas o f the r e g i o n and to those m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i t h i n the r e g i o n which choose to d e l e g a t e s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t o r y powers to the regional d i s t r i c t .  (2) Sub-Regional  Services  - works or s e r v i c e s f o r p a r t s o f the r e g i o n ( g r e a t e r community areas c o m p r i s i n g one or more m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and n e i g h b o u r i n g nonm u n i c i p a l communities) - r e g u l a t o r y powers f o r p a r t s o f the r e g i o n (3) Contract  Services  - c e n t r a l i z e d s e r v i c e s (equipment and/or p e r s o n n e l ) on a c o n t r a c t b a s i s f o r 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 w i t h i n the region,, (4) L o c a l Community  Services  - works and s e r v i c e s f o r non-municipal communities w i t h i n the r e g i o n . A FEW  APPLICATIONS OF THE SERVICE ROLES OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICT  A. FULLY REGIONAL SERVICES (over the whole) - h o s p i t a l s (by way o f companion R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t (Regional H o p s i t a l D i s t r i c t s A c t ) - r e g i o n a l parks (Regional Parks Act) - environmental management ( r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g s e r v i c e s and the development o f the r e g i o n a l plan) - community p l a n n i n g s e r v i c e s ( b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s and land use c o n t r o l s i n the non-municipal a r e a s ) - f i r e w o r k s and f i r e a r m s r e g u l a t i o n - h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s and p e s t c o n t r o l - r e c r e a t i o n programmes - g r a n t s - i n - a i d ( t o u r i s m / i n d u s t r i a l promotion e t c . ) - co-ordination of m u l t i - r e g i o n a l s e r v i c e s ( F e d e r a l / P r o v i n c i a l development or a i d programmes) - library service - c i v i l defence (and those s e r v i c e s i n B .below t h a t lend themselves to f u l l y r e g i o n a l a p p l i c a t i o n ) 0  B. SUB-REGIONAL SERVICES ( f o r g r e a t e r -  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 d i s p o s a l and/or c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t i e s garbage d i s p o s a l 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 s e r v i c e (and those s e r v i c e s i n A. above t h a t lend themselves to s u b - r e g i o n a l a p p l i c a t i o n )  C. CONTRACT SERVICES ( f o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and improvement  districts)  - c e n t r a l i z e d s t a f f i n g (planning o f e n g i n e e r i n g , and assessment s e r v i c e s , b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n , e t c . ) - c e n t r a l i z e d purchasing - equipment p o o l s , data c e n t e r s - borrowing on b e h a l f o f member m u n i c i p a l i t i e s D. LOCAL COMMUNITY SERVICES ( f o r 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 d i s p o s a l recreation f a c i l i t i e s street lighting service  service  A few examples o f s e r v i c e s t h a t may be p r o v i d e d on a j o i n t b a s i s through the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t and shared between one o r more m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and/or a m u n i c i p a l i t y and n e i g h b o u r i n g non-municipal areas. -  water supply sewage d i s p o s a l r e c r e a t i o n programmes f i r e protection ambulance s e r v i c e r e f u s e d i s p o s a l 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 s e r v i c e s  February, 1 9 7 1 Department o f M u n i c i p a l  Affairs.  APPENDIX B  COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA NUMBER 14 REGULATIONS Division  (1)  General  1.01 In accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s o f the " L o c a l S e r v i c e s A c t " b e i n g chapter 224 o f the Revised S t a t u t e s o f B r i t i s h Columbia, i 9 6 0 , these r e g u l a t i o n s a p p l y t o Community P l a n n i n g Area Number 14 from the date o f p u b l i c a t i o n i n the Gazette. 1.02  B r i t i s h Columbia R e g u l a t i o n 228/59 i s amended by s t r i k i n g out S e c t i o n 1 and s u b s t i t u t i n g : " 1 . These r e g u l a t i o n s apply t o Community P l a n n i n g Areas N mbers 4, 9 , 12, 1 3 , 15 and 16V. u  1.03 These r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l a p p l y t o the a r e a d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s :  Commencing a t the n o r t h - e a s t c o r n e r o f L o t 13» Newcastle D i s t r i c t , b e i n g a p o i n t on the highwater mark o f Deep Bay on the e a s t e r l y shore o f Vancouver I s l a n d : thence s o u t h e r l y a l o n g the e a s t e r l y boundaries o f Lots 13, 72 and 87 to the south-east c o r n e r o f s a i d L o t 87; thence w e s t e r l y a l o n g the s o u t h e r l y boundary o f s a i d L o t 87 t o the most s o u t h e r l y south-west corner t h e r e o f ; thence n o r t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y a l o n g the w e s t e r l y and s o u t h e r l y boundaries o f s a i d L o t 87 to the south-east corner o f L o t 9 5 J thence w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y along the s o u t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y boundaries o f s a i d L o t 95 t o the north-west corner t h e r e o f ; thence n o r t h e r l y , w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y along the w e s t e r l y , woutherly and w e s t e r l y boundaries o f Lot 87 t o the north-west c o r n e r t h e r e o f ; thence w e s t e r l y , n o r t h e r l y and e a s t e r l y along the s o u t h e r l y , w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y boundaries o f L o t 79 t o the south-west c o r n e r o f L o t 47; thence n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the w e s t e r l y boundary o f s a i d L o t 47 t o the north-west corner t h e r e o f ; thence w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the s o u t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y boundaries o f Lots 6A and 48 t o the north-west c o r n e r o f s a i d L o t 48; thence w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y along the s o u t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y boundaries o f L o t 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 o f L o t 8; thence w e s t e r l y along the s o u t h e r l y boundaries o f S e c t i o n 6 and L o t 18 to the south-west c o r n e r  o f s a i d L o t 18j thence n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the w e s t e r l y boundary o f s a i d L o t 18 to the n o r t h - e a s t e r l y l i m i t o f the B.C. Power Commission Right-of-Way as shown on Plan 931 on f i l e i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e , V i c t o r i a ; thence n o r t h - w e s t e r l y a l o n g the s a i d n o r t h - e a s t e r l y l i m i t o f the B.C. Power Commission Right-of-W y as shown on Plans 9 3 1 and 9 3 4 to the s o u t h e r l y boundary o f S e c t i o n 29, Township 1 1 j thence w e s t e r l y a l o n g the woutherly boundaries o f S e c t i o n s 29 and 30, Township 11 to the n o r t h - e a s t c o r n e r o f Lot 24; thence s o u t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y a l o n g the e a s t e r l y and s o u t h e r l y boundaries o f Lot 24 and S e c t i o n 3 to the highwater mark on the e a s t e r l y shore o f A l l e n Lake; thence i n a g e n e r a l n o r t h - w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n a l o n g the highwater mark on the e a s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y shores o f s a i d A l l e n Lake to the middle l i n e o f Perseverance Creek; thence i n a g e n e r a l n o r t h w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n a l o n g the s a i d middle l i n e o f Perseverance Creek.to the s o u t h e r l y boundary o f Lot 24; thence w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the s o u t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y boundaries o f s a i d L o t 24 t o the north-west c o r n e r t h e r e o f ; thence w e s t e r l y a l o n g the s o u t h e r l y boundary o f F r a c t i o n a l S e c t i o n 28, Township 10, Comox D i s t r i c t to the e a s t e r l y boundary o f Block 239; thence n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the s a i d e a s t e r l y boundary o f Block 239 to the highwater mark on the s o u t h e r l y shore o f Comox Lake; thence i n a g e n e r a l e a s t e r l y , n o r t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n a l o n g the highwater mark on the s o u t h e r l y , e a s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y shores o f Comox Lake to the middle l i n e o f Puntledge R i v e r ; thence i n a g e n e r a l n o r t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n a l o n g the s a i d middle l i n e o f Puntledge R i v e r to the n o r t h - e a s t e r l y l i m i t o f the B..C. Power Commission Right-of-Way as shown on R e g i s t e r e d P l a n 5 1 0 » thence i n a g e n e r a l n o r t h - w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n a l o n g the s a i d n o r t h - e a s t e r l y l i m i t o f the B.C. Power Commission Right-of-Way as shown on P]_ans 5 1 0 , 5 0 9 t o the n o r t h e r l y boundary o f L o t 704, Sayward D i s t r i c t ; thence e a s t e r l y a l o n g the s a i d n o r t h e r l y boundary o f L o t 704 to the n o r t h - e a s t c o r n e r t h e r e o f ; thence due e a s t to the w e s t e r l y boundary o f L o t 1476; thence n o r t h e r l y and e a s t e r l y a l o n g the w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y boundaries o f s a i d L o t 1476 to the n o r t h - e a s t c o r n e r t h e r e o f ; thence e a s t e r l y a l o n g the n o r t h e r l y boundary o f L o t 66 to a p o i n t due south o f the south-east c o r n e r o f Block 'A' o f Lot 67. R e g i s t e r e d P l a n 8916; thence n o r t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y a l o n g the e a s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y boundaries o f s a i d Block 'A o f L o t 67, P l a n 8916 to the north-west c o r n e r t h e r e o f ; thence n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the w e s t e r l y boundaries o f Lots 67 and 52 to the south-east c o r n e r o f L o t 151; thence w e s t e r l y a l o n g the s o u t h e r l y boundary o f s a i d Lot 151 to the south-west c o r n e r t h e r e o f ; thence n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the w e s t e r l y boundaries o f Lots 151 and 26 to the south-east c o r n e r o f Lot 130; thence w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the s o u t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y boundaries o f s a i d Lot 130 to the north-west c o r n e r t h e r e o f ; thence R W  R , /  a  RW  R W  0  R W  w e s t e r l y , n o r t h e r l y and e a s t e r l y a l o n g the s o u t h e r l y , w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y boundaries o f L o t 15 t o the southwest c o r n e r o f L o t 9? thence n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the w e s t e r l y boundary o f s a i d L o t 9 t o the most w e s t e r l y north-west c o r n e r t h e r e o f ? thence w e s t e r l y and n o r t h e r l y a l o n g the s o u t h e r l y and w e s t e r l y boundaries o f Lots 1, 28 and 16 to the n o r t h west c o r n e r o f s a i d L o t 16, thence e a s t e r l y and s o u t h e r l y a l o n g the n o r t h e r l y and e a s t e r l y boundaries o f Lots 16 and 28 to the most e a s t e r l y s o u t h - e a s t c o r n e r o f s a i d L o t 28, b e i n g a p o i n t on the highwater mark o f Menzies Bay on the e a s t e r l y shore o f Vancouver Island? thence i n a g e n e r a l s o u t h - e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n a l o n g the c e n t e r l i n e o f Menzies Bay and the p r o l o n g a t i o n t h e r e o f t o a p o i n t on a l i n e drawn 1,000 f e e t p e r p e n d i c u l a r l y d i s t a n t n o r t h e r l y from and p a r a l l e l to the highwater mark on the w e s t e r l y shore o f D i s c o v e r y Passage; thence i n a g e n e r a l s o u t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n 1,000 f e e t from and p a r a l l e l to the a f o r e s a i d highwater mark to a p o i n t 1,000 f e e t p e r p e n d i c u l a r l y d i s t a n t from the a f o r e s a i d n o r t h - e a s t c o r n e r o f L o t 13» Newcastle D i s t r i c t , s a i d p o i n t being i n a n o r t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n p e r p e n d i c u l a r l y to the g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n o f the s o u t h e r l y highwater mark o f Deep Bay? thence s o u t h e r l y i n .a s t r a i g h t l i n e to the s a i d n o r t h - e a s t c o r n e r o f Lot 13, Newcastle D i s t r i c t being the p o i n t o f commencement.  1 <8  Division  (2)  Building 2.01  The r e g u l a t i o n s i n Parts 2 to 8 i n c l u s i v e of the r a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code of Canada, 1953 and amendments made from time to time t h e r e t o apply t o : (a) b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s ; (b) plumbing i n s t a l l a t i o n s ;  and  i n s o f a r as these r e g u l a t i o n s d e a l w i t h the s i z e , shape a.nd dimensions of b u i l d i n g s and. s t r u c t u r e s and the i n s t a l l a t i o n o f plumbing f i x t u r e s and equipment i n c l u d i n g the k i n d , composition, s t r e n g t h and. dimensions o f m a t e r i a l s used, i n such b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s , 2.02  Sewage d i s p o s a l s h a l l be  i n accordance w i t h S e c t i o n 3.01(e).  2.03  The p r o v i s i o n s o f Part I c f the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code of Cana.da, 1953 and amendments made from time to time, t h e r e t o a p p l y except: a) the word " b u i l d i n g " i n c l u d e s " s t r u c t u r e " ; b) the words " a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l " mean " b u i l d i n g inspector" 0  2.04  The schedule o f fees to be charged f o r the issuance o f a p e r m i t under these r e g u l a t i o n s and i n c l u d i n g the expense of i n s p e c t i o n s connected w i t h the issuance of a permit are as f o l l o w s : (a) a fee o f 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 t h e r e o f of the estimated c o s t of a b u i l d i n g or s t r u c t u r e up to an estimated c o s t 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 f o r each one thousand d o l l a r s or f r a c t i o n t h e r e o f of the estimated c o s t o f a b u i l d i n g or s t r u c t u r e 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 o f three d o l l a r s f o r every s e p t i c tank; (d) a fee of three d o l l a r s f o r moving a b u i l d i n g or structure.  2.05  The b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s h a l l not p r e s c r i b e d fee has been p a i d .  i s s u e a permit u n t i l  the  2.06  Any person who c o n s t r u c t s , a l t e r s , r e p a i r s any b u i l d i n g or s t r u c t u r e , plumbing o r s e p t i c tank, without f i r s t h a v i n g o b t a i n e d a permit o r who does not h o l d a v a l i d permit s h a l l be deemed to be i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f these regulations. Division ( 3 ) Subdivision  3.01  No s u b d i v i s i o n a f t e r the p a s s i n g s h a l l be approved u n l e s s :  o f these  regulations  (a) i t i s s u i t e d to the c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f the land b e i n g subdivided; (b) i t i s s u i t e d to the use to which i t i s intended; (c) i t does not make i m p r a c t i c a b l e the f u t u r e s u b d i v i s i o n of the land w i t h i n the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n o r o f any a d j a c e n t l a n d ; (d) the minimum frontage t h a t any p a r c e l o f land i n the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n has w i t h r e s p e c t to the highway upon which the p a r c e l f r o n t s i s f i f t y f e e t o r one-tenth of the p e r i m e t e r o f the p a r c e l whichever i s g r e a t e r , u n l e s s i n an e x c e p t i o n a l case the M i n i s t e r o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s exempts the s u b d i v i d e r from the p r o v i s i o n o f this clause: (e) each p a r c e l o f land s h a l l have an area o f s o i l s u i t a b l e f o r a b s o r p t i o n o f s e p t i c tank e f f l u e n t to be determined by p e r c o l a t i o n t e s t s i n accordance w i t h Appendix 7 » c . o f the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code o f Canada, 1 9 5 3 « Such area of s o i l s h a l l be above any water t a b l e or high water mark o f any body o f water o r watercourse. The owner s h a l l submit evidence o f p e r c o l a t i o n t e s t s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , d i s p o s a l may be made by sand f i l t e r or o t h e r p r i v a t e sewage d i s p o s a l system designed i n accordance w i t h r e c o g n i z e d e n g i n e e r i n g s t a n d a r d s . Plans f o r such system s h a l l be submitted by the owner. 3.02  The minimum area o f a p a r c e l o f land i n t o which land may be s u b d i v i d e d i s : (a) s e v e n t y - f i v e hundred square f e e t where a community water system but no community sewer system are available; (b) f i f t e e n thousand square f e e t where n e i t h e r a community water system o r a community sewer system are a v a i l a b l e ,  3.03  The minimum highway allowance p e r m i t t e d i n any proposed s u b d i v i s i o n i s s i x t y - s i x f e e t i n width;, except t h a t w i t h the assent o f the D i s t r i c t E n g i n e e r , Department o f Highways, the minimum highway allowance f o r any highway o r highways contained w i t h i n a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n i s f i f t y f e e t .  3 . 0 4 In any proposed s u b d i v i s i o n a highway which ends i n a cul-de-sac s h a l l : (a) not have a l e n g t h of more than f i v e hundred f e e t 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 t e r m i n a l area f o r a t u r n around with a r a d i u s o f not l e s s than f i f t y f e e t measured a t any p o i n t . 3.05  Any highway w i t h i n a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s h a l l be so l o c a t e d t h a t the g r a d i e n t of any p o r t i o n o f the highway i s not g r e a t e r than: (a) e i g h t 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 r o u t e ; (b) twelve percentum i n a l l other cases.  3 o 0 6  A p l a n o f a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n t h a t i s not i n compliance w i t h t h i s r e g u l a t i o n s h a l l not be approved by the approving o f f i c e r . Division  (4)  Penalty 4,01  Any person who v i o l a t e d the p r o v i s i o n s o f these r e g u l a t i o n s i s l i a b l e on summary c o n v i c t i o n to a p e n a l t y not exceeding $100.00 and a person so c o n v i c t e d i s l i a b l e on summary c o n v i c t i o n to a f u r t h e r p e n a l t y o f $10.00 f o r every week t h e r e a f t e r d u r i n g which the v i o l a t i o n continued.  "W.D. 3LACK" MINISTER OF .MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS July 2 ? t h ,  1Q61.  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. the " L o c a l S e r v i c e s A c t " are amended by:-  228/59 p u r s u a n t t o  1.  D e l e t i n g the p e r i o d a t the end o f s u b s e c t i o n 3 . 0 2 (b) 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  and  the f o l l o w i n g s u b s e c t i o n s -  " ( c ) n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s u b s e c t i o n s (a) and (b) above, e x i s t i n g p a r c e l s w h i c h are s m a l l e r t h a n p e r m i t t e d i n t h e s e r e g u l a t i o n s . m a y 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 p r o v i d e d t h a t : ( i ) a l l p a r t s o f a l l new p a r c e l s are c o n t i g u o u s ; ( 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 a r e a r e q u i r e m e n t s o f these r e g u l a t i o n s ; ( i i i ) the degree o f c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the a r e a r e q u i r e m e n t s o f these r e g u l a t i o n s i s not l e s s e n e d on any new parcel; ( 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 d i s p o s e d o f on an a r e a o f s o i l on each new p a r c e l (A) w h i c h i s not l i k e l y t o be b u i l t upon, paved o r used as a roadway, (B) w h i c h meets the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 8 . 0 3 ( l o c a t i o n o f 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 R e g u l a t i o n s i n f o r c e i n the Community Planning Area,"  "DAN CAMPBELL" MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS August ?,  I967.  APPENDIX  Copy o f Minute Approved March 12, 1971 -  Lieutenant-Governor  924.  report THAT by supplementary L e t t e r s P a t e n t dated F e b r u a r y 17, 1967, as amended by supplementary L e t t e r s P a t e n t dated September 24, 1968, t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Comox-Strathcona was g r a n t e d t h e f u n c t i o n o f R e g i o n a l and Community P l a n n i n g and t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n s 795 t o 798D, i n c l u s i v e , o f t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t a p p l y to t h e s a i d r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t ! AND THAT t h e g r e a t e r p o r t i o n o f Community P l a n n i n g Area ree s t a b l i s h e d under t h e L o c a l S e r v i c e s A c t i s w i t h i n the b o u n d a r i e s 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 t h e L o c a l S r v i c e s A c t c e r t a i n r e g u l a t i o n s a p p l y t o t h e a r e a known a s Community P l a n n i n g A r e a l 4 s e  AND TO RECOMMEND THAT p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 766 o f t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t t h e supplementary L e t t e r s P a t e n t h e r e t o a t t a c h e d do i s s u e t o amend t h e supplementary L e t t e r s Pa.tent dated F e b r u a r y 17, 1967, as amended by supplementary L e t t e r s P a t e n t d a t e d September 24, 1968, t o a p p l y the r e g u l a t i o n s which a r e i n f o r c e and e f f e c t i n t h e a r e a o f Community P l a n n i n g A r e a 14 as i f t h e y were by-laws adopted by t h e R e g i o n a l Board o f t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Comox-Strathcona u n t i l t h e y a r e amended o r r e p e a l e d by by-law i n accordance w i t h t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t . DATED t h i s  12  day o f  March  A.D. 1971  "Dan Campbell 11 Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s . APPROVED t h i s  12  day o f  March  W.A.C  Bennett"  A.D. 1971.  P r e s i d i n g Member o f t h e E x e c u t i v e C o u n c i l  APPENDIX  D  SUBDIVISION LOCATION AND DESIGN EVALUATION STANDARDSl To r a t e each s u b d i v i s i o n f o r convenience o f l o c a 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 i n d i c a t e d i n Table 14, The t o t a l o f the weighted time measurements r e c o r d e d f o r a l l convenience c r i t e r i a was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s u b d i v i s i o n , and the s u b d i v i s i o n s were thus r a t e d f o r d e s i r a b i l i t y o f convenience o f l o c a t i o n , i n proport i o n to the l e a s t amount o f time devoted to t r a v e l . Each s u b d i v i s i o n was a l s o r a t e d a c c o r d i n g to r e l a t i v e amenity o f l o c a t i o n i n the amount o f 3 ° ^ o f 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 a d j a c e n t to the s u b d i v i s i o n and land uses a b u t t i n g major access r o u t e s to the s u b d i v i s i o n , (Refer to Table 15» L o c a t i o n Rating and Ranking Guide (11) Amenity). Each s u b d i v i s i o n was a l s o r a t e d f o r s a f e t y , p r i m a r i l y i n terms o f f i r e p r o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e as i n d i c a t e d by response time, i n the amount o f 10$ o f the t o t a l l o c a t i o n rating. (Refer to Table 16, L o c a t i o n Rating and Ranking Guide (111) S a f e t y ) , A summary o f the r e s u l t s o f the l o c a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s of. the 'model* s u b d i v i s i o n i s a l s o g i v e n i n Table 16, 'Summary o f Rating and Ranking o f L o c a t i o n s o f S u b d i v i s i o n Cases'; Tables 1? and. 18 l i s t d e s i g n standards and p r i n c i p l e s and the summary o f r a t i n g and r a n k i n g .  Source o f t e x t and t a b l e s i n t h i s Appendix: School o f Community and Regional P l a n n i n g , R e s i d e n t i a l Land S u b d i v i s i o n : A P h y s i c a l E v a l u a t i o n , S t a f f Research Project 2. (Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y o f 3.C., 1965) 1  TABLE  13  PLANNING STANDARDS FOR LOCATIONAL Sources o f  No.  Cri t e r i o n  Emp1oyment Major  Shopping  Convenience Elementary  Shopping School  1  h  High  School  2imi .  Sr.  High  School  2imi .  P1ayground  District Churches  Park  15-25  1 mi  2 mi 1 - 1 *  Sources: N o . 1- U r b a n L a n d I n s t i t u t e . W a s h i n g t o n - 195*+.  20-30  10  j.  20  3  3  20  Stds  20  20  2i  1-1*  3 3*  The U r b a n P a t t e r n ,  D.  30 20  li"  2  Handbook,  25  2  k 3  30-60  The Community B u i l d e r s '  15  20  T;~2  30-60 20-30  30 10  •4-  20-30  1.  3 mi 3>i.  20-30 20  $ mi  1 jmi 2 mi .  Park  Range o f Commonly A c c e p t e d  k  h~ 2  §• mi  Piayfi elds  No.  No,  1 -1*  mi .  1 mi .  Standards*  Distance Time Di s t . Time D i s t . T i me Mi n. Max Mi n. Max. Mi 1es Mi n s , Mi 1 es Mi ns . (Mi 1 es ) (Mi l e s ) 20-30 20-30 ^0 20  *+0 mi n . h mi .  Jr.  Community  No. 2  CRITERIA  The  30 20  60 30  Institute,  No.  2.  A r t h u r B. Gal l i o n & Simon E i s n e r . Toronto: I 963.  Van N o s t r a n d C o . ,  Inc  No.  3.  No.  k.  The A m e r i c a n 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 , Chicago: I960. F. S t u a r t C h a p i n J r . , U r b a n Land Use P l a n n i n g , H a r p e r & Row, New Y o r k : 1 9 5 7 .  TABLE LOCATION RATING AND RANKING Types  of  14 GUIDE  Journey  — Q_ fD 4-> — XI +->0 4->  •  cu  (.») M a j o r Employment Metro. C.B.D. Local C.B.D.  (3)  (4)  (5)  Schools : E1ementary Jun i o r Hi gh Senior High  Centres  (V) (V)  R e c r e a t i on A r e a s : P1 a y g r o u n d Playfield Neighbourhood Park Major Park Commercial R e c r e a t i o n Shoppi ng A r e a s : Conven i e n c e Major Shopping Others: Churches  Total  rating  "'Model'  for  CONVENIENCE Convenience  (V)=Vehicular t r i p (P)=Pedestrian t r i p  (2)  (1)  (V) (V) (P) (P) CP)  ZD  —  l- vD  ^  Q.LA  5 . 6 1 x 0 . 507 5 . 6 1 x 0 . 048  5 . 6 1 x 0 . 214  (P) (P)  (V) (V) (V)  •!_  0  . 0) i_ u_ cr  3 2  Q. • — ^  •  CL_*  — 2 J:  ZD •  •  X•Q  > 0)  °-  =fe  CL  1 . 25 1 . 25  0 . 34 0 . 34  5 . 6 1 x 0 . 119 5 . 6 1 x 0 . 112  0. 5 0. 5 2. 0  0. 6 0. 6 2. 4  1 .0  0 . 47  0. 5  0 . 32  60% o f t o t a l  location  rating,  for  •  2  2 0 4->  o  •  MD  —  ro • ro •— c — i -t->  ZS  . X  s_  o  3. 4 5. 6  Convenience  Subdivision allowed  1_  •  cu  QJ  D_  CO  O  4-1  8 .4 5 .6  13. 10 8 . 75  5 .0 2 ..16 2 .16  5 .0 2 .5 ?•5  7. 80 3. 90 3. 90  2 .0 ' 4 .0  2 .0 4 .0 0 .6 0 .6 2 .4  3. 6. 0. 0. 3.  4 .0  4 .0 0 .47  6 . 25 0 . 75  0 • 32  0 . 50  N  (P)  (V)  to  10  CL  >  Rating  38.  39  15 25 95 95 75  60.00*  'convenience'  of  TABLE  15  LOCATION-, RATING AND RANKING (1)  Type o f  Land Use A d j a c e n t  (a)  Garbage dumps; heavy  GUIDE  (11)  AMENITY  to S u b d i v i s i o n  industry with  Rating  Gui d e *  high  degree of nuisance (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 ; major  OA  thoroughfares  (c)  Large  (d)  Medium v a l u e  (e) (f)  Institutions;  value  h o u s i ng  commercial  areas;  r e s i d e n t i a l ; vacant  3A low  6/4  land zoned  residential High value r e s i d e n t i a l ; large undeveloped p a r k and o p e n s p a c e r e s e r v e s ; p r i v a t e • o p e n s p a c e s s u c h as g o l f c o u r s e s Very h i g h v a l u e r e s i d e n t i a l ; developed p a r k s and h i g h a m e n i t y a r e a s s u c h as lake frontage  9A 12/4 15A  * ' 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 U s e s on f o u r s i d e s , p l u s 15% f o r Land U s e s 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)  Predominant  Land U s e s  A b u t t i n g Major  Access  Routes to S u b d i v i s i o n Rating Guide; T h i s i s t o be a m e a s u r e o f ( a ) w h e t h e r i t has a ' g o o d a d d r e s s ' and ( b ) w h e t h e r i t i s p l e a s a n t to d r i v e to. This would take i n t o account relative 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 . properties including streets. The g u i d e g i v e n i n ( 1 ) a b o v e s h o u l d be u s e d t o e s t a b l i s h a r a t i n g v / i t h 15% o f t o t a l l o c a t i o n r a t i n g a l 1 owed f o r • p r e d o m i n a n t l a n d u s e s a b u t t i n g major access routes to the s u b d i v i s i o n .  LOCATION RATING Fire  *  Protection  'Model'  AND RANKING GUIDE  R e s p o n s e Time ( m i n u t e s ) .  SAFETY Rating  Guide*  0 - 2  5  2 - 3  4  3 - 4 4-5  3  5 - h i gher  1  2  s u b d i v i s i o n a l l o w e d 5% f o r  an a d d i t i o n a l  5% t o a c c o u n t  factors,  total  with  (III)  of  f i r e safety  for other observable  10% f o r  safety.  SUMMARY OF RATING AND RANKING OF LOCATIONS OF S U B D I V I S I O N CASES Rating for:  'Model' Subd i v i s i on  Conven i e n c e  60  Amen i t y ( 1 ) ( A d j a c e n t Land Use)  15  Amenity (Access  15  (2) Rtes.)  Safety TOTAL % RATING RANKING  10 100  with safety  TABLE PLANNING STANDARDS  AND P R I N C I P L E S  CRITERION Land U s e  % of total  % of area  Lot  DESIGN  collectors  C.G.R.A.  - 3 0 % max.  C.G.R.A. - 3 0 % s y s t e m max.  space  Pattern  C.M.H.C. - 5 % of land area min.  of  total  total  C.M.H.C. min. depth 9 0 ' (25-75 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 1 o t s ).  Shape  Easements Block Lots  as  streets  i n p u b l i c open  B l o c k and L o t Lot S i z e  FOR S U B D I V I S I O N  COMMONLY ACCEPTED P R I N C I P L E OR STANDARD  land use in  % of streets  17  through  lots  A v o i d easements i f poss i b1e  length a b u t t i n g s i d e £• r e a r  Buffer  strips  on  lots  C . M . H . C . - 1 2 0 0 ' max; 7 5 0 ' max. f o r c u l - d e - s a c yards  C.M.H.C. - l o t s s h o u l d not a b u t more t h a n 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 P l a n t i n g and b u f f e r des i r a b 1 e  strips  TABLE PLANNING  STANDARDS  17(Cont'd)  AND P R I N C I P L E S  FOR S U B D I V I S I O N DESIGN COMMONLY ACCEPTED P R I N C I P L E OR STANDARD  CRITERION CIrculation-Vehicular I n t e r s e c t i oris  C.M.H.C.-not  B1 i.nd c o r n e r s  No a n g l e s  Steep  15%  Points  grades of  Off-Street  Street  entry parking  widths  Ci r c u l a t i o n - P e d e s t r i a n S t e e p g r a d e s - (no s t e p s ) S i dewa1ks  max.  closer  less for  than  than  70°  local  streets  S h o u l d be 3 minimum One o f f - s t r e e t . s p a c e h o u s e minimum C.M.H.C.  Must b e  66' m a j o r 50' m i n o r less  than  200'  for  street street  15%  On o n e 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 S U B D I V I S I O N LAYOUT DESIGNS  CRITERION  RATING SCALE  Land Use % of t o t a l land area in streets % of area in c o l l e c t o r s % of area space  in p u b l i c open  Total  l a n d Use  for  B l o c k and L o t Lot s i z e Lot  Pattern  shape  Easements Block  through  lots  length  Curving  streets  Side of lot a b u t t i n g rear of adjacent lot L o t s a b u t t i n g s i d e Srear yards Buffer  s t r i D S  Total for Pattern  B l o c k & Lot  + 1 for every % over or under 3 0 % - 2 / 3 for every % over or under 3 0 %  + 1 for every under 5 %  % over  or  e a c h l o t l e s s t h a n minimum s i ze - 1 -1 f o r e a c h % o f l o t s l e s s than min. depth or f r o n t a g e -1/block  in excess of 1 2 0 0 '  - 1 / s t r a i g h t run o f s t r e e t in excess of 7 5 0 ' -1 f o r e v e r y % g r e a t e r t h a n 1 0 % of t o t a l lots 1 f o r every 'X o f t o t a l  % greater lots  -1 w h e r e r e a u i r e d b u t  than absent  SUMMARY OF RATING AND RANKING  TABLE 18  OF THE S U B D I V I S I O N LAYOUT DESIGNS  CRITERION Circulation-  Corners  Steep  grades  Points  of  Off-street Street  entry parking  widths  Circulation-Pedestrian S t e e p g r a d e s (no s t e p s ) S i d ewa1k s Total Total  for Circulation Rating  R a n k i ng  RATING  SCALE  Vehicular  Int e r s e c t i ons  B l i nd  (Cont'd)  -1 f o r e a c h 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 section -1 f o r e a c h b l i n d c o r n e r -1 i f l e s s t h a n 1 5 0 ' r u n & in excess of max.municipal grades s t d . -1 f o r e a c h e n t r y i n e x c e s s of three - 1 A f o r each l o t w i t h o u t a d e o u a t e s p a c e 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 e v e r y 5' o f w i d t h l e s s than 66' 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 a d e 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  if  +1 i f  s i d e w a l k s on one s i d e sidewalks  both sides  only st.  APPENDIX E  PROCEDURE FOR The  SUBDIVIDING LAND WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES.  s u b d i v i d e r should a s c e r t a i n a t the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e :  1. In whose name i s the  land r e g i s t e r e d .  Land R e g i s t r y Act, Sec. 2 ("owner" and " r e g i s t e r e d owner"), Sec. l4l. 2. The  f u l l and  exact  l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f the  Land R e g i s t r y A t , c  3.  Is a l l the  Sec.  101  l a n d proposed to be s u b d i v i d e d Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec.  4.  In whose p o s s e s s i o n Title.  5. Whether there are any  K)  registered.  102(1). of  101.  convenants which would prevent s u b d i v i s i o n .  Is s u b d i v i s i o n , f o r the purpose o f conveyance or charge, necessary. Land R e g i s t r y A t , c  The  ( f o r form  i s the owner's copy o f the C e r t i f i c a t e  Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec.  6.  land.  s u b d i v i d e r should  S c. e  83.  then a s c e r t a i n from M u n i c i p a l  Records:  1. Is there a M u n i c i p a l Zoning By-law which prevents the contemplated use o f the land proposed to be s u b d i v i d e d . M u n i c i p a l A c t , Sec.  702.  2. Is there an " o f f i c i a l community p l a n " which would prevent the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p u b l i c works which might be n e c e s s a r y to serve the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n . M u n i c i p a l Act, Sec. 698 and 699. 3. Is there a m u n i c i p a l  (definition),  697,  by-law r e g u l a t i n g s u b d i v i s i o n .  M u n i c i p a l A c t , Sec. and 712. 4.  695  711  (l)(a),  (b) and  (c)  Is there a m u n i c i p a l by-law p r e s c r i b i n g the standard to which highways w i t h i n the s u b d i v i s i o n must be c l e a r e d , d r a i n e d , and surfaced. Municipal A t , c  Sec.  711  (1) ( d ) .  5.  Is there a m u n i c i p a l by-law r e q u i r i n g the s u b d i v i s i o n to p r o v i d e d w i t h water mains and, or, s a n i t a r y sewers„ M u n i c i p a l A c t , Sec.  The 1.  711  be  (5).  M u n i c i p a l Approving O f f i c e r ' s d u t i e s * In a d d i t i o n to c o n s i d e r i n g a l l o f the p o i n t s i n B, above, the Approving O f f i c e r should s a t i s f y h i m s e l f t h a t the matters which the R e g i s t r a r o f T i t l e s w i l l be concerned with have been properly dealt with: (a) Is n e c e s s a r y and reasonable access p r o v i d e d to a l l new p a r c e l s c r e a t e d , and through the lands s u b d i v i d e d to lands l y i n g beyond or around. (b) Are  e x i s t i n g highways continued  w i t h o u t unnecessary  jogs.  (c) Where the land s u b d i v i d e d borders on n a v i g a b l e waters,' are s u f f i c i e n t p u b l i c highways to such n a v i g a b l e waters provided — a t not more than 660 f e e t (10 chains) apart. (See too Sec. 87, Land R e g i s t r y Act f o r relaxation provision.) (d) Are s u i t a b l e lanes p r o v i d e d i n c o n t i n u a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g lanes or e s t a b l i s h e d where lanes c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y by the Approving O f f i c e r . Land R e g i s t r y A t , c  Sec.  86.  (Shared w i t h  Registrar)  2. Consider the s u f f i c i e n c y o f highway allowances depending whether the l a n d i s s u b d i v i d e d f o r : (a) b u s i n e s s , (t>) a l s o  r e s i d e n t i a l or country  lands,  on  and  consider: - the c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f the l a n d , - r e l a t i o n o f new highway to e x i s t i n g highways or approaches (by land or w a t e r ) , - l o c a l circumstances, - the f u t u r e expected use o f highways i n r e g a r d to the q u e s t i o n o f width o f highway r e q u i r e d .  Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec.  95.  3. Hear o b j e c t i o n s from any i n t e r e s t e d persons and r e f u s e to approve the s u b d i v i s i o n i f i n h i s o p i n i o n the a n t i c i p a t e d development o f the s u b d i v i s i o n would i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t the e s t a b l i s h e d a m e n i t i e s o f a d j o i n i n g or a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t i e s or would be a g a i n s t the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s i n t e r e s t . Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec.  96.  The  Land Surveyor's Tasks:  1. Survey the Land and l a y out the proposed s u b d i v i s i o n on the ground. (The proposed s u b d i v i s i o n should be designed subsequent to the s u b d i v i d e r * s c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the Plans Approving O f f i c e r and must r e f l e c t the s t a t u t o r y requirements o f the R e g i s t r a r of T i t l e s . 2. To compare the measurements he has taken w i t h "The measurements shown on any p l a n c o v e r i n g the same land i n whole or i n p a r t having a common boundary, a l r e a d y d e p o s i t e d ..." Land R e g i s t r y A t , c  Sec.  3 t To prepare a survey p l a n a c c e p t a b l e T i t l e s and  to the R e g i s t r a r o f  f o l l o w i n g the o f f i c i a l plans p r e s e n t a t i o n Land R e g i s t r y A t , c  4.  110,  Se . c  80,  80A,  standards.  81, 84 and  106.  I f the Approving O f f i c e r so demands: (a) F u r n i s h p r o f i l e s o f every new highway shown on the p l a n and such t o p o g r a p h i c a l d e t a i l s as may i n d i c a t e the e n g i n e e r i n g problems to be d e a l t with i n opening up the highways shown upon the p l a n . (b) F u r n i s h a sketch showing t h a t the p a r c e l s i n t o which the land i s s u b d i v i d e d by the p l a n can c o n v e n i e n t l y be further subdivided into f u r t h e r small parcels (if) there i s reason to a n t i c i p a t e i t s r e - s u b d i v i s i o n . Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec.  92.  5. Layout o f the s u b d i v i s i o n on the ground. The s u b d i v i d e r should then: 1. Tender the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n to the C l e r k o f the M u n i c i p a l i t y , f o r examination and a p p r o v a l by the Approving O f f i c e r , accompanied by: .  •  (a) A $2.00 examination f e e , (b) A c e r t i f i c a t e v e r i f y i n g t h a t on the land to be s u b d i v i d e d , a l l taxes are p a i d , and where l o c a l improvement taxes, r a t e s , or assessements are payable i n annual i n s t a l m e n t s t h a t a l l instalments owing a t the date o f the c e r t i f i c a t e have been p a i d . Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec, 2,  89.  The M u n i c i p a l Act contemplates the s u b d i v i d e r completing p u b l i c works r e q u i r e d by by-lav/ as a c o n d i t i o n precedent a p p r o v a l o f the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n . The custom has grown whereby the s u b d i v i d e r agrees with the M u n i c i p a l i t y , by to c a r r y out the r e q u i r e d works. G e n e r a l l y , as soon as  the to the up contract, the  C o n t r a c t i s signed by the s u b d i v i d e r , the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n i s approved, or On the b a s i s o f compliance w i t h any e x i s t i n g m u n i c i p a l by-laws c o v e r i n g standards o f c o n s t r u c t i o n o f highways and o t h e r s e r v i c e s , may begin c o n s t r u c t i o n a c c o r d i n g l y . M u n i c i p a l A c t , Sec.711 ( l ) ( d ) , The  (4).  M u n i c i p a l Approving O f f i c e r ' s d u t i e s :  1. Determine whether the f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n presented complies w i t h the r e g u l a t i o n s and p o l i c i e s p r e v i o u s l y o u t l i n e d to the s u b d i v i d e r and which form the b a s i s o f a p p r o v a l . 2. Insure t h a t any s u b d i v i s i o n agreement i n l i e u o f a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n has been p r o p e r l y completed by the s u b d i v i d e r . 3. Approve the p l a n by w r i t i n g "Approved under the Land R e g i s t r y A c t " w i t h the date o f approval-and s i g n a t u r e of Approving O f f i c e r , together w i t h h i s o f f i c i a l d e s i g n a t i o n . 4.  Insure t h a t the s e a l o f the M u n i c i p a l i t y has been a f f i x e d to the p l a n o f f i c i a l l y submitted to the M u n i c i p a l i t y f o r approval. 97•  Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec. Appeal  Appeal from the d e c i s i o n o f the M u n i c i p a l Approving O f f i c e r l i e s to a Judge o f the Supreme Court i n Chambers i n a summary way by petition. Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec. Subdivider  submits p l a n to R e g i s t r a r o f  Land R e g i s t r y Act Form 13-b, 1 white l i n e n . The  R e g i s t r a r of T i t l e s '  91  and  98•  Titles  together with  2 blue  linens  and  duties:  1. Makes c e r t a i n t h a t the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n has been prepared to the o f f i c i a l plans p r e s e n t a t i o n standards. Land R e g i s t r y A t , c  Sec.  80,  81,  84 -  according  86.  2, He s a t i s f i e s h i m s e l f t h a t the p l a n has been "signed by each owner o f the lands s u b d i v i d e d or h i s agent d u l y a u t h o r i z e d by a w r i t t e n a u t h o r i t y s a t i s f a c t o r y to the R e g i s t r a r ...". Land R e g i s t r y A t , c  Sec.  103  (1).  3. He may " r e f u s e to accept any p l a n , the measurements u f which do not correspond with the measurements shown on any p l a n c o v e r i n g the same l a n d i n whole or i n p a r t or having a common boundary ..." 4. He makes c e r t a i n t h a t a l l s u b d i v i s i o n plans accepted f o r d e p o s i t p r o v i d e : - reasonable access to a l l new p a r c e l s and to lands l y i n g beyond, highways without unnecessary jogs, access to n a v i g a b l e water, c o n t i n u a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g l a n e s . Land R e g i s t r y A c t , S e c 5«  86.  He must examine "the a p p l i c a t i o n and the instruments and p l a n produced i n support t h e r e o f , and i f s a t i s f i e d t h a t they are i n order s h a l l a s s i g n the p l a n a s e r i a l d e p o s i t number and i s s u e such new c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t i t l e f o r the p a r c e l s shown upon the p l a n as may be n e c e s s a r y . " Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec.  6. Assure t h a t the p l a n has Officer.  105.  been approved by the. Approving  Land R e g i s t r y A c t , Sec.  88 and  97.  (From the f i l e s o f Mr. W.T. Lane, M u n i c i p a l S o l i c t o r , The C o r p o r a t i o n o f the Township o f Richmond)  APPENDIX  SCHEDULE FOR OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEWS WITH DEVELOPERS P a r t 1. Are you f a m i l i a r with CPA 14? How much s u b d i v i s i o n have you been i n v o l v e d w i t h i n t h i s area? How much are you working ahead o f the market - raw land? - unsold l o t s ? Is t h i s the way you p r e f e r i t ? How do you go about g e t t i n g raw land? Does the p r i c e v a r y throughout the area? - the c o s t o f development? Is there a y e a r l y a p p r e c i a t i o n i n value? - raw land? - developed? How i s l o t s e l l i n g p r i c e e s t a b l i s h e d ? - r e l a t e d to raw land c o s t ? - development c o s t ? - market? P a r t 2. Do you f e e l t h a t present s u b d i v i s i o n a c t i v i t y i s e a s i n g the housing shortage? Do you depend on market s t u d i e s as a guide t o your a c t i v i t y ? Do you s u b d i v i d e only? - develop? - build? What k i n d o f l a n d do you p r e f e r f o r development? Do you c l e a r o r r e t a i n n a t u r a l landscaping? How do you d e s i g n the s u b d i v i s i o n ? - who designs? How important to you i s the l o c a t i o n o f raw land i n terms o f - cost? - roads? - jobs (workplaces)? - schools? - community f a c i l i t i e s ? - r e c r e a t i o n areas? - business and s t o r e s ? What s e r v i c e s do you f e e l should be s u p p l i e d i n r u r a l areas? What do you f e e l a r e i d e a l r u r a l l o t s i z e s ? Why? Do you d e d i c a t e - park? - school? P a r t 3. How do you f e e l about p r e s e n t s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s i n the r u r a l areas? How do you f e e l about t a x a t i o n arrangements? P oblems? Is there r i s k i n v o l v e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n ? 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 o f present development i n the area? Do you have any suggestions f o r f u t u r e development o f t h i s area? r  SCHEDULE FOR  OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEWS WITH HOUSEHOLDERS  How  long have you l i v e d here? - the g e n e r a l area? - the house? Where d i d you l i v e b e f o r e ? What k i n d o f work do you do?-where? -distance? How many c h i l d r e n i n the f a m i l y ? - p r e s c h o o l ? - s c h o o l age? What do you t h i n k o f t h i s whole a r e a as a p l a c e to Would you choose to l i v e i n town?  live?  Part 2 . Do you t h i n k your neighborhood i s a good p l a c e to b r i n g up c h i l d r e n ? - where do they p l a y ? - d i s t a n c e to s c h o o l ? - safety for children? What r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s are a v a i l a b l e here? - Playground?) - park? beach?) - other? How do you f e e l about the f o l l o w i n g items: - your water system? - your drainage system? - your sewage d i s p o s a l 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 r e g a r d s t o : - neighborhood s t o r e ? - d i s t a n c e ? - supermarket? - b u s i n e s s e s l i k e r e p a i r shops e t c . ? - shopping c e n t e r ? (a) What do you t h i n k o f the c o s t o f land? (b) How do you f e e l about your taxes? Part  3.  Is Do Is Do  t h e r e a community'hall? - d i s t a n c e ? you use i t ? How? there a church? - do you go? 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 b i g i s your neighborhood? Part  4.  How do you f e e l about t o u r i s t s u s i n g t h i s whole area? Should f a c i l i t i e s be p r o v i d e d ? What do you l i k e most about l i v i n g here? ( i n t h i s neighborhood?) W at 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 f o r f u t u r e development - i n t h i s g e n e r a l area? - i n your neighborhood? Would you choose to l i v e i n town i f the c o s t were equal? n  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102174/manifest

Comment

Related Items