UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Local government rural land use planning in B.C. Johnston, Terry 1990

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8_2 J63.pdf [ 7.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302384.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302384-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302384-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302384-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302384-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302384-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302384-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302384-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302384.ris

Full Text

C.I  L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T R U R A L LAND U S E PLANNING IN B.C.  By  TERRY JOHNSTON B.A.,  Simon  Fraser  University,  1980  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E O F MASTER OF ARTS  in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES T H E S C H O O L O F COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING  We  accept to  this  the  thesis  required  T H E UNIVERSITY  Terry  conforming  standard  O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A  September, ©  as  1990  Johnston,  1990  In  presenting  this  degree at the  thesis  University  in partial of  freely available for reference copying  of  department publication  by  his  or  and  her  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6  (2/88)  requirements  study. I further agree that purposes may  representatives.  of this thesis for financial gain  permission.  Date  the  British Columbia, I agree that the  this thesis for scholarly or  fulfilment of  be It  shall not  be  an  advanced  Library shall make it  permission for extensive  granted  is  for  by  understood  the that  head  of  my  copying  or  allowed without my  written  ABSTRACT  The objectives of this study are threefold:  1. to provide an understanding of the need for rural land use planning; 2. to describe and compare British Columbia's, Alberta's, Ontario's and Saskatchewan's current system for rural land use planning; and 3. if applicable, suggest improvements to B . C ' s rural planning process as a result of the research conducted.  A historical review of the need for rural planning and land use controls has been conducted in conjunction with research into present day trends.  In addition, regional district  officials from around the province were contacted in order to obtain their views on rural planning in B.C. This research establishes the need for rural planning, but raises questions about the public's perception of the planning process.  To obtain information on alternative planning processes, research is conducted on rural planning in Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. This information is then evaluated through a ii  comparative analysis with the planning process used prior to Bill 62 and the new Rural Land Use Bylaw.  The evaluation  concludes that the Rural Land Use Bylaw is preferred over the pre-Bill 62 planning  legislation.  Incorporating what has been learned in previous chapters, this study concludes by presenting suggestions for amending the existing legislation in order to further simplify planning process.  the  Additional areas for new research are also  detailed in order that planners can strive for a more flexible and responsive planning process to serve the rural public.  TABLE O F CONTENTS PAGE Abstract List of Tables List of Figures List of Appendices Acknowledgements 1.0  ii vi vii viii ix  Introduction 1.1 Problem Statement 1.2 Background 1.3 Methodology & Scope  1 2 6  2.0 The Need For Rural Land Use Planning 2.1 The Early 1900's 2.2 The Changing Emphasis in Rural Planning 2.3 The Tangible & Intangible Benefits Associated With Rural Planning 2.4 The Rationale for Rural Planning 2.5 A Rationale For The Public's Impression of Planning  9 12 18 22 29  3.0 Rural Planning in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan 3.1 Alberta 3.2 Ontario 3.3 Saskatchewan  41 51 56  4.0 Rural Planning in British Columbia 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4  Background Regional Districts The Pre-Bill 62 Planning Process Bill 62 and The Rural Land Use Bylaw  iv  67 73 76 85  TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED  5.0 Comparative Analysis and Assessment of Rural Planning in B.C. 5.1 Background 5.2 Comparative Analysis 5.3 The Regional District Officials' Opinions  94 97 101  6.0 Conclusion  106  Bibliography  111  Appendix Appendix Appendix  1 2 3  115 121 147  v  LIST OF TABLES PAGE 1. 2.  Regional District responses to Rural Land Use Planning Questionnaire  21  Number of Complaints received per Regional District in 1989  36  vi  LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1.  Alberta's Planning Hierarchy  43  2.  Saskatchewan's Planning Hierarchy  60  3.  British Columbia's Planning Hierarchy  68  4.  Comparative Analysis  98  vii  APPENDICES  1.  Rural Land Use Planning Questionnaire  2.  Electoral Area 'F' Resident Survey  3.  Regional District of Okanagan-Similkamen Farleigh Lake/Shatford Creek Rural Land Use Bylaw No. 984,1987  viii  AfTCNOWT F D G E M E N T S  I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to one of my best friends, Denise Carswell. Without Denise's assistance and constant encouragement, this thesis would never have been completed. Special appreciation is also extended to Susan Smythe for her assistance and loan of a computer when mine crashed- this proved to be a life saver! Special thanks also goes to professor Henry Hightower for his confidence in me and his guidance throughout the duration of this project. If more professors would demonstrate his obvious concern for the well-being of the 'student'- the university would be a far better place.  ix  CHAPTER 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION  1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT  The needs and challenges of rural land use planning are different from land use planning in metropolitan areas.  The primary justification for  land use planning in metropolitan areas is to guide the complex interactions that take place as a result of a greater population density.  Planning in rural areas is significantly different as:  1. There are large scale natural resource issues that must be dealt with for the 'Public Good', to the possible detriment of the rural land owners.  For example, through the Agricultural Land Commission Act  there is a province wide preservation of the agricultural land base that restricts individual freedom pertaining to the development and use of property;  2. Depending on the locale, there can be a number of environmental concerns, such as preventing soil erosion, halting weed proliferation, utilizing acceptable methods of pesticide application and maintaining water resources that are peculiar to rural areas;  3. Due primarily to the relatively large parcel sizes, and being independent of most community services, there appears to be a difference in interpersonal relationships. 1  People rely on their  neighbours to a far greater extent than in metropolitian areas, doors are frequently left unlocked with the understanding that if there is a need- an individual may help themselves to food or lodging.  In some  instances, such as during the winter cold spells in the north, a persons life may depend on this type of interpersonal relationship;  4. The attitude of rural residents towards government regulations and 'experts'  also appears to be less tolerant than that of metropolitan  residents.  The objectives of this study are threefold.  a)  An attempt will be made to:  provide an understanding of the need for rural land use planning;  b) detail British Columbia's, Alberta's, Ontario's and Saskatchewan's current administrative process for rural land use planning.  Of  specific interest is how each province deals with land use conflicts, and their ability to promote the efficient development of privately owned or controlled land while ensuring the satisfaction of rural residents; and c) if applicable, suggest improvements to the administration of B.C.'s rural planning process as a result of information obtained through a comparative analysis with the administrative  process detailed for  Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan  1.2 Background  The authority for the implementation of land use controls in Canada 2  derives from the British North America Act which was passed in 1867. Through this Act, distribution of legislative power was achieved.  The  powers granted to the provincial governments under section 92 were diverse- covering items ranging from direct taxation to all matters of a local or private nature.  Of importance to this study is the provincial government's authority to implement laws in relation to Municipal institutions, property and civil rights.  It is through this section of the B.N.A. Act that the authority to  implement land use controls is delegated to local government, through the B.C. Municipal Act.  However, prior to a discussion on rural land use controls, it should be noted that the Canadian public does not generally understand about their rights in the ownership of real property.  Statements abound at public  information meetings or public hearings such as 'it's my property and I will do what I like with it'.  In reality,  there is no absolute private right to 'real' property in Canada.  As in most Common Law Countries, we are governed by two basic doctrines in law, specifically:  1. "the doctrine of tenures: all land is held of the Crown, either directly or indirectly, on one or other of the various tenures; and 2. the doctrine of estates: a subject cannot own land, but can merely own an estate in it, authorizing him to hold it for some period of time " (Megarry, R.E., The Law of Real Property, 1947, p.8). 3  This means that in some sense all land in Canada is owned by the Crown. By "Crown" , we of course mean the Monarch acting as Head of State on the advice of the ministers of Her duly elected government.  It was this  concept of ownership that gave strength to the provincial government's actions to preserve what was perceived to be a diminishing resource by implementing the Agricultural Land Commission Act to control the subdivision or non-farm use of land capable of agricultural production.  However, the misconception of the people must be recognized and taken into consideration, especially when developing land use controls at the local or regional level. them to be effective.  Public acceptance of controls is necessary for If acceptance is not achieved, it places locally  elected public officials in the precarious position of deciding  whether  'planning principles' are more important than the support of their constituents.  The planning profession in British Columbia appears to have either neglected to educate the rural public on the 'worth' of planning, or ignored the need to gain public acceptance of planning proposals.  In 1985 the  provincial legislature enacted Bill 62, which made widespread changes to the Municipal Act.  Of particular importance to this study was the  implementation of the planning tool that is known as the Rural Land Use Bylaw (RLUB).  Prior to the implementation of the legislation for the Rural Land Use Bylaw, there was a public perception in rural areas that: 4  1 ."increased governmental regulation will result in a loss of rural lifestyle; 2. increased bureaucracy results in increased taxes; 3. zoning regulations are designed for urban areas and do not consider rural values. " (Anderson, 1985)  Indirectly, this perception caused the implementation of Bill 62.  The main  authors of the Rural Land Use Bylaw, Elizabeth Cull and Erik Karlsen of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, were interviewed to determine how the new legislation was developed.  These individuals indicated that its development was in response to their perceived interpretation  of a political reality.  The new legislation was  not at the specific request of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Bill Ritchie, however, it was portrayed that Mr. Ritchie's well known position (and for that matter the provincial government of the day's position) that planning had a tendency to create unnecessary bureaucracy and regulations did influence their decision to review the existing legislation.  As a result, the Development Services Branch began to actively review their policies and procedures in order to respond to the concerns of their Minister. According to Cull a basic draft for the RLUB was generated through a simple analysis of the pre-Bill 62 planning process that involved the development of the conceptual changes required to compensate for the perceived flaws in the existing legislation.  5  The intent of the Ministry in the development of the Rural Land Use Bylaw was to create a planning 'instrument' which would be easy to understand, use and amend.  It was intended to simplify the planning process (in  relation to the pre-Bill 62 planning approach) so that the general public would understand and accept basic planning principles.  As a result, the  RLUB was designed to present:  1. one bylaw, presented in a single document; 2. one set of land use designations, instead of the two step concept of settlement plan designation and land use zones; 3. broad land use categories which do not highly segregate land use, in order to provide greater flexiblity 4. simplified regulations.  to respond to local initiatives; and  (A Guide to Rural Land Use Planning, 1986  p.3)  This study will attempt to determine if the RLUB succeeds in meeting the intent of the Ministry "... to provide a more flexible, less regulator approach to planning in rural areas... in a more straight-forward (Ibid p.2).  way."  Contact with professionals practicing in the field will play a  significant part in this evaluation.  Even if it's acceptable to the Ministry,  the success of any planning tool is dependent upon the perceptions of professionals in the field, the acceptance of it by the public, and achievement of its stated goal, whether it be to reduce conflict or promote development.  6  1.3 Methodology and Scope  The methodology to be utilized in the completion of the research is:  1. confirm, through literature research and contact with professionals presently working in the field, the need for rural land use controls in unincorporated areas.  The contact with professionals will be done in  person, and through a written survey (Attachment  1);  2. literature research, and telephone contact with professionals, on the administrative  process for the implementaion of rural land use  planning in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan; 3. research and detailing of the features of the RLUB by reviewing provincial government  legislation, and participatory  observation of  the RLUB through preparation of the first draft of the Farleigh Lake Shatford Creek Rural Land Use Bylaw in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional  District;  4. conduct a comparative analysis of the RLUB with alternative accepted methods of rural land use control in Canada.  This research is presented in the following chapters. need for rural land use planning will be established.  In Chapter 2, the It also illustrates  how rural planning has changed conceptually over the past 80 years, and presents the opinions of professionals presently practicing in B.C.  Chapter 3 illustrates  how the administrative  structures of the provinces  of Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan have developed to deal with rural planning problems and issues.  The discussion also focuses on the main 7  planning 'instruments' utilized by professionals, and the process for their creation and  implementation.  For comparison purposes, Chapter 4 details the administrative  structure  that has been developed to deal with rural land use issues in B.C. Since Bill 62 introduced significant changes to rural land use planning that have yet to be proven as effective, the discussion focuses on planning in the pre and post 1985 period.  Chapter 5 presents a comparative analysis of the  administrative  structures and planning processes in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.  Comments arising from the survey of regional district planners  that pertain to B.C.'s current planning process are presented to support the opinions of this author when conducting the analysis.  Chapter 6, the final chapter of this paper, concludes with a discussion of possible alternatives to overcome the weaknesses in B.C.'s planning / administrative  process .  8  CHAPTER 2  T H E N E E D FOR R U R A L LAND U S E PLANNING  2.0  Introduction  The intent of this chapter is to illustrate the need for rural land use planning.  The discussion starts with the basics by detailing the thoughts  of Canada's foremost pioneer in rural planning- Thomas Adams.  Although  the concerns expressed by Adam's may have been applicable for the 1900's, there has been a changing emphasis in rural planning over the past eighty years which is outlined in Section 2.2.  This chapter concludes with three sections titled: - the tangible & intangible benefits associated with Rural Planning; - a rationale for planning; and - a rationale for the public's impression of planning.  The purpose of these three sections is to provide a clarification of the need for rural land use planning.  Each section adds a perspective which,  when considered as a 'whole', confirms the validity of the need for rural planning.  2.1  The Early 1900's  The need for rural land use planning has long been a topic of discussion in professional circles.  As early as 1917, Thomas Adams was delineating 9  the problems Canada faced in the development of its rural areas. Specifically Adams, in his publication titled 'Rural Planning and Development' (1917) was concerned about the problems associated with land speculation and taxation.  It was Adam's belief that speculation stimulates enterprise and the spirit of optimism necessary to overcome obstacles during a country's pioneer stage. However, he believed that upon the completion of this stage, "speculation takes on new and injurious forms" (p. 102).  Specifically,  "socially created values are inflated and exploited and monopolies in natural resources are established" (Ibid).  One of the main problems of speculation identified by Adams was absentee ownership of land.  Adams noted that absentee ownership for speculative  purposes results in:  1. generally, the most fertile land in rural areas remaining idle and unproductive; 2. the inflation of land values near transportation  facilities;  3. the reduction of the farmer's working capital as a result of the high purchase price for land; 4. the increased cost for the development of an infrastructure to  provide  sanitary or fire protection arrangements because buildings are too widely  scattered.  To support these claims, it was noted that "... of about 100,000,000 acres of arable land granted to homesteaders, railway corporations, the Hudson's  10  Bay company, and other private interests, only one-third was being used for productive purposes" (p.  104).  Speculation, and the resulting inflated land values, also had an impact on the independent land owner with limited resources.  Increased land values  increase the assessment of the land for taxation purposes and thus increase the tax burden. alleviate this burden.  Adams was an advocate of tax reform to  However, the problems associated with taxation are  outside the terms of reference for this thesis.  The thrust of this thesis deals with the need for rural planning which is a partial solution that was supported by Thomas Adams. 'evils' of speculation,  Because of the  Adams firmly believed that "the time had come, not  only for municipalities in Canada to cease to be bankers for real estate operators, but for the municipalities to make it obligatory that the local improvements necessary to provide certain minimum standards of sanitation and convenience of access should be provided before lots are put on the market for assessment purposes" (p.117).  Adams saw this being accomplished in rural districts through:  1. the implementation and enforcement of building bylaws; 2. the implementation and enforcement of sanitary bylaws; and 3. the planning of suburban areas and proper regulation of building development under statutory development schemes.  Adams' perception of a statutory development scheme clearly involved 11  analysis of development proposals by competent professionals. It also dealt with problems specific to individual properties, and incorporated the concept of a type of 'master plan* that is applied generally to a larger area.  Therefore, his concept was not very different from the various  planning approaches utilized in B.C. today.  2.2  The Changing Emphasis in Rural Planning  Since Adams presented his research, there has been both a demographic and attitudinal change among rural residents.  These changes have altered  the emphasis for rural planning.  1. The National Outlook  On a national scale, Adams saw the need for regulations to promote the orderly development or exploitation of rural land for the purpose of developing Canada as a country.  He believed that "wealth is produced not  from the existence of natural resources but from the conversion of these resources into some form for human use" ( p.4) and that Canada was "...opening a new era of social construction and national expansion, and the question was not whether we will grow but how we will grow" (p.1).  As evidenced in the publication titled 'Rural Planning Problems' edited by Gordon E. Cherry (1976), the thrust for regulating rural land has changed from exploitation to conservation.  Although this publication refers to  Britain rather than Canada, parallels can be drawn to our present level of development, and the issues faced in many areas of Canada. 12  On a national/provincial level, there is increased opposition to the exploitation of the environment. This is largely the result of:  1. The general public becoming aware of the concept of non-renewable resources and the dangers of over-exploitation.  The single most  important event responsible for reinforcing this concept was probably the oil embargo of the early 70's.  However, the news media continually  provides other graphic examples of misuse around the world. Two such examples in the news recently are the desertification of Ethiopia and the loss of the Amazon rain forest;  2. The population of Canada achieving a relatively high standard of living.  As a nation, we are in a position to consider the trade-off's necessary when contemplating resource development.  Today, there is a need, not  experienced in Adams' time, for an environmental assessment to be conducted prior to the implementation of most major developments.  If an  assessment is not done, or if the assessment is not comprehensive, there are numerous public interest or 'watchdog' organizations (such as Greenpeace) to raise objections.  As a result, there are usually well  organized protests to development proposals affecting rural land or communities.  Some examples of controversial issues in B.C. at the  present time are:  the development of land with agricultural potential for nonagricultural activities such as golf courses, residential development, 13  etc.  This emphasizes the degree of public concern today, as the  B.C.A.L.R. regulations actually permit the construction of golf courses; the preservation of the 'old growth' in the coastal rainforest, and most recently loss of the visual amenities in the Tofino area as a result of clear cut logging; and -  the flooding of the Peace River Valley through the construction of the Site C dam.  .2  Rural/Urban vs Urban/Rural Migration  Adams also expressed concern over the migration of rural residents to urban centers.  The extent of people's unwillingness to live in the country  in 1917 is illustrated by the lack of success of the land development program  offered to soldiers returning from the First World War. The  government of the day was optimistic that by offering returning soldiers land and assisting in equipment purchases, large portions of the country would be developed for agricultural purposes.  However, Adams was one individual who believed that government officials were being overly optimistic.  He believed that a population  influx to the country would be difficult to generate, as such an influx was contrary to the recognized trend of rural residents moving to urban centers.  The preliminary responses from men returning from the war  supported Adams' concerns.  Of the first soldiers that returned, only 1 in  50 expressed any desire to take advantage of the programs the government was offering.  This was far below the rate expected by the government.  14  Today, there has been a partial reversal of the migratory trend towards urban centers, which has resulted in a change of attitude of the rural residents.  This trend reversal is supported by Gordon Cherry (1976) who  describes problems experienced "... in the urban fringe where population displacement is taking place as city dwellers seek out rural housing stock and otherwise overwhelm an old village's physical fabric and community structure with new buildings and social groups of a different type."(p.8)  In a paper titled 'Recent Developments in North American Rural Planning' by Lapping & Clemenson (1984), it is also stated that "in essence there has been a rural revival, a significant change in settlement patterns, a reversal of the rural-to-urban population flow and an increase of nonfarm residents in rural areas." (p.1)  Ian Hodge (1986) takes this trend  even further and states that "this phenomenon is now recognized to be widespread and to be more than solely a consequence either of overspill of urban areas into those designated rural, or of a rise in the extent of commuting to urban centers" (Rural Development and the Environment, p. 176).  This reversal of the traditional population migration, although not foreseen by Adams, does illicit the same concern Adams expounded about land speculation. The purchasing of rural land by urban residents tends to drive land values up.  Thus, as in 1917, the increased value of land makes  it difficult for land to be utilized for traditional  rural activities of  farming or ranching by individual land owners.  The partial trend reversal in the rural population appears to be the result  15  of several factors.  Primarily, it is attributed to a combination of:  1. increased ability to commute to urban centers for employment; 2. retirement migration to rural areas; 3. the purchasing of a second 'rural' home for recreational purposes; 4. the relocation of some manufacturing industries for reduced land costs and taxes; and 5. the ability of farmers, through technological advances, to be able to work part-time at other businesses to supplement their income (Cherry, 1976).  It should be noted this population influx does not affect all rural areas. There are still "...areas of sustained outward migration with consequent social dislocation and economic collapse" in the more remote rural areas (Ibid, p.8).  This is probably still the case in many of the remote areas of  B.C., such as the Liard Regional District.  All of the different combinations of factors that could result in an urban population influx, combined with the possibility of a sustained out migration, have a tendency to ensure that few rural areas are alike. Therefore, the rural planner must be flexible enough to approach each area or situation with an open mind.  .3  The Changing Attitude of Rural Residents  The attitude of rural residents has also changed since Thomas Adams' time.  The "... rural community has become less-sufficient in meeting its 16  own needs and relies increasingly upon contacts with specialist services from urban centers "(Ibid, p.56).  There is an expectation of governmental  services that exceed the basic building controls and sanitary services suggested by Adams, as we now hear constant requests for improved educational, transportation,  health and community services and facilities  Part of the change is the result of increased educational levels, and improved communication and transportation  links so that rural residents  are aware of the services provided in urban centers.  One further reason for the change is the urban population migration. Specifically, "... the behaviour patterns of the newcomers are quite different from those whom they replace" (Hodge, 1986 p.177). more familiar with the methods for effectively  dealing with government  and now tend to direct the focus of interest in rural areas. could be directed in any number of ways.  They are  This focus  For example, it may result in  improved government services, to meet their expectations from previous living in an urban center- or it could result in an increase of rural residential  subdivisions.  Regardless, the rural community is now constantly facing pressures for "motorways, power stations, oil tank farms, reservoirs ... new houses for commuters seeking the country life, and the ... tidal wave of cars bringing those in search of countryside recreation" (Ibid, p.174).  17  2. 3 The Tangible & Intangible Benefits Associated with Rural Planning  Michael Chisholm (1962) in his publication 'Rural Settlement and Land Use' supports the need for planned development through a study of locational factors or problems. fragmentation  As illustrated by Adams, speculation leads to a  or dispersal of farm settlements because of the leap-  frogging effect necessary to bypass large tracts of land remaining idle. Chisholm takes an empirical approach to complete calculations that "...indicate a reduction in the average distance between the farmsteads and fields of a half kilometer will yield an average increase in gross product of 6 and 7 per cent, showing that even a fairly modest rearrangement of the locations of the farmsteads can contribute appreciably to the gains obtained from consolidation" (p. 135).  Therefore, rural planning can  ensure that land is used in the most efficient manner possible.  In further support of rural planning, Chisholm also confirms that controlling development dispersal reduces the costs of providing roads and public utilities such as electricity and water, while the possibilities of social intercourse are enhanced.  William Lean (1969), in his publication 'Economics of Land Use Planning: Urban & Regional' promotes regional land use planning as a means of achieving broader, national objectives associated with economic development.  He argues that "with regional economic planning it ought to  be possible to improve the framework of public investment within which economic activity takes place in such a way as to increase efficiency in the use of resources" (p. 184).  1 8  To accomplish economic planning, regional land use planning is seen as a positive necessity.  Lean states that "if the spatial relationships between  different types of activity are so arranged as to facilitate complementarity, the ease of transport of persons, products and materials, and the provision of services, then this must increase the efficiency with which the resources of the region are used" (p.187).  The rural or Regional District planner is the best placed professional to oversee this land use planning in B.C.. He sees the region as a whole, and the existing planning approaches in B.C. entail a rational comprehensive view that incorporates input from all levels of government and the public. Therefore, with the proper resources he would be able to compile the data and analysis necessary for the regional authority to make decisions that could increase the efficiency of resource utilization.  However,  practically speaking, the regional authority does not have the power to overrule the mandate of other levels of government.  To get the opinions of practicing professionals on the need for rural planning, a questionnaire for regional planners was devised.  The  questionnaire (Attachment 1) was distributed to the planners in 23 or the 28 regional districts in British Columbia.  Of the five regional districts  not sent a survey, one was the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which declined to participate due to the lack of rural land within its jurisdiction.  After numerous unsuccessful attempts, the other four  regional districts were excluded as their cooperation could not be confirmed. 19  When mailing the questionnaire April 1, 1990 was specified as a response deadline.  Unfortunately only sixteen, or 70%, of the regional districts  that were sent the questionnaire responded (as per Table 2, p.35). However, these responses are significant as the sixteen regional districts comprise a land mass of approximately 520,000 square kilometers (more than half the entire province) and contain approximately 225,000 rural residents.  The questionnaire returned for analysis provided some interesting results, most of which are discussed in Chapter 5.  However, one basic question  asked was - "Is there a need for rural planning?". respondents expressed a need for rural planning.  Not surprisingly, all the This was to be expected  as the individuals responding to the questionnaire are the 'believers' who are employed by the regional district ( i.e. regional district officials, either employed in planning field or administers with the responsibility of overseeing the planning function) .  To state that planning is not needed  would be to question their own existence - as the representative from the Nanaimo Regional District states, planning is needed, 'otherwise he wouldn't have a job'.  The response from the Nanaimo Regional District is  surprising considering that this region contains the Coombs/Hilliers/Errington area, which is one of the more vocal areas against land use controls in the province.  However, I believe that most of the respondents made an honest attempt to complete the questionnaire to the best of their ability.  A number of  responses mirrored the rationale for rural planning provided in Chapter 2 20  of this study.  Specifically, individuals stated that land use controls  within rural areas are needed, for the following reasons:  TABLE  1  EXAMPLES  Number of Responses (16 questionnaires)  1.  To protect the traditional lifestyle  10  from conflicting land uses; 2. To deal with growth and development  7  pressures resulting from small lot subdivision and the provision of community water & sewer 3.  When the activities on one property negatively  6  impact on adjoining properties; 4.  Where there is a public demand for controls  3  5.  When there are special environmental conditions  3  Corresponding to the above responses, rural land use controls were seen as the appropriate solution for problems related to increased density (such as health problems associated with wells and septic fields, noise, unsightly premises, building separation for fire safety), incompatible land uses, protection of the environment and the cost effective  implementation  of public or utility services.  Further support for rural planning is provided by William Lassey (1977) in his publication titled 'Planning in Rural Environments'. Lassey also 21  promotes the concept of planning in the rural area as part of an integrated 'whole'.  He believes that there is a " ...tendency to divide the rural  environment into sectors- such as agriculture, forest, water, parks, etc. with very little provision for an adequate overview of how the total rural ecological system functions" (p.9).  Lassey promotes the need for an  improved knowledge base for rural planning in order to overcome this tendency.  2.4  The Rationale for Planning  The previous discussion on the changing emphasis of rural planning is a composite of trends experienced in North America and Europe.  It is  reflective of recent developments, but there is very little empirical or statistical verification of the extent of the trend in Canada.  In fact, a significant problem facing planners in rural Canada is that much of the data necessary to ascertain the extent of trends, and therefore to anticipate problems, is unavailable.  In other words, not much has changed  in data collection since it was stated by the Canadian Council on Rural Development in 1969 that "Information on rural conditions as such is particularly sparse" (Third Report and Review, p. 5).  While this report by the Canada Council is outdated, it does give an indication of what life in the country was expected to be like in the 1970's.  Drawing on the results of a seminar held in Geneva Park, Ontario,  the participants invited by the Council were grass-root individuals who had day to day involvement with agriculture or fishing in remote areas of  the country.  Their feelings were summarized in a document that was  approved by all those who attended.  "In very simple terms, the  participants felt themselves threatened. A combination of economic circumstances and apparent government disinterest had combined to place in jeopardy, not only their economic destiny, but the institutions of which they were a part and, indeed, their very way of life" (Ibid p. 1).  Utilizing the results of the Geneva Park seminar, and information from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the Canada Council report (1969) summarizes that rural areas were characterized by:  1. A continuing flow of working age residents to urban centers; 2. A higher demand for medical services by the remaining residents  (i.e.  the remaining very young and old people normally have need for greater  medical attention than working age individuals);  3. Higher unemployment than urban areas; 4. Less total earnings for individuals employed in rural areas; 5. A higher degree of poverty than in urban centers; 6. Generally, poorer living conditions (i.e. older houses, crowded living conditions, and fewer of the comforts and amenities offered by modern living); and 7. A lower level of educational achievement (Ibid p.31)  Living conditions in the rural United States during this same period, as described by Clay Cochran (1973) in his article titled T h e Single Family Slum', appeared to be even worse than in Canada.  Cochran states that  contrary to popular belief, the inner city should not be the focus of  23  concern for the provision of adequate housing as "nearly 60 percent of the bad housing in the United States is found in nonmetropolitan areas, even though less than a third of the people live there" (p. 10).  Furthermore, "...  on a per capita basis, federal outlays for welfare and health services were roughly four times greater in metropolitan counties than in nonmetropolitan counties, while federal outlays for manpower  training  and development were three times greater in cities than in rural areas...' and '... while nonmetropolitan counties accounted for two-thirds of all substandard units in 1968, they received only 16 percent of all housing assistance" (Ibid).  Given these conditions, and the feelings of the participants in the Geneva Park seminar, there is an obvious rationale for rural planning to try and improve the overall standard of living for rural residents.  One of the shortcomings of the Canada Council report is that it does not discuss the phenomenon of urban residents relocating in rural areas as described in the previous section.  There are indications that the trend  reversal may have already started by 1969, but this cannot be confirmed. The Report reveals that non-farm populations were on the increase, but treats the increase as an anomaly and does not offer a concrete explanation for its occurrence (p.8).  William Lassey (1977), in his publication titled 'Planning in Rural Environments' expands on the need for rural planning to include issues beyond those in the Canada Council report and discusses factors not directly associated with the rural residents.  Lassey maintains that "a  rationale for improved rural planning does not arise simply as a mechanism to increase the welfare of current rural residents." (p.22)  Of concern to Lassey is the non-farm population increase within rural areas. It is his belief that the urban migration to the country is likely to increase and that "... unless its consequences are understood in great depth and detail and adequate planning and action are undertaken to add some vigorous measure of control, urban impact can only lead to a transfer of many highly visible problems of the metropolitan conglomerates to rural locales, which already suffer from service inadequacy and despoliation of environmental  amenities" (Ibid).  Lassey argues that any rural planning approach needs to be comprehensive and inter-disciplinary.  He believes that the 'planner' must be a  professional with sound analytical skills, and be capable of considering the implications of development with respect to:  - soil erosion - water  pollution  - flora and fauna protection from urban residents overrunning the countryside as a result of increased affluence, improved transportation  and more recreation time  - preservation of agricultural  land  - an improved standard of living for rural residents  A 1974 Ford Foundation report titled "The Art of Managing the Environment" graphically describes the problems associated with  development when these types of factors are not considered.  It specifies  that there is the potential for the onslaught of urban sprawl and unchecked rural development to follow a 'familar' pattern.  A pattern  where "bulldozers lunge up hillsides, across farm lands, and through woods, kicking up clouds of housing developments, shopping centers, new roads, factories and office buildings' which cause ' a heavy drain on existing water and power supplies; soil erosion and runoff contaminating rivers and streams; overloaded sewers; proliferation of septic tanks, often poorly designed and constructed; replacement of natural  protective  ground cover by paved surfaces and buildings, increasing the risk of floods; accumulation of solid wastes and conversion of land into dumps with attendant health hazards and asthetic pollution; traffic congestion and consequent air pollution; and a rapid increase in population, putting demands on the public services of nearby older cities and towns beyond their capacity to deliver." (p.3)  There is no doubt that this type of  degradation of the environment has occurred in many rural areas of B.C.  In the New Democrat's paper (1989) on "Sustainable Development: B.C.'s Growing Future", there are charges that rural exploitation has led to "... the destruction of fish and animal habitats, erosion, the alteration of drainage patterns, and the creation of an ugly, scarred landscape..." (p.5). The paper also points out that " the amount of farmland protected under the Agricultural Land Reserve has progressively diminished- between 1974 and 1986, the reserve shrank by 27, 489 hectares.  This problem is  real, and is not specfic to B.C.  » In fact, Paul Eagles (1984) in his publication titled "The Planning and 26  Management of Environmentally Sensitive Areas" states that "In the most densely populated portions of Europe, Asia and North America less than 10% of the natural, terrestrial ecosystems remain in some semblance of their natural state" (p.1). Given this state of affairs, concern must be expressed over unplanned rural development, for it has the potential to threaten the ecosystem that all human life depends on.  Basically, Eagles expands on Lassey's concerns for flora and fauna protection, to the point where he presents the relatively new discipline of 'environmental' planning. new form of planning.  However, in my opinion this not necessarily a  What it really consists of is a comprehensive  planning approach with greater emphasis placed on understanding and valuing environmental impacts- so that ecological concerns are  integrated  into societal decison-making (Ibid p.43).  Eagles presents the following table that highlights the positive ecological functions that can result from planned development which considers the retention  of environmental  sensitive areas:  1. Protection of gene pools for the future; 2. Protection of rare or endangered species and their habitat; 3. Provision of travel corridors and resting places for migratory species; 4. Preservation of mature, stable climax ecosystems with their constituent complete food webs and trophic level complexity; 5. Serving the purpose of benchmarks to which all disturbed areas can be compared; 6. Conservation of large large blocks of habitat for species, especially  upper trophic level predators, that require extensive areas for breeding and survival; 7. Protection of areas for the nesting or breeding of colonial species, such as herons, terns or many fish species; 8. Protection of representative samples of different ecotones or community types within an existing biogeographical province; 9. Allowance for ecological succession to continued unhindered; 10. Protection of areas for the breeding of wildlife that require undisturbed natural areas; 11. Conservation of areas with relatively complete nutrient recycling processes and normal energy flows; 12. For the study of the population dynamics of any or all constituent species; 13. For the study of predator/prey and parasite/host relationships in areas with natural food-chain processes; 14. Protection of paleobotanical resources for the study of past environments and their change over time; 15. To serve groundwater recharge, low stream flow augumentation, flood peak  reduction and headwater protection functions for the  hydrological system; 16. Filtration and cleaning of air and water flows.  (Almost all sewage  treatment is dependent upon the natural ecosystem to complete the treatment process.) 17. Reduction of soil erosion; 18. Protection of unique geological features that show significant glacial, fluvial, depositional or erosional processes; 19. Limitation of construction on hazardous lands such as floodplains,  28  steep slopes or unstable soils; 20. Provision of areas for public education in resources and their management; 21.  Protection of aesthetically pleasing environments;  22. To provide sources of commercial products such as outdoor recreation. (Ibid p.4)"  The key in considering all of these factors is cooperation.  No one  individual can have an intimate knowledge of all disciplines. one must rely on others for input into the planning process.  Therefore, This reliance  must also extend to the public at large- for without understanding and acceptance from the people that are affected by planning decisions, there can be no assurances that the desired outcome will be achieved. Therefore, in any discussion on J^jral planning, there should be some consideration of the public's perception of its worth.  2.5  A Rationale for the Public's Impression of Planning  The Canada Council report discussed in the previous section had input from the public through the Geneva Park seminar.  It was the perception of  the rural residents that took part in the seminar that "there was a widespread tacit assumption that planning represented the major tool which would under-pin economic development in rural areas of Canada" (Third Report & Review p.38).  However, the question has to be asked whether the people attending the seminar were representative of the rural population.  I tend to think that  seminar were representative of the rural population.  I tend to think that  they would only be indicative of the more highly educated, wealthier rural residents, considering that substantial travel may have been necessary to attend the seminar.  In addition, since only a 'tacit' assumption was evident from what could have been a minority representation of rural residents, it is appropriate to refer to another opinion on how planning is perceived.  Alan Hahn (1970), in his paper titled 'Planning in Rural Areas', provides what I believe to be one of the better descriptions of how planning is perceived in the rural community.  It is his belief that planning, as a  whole, has largely been unsuccessful in rural areas.  Primarily because of  "... the recalcitrance of rural citizens, leaders and government. Their acceptance of planning as an appropriate local public activity is absent, or half-hearted at best" (p.44)  Hahn maintains that for rural planning to be successful, the planner must recognize and take into consideration the fact that differing  internal  pressures within each rural area normally provides for a continuum that ranges from completely rural to almost urban.  He breaks the continuum down into a minimum of three distinct categories that span this spectrum.  The categories  1. Completely Rural 2. Urbanizing Rural 30  described are:  Each of the categories is typified by how its residents will react to planning initiatives.  The completely rural community is typified by the  residents perception that there is no need for 'planning'.  Hahn believes  that, in many cases, this perception is close to the truth as "informal social pressures in the small community serve to check land changes'... and...' the tendencies toward conformity are probably more effective than country zoning regulations in preventing nonconforming uses" (p.45).  In  other words, "... the homogeneity of residents, occupations, and outlooks simultaneously leads to a reluctance to use formal means of regulation and control and less objective need to use them" (Ibid).  Serious nuisances  would normally be dealt with by the residents themselves on an informal, personal level which would not involve either the courts or government representatives.  A region is typified as an urbanizing rural area when this informal method of problem resolution becomes less effective.  The characteristics of the  urbanizing rural area that separate it from the completely rural area are:  1. " people and land uses are more densely distributed, and hence, more likely to conflict; 2. 3.  change is more rapid and obvious; and newcomers, who do not conform in values and needs with the original residents, grow more numerous " (Ibid).  In this type of an area, the residents feel the need for greater governmental intervention and formalized procedures because the  31  governmental intervention and formalized procedures because the communication links between neighbours start to break down as a result of a widening or diversification of interests.  Hahn states that "...land use  controls (especially special purpose ordinances as opposed to zoning) may be adopted for the first time, but they are still unlikely to be formally enforced" (Ibid).  Formal enforcement is probably not needed as the very  existence of these regulations, combined with informal social pressure would be enough to bring people into compliance with the wishes of the community.  An urbanized rural community is achieved when urban oriented newcomers become the vocal majority. A natural evolution occurs where "... urban oriented newcomers will disagree more and more with farm oriented groups, who would still be dominant in local decision making" (Ibid).  Once  this occurs the natural progression is for:  1. Urban oriented individuals begin to organize into interest groups; 2. Once organized, the interest groups begin to make representations at community functions to promote their concerns; 3. These representations evolve into presentations to local elected officials, and a political platform that challenges incumbents; and 4. Eventually, it leads to urban oriented individuals being elected to office and a redirection of rural priorities to urban priorities.  When an urbanized rural community is achieved, there is far more acceptance of planning's traditional doctrines, but there could still be considerable  opposition to the more restrictive planning tools such as 32  zoning.  This opposition is largely due to what Hahn believes are the  perceived and real limitations of planning, and to the special interests of individuals in the community.  Hahn (1970) notes that traditional planning has a tendency to be applied throughout entire areas or regions, rather than to concentrate on specific problem sections.  This is seen as being rather indiscriminate by rural  residents, and reinforces their opinion that more restrictive specifically zoning, is sure to follow. two  regulations,  There is resistance to zoning on  fronts:  1. It must be remembered that a percentage of the urban 'newcomers' are escaping the city and its multitude of regulations.  These individuals  would be one group resisting the restrictions imposed by zoning; and  2. Resistance to 'agricultural only' zones by those individuals using their land for agricultural purposes.  It is Hahn's (1970) position that planners have fallen for what he terms the 'protection myth' on the assumption that farmers are threatened by urban development.  To the contrary, Hahn states that " many farmers see  urban development not as a threat, but as a promise- a possible windfall " (Ibid).  He believes that "what most farmers in an urbanizing situation  want may include preferential  tax treatment, protection from  eminent  domain proceedings, protection from harassment by anti-odor ordinances and other restrictions, and so on- but NOT a zoning ordinance or any other provision that prevents or restricts the sale for urban land  purposes"(lbid).  My professional experience, working in several different regional districts, supports both the steps to urbanization described by Hahn, and the existence of the 'protection myth'.  For example, I would tend to  describe much of the area outside of the Fort St. John urban fringe to be 'completely rural', while the area outside of Penticton (where I assisted in the preparation of a Rural Land Use Bylaw that is detailed later in this document) could be described as 'Urbanizing Rural' and leading towards 'Urbanized Rural'.  In addition, while in Fort St. John, it was my responsibility to prepare reports for the Regional Board on applications for subdivision or nonagricultural use.  In discussion with the applicants, and other members of  the public at various regional district meetings, the comment I heard most from farmers was that they supported the preservation of agricultural land in theory- but felt that when an individual was ready to retire after actively farming the land, he should be able to get the maximum return possible for the land.  This could entail either subdivision or the non-farm  use of the property.  An attempt to verify the public's perception of the need for rural planning was made through the questionnaire previously described.  Basically, I  questioned the regional district officials about the number and type of land use complaints received per year.  While a direct correlation between  complaints and the need for planning cannot be confirmed, the article by Hahn states that the complaints received by local authorities can be seen  as an indication of the extent of urbanization in rural areas.  When  urbanization takes place the social interaction or relationship neighbours, breaks down.  between  There is then a reluctance to deal with conflicts  on a personal or informal basis. Therefore, increasing urbanization should increase the need for planning and development control and place greater emphasis on public officials to resolve conflicts.  The following table indicates the number of complaints received in each regional district that responded to the questionnaire, and provides an indication of the extent to which the regional district is used for conflict resolution.  35  TABLE 2  REGIONAL DISTRICT  RURAL POPULATION LAND AREA COMPLAINTS (estimated)  (sq. km.) (per year)  Alberni Clayoquot  12,000  6,883.3  12  Bulkley Nechako  18,500  77,821.2  10  3,167  25,180.8  25  Central Coast  23,157  N/A  Central Kootenay  26,109  Central Okanagan  25,500  2,956.3  81  Columbia Shuswap  17,000  30,107.2  12  Comox Strathcona  33,210  20,291.8  55  Dewney-Alouette  3,500  2,860.8  30  Fort Nelson-Liard  1,500  85,808.1  6  14,421  51,998.6  20  Kitimat-Stikine  9,271  102,620.1  30  Mount Waddington  5,000  20,248.6  90  Nanaimo  5,943  5,264.2  36  Skeena-Queen Charlotte  4,534  16,232.8  N/A  22,000  45,279,2  £LQ  Fraser-Fort George  Thompson-Nicola  TOTAL  226,655  518,790  637  There is considerable difference in the number of complaints registered per capita in each regional district.  For example, the Mount Waddington  Regional District has three times the number of complaints per capita than the Regional District of Bulkley Nechako. 36  However, little relevance  can be attached to these differences without a detailed analysis of the specific circumstances in each regional district.  The most startling aspect of Table 2 is that the actual number of complaints received is extremely low.  For over half of the rural area in  the province, less than one half of one per cent of the population actually had complaints pertaining to land use in 1989.  However, many of the  individuals that did complain had valid land use concerns that are indicative of the problems in a community facing pressures from a rural/urban interface or an influx of urban residents. The most common complaint appeared to be unsightly premises, followed by inappropriate commercial or industrial land use and problems with the keeping of animals.  To provide an indication of what can be expected in a 'typical' rural area, the Regional District of Central Kootenay provided a copy of their April 1989 resident survey of Electoral Area 'F' (Appendix 2).  The purpose of  the survey was to determine whether the residents supported planning and development controls within their electoral area.  It concluded that  simplified land use controls were desired by residents to provide security against the development of undesirable activities on adjacent properties. In total, 71 percent of the respondents surveyed expressed support for local public control of development.  Yet, the residents made it clear that  they did not want the restrictive controls offered by zoning.  As a typical rural area, Electoral Area 'F' appears to be characteristic of an urbanizing rural area.  The residents preferred the peace and quiet 37  provided by the rural atmosphere in the region, while enjoying the accessibility to services and the employment offered by the City of Nelson.  Of the residents surveyed, 59 percent lived on property of less  than an acre; 29 percent lived on property that was between one and five acres; and 12 percent lived on property greater than 5 acres.  Given the  parcel size typified in the Regional District's study area, one would have to conclude that the development thrust in the region was away from the traditional sizes.  rural activities (such as farming) that require larger parcel  Another indication that the region may be undergoing an urbanizing  process is the fact that 32 percent of the residents surveyed had lived in the area for less than five years.  The fact that this electoral area, and other rural areas throughout the province, may be in an urbanizing state may explain the abnormally low number of land use complaints in Table 2.  If one accepts Hahn's (1970)  portrayal of the rural area as being a continuum that ranges from completely rural to almost urban, the lack of complaints could be indicative of both completely rural and urbanizing rural.  Yet, the need for  planning is evident in an urbanizing rural area, as Hahn characterizes it by:  1.  "People and land uses are more densely distributed, and hence, more likely to conflict;  2. 3.  Change is more rapid and obvious; and Newcomers, who do not conform in values and needs with the original residents, grow more numerous." (Hahn 1970, p.45)  In an urbanizing rural area, the residents feel the need for greater 38  government intervention and formalized procedures because the communication links between neighbours start to break down as a result of a widening or diversification of interests.  Yet, formal enforcement is  rarely needed as the very existence of these regulations, combined with informal social pressures, could be enough to bring people into compliance with the wishes of the community.  Therefore, there is a  basic need for simplified land use controls in most urbanizing rural regions.  Of interest is the fact that, of the regional district representatives that responded to the questionnaire for this study, the majority expressed the opinion that there is a threshold parcel size when sophisticated land use controls become necessary.  Most of the parcel sizes specified for this  threshold were relatively small, ranging from 4,000 square metres (or the size at which sewer services are required) up to 20 acres.  Yet, the  majority of the regional districts have a comprehensive zoning bylaw that applies to extremely large parcels of land within significant portions of their region.  This suggests that inappropriate land use controls have been  applied in some areas, and indicates that the development of the rural land use bylaw legislation may have been justified.  Of course, there are  urbanizing rural areas where zoning was appropriately implemented in a proactive manner to control development pressures.  Given the public's and the professional's impressions of planning that have been presented throughout this section, I believe it is necessary to explore alternative methods of rural land use planning.  Only through  research of this nature can planners be successful in achieving the  tangible and intangible benefits that planning can offer, while still meeting the needs of the public at large.  Professionals should be aware of  alternative planning methodology in order to be flexible enough to be able to respond to varying conditions found in the rural continuum.  40  CHAPTER 3  R U R A L PLANNING IN A L B E R T A , ONTARIO AND S A S K A T C H E W A N  3.0  Introduction  The intent of this chapter is to illustrate how the  administrative  structures in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan have been developed to deal with the need for rural land use planning as established in the previous chapter.  In addition, there is a discussion of the major planning tools utilized in each province, the methods for amending these tools and the role of the public.  The information presented forms the basis for the comparative  analysis in chapter 5.  3.1 Rural Land Use Controls in Alberta  Background  The province of Alberta has a long history of land use control legislation. Unlike British Columbia, which incorporates planning into the Municipal Act, the Alberta government has mandated its planning function through a specialized Act for the past 77 years.  Alberta's first Planning Act was implemented in 1913 for the purpose of regulating development on the periphery of established cities such as 41  Calgary and Edmonton.  In its first Act, Alberta pioneered some of the  established 'norms' in todays planning field.  For example, there " ... was a  provision for a dedication of up to five per cent of land for open space and public lands with no compensation in a newly planned area" and " ... it offered the aesthetic order of unified design rather than the mechanistic order imposed by zoning and grid subdivision" (Masson 1985, p. 259).  This Act was amended, or repealed to be replaced by a subsequent Planning Act several times over the years.  Each amendment or new Act had an  expressed purpose, but some pieces of legislation were more significant than others.  The 1929 Act established a Director of Town Planning to  formulate provincial planning guidelines, and transferred zoning powers previously controlled by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to local authorities  such as cities, towns, villages, municipal districts and  improvement districts.  It also gave these local bodies the ability to  establish regional planning commissions (Ibid p.262).  In response to these changes, over fifty municipalities enacted planning bylaws during the 1930's.  However, the depression reduced available  funds and no regional planning commissions were established.  It wasn't  until after the establishment of the 1952 Town and Rural Planning Act that impetus was given for the creation of District Planning Commissions to act as planning advisory bodies.  With an amendment to the Planning Act in 1957, the Minister of Municipal Affairs divested virtually all routine planning responsibilities (but  not  final signing authority) to local authorities by delegating the authority for 42  final subdivision approval.  Subsequent to this Act, there were a number of  minor amendments that lead us to today's planning process.  One  amendment changed the name of the District Planning Commissions to Regional Planning Commissions, and another made the implementation of a regional plan mandatory for each Regional Planning Commission by 1972.  The Planning Process in Alberta Today  To fully understand the rural planning process in Alberta, it was necessary to contact the Alberta Ministry of Municipal Affairs.  Therefore,  the following information has been compiled with the assistance of Mr. Eugene Dmytruk, General Manager of the Alberta Planning Board.  The hierarchy of government bodies involved in the planning process, utilizing a top down approach, is detailed in the following diagram.  Alberta Planning Board  Regional Planning Commission  Cities  Towns  Villages  - The Alberta Planning Board  Municipal Districts Improvement Districts  The Alberta Planning Board represents the provincial government and is composed of 18 members- 6 political appointees and 12 senior civil servants representing departments with a direct interest in land use planning.  The Planning Board's main function is the ratification of  Official Regional Plans and any subsequent amendments proposed by Regional Planning Commissions. Therefore, the Board acts as the provincial representative  to ensure that regional plans are consistent  with provincial policy or objectives.  The Planning Board holds substantial authority.  It can conduct hearings in  the same manner as a court of law for it has the authority under Section 18 and 19 of the Planning Act to: 1.  summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses in the same manner as a court of record in civil cases;  2. require a person to attend and produce any plans or documents the Board considers necessary for matters under its jurisdiction; and 3.  have a bench warrant issued by the Court of Queen's Bench if a person fails to attend a meeting of the Planning Board as notified.  The Planning Board has the authority to reject plans outright if they do not believe they are in the best interest of the province.  Once rejected, a  plan is returned to the appropriate Regional Planning Commission for revision.  "In addition, the Board is the appeal body for subdivision  appeals; its decisions are subject only to an appeal to the Appelate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court and then only on questions of law, not the planning substance of the decision" (Masson 1985, p.266).  44  - Regional Planning Commissions  The Regional Planning Commissions that forward plans to the Planning Board are normally comprised entirely of elected officials representing the local bodies within their planning areas.  The only exception to this  rule is the Ministerial appointment to the Commission, under Section 22 of the Planning Act, of members from improvement districts. Improvement districts are rural areas, so sparsely populated and with such small tax base that the incorporation of a self-governing municipal district is not feasible.  However, the Minister has seldom used this  authority in recent years as it is counter to the Alberta governments desire to have self-government within all areas of the province.  There are 10 Regional Planning Commissions that regulate the majority of the province's land mass and population.  Depending on the size of the  planning area, these Commissions have between 15 and 45 representatives.  Their main functions are to:  1. prepare the statutorily  required Official Regional Plans for their  planning areas; 2. ensure that land-use bylaws, and various development proposals initiated by the local governing bodies conform to the Official Regional Plan; and 3. act as an advisory body on planning issues for local authorities.  As stated in Section 47 of the Planning Act," a Regional Plan: a) shall provide for present and future land use and development of the 45  planning region; and b) may regulate and control the use and development of land in the planning  region."  These Commissions can employ professional planners as staff that act in an advisory capacity, or utilize the planning resources of the Planning Service Division of the Department  of Municipal Affairs.  Of importance to this study is the fact that there is a definite rural bias to Regional Planning Commissions that is normally reflected in the Regional Plans.  This bias appears to extend from the 1929 Town Planning  Act when, "... as might be expected in a rural-dominated legislature, small municipalities were favoured over very large ones: no government unit was allowed more than three members on a commission" (Ibid, p.261).  In 1980, only the City of Edmonton, with a population of 551,314, exceeded this three member maximum in the Edmonton Metropolitan Planning Commission.  However, its nine votes could still be dominated by  the rural communities.  There were a total of 27 votes on this  Commission, and the smaller communities of Calmar, Bon Accord, Gibbons, Beaumont, Devon, Morinville, Redwater, Stony Plains and Spruce Grove (with a total population of 34,942) had the same total number of votes as the City of Edmonton. communities  and rural  The remaining votes were held by medium sized municipalities.  This rural bias was even greater in the Calgary Regional Planning Commission.  The City of Calgary, with a population of 623,133, had only 3 46  out of the available 17 votes on the Commission.  As a result, the  communities of Crossfield, Trochu and Beiseker, with a combined total population of 2,734, had voting powers equal to the City of Calgary.  While this discrepancy between voting power and population could be an obvious source of conflict between urban and rural communities, it could promote among rural residents in Alberta a different perception of planning than their counterparts in B.C.  When the votes of the elected  officials of smaller communities or rural municipalities are needed to pass planning resolutions, it is difficult to argue an urban bias.  -  Rural  Municipalities  There are a number of local governing bodies, such as cities, towns, villages and rural municipalities, in Alberta.  The governing body of  importance to this study is the 'rural municipality' . reflect the  typical B.C. municipality.  It has evolved in Alberta to  represent the rural areas that are typically  In B.C.,  This body does not  unincorporated in B.C.  the equivalent of a 'rural municipality' would be an area in which  the provincial government might consider the adoption of a Rural Land Use Bylaw was appropriate.  Mr. Dmytruk states that a rural municipality  incorporates vast tracts of what he would normally consider to be rural land, as it is primarily used for agricultural or resource-oriented purposes. The average parcel size could vary significantly within each rural municipality, as parcel sizes commonly range from one to one thousand hectares. 47  However, unlike the unincorporated areas of B.C., the Alberta rural municipality is a self-governing body. Within each rural municipality there are normally seven to nine electoral districts. determine representation for each electoral district.  Elections are held to These elected  officials then act in basically the same manner as a municipal council in governing the rural municipality.  As noted earlier, one of these elected  officials is appointed to a Regional Planning Commission.  This individual  has one vote on the commission, which is similar to the voting power of most cities.  In this way, the Alberta government ensures that rural  interests are incorporated into planning decisions.  Because of Alberta's pioneering of the planning movement in Canada, the profession is well developed and the rural residents appear to be willing to accommodate to land use controls.  As a result Alberta has somewhat  more stringent land use controls than similar rural areas in B.C..  For example, many of the rural municipalities in Alberta are statutorally required to have a land use bylaw covering their land area as Section 68(1) of the Planning Act states that "a council of a municipality with a population of 1000 or more shall pass a by-law in accordance with Part 6..." of the Planning Act.  Part 6 delineates public participation in the  planning process, and will be discussed after the features of a Land Use Bylaw are detailed.  As noted by Mr. Dmytruk, a land use bylaw is similar to a standard zoning bylaw.  Section 69 of the Planning Act specifies that a land use bylaw:  48  1. may prohibit or regulate and control the use and development of land and buildings; 2. shall divide the municipality into districts for the purpose of; a) describing the permitted uses of land or buildings; or b) describing the discretionary uses of land or buildings, or both 3. may provide for; - the minimum and maximum area of lots; - the ground area, floor area, height, size and location of buildings; - the amount of land to be provided around and between buildings; - the landscaping of land or buildings; - the location, height and maintenance of fences and walls; - the establishment and maintenance of parking and loading facilities; - the design, character and appearance of buildings; - the location of access to the lot; - the lighting of land, buildings or other things; - the enlargement, alteration, repair, removal or relocation of buildings; - the excavation or filling in of land; - the development of buildings on unstable or hazardous lands, on lands within a specified distance of a watercourse and on lands within a specified area around an airport; - the construction, repair and placement of billboards or other advertising signs; and - the density of population within any part of the district.  As noted previously, the implementation of a Land Use Bylaw is subject to Part 6 of the Planning Act.  This part specifies regulations pertaining to  public participation in the planning process. 49  Before giving second reading  public participation in the planning process.  Before giving second reading  to a proposed bylaw, council must hold a public hearing to provide members of the public with an opportunity to voice their opinions.  To  ensure that the public is aware of the public hearing, council must: a) give written notice to all people who's land is directly affected by the bylaw that states the time and place of the hearing, and outlines the procedure for making  representation;  b) publish in two issues of a local newspaper a statement of intent for the bylaw, the date and time of the hearing, and where a copy of the bylaw can be inspected.  To summarize, rural land in Alberta is subject to:  1)  an Official Regional Plan, established by a Regional Planning  Commission. The purpose of this plan is to establish goals such as preservation of agricultural land, or industrial land designation.  The  established goals are reinforced through broad management guidelines which direct the type of development proposals that can be entertained by rural municipalities ; and  2) a land use bylaw. This bylaw can be very specific; it can limit land use, floor area, building height, appearance, form and character of development, and even such things as the height of fences or the placement of signs.  The procedure for adopting a land use bylaw requires public participation. In other words, as in B.C., when adopting the bylaw there is normally a 50  public information meeting followed by a public hearing to give citizens the opportunity to make their views known.  3.2  Rural Land Use Controls in Ontario  Planning in Ontario, like Alberta, is governed by a specific Planning Act. However, the method of planning in rural areas is significantly different than the 'Rural Municipality' concept that the province of Alberta has adopted.  Rather than having rural municipalities responsible for  unincorporated areas, the Minister for Municipal Affairs establishes a Planning Board in areas susceptible to development pressures or land use conflicts.  The Planning Board consists of citizens who act as an advisory  body in the development of planning policy.  The authority for the Minister to create a planning area comes from Part I, Section 2 (3) of the Planning Act which states that " The Minister may define and name a planning area consisting of territory without municipal organization and may appoint a Planning Board for a planning area."  The  Planning Board is normally composed of either four, six or eight appointees.  The unique aspect of this Board is that the Minister actually advertises in local newspapers for individuals willing to accept the responsibility for planning decision making.  Ministry bureaucrats interview each applicant  who responds to the advertisement, and then makes a recommendation to the Minister for his selection.  51  Although the Planning Board functions similarly to a council, its  primary  responsibility is the development of an Official Plan. An 'Official Plan' is defined by the Planning Act as meaning "... a program and policy, or any part thereof covering a planning area or any part thereof, designed to secure the health, safety, convenience or welfare of the inhabitants of the area...".  Therefore, an Official Plan is a policy document that delineates how land should be used or developed.  The Ontario government states that " It  provides direction for future planning activities, and for public and private  initiatives aimed at improving the existing physical environment.  It is tailored to the size and complexity of each ' planning area' and is based largely on input made by citizens through the public participation process" (Citizens Guide to Official Plans).  While this may be the case, it  is noted that public participation is normally limited to only one public meeting before the plan is sent to the Minister for ratification.  The Planning Board draws on the resources of the community planning branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for technical input into the Plan.  Once the Plan is completed, it must be ratified by the Minister of  Municipal Affairs.  Unlike Alberta, the Planning Board is not responsible  for the development of a zoning or land use bylaw.  In areas not governed by municipal bodies, land use controls are normally applied as a Minister's zoning order under section 35 of the Planning Act. Section 35 basically gives the Minister the authority granted to municipalities under Section 29 (subdivision) and Section 39 (land use  controls). study.  Section 39 is the significant section for the purpose of this  Under Section 39 the Minister may implement a zoning order (in  compliance with an Official Plan if in place) that:  1. Prohibits the use of land within defined areas, or areas abutting a highway; 2. Prohibits the erection or use of buildings or structures within defined areas, or areas abutting a highway; 3. Prohibits the erection or use of buildings or structures on land subject to flooding or on land where, by reason of its rocky, low lying, marshy or unstable character, the cost of construction of satisfactory waterworks, sewage or drainage facilities  is prohibitive;  4. Regulates the cost or type of construction and height, bulk, location, size, floor area, spacing, external design, character, and use of buildings and structures within defined areas.  This includes  regulating minimum frontage and depth of a parcel of land for the purpose of siting buildings or structures; 5. Requires owners or occupants of buildings or structures to provide adequate parking and loading zones; and 6. Regulates the minimum area of land parcels and the density of development within a defined area.  Where a Planning Board has been implemented, the Minister will seek its cooperation in the preparation of the zoning order.  The Planning Board  also plays a large part in the amendment and enforcement of the zoning order.  The Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Minister on  amendment applications, and documents zoning order contraventions so  that ministry staff can take appropriate action.  This action may involve  either a criminal court case, that entails a maximum $1000.00 fine, or the ministry obtaining a civil court injunction to stop the offending action or use.  The Minister is all powerful in the implementation of a zoning order within rural areas.  When a zoning order is imposed, the usual zoning  requirements for notice, public information and a public meeting do not apply.  Therefore, the minister can, if he so desires, implement a zoning  order without providing an opportunity for the public to have input through the public hearing process.  All that the Minister is required to do is,  within 30 days of mailing an order, give public notice and make a copy of the order available at the local land registry office.  The Minister does have the option of referring the zoning order to the Ontario Municipal Board (O.M.B.), prior to implementation, if he perceives a need to do so.  In other words, if there is a public outcry to the imposition  of zoning regulations, it may be politically wiser to refer the decision on implementation to a separate body.  The Ontario Municipal Board is an  appointed, administrative tribunal that operates like a court of law to hear appeals and decide on contentious land use planning issues.  To decide on contentious issues, it is the O.M.B.'s standard practice to (with proper notification- either advertised or mailed) hold a public hearing similar to a court of law.  At the public hearing, one or more O.M.B.  appointees will hear both concerned citizens and expert witnesses in the land use planning profession.  The individuals appearing before the board  are placed under oath.  This process may take several hours, or several  days, depending on the complexity of the issue.  "The O.M.B.'s decision is  final, except where a planning matter is designated by the Minister to be of provincial interest.  In such rare cases, the Ontario Cabinet reviews the  matter and may confirm, vary or object to the O.M.B.'s decision" ( A Citizen's Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board).  Rob Anderson, a community planner for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs was interviewed to determine how the planning system actually functions. He stated that the normal sequence of events involves the Community Planning Branch specifying a concern over land use conflicts or development issues in an unincorporated area.  Once concerns have been  identified, the Minister issues a zoning order that is, in effect, a zoning bylaw.  The purpose of the zoning order is to maintain the status quo, to  ensure that development does not get out of hand.  Once the order is in  place, the Ministry initiates the formulation of a Planning Board.  Therefore, planning in rural areas appears to be a reactive process rather than a proactive one.  Anderson states that, unless concerns have been  identified in a particular area, the Ministry does not impose land use controls.  One positive aspect of this method of implementing a Planning  Board is that the local representatives on the Board are not susceptible to political pressures from residents in the area.  Therefore, they are able to  act in what they deem to be the best interests of the community, without the  possibility of political repercussions.  One uncertainty that Mr. Anderson alluded to was the application of an  Official Plan to public lands.  He stated that the Minister of Municipal  Affairs' authority to implement plans for the public good on public lands is not clear under the Planning Act.  What the Ministry relies on is a  referral process, to other provincial Ministries, which may have resource or other interests within the plan area.  The other ministries can comment  on the plan, but their approval is not required nor are they bound by the plan.  In summary, land use controls are normally implemented initially a zoning order from the Ministry.  through  The actual zoning order itself is  prepared by the provincial planning staff.  It is after this step that the  more altruistic planning guidelines, established for the public good, are created and implemented.  3.3 Rural Land Use Controls in Saskatchewan  Government  Structure  Like Alberta and Ontario, the province of Saskatchewan also utilizes a Planning and Development Act to govern planning. technical and comprehensive.  This Act is quite  As a result, it is difficult to understand its  emphasis, or even to determine the hierarchy of governing bodies involved in the planning process.  To better understand the system of government in  Saskatchewan, Mr. R. Howes of the Community Planning Division of the Saskatchewan  Ministry of Rural Affairs was  interviewed.  Mr. Howes confirmed that considerable attention is given to planning in  rural areas- to the point where his Ministry was created to deal specifically with rural issues.  He stated that, like British Columbia's  Regional Districts, the province of Saskatchewan utilizes the concept of individual 'Rural Municipalities' to govern locally in rural areas.  On  average, each rural municipality consists of 8 to 9 townships, and the unincorporated areas in between the townships.  In the Government of  Saskatchewan 1989 Annual Report on Rural Development, it is noted that there are 299 rural municipalities and 18 Planning Commissions.  Townships are incorporated villages or towns with elected councils.  A  representative from each council sits on the board or council of the rural municipality.  The unincorporated areas also have elected representatives  from defined electoral districts, with each representative  having an equal  vote.  However, the rural municipalities do not have the same self-governing authority as in Alberta.  Mr. Howes stated that it is quite common for  rural municipalities not to have a basic planning statement, plan or  development  zoning bylaw. He also said that there are commonly  inconsistencies in planning standards between  rural municipalities.  For  example, he stated that the minimum parcel size for agricultural activities could vary from 10 to 14 to 160 acres.  This is not seen as a problem because the Ministry of Rural Affairs has implemented basic planning guidelines.  Examples of planning guidelines  provided by Mr. Howes include preventing a racetrack from locating near a senior citizens complex, or an intensive livestock operation from locating 57  near a community water source.  These guidelines are adopted under Section 11 and implemented under Section 12 of the Planning and Development Act.  Section 11 of the Act  states that "the minister may initiate and make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council respecting the development of provincial land use policies". Once adopted by the Lieutenant Governor, as per Section 12, these land use policies must be considered in the preparation and review of development plans, basic planning statements and zoning bylaws throughout Saskatchewan.  At the same time, Mr. Howes states that as long as the basic guidelines are followed there is little involvement from his Ministry in the daily workings of the rural municipalities.  Furthermore, he sees the rural  municipality's ability to initiate a planning commission to assist and advise council on community planning and development matters as a positive planning tool to ensure that the wishes of the residents are met.  The planning commissions normally consist of between 3 and 9 members that are appointed by council.  The Planning Act specifies that the  majority of the commission members must be individuals who are not members of council.  It is interesting to note that the Act also permits  council to appoint " members and employees of any organization concerned with the planning and orderly development of the municipality".  This seems to provide the potential for abuse, as it could be possible for powerful interests to use the commission to achieve their ends. 58  However,  the commission is only an advisory body to the Council.  Section 18 of the  Act specifies that the commission can only recommend to council the adoption of bylaws or policies resulting from their investigation into land use, transportation, utilities, services, municipal finances and other issues related to the physical, social or economic well being of the municipality.  If consistency is desired among rural municipalities, Section 120 of the Planning and Development Act provides for the councils to enter into an agreement for the formulation of a Planning District.  A Planning District  basically acts as a 'large scale' Planning Commission with its members being: 1. representatives from each council within the district; 2. individuals appointed by the Minister of Rural affairs; and 3. individuals agreed to and appointed jointly by the councils within the district.  The development of a planning district is usually dependent on reasons related to topographic features; existing and probable development; common agricultural, resource, conservation or recreation issues; and the existence of common planning concerns.  It is important to note that the  planning districts are established solely through the initiative of rural municipal councils, rather than by the Minister.  As a result, there must be  issues of sufficient significance to warrant the generation of an intense 'common  interest'.  The Planning and Development Act also provides for a Provincial Planning 59  Appeals Board that consists of between nine and fifteen members which are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.  None of these  appointees can be employees of the Ministry of Rural Affairs.  This  Appeals Board is of minimal interest to this study, as its sole purpose is to pass judgement on matters of interpretation that are subject to appeal in the Planning Act.  The intent of the Appeals Board is to ensure that  there is no misuse of the discretionary powers of either a development officer who is administrating a zoning bylaw, or Council.  In summary, the hierarchy of government bodies pertaining to rural land use planning in Saskatchewan is as follows:  Lieutenant Governor in Council  _ Ministry of Rural Affairs  Appeals Board  Planning Districts \  Rural Municipality  Planning Commission (Advisory)  Electoral Areas  Townships  60  Rural Land Use Controls  As previously noted, a rural municipality is not required to implement land use controls.  Where controls are implemented, the planning process  entails the development of three separate planning documents- a Basic Planning Statement, a Development Plan and a Zoning Bylaw.  - The Basic Planning Statement  A Basic Planning Statement can be applied to all or a part of the rural municipality.  It is normally prepared at the discretion of Council, or (in  some cases) at the direction of the Minister of Rural Affairs.  Once a  decision is made to implement a planning statement through a resolution of Council, the statute requires that it be completed within a year.  Upon  completion, it is forwarded to the Minister of Rural Affairs for approval. The Minister can exercise his authority to return it to the council for revision if he so desires.  This would normally be done on the advice of the  planning professionals employed by the Community Planning Branch of the Ministry.  The intent of the Basic Planning Statement is to provide a general, simplified document that indicates the preferred direction for development within the municipality.  There should be no specifics  included in the document so that it is easily understood by members of the public.  Unlike Ontario, the Basic Planning Statement or a Development  Plan must be in place prior to the adoption of any zoning regulations.  61  - The Development Plan  The Davelopment Plan is more specific than the Basic Planning Statement. Section 51 of the Act specifies that "the purposes of a development plan are: a) to serve as a framework whereby the municipality may be guided in making development decisions; b) to identify the factors relevant to the use and development of land c) to identify the critical problems and opportunities concerning the development of land and the social, environmental and economic effects of that development; d) to set out the desired timing, patterns and characteristics of the future physical, social and economic development of the municipality and to determine the probable consequences of that development; e) to establish and specify the programs and actions necessary for the implementation of the development plan; and f) to outline the methods whereby the best use and development of land and other resources in adjacent municipalities, or affected areas immediately abutting thereto, may be coordinated."  Therefore, the Development Plan is normally characterized by policy statements pertaining to land use, conservation and municipal services.  It  is interesting to note that the Planning Act is devised to encourage discussion between the Minister and rural councils, for a development plan can be implemented at the discretion of council or at the direction of the Minister.  The directive from the Minister can only be ordered after he has  taken the time for consultation with the council. 62  /  - The Zoning Bylaw  A zoning bylaw can only be prepared in conjunction with, or after the implementation of a Basic Planning Statement and a Development Plan. Although the intent of this stipulation is not specified by the Act, it appears to answer the public's fear in B.C. pertaining to the restrictive and bureaucratic nature of zoning.  It would be difficult to argue against  the regulations imposed by zoning after their need is determined through a participatory planning process.  In other words, if people understand that  the regulations are being imposed to improve their lifestyle, rather than hinder it, there should be less objection.  The zoning bylaw can regulate similar items to those contained within the Alberta and Ontario Planning Acts.  Council, through the zoning bylaw, can  establish separate districts for the purpose of regulating or controlling:  1.  development standards;  2.  the permitted uses of land or buildings;  3.  the minimum and maximum area and dimensions of lots;  4.  the percentage area of a lot that a building may occupy and the size of yards, courts and other open spaces;  5.  the location, height, number of stories, area, volume or dimensions of building construction;  6.  the provision and maintenance of loading and parking facilities;  7.  the landscaping of land or buildings;  8.  the permissible density of populations; 63  9.  the amount and nature of sound that may be emitted from within a parcel of land.  Council's authority is expanded to regulate or prohibit: 1.  development on land:  that is subject to flooding or is unstable; where  the cost of providing public utilities would be prohibitive; within a specified distance of any body of water; within a specified distance from an airport; and on the basis of land or resource capability; 2.  the outdoor storage of goods, vehicles, waste materials and other such items;  3.  the public display of signs and advertisements;  4.  the exterior lighting on buildings or land;  5.  the alteration of land levels for building or other purposes where surface drainage or land stability is affected; and  6.  the location of trailers and mobile homes, trailer parks and mobile home parks.  Of interest to this study are the additional powers of discretionary zoning and direct control districts, available to council.  Using discretionary  zoning, council can specify preferred uses within the municipality, and offer flexible controls to attract these uses.  Basically, a person can apply  to council for approval of a discretionary use, and council can approve the application where it is not contrary to the development plan or the basic planning statement, and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the property.  Council's decision on an application for a  discretionary use is final and cannot be appealed.  When council approves a discretionary use, it can set development standards.  If the applicant feels these standards are unreasonable, he can  appeal to the Municipal Appeals Board.  If the  applicant does not gain  satisfaction at that level, he can appeal to the Provincial Planning Appeals Board.  The direct control zones are established where council considers it desirable to exercise particular control over the use and development of land or buildings.  The purpose of this district is to impose specific  development guidelines to ensure the quality of development desired by the council.  With the implementation of any of the planning documents controlling land use, the Planning Act specifies the need for public participation.  Council  must give notice of its intention to adopt or amend a development plan, basic planning statement or zoning bylaw, through an advertisement published at least once on two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper. Council must then hold a public hearing for the purpose of allowing concerned or interested individuals to make representation on the proposed bylaw and make it available, at cost, to any interested person.  In summary, rural land in Saskatchewan is controlled locally by the council of a 'rural municipality'. 1.  a Basic Planning Statement;  2.  a Development Plan; and  3.  a Zoning Bylaw.  This council may adopt:  For the purpose of this study, it should be noted that a development proposal that is inconsistent with these instruments would require three separate amendments and public hearings. by considered as cumbersome.  66  Therefore, the process can only  CHAPTER 4  R U R A L PLANNING IN BRITISH C O L U M B I A  4.0  Introduction  The intent of this chapter is to describe the administrative structure for rural land use planning in B.C.  The chapter starts by describing the  government hierarchy that is involved with rural planning.  It then focuses  on the responsibilities of the provincial government vs the authority of the regional district.  As the regional district is responsible for  implementing controls on private land, there is a detailed discussion of changes in the rural planning process brought about by the adoption of Bill 62 in 1985.  4.1 Background  The Province of British Columbia is a vast area that comprises some 948,000 square kilometers.  The topography is generally mountainous in  nature, with settlements occurring in the valleys.  The areas incorporated  into the municipalities "...comprise just over one half of one percent of the land area but contain eighty percent of the population." Statistics, Regional Districts, 1982).  (Government  Of concern to this study is the  99.5% of the land that has not been incorporated.  For the purpose of planning, the local government structure consists of electoral areas, incorporated municipalities, regional districts and the  Ministry of Municipal Affairs, as shown in the following chart.  Ministry of Municipal Affairs  Regional District  I  I Electoral Areas  Cities  " I Municipalities  The province has about 120 incorporated cities and municipalities and twenty-eight regional districts to administer planning on a local basis. The government body of interest to this study is the regional district.  It  is the regional district that has the potential to control development on private land in unincorporated areas.  However, prior to a discussion of regional districts, it must be made clear that development on 'public' land is largely controlled by a number of different provincial Ministries that exercise the provincial prerogative a senior level of government.  of  As a result, the majority of public land is  beyond the mandate or development controls of the regional district, which is a local authority.  To illustrate the extent and type of regulations  typically imposed by these agencies in rural areas, the Farleigh Lake/Shatford Creek Planning Area, within the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District, is examined in the following paragraphs. 68  The variety of government regulations in force in the Farleigh Lake/Shatford Creek when the regional district initiated a rural land use bylaw in 1987  were:  a) The Agriculture Land Commission Act, RS Chapter 9, 1979  Most of the land capable of development in the Farleigh Lake Area was within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) which is administered by the Agricultural Land Commission. The ALR serves as a method for preserving farmland and potential agricultural lands from encroachment of nonagricultural development.  The use of land within the ALR is limited to  agricultural and other uses that do not diminish it's agricultural capability. 15(2)  Specifically, the Agricultural Land Commission Act (section  states that "No person shall use agricultural land for any purpose  other than farm use, except as permitted by this Act, the regulations or an order of the commission, on terms the commission may impose."  If property owners wish to develop their land for other purposes, there is an application procedure by which the Land Commission reviews the proposal:  Section 20(1)  of the Act outlines the procedure for submission  of an application to the Agricultural Land Commission for consideration of a request for non-farm use or subdivision;  Section 12(1)  details the  application necessary for the A . L . C . to consider a request for the exclusion of land from the A.L.R.; and B.C. regulations 8/81  illustrates the procedure  for filing a 'schedule F' application for consideration of special case requests that do not have an irreversible impact on agricultural land.  A regional district must recognize this superior provincial legislation. The Agricultural Land Commission Act (section 16(a)) states that "a municipality or regional district, or authority, board or other agency established by it or person designated under the Local Area Act may not permit agricultural land to be used for other than farm use, or permit a building to be erected on the land except for farm use or for residences necessary to farm use or as permitted by regulation;".  However, it is  possible for a regional district to support, by resolution, an application to the Agricultural Land Commission if it is deemed compatible with land capability, surrounding land use, etc.  b) The Forest Act- RS Chapter 140,  1979  Much of the remaining land in the Farleigh Lake/Shatford Creek Area is in the Okanagan Provincial Forest and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests.  The ministry has the authority for forest  management through the Forest Act, Rs Chapter 140, 1979 which permits the land to be used by way of forest tenure agreements.  The Forest Act, section 5(4)  specifies that "subject to the regulations, a  Provincial Forest shall be managed and used only for: - timber production, utilization and related purposes; - forage production and grazing by livestock and wildlife; - forest oriented recreation; and - water, fisheries and wildlife resource purposes."  70  In addition, B.C. regs. 562/78 (O.C. 3226/78) Section 1 specifies that "a provincial forest may be managed and used for the following purposes: - a sand, clay or gravel pit; - a rock quarry; - a garbage dump; - an army range and demolition site; - a construction, mine or fish camp; - a well site; - a residence, on an area of 5 hectares or less; - a sports facility site; - a shotgun range; - churches, missions or schools; - stores; -  service station;  - airstrip and landing field; - television, radio, repeater or microwave station and tower; - fish cannery; - power site; - powerline or pipeline right of way; - the extraction of top soil, peat marl and diatomaceous earth; -  agriculture;  - fur farming; - a purpose similar to any of these noted purposes, where the regional manager considers the use of the area is compatible with good forest management; and - access to a site used for any of the noted purposes, or to private land."  71  Regional districts can zone Crown land, but the regulations imposed do not come into effect until the land is privately owned.  If the activity on the  land is contrary to the zoning, it would become a non-conforming use.  c) The Provincial Park Act- RS Chapter 309, 1979  A portion of the land within the study area is within the Apex Mountain Recreation Area.  As a result, the provincial government, through the  Minister of Parks, has the power to control occupancy, land use, development, exploration or extraction of a natural resource on or in this portion of the study area ( Section 8(2)(b), 9(1 )(d), 9(2) and sec. 12(4).  In  other words, although the recreation area has been set aside primarily for recreation use (as per the Park Act, RS Chapter 3, 1979 section 3), other resource oriented activities may be permitted if they do not materially detract from the areas recreation potential.  d) The Land Act- Rs Chapter 214, 1979  Crown land within the plan area that is not under administration of another ministry, branch or agency of government is regulated by the Ministry of Crown Lands.  Use on crown land is dependent upon the granting  of rights from the Crown in the form of: - a temporary occupancy permit (sec. 10); - a lease (sec.35); - a licence of occupation (sec. 36) and - the creation of a right of way or easement (sec. 37) The Ministry also has the ability to dispose of crown land through the  crown grant process as described in Part 4 of the Land Act.  While regional  districts have no direct control over crown land, it should be noted that regional districts do have some input into proposed development schemes on crown land through a referral process (eg. applications for tenure are referred to local government for comment).  It should be clear from the foregoing discussion on provincial regulations that there are many potential development problems that are outside the mandate of regional districts.  However, to plan effectively, each regional  district must be aware of this potential and the development plans of each ministry in order to regulate development on adjacent private lands. While input to provincial development plans is limited, each regional district can lobby on behalf of the rural residents within its jurisdiction. To better understand the role of regional districts, the following section briefly outlines the history of regional districts and delineates their  role  as 'local government'.  4.2  Regional Districts  Regional districts were created by legislation in 1965.  They were adopted  because "...by the mid-1960's it had become increasingly clear that the existing municipalities in the province were no longer adequate vehicles for providing certain services ..." to the public. (Department  of Municipal  Affairs, General Review - Regional Districts in British Columbia, 1971). Prior to the establishment of regional districts, local government services were provided by special water and sewer boards, joint agreements between municipalities, and through the implementation  of  several hundred improvement districts outside of municipal boundaries.  "The danger was appearing, as it had in other jurisdictions, that the number of such agencies would proliferate to the point that in many areas there would be a multitude of different agencies providing various services and drawing on the same taxpayer in a completely uncoordinated and random fashion." (Ibid) that this danger did not  Regional districts were developed to ensure  materialize.  The legislation creating regional districts provides for the Provincial Cabinet to set out, by Letters Patent, the responsibilities of each regional district.  Therefore, it is possible for various regional districts to have  differing responsibilities. Regional Board.  The governing body of a regional district is the  "The Regional Board is composed of Directors appointed by  and from the Councils, in the case of the incorporated municipalities, and by direct election from the electoral areas.  Voting on the Board is  weighted according to the population represented by each Director." (Ibid, p.6)  Generally speaking, there is almost equal representation  incorporated and unincorporated areas.  between  Unlike the situation in Alberta,  this results in a somewhat urban bias because, for the rural areas to sway a Regional Board decision, there must in most cases be complete unanimity among rural representatives and some support from at least one urban  representative.  A good example of this is the voting distribution within the ColumbiaShuswap Regional District.  Within this regional district Revelstoke,  Salmon Arm and Golden are each represented by one Director.  However,  these three Directors have eleven votes.  The six electoral areas are  represented by six Directors, who have among them ten votes. Theoretically, the possibility of getting agreement among the three urban representatives would be greater than the potential for agreement among the six electoral area representatives.  Therefore, policy decisions could  easily be biased towards urban oriented interests.  Traditionally,  regional districts provide the following functions  (although  there can be some variation because of different Letters Patent): 1. act as the board for the regional hospital district; 2. exercise planning, building, zoning and subdivision regulations in nonmunicipal areas; 3. provide local services in nonmunicipal areas on a benefiting-area basis; 4. undertake any service for a municipality on a contract basis; 5. make grants-in-aid to organizations benefiting the region; 6. finance municipal works and services such as sewer, water, and pollution control facilities  (Ibid,  p.7).  In addition, "Not all parts of the region need be included in a particular function.  The Letters Patent can be tailored so that certain functions are  on a subregion basis, whereas others will encompass all member areas and be on a truly regional basis" (Ibid).  The function delineated further in this study is the 'planning function'. British Columbia, unlike Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, planning within rural areas is controlled through the Municipal Act. This Act 75  In  specifies most of the powers and procedures governing both regional districts and municipal government.  The planning function for these  bodies is found in only a few of the roughly 300 pages that comprise the Act. In the next section, the planning process prior to Bill 62 and the impetus for change will be described in detail.  4.3 The Pre-Bill 62 Planning Process  Prior to a discussion of the Rural Land Use Bylaw, the planning process and thus the land use controls prior to the implementation of Bill 62 must be clarified.  It is also important to note that the climate for change in  the planning process had already been established by the provincial government prior to Bill 62.  Bill 62 is the legislation that provided real  change in the planning process by the development of the RLUB- but the provincial government had already eliminated the provision for an 'Official Regional Plan' by repealing Section 807 and 808 of the Municipal Act.  These sections required regional districts to prepare a plan that was applicable to the entire area under its jurisdiction.  The intent of the  Official Regional Plan was the presentation of a generalized  statement  (without specific detail) to project or plan for land uses in the region. Since these projected uses were not specific to particular properties, this document was generally more of an economic development statement that delineated preferred activities in the region.  When the government  repealed the enabling legislation for these documents, they also repealed all existing official regional plans in the province.  In addition, the provincial government repealed section 815 of the Municipal Act, which provided for the formation of a technical planning committee. This committee consisted of the regional district planning director, the local medical health officer, a municipal employee of each municipality within the regional district, one representative  of all the  relevant provincial government agencies, an employee of the local school board and representatives of relevant federal government agencies.  The  intent of the technical planning committee was to ensure cooperative advice to the regional district board on planning issues. With the repeal of the 'Official Regional Plan' and the 'technical planning committee', a climate of change was established.  The planning process followed by Regional Districts prior to the enactment of Bill 62 involved the use of an 'Official Settlement Plan' and a 'Zoning Bylaw'- two completely different documents.  The Official  Settlement Plan was the instrument to develop long range planning goals that were to assist in evaluating development proposals.  The Zoning  Bylaw normally reflected existing development and did not provide guidance for the future use of rural land.  The authority to implement these instruments was granted to local governments by the Municipal Act under  Part 24, Section 809 and 810  (Official Settlement Plans) and Section 814 (referring to Part 21, Division 3, Section 716 - Zoning).  The initiation of an Official Settlement Plan  was solely the responsibility of the Regional District.  In fact, wide powers were delegated to the regional district. 77  Although  under subsection 5 the bylaw did not come into effect until approved by the  Minister of Municipal Affairs, the regional district could  unilaterally  prepare an official settlement plan for any area outside an incorporated settlement.  It would be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for  approval after being adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of the regional district directors at a meeting.  The official settlement plan was to "... contain a statement of broad social, economic and environmental objectives to be achieved by implementation of the plan and a statement of the policies of the regional board on the general form and character of the future land use pattern in the area covered by the plan ..." (Municipal Act, Sec. 810(1).  Prior to amendment, the Municipal Act (sec. 810 (2) ) also specified that an official settlement  plan shall include:"  1. the location, amount and type of major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation and public utility uses; 2. the location, amount, type and density of residential development required to meet the anticipated housing needs over a period of at least 5 years in the area covered by the plan; 3. the protection of land areas subject to hazardous conditions; 4. the preservation, protection and enhancement of land and water areas of special importance for scenic or recreational value or natural, historical or scientific interest; 5. the preservation and continuing use of agricultural land for present and future food production; 6. the proposed sequence of urban development and redevelopment, 78  including, where ascertainable, the proposed timing, location and phasing of trunk sewer and water services; 7. the need for and provision of public facilities, including schools, parks and solid waste disposal sites; 8. the location in schematic form of a major road system for the plan area; 9. the location, amount and type of development to be permitted within 1 km of a controlled access highway designated under Part 6 of the Highway Act; 10. the distribution of major land use areas and concentrations of activity in relation to the provision of existing or potential public transit services; 11. a program identifying the actions required by the regional board to implement the official settlement plan; and 12. other matters that may be required by the minister."  Furthermore, the regional district was also charged with considering the rather overwhelming social, economic and environmental consequences of the  official  settlement  plan.  The only public input, or method of objecting to the implementation of a settlement plan was specified in section 720 of the  Municipal Act. This  section required the regional district to hold a public hearing, with the proper notification and advertising.  At the public hearing, any people who  deemed their interests affected by the proposed plan were required to be given an opportunity to be heard.  79  However, it was up to the individual directors to evaluate what importance to place on this input.  It was possible for every member of  the public in attendance to oppose the proposed plan and still have it adopted by a majority of the Directors.  There was no requirement for a  referendum to establish the will of the people in the study area.  Yet, it is  important to realize that, through election, the directors had a mandate to represent the "public interest".  For example, land use designations were  frequently proposed in order to reduce servicing costs for the entire district. If dissatisfied, the public in the electoral areas had the opportunity to elect different directors at the next election.  To supplement the official settlement  plan the regional district was  empowered, under Section 814 of the Municipal Act, to enact a zoning bylaw in accordance with Division (3) of Part 21.  Normally, the regional  districts adopted a zoning bylaw prior to the formulation of an official settlement plan.  The zoning bylaw was used as a method for restricting  unplanned development;  therefore, it had a tendency to reflect the status  quo.  A zoning bylaw implemented under section 716 of the Municipal Act could: "1. divide all or part of the area of the municipality into zones and define each zone either by map, plan or description, or any combination of them; 2. regulate the use of land, buildings and structures, including the surface of water, within the zones, and the regulations may be different for different zones and for different uses within a zone, and for the purposes of this paragraph the power to regulate includes the 80  power to prohibit particular uses in specified zones; 3. regulate the size, shape and siting of buildings and structures within the zones, and provide for different regulations pertaining to each use or zone; and 4. without limiting the generality of paragraph (2), require the owners or occupies of any building in a zone to provide off street parking and loading space, and may classify buildings and differentiate  and  discriminate between classes with respect to the amount of space to be provided..."  Like the official settlement plan, the implementation  of a zoning bylaw  required a public hearing as specified in Section 720 of the Municipal Act. It is important to note that, because the zoning bylaw was normally adopted prior to the official settlement plan, there were often discrepancies between the land use designation for future development and the zoning bylaw reflecting existing use.  The planning process prior to Bill 62 contained some obvious flaws.  It is  easy to understand how the public could be confused by the bureaucratic process involved in altering or amending two bylaws.  If a proposed  development was inconsistent with a land use designation, an amendment to the official settlement plan was first required.  This amendment  required a public hearing and affirmative vote of a majority of the regional board directors before adoption - a process identical to that used in establishing the official settlement plan.  This was required by Section  809 (7) which stated " the regional board ... shall not adopt a bylaw... contrary to or at variance with an official settlement plan." 81  As a second step in the planning process the local government would then be required to amend the zoning bylaw.  This process would again involve a  public hearing and an affirmative vote by a majority of the regional board directors before adoption.  In retrospect, it is clear that the dual  amendments required to the official settlement plan and the zoning bylaw were a duplication of effort- even when done concurrently.  In addition, since a zoning bylaw was normally adopted prior to an official settlement plan , it did not usually reflect the proposed future land use.  In other words, if a person had input to  from an official  settlement plan that a development proposal was acceptable, he would then be required to submit a rezoning application.  This duplication of  effort and inconsistency between bylaws was difficult to explain to rural residents.  From one perspective, the zoning bylaw should have been amended to reflect the future land use designations in the official settlement plan.  It  may, however, be argued that the zoning bylaw was not amended in order to promote the sequential development of land (i.e. orderly development of adjacent properties) and thus a reduction of servicing costs.  However, in  reality, an official settlement plan was to be reviewed every five years to ensure the suitability of existing designations.  Therefore, the land use  designations rarely promoted development that would have generated exorbitant  servicing costs.  Practically speaking, one reason why the zoning bylaw was not amended 82  after the adoption of the official settlement plan was the provincial grant system.  The regional districts were able to receive funding for the  preparation of official settlement plans through planning grants from the provincial government.  However, the provincial government maintained  that a zoning bylaw was a regulatory tool, and that it was the responsibility of the regional district to update it when required.  In other  words, funding was not provided.  It can be argued that many regional districts prepared official settlement plans throughout their regions in order to supplement their operating budgets - irrespective of the needs or preferences of the people. Furthermore, by not amending the zoning bylaw, the regional district was able to recover administrative costs through the application fees levied for the zoning bylaw amendments. Yet, to my knowledge, applicants did not object to the rezoning fee even if the application complied with the settlement plan- perhaps because it was realized the planning department would support the rezoning.  Rather than criticize the cost of a rezoning application, most people appeared to be concerned about the inflexibility of land use controls.  In  many instances, this perceived lack of flexibility was the result of their livelihood being related to the use of their land.  Natural resource based  economies are subject to 'boom & bust' cycles and as a result, many marginal activities spring up during a downturn, such as equipment repair, contracting, retail sales of crafts, etc., in order to generate income that would not normally occur during more prosperous times.  83  Regardless of the reasons for public dissatisfaction with the planning process prior to Bill 62, the Minister responded by questioning the validity of the planning process. A  September 4, 1983  article in the Vancouver  Sun portrayed Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie as wanting to abolish planning departments in B.C. cities and towns.  He was quoted as  saying "I fully believe once an official municipal plan is in place, there is no further need for planning personnel."  In addition, during his 1983  address to the annual meeting of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities the Minister is quoted as stating "I remain convinced that the significance of regional planning is rapidly declining" (Minutes of the 80th Annual Convention of the U.B.C.M., p.91).  He maintained this position for the next two years, with similar statements being made at the 82nd Annual Convention when Bill 62 was being discussed.  The following excerpts from his address to the  Convention (1985) are self -explanatory:  "No amount of planning is  effective without a smoothly functioning mechanism to carry it out and this brings me to one of the most significant measures I've taken since assuming this portfolio.  I'm referring to the introduction of Bill 62 ... Bill  62 aims to facilitate the development of our communities by tuning up the regulatory machine.  It follows an agenda of deregulation and process  streamlining which will cut costs, time and effort, all of which have blocked or impeded essential development and economic renewal ... .  The  central theme is deregulation, which has been applied especially in rural areas.  It will enable a fast response, without the meaningless red tape  which has proliferated, unchecked, to an alarming extent over the years ... a fact to which most of us can attest from personal experience."  84  4.4 Bill 62 and the Rural Land Use Bylaw  The authors of the Rural Land Use Bill,  Elizabeth Cull and Erik Karlsen of  the Development Services Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, were interviewed to determine how the new legislation was prepared.  They indicated that its development was in response to their perceived interpretation of a political reality.  The new legislation was not at the  specific request of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, however, it was portrayed that Mr. Ritchie's well known position (and for that matter the provincial government of the day's position) that planning had a tendency to create unnecessary bureaucracy or regulations did influence their decision to review the existing legislation.  A sign of the times, and an  indication of the government's opinion of planners in general, was the 1985 directive from the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to have all lands branch 'planners' reclassified as 'development officers'.  As a result, the Development Services Branch began to actively review their policies and procedures in order to respond to the perceived concerns of the Government. generated in a  Cull stated that a basic draft for the RLUB was  brain storming session that involved the same analysis of  the planning process as presented in the preceding section, and the development of the conceptual changes required to compensate for flaws in the existing legislation.  In the Ministry of Municipal Affair's guide to rural land use bylaws, there  85  is confirmation that the pre-Bill 62 planning process was "... perceived by the development community and the general public to be unnecessarily cumbersome...' and that '... the public failed to understand the difference between ... regulatory bylaws and indeed, the differences between the three bylaws were often hard to distinguish."(A Guide To Rural Land Use Bylaw, 1986, p.2)  1.  The three bylaws referred to in this instance were:  The Official Settlement Plan, which contained broad planning statements to direct development within a specified area;  2.  The Zoning Bylaw, which would contain specific regulations pertaining to permitted land uses; and  3.  The Subdivision Bylaw.  As a result of these impressions of planning in rural areas, the new legislation was adopted in 1985. Act (the  authority  It repealed Section 809 of the Municipal  for regional districts to implement  official  settlement  plans) and replaced it with legislation for 'Official Community Plans' and 'Rural Land Use Bylaws'.  However, it should be noted that all existing settlement plans remained in force.  This prevented the occurrence of a planning 'vacuum', or a total  lack of direction within rural areas.  The new legislation left it up to the rural residents to decide if the planning that had taken place in their respective areas was acceptable. With Section 951 of the Municipal Act, rural residents were given the options of:  86  1.  replacing existing official settlement plans and zoning bylaws with a rural land use bylaw; or  2. repealing the O.S.P. regulations without substituting a RLUB.  This  would have the effect of removing the planning regulations pertaining to such specifics as setbacks and height restrictions, but not the land use restrictions imposed by the regional district. For rural residents to take action to replace or remove the planning regulations imposed by a regional district, a petition signed by a minimum of 2/3 of the electors in the planning area is required.  To  date, no rural area in British Columbia has used this option.  Bill 62 actually introduced two planning tools for unincorporated areas. The 'official community plan' and the 'rural land use bylaw'.  The official  community plan applies to areas designated by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a community plan area.  Generally speaking, an official  community plan is intended to apply to urban fringe areas that experience a wide variety of land uses, high growth pressure and have the potential for services to be extended from a 'parent' or incorporated community.  The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has set criteria that differentiate between the use of an official community plan and a rural land use bylaw. The Ministry notes that a rural land use bylaw should be chosen over an official settlement 1.  plan when there is":  Limited range of land uses.  2. Mixing of different types of land use in the same area (for example, commercial and residential, industrial and residential). community desire for greater separation. 87  Little  3. Little or no growth pressure. 4. Limited services, no community sewer existing or planned. 5. Little desire on the part of residents for development controls, and 6. No need to use development permits to achieve goals related to heritage  preservation, commercial revitalization, or the  considerations of commercial, industrial and  aesthetic  multi-family  developments." (Ibid, p.7)  The main reason for a rural land use bylaw under these circumstances is that it is far more simplistic than an official community plan.  An official  community plan, as specified in Section 945 (2) of the Municipal Act, should include:" a) the approximate location, amount, type and density of residential development required to meet anticipated housing needs over a period of at least 5 years, b) the approximate location, amount and type of present and proposed commercial,  industrial,  institutional,  agricultural,  recreational  and  public utility land uses, c) the approximate location and area of sand and gravel deposits that are suitable for future sand and gravel extraction, d) restrictions on the use of land that is subject to hazardous conditions or that is environmentally sensitive to development, e) the approximate location and phasing of any major road, sewer and water systems, f) the approximate location and type of present and proposed public facilities including schools, parks and waste treatment and disposal sites, and  88  g) other matters that may be required or authorized by the minister."  These responsibilities compare closely to those previously incorporated into official settlement  plans prior to their repeal.  In fact,  referring  back to page 60 of this study, clauses a, b, d, e and f are virtually identical to  responsibilities that previously pertained  settlement plans. the  to  official  The main difference between the O.S.P. and the O.C.P. is  removal of the regional district's responsibilities for preserving  agricultural land, and the preservation, protection and enhancement of land or water with special scenic, recreational or natural  interest.  However, of primary concern to this study is the rural land use bylaw which is intended as the planning instrument for most of the rural areas of the province.  With the adoption of the rural land use bylaw provisions  of the Act, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs recognized the development stages within rural areas proposed by Alan Hahn and described in Chapter 2.  Hahn detailed a minimum of three distinct categories that span the development spectrum within rural areas.  In developing the RLUB, the  staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs proposed a range of increasing land use complexity that exceeded Hahn's three categories.  In the  Ministry's 'Guide to Rural Land Use Bylaws', the following continuum is described:  89  INCREASING R A N G E O F LAND U S E C O M P L E X I T Y -->  Wilderness (Undeveloped |Rural Resource  |Rural Area  |Rural  [Unincorporated  (Settlement |Settlement| Community  Area  | Fringe | Areas  with a service centre  In accordance with the criteria previously described for the implementation  of a rural land use bylaw, the ministerial guidelines  specify that a RLUB would be most appropriate for " ... undeveloped rural areas, rural settlements, rural settlements with a service centre and some, but not all, unincorporated communities" (Ibid, p. 7).  The  characteristics of these areas are specified as: "  Undeveloped Rural  Rural  - limited range of land uses  Settlement  - limited variety of land uses  - low population, low density  including some commercial &  - low growth pressure  industry  - extensive land areas used  - more heavily settled, some  primarily for forestry, fishing  pattern of settlement  agriculture, backcountry  - may share some in-ground services  recreation, etc.  - a very small node with a  - no sewer or water services  concentration of population, but generally fairly dispersed - little or variable growth pressure 90  Rural Settlement/Service  Centre  Unincorporated  Community  - at least one node providing rural - basically a "village" in all but name services and a mixture of  - not associated with a parent  commercial, retail, industrial  community  and residential uses  - may have medium to high growth pressure  - in addition to dispersed settlement there may be  - probably has community water and  settlement concentrations on  may have sewer  water - some growth pressure"  Prior to 1985, all of these areas would be considered appropriate for official settlement plans.  The change to rural land use bylaws simplifies  planning regulations within one document.  However, this document is  divided into two parts- part one is intended to act as an official community plan, while part two is to have the same effect as a zoning bylaw.  The Municipal Act (sec. 952) specifies that part one should be a  general statement of the broad objectives and policies of the board respecting present and proposed land use; and that part two may contain provision and regulations pertaining to:" 1)  the location of areas for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, recreational or public utility land uses;  i.)  the density of the use of land;  ii)  conditions, requirements and restrictions on the use of land that is subject to hazardous conditions or that is environmentally sensitive 91  to development; iii) the approximate location and phasing of major road systems; iv)  the area, including minimum and maximum sizes, of parcels of land to be created by subdivision and servicing standards required for land use  v) vi)  designations under subparagraph (i);  the siting of buildings and structures; and other matters that may, in respect of any rural land use bylaw, be required or authorized by the minister."  Through a comparison of these provisions with the zoning authority previously used by regional districts (as described on p. 62), it is apparent that the RLUB provisions provide for less restrictive land use controls. With the RLUB, there is for example no provision for regulating the size of buildings, off-street  parking or loading areas.  There are other important differences between the RLUB and the Pre-Bill 62 planning process. One is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs must designate a rural area to be 'a rural planning area', either upon a request from a regional board, or upon receiving a petition from two thirds of the electors within a specified area.  Previously, a regional district had the  authority to implement a planning study without Ministerial approvalalthough once completed, ratification by the Minister was still necessary. As with the O S P , prior to adopting a RLUB, a regional board must hold a public hearing.  This leads to another important difference between the RLUB and Pre-Bill 62 planning process.  With the RLUB, only one instrument requires  amendment and it should accurately reflect both planning policy and zoning.  As a result, there should no longer be any discrepancies between  regional district documents- as was frequently experienced between OSP's and zoning bylaws.  In summary, the new Rural Land Use Bylaw legislation proposed by the ministry was designed to present: 1. a single bylaw; 2. one set of land use designations; 3. broad land use categories; and 4.  simplified  regulations.  93  CHAPTER 5  C O M P A R A T I V E ANALYSIS AND A S S E S S M E N T O F R U R A L PLANNING IN B . C .  5.0  Introduction  This chapter presents a comparative analysis of the administrative structure and rural planning process in British Columbia (both before and after Bill 62), Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.  It also summarizes the  results of a questionnaire which solicited comments on the acceptability of the present process from regional district officials throughout the province.  This analysis is intended to focus on the suitability of B.C.'s current planning process, and generate possible suggestions for improvements- if warranted.  5.1  Background  The information utilized in the comparative analysis is described in chapters 3 and 4.  It was derived from interviews with planning  professionals in each province, and a search through available literature. When initiating this research, it was anticipated that a variety of planning instruments would be found in the four provinces. was not the case. 94  However, this  Each province has a type of 'Official Plan' that is used in conjunction with a zoning bylaw.  In all cases, the official plan is a statement of planning  objectives, while the zoning bylaw contains more restrictive controls.  regulatory  These instruments are not significantly different from the  planning and regulatory controls that have been combined in the rural land use bylaw.  Instead, it is the government hierarchy and the planning philosophy adopted in the various provinces that plays a large part in influencing planning methodology.  As a result, these factors will be analyzed in  combination with the various features of the planning instruments used in each province.  To conduct the analysis, a matrix using the following  criteria is presented in a subsequent section:  a) Acceptance by professionals and the public; - this criterion was selected because acceptance is needed for any legislation (no matter how well it is drafted) if it is to be effective. The opinions of planning professionals will also be used to evaluate the success of each province in meeting this goal.  The weakness inherent in using this criterion is that it proved easier to confirm opinions in British Columbia than in other provinces.  This is  because regional planning problems tend to be reported by local media and rarely receive national exposure (ie. there is less 'common' knowledge of the problems the planning profession has experienced in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Ontario).  In addition, because of the distance and cost  involved, contact with planning professionals in other provinces was restricted.  Therefore, it must be realized that the opinions reflected in  this study are not necessarily the opinions of the majority of the planners in each province.  b) Ease of amendment - This criterion was selected as the excessive amount of time necessary for local authorities to process an amendment is one of the most common complaints made by the public.  To evaluate the success of  each province in meeting this goal, the planning legislation has been analyzed to determine the steps necessary to process an amendment. The assumption is made that the fewer referrals necessary in the amendment process, the less time it will take.  c)  Flexibility  - The lack of flexibility in dealing with development proposals has also been a common complaint of the public.  As discussed, many rural  residents will attempt to meet their economic needs through a wide variety of supporting activities because of the 'Boom and Bust' syndrome that is typical in most resource regions.  Therefore, any  legislation that recognizes this necessity while still attempting  to  reduce the potential for conflict will be preferred.  d) Clarity of goals and objectives to reflect both 'public' & 'local' interests - There is a need for the development goals of the various government agencies controlling public lands to be coordinated with development  goals applicable to private property.  As previously noted, substantial  and varied development is permitted on public lands in B.C. by several provincial Acts.  If the potential for this development is not  recognized, the possibility of conflict arises.  The success of each  province in meeting this criterion will be determined by the interaction between government agencies in the creation of plans and regulatory controls.  This assumes that interaction equates to  communication and the transfer of information necessary to plan effectively.  e)  Simplicity  - Another common complaint heard from the public is that they do not understand the need for rural land use controls.  Therefore, any planning  document that is created should be sufficiently simple for at large to understand both the document and its intent. each province in meeting this criterion  the public  The success of  depends on whether simplicity  is stated as a specific goal; and the amount of public involvement in the formulation of planning policy.  This assumes that a high level of  public involvement necessitates communication that will help to indicate and clarify areas that the public does not understand, and that the planner will act to redraft the document accordingly.  5.2  Comparative Analysis  A matrix is utilized to present the comparative analysis of the planning systems in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.  This  method has been chosen as a graphic means to highlight the positive  aspects of each system in relation to the criteria.  Each system is rated  on a scale of one to three in the matrix, with one equating to a low rating and three equating to the highest possible rating. A rating of three is assigned where a particular feature has been incorporated into a methodology that is superior in nature.  The following analysis is subjective, but an explanation is provided to support why a particular province is rated superior in relation to specific criteria: Ease of Acceptance Amendment Flexibility  Clarity  Simplicity  Pre Bill 62  1  2  2  2  2  RLUB  2  2  3  2  3  Alberta  3  1  2  2  2  Saskatchewan  3  1  3  2  1  Ontario  2  3  2  1  2  The general impression from preparing the matrix is that the rural land use bylaw is an acceptable, but not superior, planning tool.  It rates higher than the tools utilized in the other provinces as a result of obvious deficiencies in their planning process, not because of a clear superiority.  For example, it only rates higher in 'Clarity' than Ontario's  because of their lack of coordination between government agencies when formulating planning policy.  As previously noted, the planning process for  the formulation of 'official plans' does not directly involve other government agencies, and there is some dispute over the relevance of the 98  Ministry of Municipal Affairs land use controls when development on 'public' lands is being considered by other government agencies.  This  results in a lack of clarity between 'local' and 'provincial' interests.  Conversely, Ontario has a higher rating for ease of amendment once land use planning and associated controls have been implemented.  Since  Ontario is the only province which has not developed a type of regional government to administer rural areas, it places the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the position to process amendments directly.  This  centralized control could result in rural residents expressing dissatisfaction with the planning process, as it does not provide an opportunity for input by concerned citizens.  However, according to the  provincial representative contacted, the government has not experienced many criticisms of their planning process.  The planning methodology in Alberta is rated slightly below the rural land use bylaw only because of the complicated process necessary to amend it's planning instrument, the 'official regional plan'.  To process an  amendment, four levels of authority might have to be consulted.  If a local  municipal council approves an amendment , it must forward a request for consideration to a regional planning commission. Once approved by a commission, it is then forwarded to the Alberta Planning Board for approval. If the Planning Board certifies the requested amendment to be minor in nature, it has the authority to approve the request.  However, if it  does not certify the amendment as 'minor', ratification by the Minister of Municipal Affairs is necessary after the Planning Board gives its approval.  99  Perhaps surprisingly, the planning methodology in Alberta has been given a high acceptance rating.  This is the result of the rural residents having  been exposed to regulatory controls since the 1930s.  Therefore, they  appear to be more aware of the benefits provided by planning, and more tolerant of the potential for restrictive land use regulations.  This  tolerance is probably strengthened because of the strong rural bias in Alberta's regional planning commissions.  Planning in Saskatchewan presents a real dichotomy.  It has the highest  possible rating for acceptance and flexibility, while also having the lowest possible rating for simplicity and ease of amendment.  A high  rating has been given for acceptance by the public, because of the attention the Saskatchewan government gives to rural affairs.  In fact,  Saskatchewan is the only province researched that has created a Ministry to deal specifically with problems occurring in rural areas.  The high rating for flexibility in the planning process is given as a result of Saskatchewan's use of discretionary zoning as described in Chapter 3. It appears that 'preferred' uses can be permitted in a number of zones if the impact on surrounding properties is minimal.  This is a novel concept  that needs further exploration in B.C.  The low ratings given to Saskatchewan for simplicity and ease of amendment are the result of a legislative requirement for three planning documents- the basic planning statement, the development plan and the zoning bylaw.  The public must refer to each document to determine the  regulations applicable to a particular piece of property. 100  There is also the  potential need for three separate amendments  if a development proposal  is contrary to all previously implemented regulations.  The other provinces require a maximum of two planning documents, with B.C.'s rural land use bylaw being the only comprehensive document that combines both planning policy and land use controls.  For this reason, the  rural land use bylaw is given the highest possible rating for simplicity.  The other high rating given to the RLUB is for flexibility.  The desire for  simplicity could lead to uncertainty in dealing with some development proposals because it does not provide for 'black' and 'white' answers. However,  this provides planners with the opportunity to utilize their  professional expertise in evaluating development proposals- to the benefit of rural residents.  Because of its simplicity and flexibility, the rural land use bylaw is preferred over the pre-Bill 62 planning legislation.  The results of the  questionnaire that was sent to practicing planners supports this position.  5.3  The Regional District Official's Opinion  1. Background  To determine the effectiveness of the RLUB, it is important to consider the opinions of practicing professionals within the province.  To receive  this input, a five page questionnaire was devised to, in part, solicit comments on the Rural Land Use Bylaw Legislation (see appendix 1). 101  Of  the twenty-three questionnaires sent to regional districts, sixteen responses were received.  Generally, the results showed that the RLUB is  starting to be accepted and used by regional districts.  2. Regional District Comments on the Rural Land Use Bylaw  The results of the questionnaire indicate that the rural land use bylaw legislation is beginning to gain acceptance. Of the sixteen respondents, six regional districts are utilizing, or are in the process of developing, rural land use bylaws.  In addition, I have personal knowledge that the  Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District has implemented at least one RLUB.  Therefore, seven out of seventeen regional districts are attempting  to utilize the RLUB.  Another eight of the responding regional districts are not opposed to utilizing the RLUB.  Rather, they are uninterested or felt no need to utilize  it, largely because planning within their regions is somewhat inactive. Although the planning legislation for the RLUB was introduced in 1985, the majority of these seven respondents had not introduced new planning bylaws (exclusive of minor amending bylaws) in the past 5 years. their belief that the existing zoning bylaws and official settlement  It is plans  are sufficient to meet their planning needs.  This is somewhat unsettling, because the original intent for the official settlement plan was that they should be reviewed every five years.  Since  the legislation for the RLUB was adopted in 1985, most regional district planners should be looking at possible revisions and the options open to 102  them. Perhaps Jim McManus of the Alberni Clayoquot provides a possible answer to this situation when he states that they " have neither the staff nor resources to do what he feels they should do in his region."  It is somewhat disturbing that one of the remaining two respondents did not have knowledge of the intent of the RLUB legislation.  This respondent  is the regional district administrator for an area that uses consultants to develop and implement planning strategies, rather than employ a planner on a full-time basis.  While I realize that, as an administrator  respondent has vast, diversified responsibilities, importance  the should still  be placed on understanding the basic tools available to the consultants.  Only one regional district official felt that the RLUB was unacceptable. His concerns were mirrored by other individuals when they responded to the question pertaining to the weaknesses of of the RLUB.  The main  weaknesses of the RLUB were seen to be that it is:  1. cumbersome; due to the fact that all amendments must be approved by the  Minister of Municipal Affairs; and  2. simplistic; in that it does not provide for the varying complexities found in the rural community.  The respondent that felt the RLUB was  unacceptable believes that (in some cases) "...the RLUB is not detailed enough to cover most circumstances of development in either a policy or regulatory sense." amendments  This is thought to result in unnecessary  because of varying or conflicting  interpretations;  However, generally speaking, most of,respondents felt that the idea and 103  concept of the RLUB has merit.  The RLUB is seen as having the following  strengths:  1. It provides an appropriate transition between no zoning and "full fledged" zoning; 2. It provides the tool to implement basic and simple community planning and zoning within the same  framework;  3. It can be more readily understood by the public than the system of O.S.P.s and zoning bylaws that it replaced; and 4.  If  utilized  properly,  it allows considerable  flexibility.  As a commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of the RLUB presented by the officials, it appears that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. This does not mean that changes should not be made.  The need for the  Minister's approval of a planning area prior to a RLUB study is time consuming, as the planners involved in implementing a study must justify to the Minister the need for new regulations.  In my opinion, the planner  should not fear this accountability, as the need to obtain the approval for a study area from a third (supposedly impartial) party serves to legitimize the planning process. regulations,  However, if there is a need to implement  it could take up to several months to receive the Minister's  approval.  Given that the aim of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs was to 'simplify' the planning process, it also appears redundant to require each minor amendment to have ministerial approval once the RLUB has been implemented.  The amendment process for an RLUB is seen to be both 104  cumbersome and time consuming by most regional district planners.  To  improve the process, the Minister should delegate to the regional districts the authority to make 'minor' amendments to an approved rural land use bylaw.  If this change to the process is made, it would serve to negate  what I believe to be the most valid criticism of the RLUB legislation.  While several planners did respond with the comment that the RLUB is too simplistic, I would argue against this criticism.  As Attachment 3 (a copy  of the Farleigh Lake/Shatford Creek Rural Land Use Bylaw prepared by the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen) indicates, a rural land use bylaw can be prepared that provides for sophisticated and complex land use regulations.  If there is a greater need of regulatory control than is  provided by the RLUB, then the planner has the option of lobbying the Minister for implementation of an official community plan, as opposed to a rural land use bylaw.  105  CHAPTER 6  CONCLUSION  6.0  Conclusion  The objectives of this study were threefold:  1.  to provide an understanding of the need for rural land use planning;  2.  to describe and compare British Columbia's, Alberta's, Ontario's and Saskatchewan's current system for rural land use planning; and  3.  if applicable, suggest improvements to B.C.'s rural planning process as a result of the research conducted.  I believe that the need for rural planning has been effectively demonstrated, as well as the suitability of some form of land use controls when rural areas are experiencing an 'urbanizing' trend.  Although the  degree of conflict over non-compatible land uses tends to be less in rural areas than in urban areas (due primarily to differing, more personal relationships between neighbours), planning does serve to support societal norms.  Proper planning can also produce:  1) on the local scene, there can be savings for both the farmer and 106  government with reduced servicing costs; and 2) on the provincial or national scene, it can lead to the effective development of our natural resources- while still environmentally  maintaining  sensitive areas for the public good.  One fact that came to light through this research was that the basic premise for the planning instruments used in each province is quite similar.  There is some variance in specific details but these differences  are minor compared to the amazing lack of similarity in the government hierarchies created by each province to deal with rural planning.  In the  comparative analysis, it was determined that B.C.'s hierarchy combined with new legislation developing the Rural Land Use Bylaw provides for an acceptable- but not superior planning process.  The positive features of  the Rural Land Use Bylaw are:  1. it is simple, in that all planning policies are in one comprehensive document;  and  2. it's simplicity leads to what I believe to be flexibility.  As a result,  there is an opportunity for planners to utilize their professional expertise in making decisions on non-black and white issues.  One of the weaknesses of the Rural Land Use Bylaw appears to be the need for each minor amendment to be approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.  This adds an additional level of bureaucracy with few or no  tangible benefits in the decision-making process.  The results of the  questionnaire that was sent to regional officials supports this position. The RLUB is gaining acceptance by regional districts as a means of 107  coordinating development, but the overall criticism of the legislation is that the amendment procedure is too cumbersome.  Therefore, I believe the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should create a definition for 'minor amendments' to be dealt with in the same manner as the Alberta Planning Board deals with bylaw amendments. In other words, with the establishment of guidelines for dealing with 'minor amendments', the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should delegate the authority to make bylaw amendments to local authorities.  Of course, once the regional board  has passed an amendment, they should forward the bylaw to the Ministry in order that records can be updated.  Such guidelines would improve the existing rural planning process, but there are also other possibilities for change.  At the local government  planning professional's level, I believe that there should also be a recognition that planning for the private use of rural land does not require the same types of stringent regulatory controls as urban land - unless it is in an 'urbanizing' state.  Most of the planners that responded to the  questionnaire incorporated into this study recognized the  differing  regulatory requirements between urban and rural land, but many do not account for it in their practice.  For example, almost all individuals responding to the questionnaire supported the concept that there is a 'threshold' parcel size at which regulatory controls became necessary.  Yet, almost all regional districts  had a comprehensive zoning bylaw in place to regulate even the remotest of areas.  Implementation of such a bylaw seems to contradict the  108  knowledge gained through experience.  To counter this contradiction,  further research is required in the area of the implementation of regulatory controls related to parcel size.  The Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen is one of the first to take such action.  In their Farleigh Lake/Shatford Creek Rural Land Use Bylaw,  it is recognized that parcel size does play a large role in determining whether a particular land use will have negative impacts.  As a result of  this recognition, there are two categories of 'Home Occupation' to facilitate the development of small businesses - while limiting the potential for land use conflicts.  This is accomplished by permitting  'Major' home occupations on property designated as 'large holdings' and 'Minor' home occupations on properties designated as 'rural residential'.  As the designations imply, the significant difference between parcel types is parcel size.  these  By permitting these types of home  occupations, the regional district has created a permissive zoning bylaw. There is a recognition that the potential for land use conflicts is minimal on the larger parcels if activities are confined to an envelope that has been calculated not to have a significant impact on neighbours or the public at large.  Within a specified 'envelope', each type of home  occupation permits industrial or commercial activity - with no significant limitations on type, other than a restriction against retail activities.  From personal involvement in the preparation of this bylaw, it  was my experience that this type of approach to implementing land use controls has the potential to be positively received by rural residents.  109  However, recognition that there is less need for stringent 'local' government land use controls within areas that Hahn (1970) would describe as 'completely rural' does not negate the need for a comprehensive and coordinated appproach to planning for regional or large scale resource development.  Having looked at the variety of government  regulations and the potential for development contained within a 'typical' rural planning area in B.C., I would suggest that further detailed research on ways to improve coordinated regional planning between 'local' and 'provincial' governments is necessary.  To summarize the recommendations arising from this study, it is my belief  that:  1. the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should delegate the authority to regional districts to make minor amendments to RLUBs; 2. there should be realization at the 'local' government or Regional District level that comprehensive land use controls are not necessary within completely rural areas; and 3. there should be further investigation into the feasibility of developing land use controls tied to parcel size and reducing reliance on the standard planning practice of separating use into residential, commercial and industrial activities.  110  BIBLIOGRAPHY  RURAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Commission of Conservations, Ottawa, 1917 RURAL LAND USE CONTROL: AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE STANDARD ZONING BYLAW. U. of B.C. Vancouver, 1985 A GUIDE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NOVA SCOTIA Dalhousie University, Halifax, 1984 INTENTION. PLANS AND PRACTICAL REASON Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1987 THE CITY'S COUNTRYSIDE: LAND AND ITS MANAGEMENT IN THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE. Longman, New York, 1982 CHANGING RURAL ATTITUDES Agricultural Economics, Report No. 8, U. of Alberta, 1967 RURAL PLANNING PROBLEMS Barnes & Noble, New York, 1976 RURAL SETTLEMENT & LAND USE Anchor Press Ltd., London, 1962 CITY MOUSE/ COUNTRY MOUSE. Paper No. 47, Conference, Im 73, American Institute of Planners Journal THE SINGLE FAMILY SLUM. A.S.P.O. Planning, V. 39, No. 7, August 1973, p. 10-12 REGIONAL DISTRICTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: A SERIES OF QUESTION AND ANSWERS. 1971 IN SEARCH OF VISION: RURAL LAND USE PROBLEMS AND POLICIES. Built Environment, V.4, No. 4, 11 1  1978, p.289-298 Eagles, P.FJ.  THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS. Longman, New York, 1984  Ewing, D.  THE HUMAN SIDE OF PLANNING: TOOL OR TYRANT MacMillan, New York, 1969  Faludi, A.  THE STUDY OF COMPARATIVE PLANNING London: Centre for Environmental Studies,  1975  Ford Foundation  THE ART OF MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENT Ford Foundation, New York, 1974  Friedman, J.  PLANNING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN: FROM KNOWLEDGE TO ACTION. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1987  Goodman, R.  AFTER THE PLANNERS. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1971  Hahn, Alan  PLANNING IN RURAL AREAS. A.I. of P. Journal, V.26, No. 1, Jan. 70, p.44-49  Hancock, Tom  PLANNING IN RURAL SETTLEMENTS. Town and Country Planning, V. 44, No. 12, Dec. 1976, p. 520-  523  Hrish, G.P.  Hodge, I.  PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL AREAS: A CRITICISM OF PRESENT PRACTICE. Ekistics, V . 28, No. 169, Dec. 1969, p. 420-4 RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT Town Planning Review, 1986, p. 175-86  Information Canada  RURAL CANADA 1970: PROSPECTS AND PROBLEMS Canadian Council on Rural Development, Ottawa, 1969  Lang, Reg & Armour, Audrey  ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RESOURCE BOOK Multiscience Publications Ltd, Montreal, 1980  112  Lapping, M. & Clemenson, H.  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTH AMERICAN RURAL PLANNING. Countryside Planning Yearbook, V.5, 1984, p. 42-61  Lassey, W.R.  PLANNING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENTS. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977  Lean, W.  ECONOMICS OF LAND USE PLANNING: URBAN & REGIONAL. Estates Gazette Ltd., London, 1969  Levine, R.  PUBLIC PLANNING: FAILURE & REDIRECTION Basic Books Inc., New York, 1972  Mann, E.  AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO PLANNING IN RURAL AREAS: THE SELF - HELP LAYOUT. Ekistics, Nov. 1979, p. 388-392  Martin, L.  A COMPARATIVE URBAN FRINGE STUDY METHODOLOGY. Lands Directorate, Occasional Paper No. 6, 1975  Masson, J.  ALBERTA'S LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR POLITICS. Pica Press, Edmonton, 1985  Ministry of Municipal Affairs  A GUIDE TO RURAL LAND USE BYLAWS. August 1986  Nelson, J.G.  MANS IMPACT ON THE WESTERN CANADIAN LANDSCAPE. McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1976  Ont. Ministry of Housing  A GUIDE TO THE PLANNING ACT. 1980  Ont. Ministry of Municipal Affairs  AN INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY PLANNING Research and Special Projects Branch, January 1989  R. D. of Central Kootenay  ELECTORAL AREA 'F RESIDENT SURVEY. April 1989  Ward, Neville  LAND USE PROGRAMS IN CANADA - ALBERTA Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, 1975  113  RESOURCE REGIMES. Natural Resources and Social Institutions, Unversity of California Press, Berkley, 1982  114  APPENDIX 1 RURAL LAND USE CONTROL QUESTIONNAIRE  NAME  POSITION  REGIONAL DISTRICT  1. What i s t h e r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n ( i . e . o u t s i d e w i t h i n your r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t ?  incorporated  areas)  2. On average, how many c o m p l a i n t s p e r t a i n i n g t o land u s e a r e r e c e i v e d from r u r a l r e s i d e n t s per y e a r ?  3. C o u l d you p r o v i d e t h r e e examples o f t h e s e c o m p l a i n t s ? a)  b)  c)  4.  In your o p i n i o n , a r e land u s e c o n t r o l s n e c e s s a r y f o r r u r a l o r unincorporated areas?  5.  If y e s , when do r u r a l  land u s e c o n t r o l s become n e c e s s a r y ?  115  6.  Is t h e r e a ' t h r e s h o l d * o r minimun p a r c e l f o r land use c o n t r o l s become c r i t i c a l ?  s i z e a t which t h e n e c e s s i t y  7. What a r e some o f t h e problems t h a t c o u l d be a I l e v i a t e d use c o n t r o l s ?  by r u r a l  land  8. Have you e x p e r i e n c e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which r u r a l r e s i d e n t s s u p p o r t e d t h e implementation o f land use c o n t r o l s ? If y e s , p l e a s e p r o v i d e examples. a)  b)  c)  9. Have you e x p e r i e n c e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which r u r a l s u p p o r t t h e implementation o f land use c o n t r o l s ? p r o v i d e examples. a)  b)  c)  116  r e s i d e n t s d i d not If y e s , p l e a s e  10. Does t h e r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t , a s t h e l o c a l a u t h o r i t y , p r e s e n t l y u t i l i z e land u s e c o n t r o l s in t h e u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a r e a s o f your r e g i o n a l district?  -  If y e s , what c i r c u m s t a n c e s l e d t o t h e i r i m p o s i t i o n ( e g . p u b l i c r e q u e s t s , s o c i a l o r environmental problems, economic, e t c . )  -  If y e s , what form do t h e s e land use c o n t r o l s t a k e ( e g . z o n i n g , O f f i c i a l s e t t l e m e n t P l a n s , Rural Land Use Bylaws)? TYPE  NUMBER IMPLEMENTED  AREA ENCOMPASSED IN Sq. Km. <5  -  >5<10  >10<25  >25  If no, why have land use r e g u l a t i o n s not been implemented ( e g . no need, lack o f p o l i t i c a l w i l l , p u b l i c p r o t e s t s ) ?  117  If you have u t i l i z e d t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i n P a r t 29 (Management o f Development), D i v i s i o n 2, S e c t i o n s 950-953 t o d e v e l o p a Rural Land Use Bylaw, what ( i n your o p i n i o n ) a r e t h e main s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n ? -  Strengths  -  Weaknesses  If you have not developed a Rural Land Use Bylaw, i s i t because you f e e l t h e r e a r e inherent problems i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , o r j u s t t h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h i n your r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t have not n e c e s s i t a t e d i t ' s use? P l e a s e E x p l a i n .  118  13.  Have you e x p e r i e n c e w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f r u r a l land u s e c o n t r o l t h a t a r e more e f f e c t i v e than t h e Rural Land Use Bylaw?  14.  If s o , where were they u t i l i z e d and c o u l d you d e s c r i b e b r i e f l y t h e f e a t u r e s t h a t made them more e f f e c t i v e o r e f f i c i e n t ?  119  Add 11 i onaI  space  APPENDIX 2  ELECTORAL AREA 'F' RESIDENT SURVEY  Regional D i s t r i c t o f C e n t r a l Kootenay Planning  121  Department  REGIONAL DISTRICT OF  CENTRAL KOOTENAY 10 0 ' — — '  us PREPARED BY REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY  4  SCALE  10 '  20km -i  ELECTORAL AREA 'F' RESIDENT SURVEY  Introduction In t h e f a l l o f 1 9 8 8 , t h e B o a r d o f t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f C e n t r a V Kootenay d i r e c t e d t h e Planning Department t o undertake a q u e s t i o n n a i r e survey o f r e s i d e n t s o f E l e c t o r a l A r e a 'F' o n p l a n n i n g . D i s c u s s i o n s b e t w e e n t h e E l e c t o r a l Area D i r e c t o r , h i s A d v i s o r y Planning Commission and Planning D e p a r t m e n t s t a f f d u r i n g t h e s p r i n g a n d summer o f 1988 r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t p l a n n i n g f o r t h e a r e a . P r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s r e g a r d i n g p l a n n i n g i n A r e a 'F' were c o n t r o v e r s i a l and had proceeded o n l y t o t h e p r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n s t a g e . T h e s u r v e y a p p r o a c h was s u g g e s t e d a s a m e t h o d b y w h i c h a r e s p r e s e n t a t i v e sample o f Area 'F' r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward l a n d uses a n d p l a n n i n g c o u l d be o b t a i ned. T h i s r e p o r t o u t l i n e s t h e purpose o f t h e r e s e a r c h , provides t h e r a t i o n a l e behind t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s i g n , d e s c r i b e s t h e sample p o p u l a t i o n and t h e m e t h o d b y w h i c h i t was s e l e c t e d , s u m m a r i z e s a n d a n a l y s e s t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s and draws c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e a n a l y s i s .  Purpose The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o i d e n t i f y E l e c t o r a l A r e a F ' r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s about land uses and i s s u e s i n t h e i r neighbourhoods. The survey i s a l s o intended t o help determine whether community support e x i s t s , i n p r i n c i p l e , f o r some l o c a l p u b l i c c o n t r o l o f l a n d u s e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . 1  The s u r v e y f i n d i n g s w i l l b e u s e d b y t h e A r e a ' F ' D i r e c t o r a n d A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission as t h e b a s i s f o r making a recommendation t o t h e Regional Board whether o r n o t a p l a n n i n g program s h o u l d be i n i t i a t e d i n Area 'F'  123  /2  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Design The  q u e s t i o n n a i r e b e g i n s w i t h a c o v e r page c o n t a i n i n g i n t r o d u c t o r y remarks  i n c l u d i n g statements on the purpose o f the  study and the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f  i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d (a copy o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s  The  questionnaire is  a t t a c h e d as Appendix I ) .  comprised mainly of f i x e d a l t e r n a t i v e q u e s t i o n s .  fixed a l t e r n a t i v e questions  have the advantages  and  r e l a t i v e l y q u i c k and i n e x p e n s i v e  may  not g i v e an adequate  These  o f b e i n g s i m p l e to a d m i n i s t e r  to a n a l y z e .  Fixed a l t e r n a t i v e  representation of a t t i t u d e s ,  questions  however, because none o f  the c h o i c e s may c o r r e s p o n d w i t h an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o p i n i o n o r they do not a l l o w for  qualification.  S e v e r a l open-ended q u e s t i o n s  the  s u r v e y to a l l o w respondents  The  preliminary questions  were,  therefore,  included in  to comment o r e l a b o r a t e upon v a r i o u s  on page 2 o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e are i n t e n d e d  p r o v i d e an e a s y , n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g , y e t q u e s t i o n f o c u s e s the r e s p o n d e n t s '  salient,  attention  s t a r t to the s u r v e y .  on t h e i r s p e c i f i c  to The f i r s t  neighbourhoods.  Q u e s t i o n s 2 and 3 c o n t i n u e the p r o c e s s o f f o c u s s i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' on  items.  attention  t h e i r neighbourhoods by a s k i n g what they l i k e about the neighbourhood and  what they p e r c e i v e to be an i m p o r t a n t problem i n the neighbourhood. these q u e s t i o n s  precede any s p e c i f i c  l a n d uses and i s s u e s , factors/issues  about a t t i t u d e s  the responses can be a n a l y z e d to i n d i c a t e  t h a t are most important to  Question 4 requests  to l a n d use.  question The items  r e g a r d i n g the listed  toward v a r i o u s the  respondents.  demographic i n f o r m a t i o n about  Question 5 i s a general relating  questions  Because  tenure.  importance o f v a r i o u s  issues  i n question 5 g e n e r a l l y correspond  w i t h items t h a t are u s u a l l y addressed i n o f f i c i a l  community p l a n s .  Respondents were a l s o asked to i d e n t i f y any o t h e r i s s u e s i m p o r t a n t to them t h a t may not have been on the  list.  124  /3  Question 6 asks respondents to i n d i c a t e t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward a v a r i e t y o f l a n d u s e s . In o r d e r t o r e d u c e a m b i g u i t y i n the q u e s t i o n and t o s t i m u l a t e t h o u g h t about s p e c i f i c l a n d u s e s , r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t o imagine t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y n e x t t o t h e i r s was v a c a n t . T h e y w e r e t h e n a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n about each l a n d u s e , s h o u l d t h a t use l o c a t e n e x t d o o r . T h e r e a r e two p u r p o s e s t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . T h e f i r s t , and m o s t o b v i o u s , i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f " n o t i n my b a c k y a r d " l a n d u s e s . S e c o n d , u s e s t h a t a r e a c c e p t a b l e a r e i d e n t i f i e d . In t h e r u r a l and s u b u r b a n a r e a s o f E l e c t o r a l A r e a 'F' t h e l a n d u s e p a t t e r n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a m i x i n g o f c o m m e r c i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l uses i n p r e d o m i n a n t l y r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . G i v e n t h i s l a n d use p a t t e r n , i t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h d e g r e e o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f l a n d u s e s n o t g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s m i g h t be e x h i b i t e d . E i t h e r q u e s t i o n 7 o r 8 was a s k e d o f e a c h r e s p o n d e n t b a s e d on t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n 6. Q u e s t i o n 7 was a s k e d o f v i r t u a l l y a l l r e s p o n d e n t s a s n e a r l y e v e r y r e s p o n d e n t d i s f a v o u r e d a t l e a s t one o r two u s e s . I n f u t u r e v e r s i o n s o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , q u e s t i o n 8 s h o u l d be r e w r i t t e n a l o n g t h e l i n e s o f q u e s t i o n 7 and b o t h q u e s t i o n s a s k e d o f a l l r e s p o n d e n t s ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) . Q u e s t i o n 9 i s t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y . I t was p l a c e d n e a r t h e e n d o f t h e s u r v e y s o t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o t h i n k a b o u t l a n d u s e s and i s s u e s t h a t t h e y m i g h t n o t u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r , p r i o r t o a n s w e r i n g this question. Q u e s t i o n s 10 t h r o u g h 14 o b t a i n d e m o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t c a n be c o m p a r e d w i t h S t a t i s t i c s Canada i n f o r m a t i o n to determine the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f the s a m p l e . Q u e s t i o n 12 was i n c l u d e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o f i n d o u t w h e t h e r a n y c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s b e t w e e n l o t s i z e and a t t i t u d e t o w a r d l a n d u s e p l a n n i n g .  125  /4  The Saaple T h e number a n d l o c a t i o n o f h o u s e h o l d s i n A r e a F ' was d e t e r m i n e d f r o m l a n d u s e maps p r e p a r e d b y t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f C e n t r a l K o o t e n a y P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t i n - 1 9 8 2 . B u i l d i n g p e r m i t r e c o r d s w e r e s e a r c h e d t o i d e n t i f y new r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n J u n e 1982 a n d O c t o b e r 1 9 8 8 . Assuming a l l d w e l l i n g s f o r which p e r m i t s had been i s s u e d were c o n s t r u c t e d , 1,170 d w e l l i n g s e x i s t e d i n A r e a 'F' i n t h e f a l l o f 1 9 8 8 . 1  B a l a n c i n g t h e c o n s t r a i n t s o f time and c o s t a g a i n s t t h e need f o r a r e l i a b l e c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f A r e a 'F' r e s i d e n t s a n d a n a d e q u a t e s a m p l e s i z e , i t was d e c i d e d t o s a m p l e a b o u t 100 h o u s e h o l d s . 1 T h u s , o n e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y e v e r y 12 households i n t h e area were s e l e c t e d . S t a r t i n g near t h e South S l o c a n end o f A r e a ' F ' , t h e f i r s t d w e l l i n g was s e l e c t e d r a n d o m l y , i n o r d e r t o m i n i m i z e sample b i a s , w i t h each t w e l f t h d w e l l i n g p r o c e e d i n g i n a west - e a s t d i r e c t i o n s e l e c t e d a f t e r that one. T h e o r i g i n a l i n t e n t was t o c o n d u c t f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s . A f t e r a h o u t a d o z e n i n t e r v i e w s , h o w e v e r , i t became a p p a r e n t t h a t t h i s m e t h o d w o u l d be t o o t i m e c o n s u m i n g a n d e x p e n s i v e . A d e c i s i o n was made t o s h i f t t o t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w s . Because o f h i g h e r r e f u s a l r a t e s w i t h telephone s u r v e y s , a l t e r n a t e h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e immediate v i c i n i t y o f each sample household were s e l e c t e d i f t h e i n t e r v i e w e r was u n a b l e t o c o n t a c t t h e s a m p l e h o u s e h o l d a f t e r two- a t t e m p t s . A l t e r n a t e h o u s e h o l d s w e r e s e l e c t e d f r o m B. C. A s s e s s m e n t A u t h o r i t y p r o p e r t y tax r o l l s .  1 A s s u m i n g 50 p e r c e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s w o u l d a g r e e w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l o c a l c o n t r o l o f l a n d u s e a n d 50 p e r c e n t w o u l d d i s a g r e e ; a n d t h a t t h e t o l e r a b l e m a r g i n o f e r r o r a t a 95 p e r c e n t l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e was 10 p e r c e n t , t h e r e q u i r e d s a m p l e s i z e w o u l d be 100 h o u s e h o l d s . A f t e r 30 i n t e r v i e w s w e r e c o n d u c t e d i t was f o u n d t h a t a b o u t 65 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a g r e e d w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l o c a l c o n t r o l o f l a n d u s e . On t h i s b a s i s t h e n e c e s s a r y s a m p l e s i z e was r e v i s e d down t o 9 0 .  126  /5  B e c a u s e o f t h e s h i f t t o a t e l e p h o n e s u r v e y , two p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f s a m p l e b i a s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d . F i r s t , r e n t e r s w o u l d l i k e l y be u n d e r r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e s u r v e y because o f the use o f the p r o p e r t y t a x r o l l s i n sample s e l e c t i o n . S e c o n d , p r o p e r t y o w n e r s w i t h o u t t e l e p h o n e l i s t i n g s w o u l d n o t be r e p r e s e n t e d . Some o f t h i s b i a s was o v e r c o m e by s c a n n i n g t h e t e l e p h o n e b o o k f o r p r o p e r t y a d d r e s s i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s was p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e N e l s o n a n d S o u t h S l o c a n l i s t i n g s c o n s i s t o f 17 and 2 1/2 p a g e s r e s p e c t i v e l y - b u t i t was s t i l l a v e r y time consuming t a s k . A t o t a l o f 123 h o u s e h o l d s w e r e c o n t a c t e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e s u r v e y , o f w h i c h 90 a g r e e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e . T e n o f t h e 33 p e o p l e who r e f u s e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e s t a t e d t h e y w e r e t o o o l d . T h e i n t e r v i e w e r was i n s t r u c t e d t o a s k t h e p e r s o n t o t r y a f e w q u e s t i o n s and s t o p a t a n y t i m e i f t h e y d i d n o t w i s h t o p r o c e e d ; but not t o p r e s s u r e anyone i n t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g . As the i n t e r v i e w s w e r e c o n d u c t e d b e t w e e n a b o u t 6:30 and 9:00 p.m. on w e e k n i g h t s , e i g h t h o u s e h o l d s f o u n d i t t o be i n c o n v e n i e n t t o s p e n d 15 m i n u t e s a n s w e r i n g q u e s t i o n s . C a l l b a c k s c o u l d n o t be a r r a n g e d f o r t h e s e e i g h t h o u s e h o l d s . F o r t h e r e m a i n i n g 15 r e f u s a l s , no r e a s o n s w e r e a s k e d f o r o r g i v e n . I n t h e c a s e o f e a c h r e f u s a l , an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r v i e w i n t h e i m m e d i a t e v i c i n i t y o f t h e d w e l l i n g was c o n d u c t e d . D e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s a m p l e w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h 1986 C e n s u s i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o a g e , g e n d e r and t e n u r e . In A r e a 'F' t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s 50 p e r c e n t m a l e , 50 p e r c e n t f e m a l e . T h e s a m p l e u n d e r r e p r e s e n t s m a l e s s o m e w h a t , a s o n l y 43 p e r c e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e m a l e , w h i l e 57 p e r c e n t w e r e f e m a l e . T h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on an o v e r a l l b a s i s , t h e a g e breakdown o f respondents p r o v i d e s a r e a s o n a b l y a c c u r a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the Area F' population: 1  /6  Age Group  % o f A r e a 'F'  %  P o p u l a t i o n i n Age Group  i n Age Group  19-24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45-54 55-64 65+  Respondents  8  2  21 24 16 13 18  18 24 21 19 16  T h e s u r v e y u n d e r r e p r e s e n t s r e n t e r s - o n l y 10 p e r c e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s r e n t e d t h e i r home, w h i l e 19 p e r c e n t o f t h e A r e a ' F ' p o p u l a t i o n r e n t s . T h i s u n d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , as noted p r e v i o u s l y , i s a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y due t o the method o f sample s e l e c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w .  Results A complete t a b u l a t i o n o f responses t o the questions i s p r o v i d e d i n Appendix I. The r e s u l t s p r o v i d e a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n o f g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s t o v a r i o u s l a n d u s e s , the importance o f v a r i o u s i s s u e s and t h e l e v e l o f community support f o r some f o r m o f l o c a l c o n t r o l o v e r l a r d u s e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . Peace and q u i e t , t h e r u r a l atmosphere, a c c e s s t o town, t h e l a k e , views and g o o d n e i g h b o u r h o o d s w e r e t h e m o s t f r e q u e n t l y g i v e n r e a s o n s why r e s i d e n t s l i k e l i v i n g i n E l e c t o r a l A r e a ' F ' ( s e e T a b l e 1, A p p e n d i x I ) . A f a i r l y w i d e r a n g e o f p r o b l e m s w e r e m e n t i o n e d ( s e e T a b l e 2, A p p e n d e x I ) ; h o w e v e r , m o s t r e s p o n d e n t s s t a t e d t h e r e w e r e no i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m s i n t h e i r n e i g h b o u r h o o d . F u r t h e r , 97 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s p r o v i d e d r e a s o n s why t h e y l i k e d t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d , c o m p a r e d w i t h 8 6 p e r c e n t who r e s p o n d e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n a b o u t problems i n the neighbourhood. I t c a n be c o n c l u d e d f r o m t h e s e r e s p o n s e s t h a t A r e a ' F ' i s p e r c e i v e d b y r e s i d e n t s t o be a v e r y d e s i r a b l e p l a c e t o l i v e . P r o t e c t i o n o f c o m m u n i t y w a t e r s h e d s was t h e p r i m e c o n c e r n o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s , r a t i n g an a v e r a g e i m p o r t a n c e o f 9.3 o n a s c a l e o f t e n . I n f a c t , 128  n  40 o f 8 6 r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h i s q u e s t i o n r a n k e d t h i s i t e m a s a 1 0 . P r o t e c t i o n o f views and maintenance o f p r o p e r t y v a l u e s a r e i s s u e s o f c o n s i d e r a b l e importance to r e s p o n d e n t s . Items such as p r o t e c t i o n o f h i s t o r i c s i t e s , p r e s e r v a t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , improvement o f t h e road system and t h e need t o s e t a s i d e a d d i t i o n a l park l a n d were m o d e r a t e l y i m p o r t a n t on a v e r a g e . R e s p o n d e n t s c l e a r l y f e l t t h e need f o r more c o m m e r c i a l s e r v i c e s o r i n d u s t r i a l l a n d i n t h e i r neighbourhoods as unimportant, as i n d i c a t e d i n t h e r e s p e c t i v e average r a t i n g s o f 3.2 a n d 2 . 1 . A s n o t e d i n T a b l e 3 o f A p p e n d i x I , o t h e r i s s u e s r e v o l v e d around environmental concerns and p r o v i s i o n o f s e r v i c e s ; w i t h l o g g i n g , environment, p o l l u t i o n and f i r e p r o t e c t i o n b e i n g t h e most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned issues. Given t h e response t o t h e q u e s t i o n s about what r e s i d e n t s l i k e about t h e i r neighbourhood and what t h e y p e r c e i v e as p r o b l e m s , t h e r e s u l t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the t y p e s o f development respondents would f a v o u r o r d i s f a v o u r on a h y p o t h e t i c a l v a c a n t p r o p e r t y n e x t t o t h e i r own p r e s e n t f e w s u r p r i s e s . S i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s , p a r k s , bed and b r e a k f a s t accommodations and s e n i o r c i t i z e n s ' homes w e r e t h e m o s t t o l e r a t e d l a n d u s e s ( t h o s e w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s e i t h e r favoured o r d i d n o t care about l o c a t i n g next door). Scrap metal yards and p o r t a b l e s a w m i l l s were t h e most d i s f a v o u r e d , f o l l o w e d by f a s t f o o d r e s t a u r a n t s a n d 7-11 t y p e c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e s . S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n r e s p o n s e s f r o m p e r s o n s l i v i n g o n l o t s o f l e s s than one area and those r e s i d i n g on l o t s g r e a t e r than one a c r e . The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e o u t l i n e s t h e most t o l e r a t e d and most d i s f a v o u r e d uses: Most T o l e r a t e d  s i n g l e f a m i l y house park o r playground b e d a n d b r e a k f a s t home s e n i o r c i t i z e n s ' home day-care f a c i l i t y duplex church  Percentage Favouring o r Not Caring > 1 acre < 1 acre (n = 53) (n = 37)  Total  98.1 84.3 83.0 76.9 64.2 63.5 58.5  95.6 80.1 80.0 75.0 65.6 62.9 60.7  91.9 75.7 75.7 72.2 67.6 62.2 63.9  129  (n = 90)  /8  Most D i s f a v o u r e d  Percentage Disfavouring < 1 acre (n = 53)  > 1 acre (n = 37)  Total ( n = 90)  scrap metal y a r d  92.5  91.9  92.2  portable sawmill fast food restaurant  88.7 84.9  91.9 89.2  91.0 86.7  7-11 t y p e c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e p o u l t r y farm  88.5 88.7  83.8 78.4  86.5 84.4  autobody shop  84.9  83.8  84.4  motel  78.8  83.8  80.9  gas s t a t i o n  82.7  75.7  80.1  warehouse m o b i l e home p a r k apartments/townhouses fourplex school  71.7 63.5 66.0 63.5 54.0  70.3 77.8 64.9 62.2 63.9  72.7 69.3 65.5 62.9 58.1  In s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s r e s p o n d e n t s q u a l i f i e d t h e i r answers, s t a t i n g t h e i r o p i n i o n a b o u t a p a r t i c u l a r u s e w o u l d be b a s e d o n i t s s c a l e , d e s i g n , d i s t a n c e of the a c t i v i t y area from t h e i r property, standards of operation, e t c . However, t h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d e f i n i t e d i s f a v o u r i n g o f commercial and i n d u s t r i a l u s e s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o r e s p o n d e n t s ' r e s i d e n c e s . T a b l e 4, A p p e n d i x I shows t h a t n o i s e i s t h e m a j o r r e a s o n some l a n d u s e s a r e d i s f a v o u r e d b y r e s i d e n t s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o t h e i r homes. I n c o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , t r a f f i c , i n t r u s i o n on p r i v a c y , d e c r e a s e s i n p r o p e r t y v a l u e s a n d u n s i g h t l i n e s s w e r e o t h e r f r e q u e n t l y g i v e n r e s p o n s e s why n o n - s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l n e i g h b o u r h o o d u s e s t e n d e d t o be d i s f a v o u r e d . O n l y 4 o f 90 r e s p o n d e n t s s t a t e d t h e y would f a v o u r o r n o t c a r e a b o u t a n y o f t h e land uses l o c a t i n g next door. In g e n e r a l , t h e f e e l i n g s o f these people c o u l d be summed up i n t h e comment t h a t i f t h e u s e s a r e m a i n t a i n e d p r o p e r l y t h e y h a v e e v e r y r i g h t t o b e t h e r e . W h i l e 8 6 o f 90 r e s p o n d e n t s d i s f a v o u r e d a t l e a s t o n e l a n d u s e l o c a t i n g o n t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l v a c a n t p r o p e r t y n e x t d o o r , o n l y 64 a g r e e d , i n p r i n c i p l e , w i t h t h e i d e a o f some l o c a l p u b l i c c o n t r o l o f l a n d u s e and d e v e l o p m e n t . Thus, d i s f a v o u r i n g a l a n d use and b e i n g p r e p a r e d t o a c c e p t  130  /9  p u b l i c c o n t r o l o v e r l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t a r e two d i f f e r e n t i s s u e s . S e v e r a l r e s p o n d e n t s s t a t e d t h a t p u b l i c c o n t r o l s h o u l d be l i m i t e d , p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t i s n e c e s s a r y a n d f u l l f l e d g e d z o n i n g i s n o t n e e d e d ( s e e T a b l e 5, A p p e n d i x I ) . Given the h i s t o r y o f concern regarding planning i n Area 'F', the general s u p p o r t f o r l o c a l p u b l i c c o n t r o l r e c e i v e d f r o m 71 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s was n o t a n t i c i p a t e d . T h e r e s p o n s e o f p e r s o n s l i v i n g o n l o t s g r e a t e r t h a n o n e a c r e was a l s o n o t a n t i c i p a t e d - 81 p e r c e n t a g r e e d w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l o c a l c o n t r o l o f l a n d use and development. T h i s c o m p a r e s w i t h 64 p e r c e n t a g r e e m e n t from r e s p o n d e n t s l i v i n g on l o t s s m a l l e r than one a c r e .  Conclusions F o u r c o n c l u s i o n s c a n be d r a w n f r o m t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e A r e a 'F* s u r v e y r e s u l t s . F i r s t , s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s p l a c e h i g h v a l u e on t h e q u a l i t y o f l i v i n g i n E l e c t o r a l A r e a 'F' - e n j o y m e n t o f p e a c e a n d q u i e t i n a b e a u t i f u l l o c a t i o n t h a t i s o u t o f town y e t a c c e s s i b l e t o s e r v i c e s a n d e m p l o y m e n t . R e s p o n s e s t o each q u e s t i o n i n d i c a t e a s t r o n g d e s i r e t o p r e s e r v e t h i s environment and t h e l i f e s t y l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l i v i n g i n Area 'F'. S e c o n d , a v e r y s t r o n g c o n s e n s u s was e x p r e s s e d a b o u t t h e n e e d t o p r o t e c t community watersheds. Because o f the v e r y g e n e r a l wording o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e o n t h i s i s s u e , h o w e v e r , a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be r e q u i r e d to c l a r i f y the s p e c i f i c nature o f r e s i d e n t s ' concerns and t o i d e n t i f y p o s s i b l e alternative courses of a c t i o n . T h i r d , respondents want t h e r e s i d e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i r neighbourhoods p r e s e r v e d . I t was c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n c o m m e r c i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l land uses a r e i n c o m p a t i b l e i n the immediate v i c i n i t y o f respondents' r e s i d e n c e s . D i s f a v o u r was e x p r e s s e d e v e n a b o u t some l a n d u s e s t y p i c a l l y f o u n d i n r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s s u c h a s s c h o o l s , a p a r t m e n t s a n d m o b i l e homes p a r k s . T h e most f a v o u r e d uses were o t h e r s i n g l e f a m i l y homes, p a r k s , b e d and b r e a k f a s t homes - u s e s t h a t a r e t y p i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods.  131  no Fourth, the primary c o n c l u s i o n r e s u l t i n g from t h i s study i s that there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e o f s u p p o r t f o r t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l o c a l c o n t r o l o f l a n d use and d e v e l o p m e n t i n A r e a ' F ' . I t c a n a l s o be c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s s u p p o r t r e l a t e s t o b a s i c l a n d use p l a n n i n g - e x c e s s i v e l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n i s not w a n t e d . Comments f r o m r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t p l a n n i n g i s d e s i r e d , w i t h i n l i m i t s , e s p e c i a l l y t o p r o v i d e r e s i d e n t s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n p u t r e g a r d i n g l a n d use c h a n g e s i n t h e i r n e i g h b o u r h o o d s .  132  -1-  Regional D i s t r i c t o f Central  APPENOIX I  Kootenay  AREA 'F' R E S I D E N T SURVEY J a n u a r y , 1989  H e l l o , my name i s . I am h e l p i n g t o c o n d u c t a s u r v e y o f A r e a F ' r e s i d e n t s on b e h a l f o f t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f C e n t r a l Kootenay. 1  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s u r v e y i s t o i d e n t i f y r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s a b o u t l a n d u s e s a n d i s s u e s i n A r e a 'F' t o h e l p u s make a d e c i s i o n a b o u t w h e t h e r o r not t o i n i t i a t e a community p l a n n i n g program i n your a r e a . T h i s s u r v e y w i l l t a k e a b o u t 15 m i n u t e s t o c o m p l e t e . I f i t i s c o n v e n i e n t r i g h t now, w o u l d y o u b e i n t e r e s t e d i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g ? ( I F Y E S , CONTINUE.) ( I F NO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR T I M E .  GOODBYE.)  IF N E C E S S A R Y : A l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d t h r o u g h t h i s s u r v e y w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . The i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be t u r n e d i n t o s t a t i s t i c s a b o u t t h e p e o p l e who r e s p o n d e d a s a w h o l e . F o r e x a m p l e , " t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s who own t h e i r own home".  133  -2No.  F i r s t , we w o u l d l i k e t o a s k y o u some q u e s t i o n s a b o u t y o u r r e s i d e n c e i n the community: 01.  What i s t h e name o f t h i s  neighbourhood? 01  A r e a 1 - 16; A r e a 2 - 1 7 ; A r e a 3 - 4 0 ; A r e a 4 - 1 7 West o f  Johnstone  Nasookin  Taghum  Rd. 3 M i .  6 Mi.  East o f 6 Mi.  Bridge  02.  What i s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n y o u l i k e l i v i n g i n t h i s  neighbourhood? 02  See T a b l e 1  03.  As y o u see i t , what i s one i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m i n t h e neighbourhood? 03  See T a b l e 2  04.  Do y o u own t h i s home, a r e y o u b u y i n g i t , do y o u p a y r e n t , o r w h a t ? 81  04  rent  9  05  other  -  06  own o r b u y i n g  134  -3T a b l e 1 - Responses t o Q u e s t i o n 02: l i k e l i v i n g i n this neighbourhood?  What i s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n y o u  Times quiet/peaceful close to lake/waterfront a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o town/work o u t o f town scenery/view country living good n e i g h b o u r h o o d beautiful location/environment little traffic large l o t size privacy love i t here/Kootenays dwelling crime f r e e don't l i k e l i v i n g here local conformity retired t a x e s i n town t o o h i g h b e t t e r home f o r t h e p r i c e born and r a i s e d here good w a t e r system lower cost of l i v i n g t r a i l e r allowed  Mentioned* 20 14 13 11 11 9 9 8 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  * i n numerous i n s t a n c e s , r e s p o n d e n t s p r o v i d e d more t h a n one r e a s o n .  135  -4-  T a b l e 2 - Responses t o Q u e s t i o n 03: problem i n the neighbourhood.  As you see i t , what i s one i m p o r t a n t  Times none water system logging fire protection alluvial fan d o n ' t l i k e m o b i l e home p a r k street lighting road r e p a i r / m a i n t e n a n c e increased traffic/speeding overbuilt area dogs and c a t s roaming lack of public transportation sewage d i s p o s a l road access ( s i d e road) unemployment lack of cablevision unsociable neighbour school busing geese utilities creek p r o p e r t y t a x e s f o r l a n d t h a t c a n ' t be b u i l t on  136  Mentioned 38 7 6 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  -5-  N e x t , we w o u l d l i k e t o o b t a i n y o u r v i e w s a b o u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a n u m b e r o f l a n d use m a t t e r s as y o u f e e l t h e y r e l a t e t o t h i s n e i g h b o u r h o o d . 05.  On a s c a l e o f 1-10, w i t h 10 b e i n g t h e h i g h e s t , o r m o s t i m p o r t a n t , w o u l d you y o u r s e l f r a t e the i m p o r t a n c e o f the f o l l o w i n g t o t h i s neighbourhood: Average  how  #Resp.  (a)  p r o t e c t i o n of community w a t e r s h e d s ?  9^3  07  (86)  (b)  improvement o f the road system?  5.8  08  (86)  (c)  p r o t e c t i o n o f h i s t o r i c s i t e s and b u i l d i n g s ?  6.6  09  (81)  (d)  preservation of agricultural  6.7  10  (81)  (e)  maintenance of property values?  7.2  11  (89)  (f)  reserve additional lands f o r parks?  6.4  12  (82)  (g)  p r o t e c t i o n of views  8_J?  13  (88)  (h)  need f o r more c o m m e r c i a l s e r v i c e s i n t h i s neighbourhood  3_J^  14  need f o r more i n d u s t r i a l l a n d i n t h i s neighbourhood  2J.  15  (i)  (j)  any o t h e r i s s u e ?  land?  (83)  (85)  (specify)  See T a b l e 3 16  137  -6-  T a b l e 3 - R e s p o n s e s t o Q u e s t i o n 05 ( j ) : o t h e r i s s u e s .  Issue  Times  logging environment/pollution fire protection alluvial fan recycling transportation sewage d i s p o s a l cablevision service n a t u r a l gas s e r v i c e community p l a n n i n g road maintenance r o a d s v/idened f o r p e d e s t r i a n s waste management burning r e s t r i c t i o n s senior housing/care f a c i l i t i e s noise control pets harassing w i l d l i f e more f a c i l i t i e s f o r y o u t h retirement centre/tourism i n d u s t r i a l , y e s i f more j o b s h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g s n e e d t o be u s e d than preserved as r e l i c s  138  Mentioned 9 5 4  3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rather 1  -7-  your 06.  N e x t , we w o u l d l i k e t o o b t a i n y o u r o p i n i o n a b o u t f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t i n neighbourhood. What I w o u l d l i k e y o u t o do i s t o s u p p o s e t h e p r o p e r t y n e x t d o o r t o y o u i s v a c a n t . I am g o i n g t o r e a d a l i s t o f d i f f e r e n t u s e s t o w h i c h t h i s p r o p e r t y m i g h t be p u t . F o r e a c h u s e I r e a d , I w o u l d l i k e y o u t o i n d i c a t e y o u r i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n as t o whether you would f a v o u r , d i s f a v o u r , o r w h e t h e r you wouldn't c a r e i f t h a t l a n d use l o c a t e d next door: (a)  (b)  (c)  (d)  (e)  (f)  s i n g l e f a m i l y house  fourplex  m o b i l e home p a r k  7-11  type convenience  73  17  disfavour  4  18  don't care  13  19  favour  22  20  disfavour  56  21  don't care  11  22  favour  15  23  disfavour  61  24  don't care  12  25  favour  6  26  disfavour  77  27  don't care  6  28  favour  7  29  disfavour  72  30  don't care  10  31  1  32  83  33  6  34  favour  store  motel  scrap metal y a r d  favour disfavour don't care 139  -8-  (g)  (h)  (i)  (j)  (k)  (1)  (m)  b e d a n d b r e a k f a s t home  park o r playground  warehouse  apartments o r townhouses  gas station  school  s e n i o r c i t i z e n ' s home  140  favour  59  35  disfavour  18  36  don't care  13  37  favour  64  38  di sfavour  17  39  don't care  7  40  favour  12  41  disfavour  64  42  don't care  14  43  favour  20  44  disfavour  57  45  don't care  10  46  favour  10  47  disfavour  72  48  don't care  7  49  favour  27  50  disfavour  50  51  don't care  9  52  favour  55  53  disfavour  22  54  don't care  11  55  -9-  (n)  fast food restaurant  5  56  78  57  7  58  favour  41  59  disfavour  35  60  don 1  13  61  favour  46  62  disfavour  31  63  don't care  13  64  favour disfavour don't care  (o)  church  1  (p)  (q)  day c a r e f a c i l i t y  portable sawmill  care  favour  66  7  67  favour  48  68  disfavour  33  69  don't care  8  70  favour  6_  71  don't care  (s)  duplex  p o u l t r y farm  76  72  don't care  8  73  favour  6__  74  disfavour  (t)  auto body shop  disfavour don't care  141  65  81  disfavour  (r)  2_  76  75  8  76  -10I F 'NOT IN FAVOUR' TO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE U S E S , ASK QUESTION NUMBER 8. I F RESPONDENT DOES NOT I N D I C A T E 'NOT IN FAVOUR' TO ANY U S E S , S K I P TO QUESTION NUMBER 9. 07.  Y o u r e s p o n d e d t h a t y o u w o u l d n o t be i n f a v o u r o f c e r t a i n u s e s l o c a t i n g next door. F o r what r e a s o n s ? See T a b l e 4 77  78  79  GO TO QUESTION 1 0 . 08.  You r e s p o n d e d t h a t y o u e i t h e r " f a v o u r e d " o r " d i d n o t c a r e " a b o u t a n y o f the l a n d uses l o c a t i n g n e x t door. F o r what r e a s o n s ? - as l o n g as t h e y a r e c l e a n and p r o p e r l y l o o k e d a f t e r 80  - e v e r y r i g h t t o be t h e r e - rural area - i m p o r t a n t n o t t o c o n t r o l t h e u s e o f p e o p l e ' s own l a n d  81  82  09.  I n p r i n c i p l e , do y o u a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e i d e a t h a t some l o c a l p u b l i c c o n t r o l o f land use and development should take p l a c e , r e a l i z i n g t h i s would i n c l u d e c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s b e i n g p l a c e d on t h e use and d e v e l o p m e n t o f y o u r own p r o p e r t y ?  Comments  agree  64  83  disagree_  113  84  d o n ' t know/no o p i n i o n _ 8  85  See T a b l e 5  142  -11T a b l e 4 - Reasons not i n f a v o u r o f c e r t a i n uses l o c a t i n g next door.  Times Mentioned noise non-conforming/not suitable i n residential area traffic i n t r u d e on p r i v a c y decrease property value untidy/unsightly pollution l o t s i z e too small overpopulation/crowding odours l i k e i t t h e way i t i s uses a l r e a d y e x i s t / a l r e a d y enough d i s r u p t view hangouts/attract undesirables aesthetics garbage parking topography wouldn't want n e x t d o o r t o k i d s n o t i n my b a c k y a r d low r e n t a l s sewer problems  143  44 16 14 9 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1  -12T a b l e 5 - Comments o n Q u e s t i o n 0 9 , r e g a r d i n g development.  d e p e n d s on w h a t r e s t r i c t i o n s ; s h o u l d d o n ' t be t o o r e s t r i c t i v e a g r e e , t o an  p u b l i c c o n t r o l o f l a n d use and  n o t be t e l l i n g w h a t t y p e o f h o u s e s ;  extent  limited industrial f a i r to everyone else on a l i m i t e d s c a l e , no o u t r i g h t  zoning  d o n ' t b e l i e v e s o much m o n e y s h o u l d go i n t o s o l v i n g p u b l i c i s s u e s , b u t some c o n t r o l i s n e c e s s a r y disagree,  should  disagree,  s t r i n g e n t l y regulate use o f  agree, very agree, within  have b u i l d i n g codes  control  only resources  little limitations  c o n t r o l s h o u l d be m i n i m a l t o a l l o w p e o p l e t o u s e l a n d a s t h e y w a n t without being d i s r u p t i v e and a f f e c t i n g land values.  144  -13-  L a s t l y , we w o u l d l i k e t o a s k a c o u p l e o f q u e s t i o n s a b o u t y o u r s e l f . We n e e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r t o d e s c r i b e p e o p l e who t o o k p a r t i n t h e s t u d y :  10.  F i r s t , how l o n g h a v e y o u r e s i d e d a t t h i s  address? 7  87  1 - 5 years  22  88  5-10  years  16  89  m o r e t h a n 10 y e a r s  45  90  2  91  25 - 34  16  92  35 - 44  22  93  45 - 54  19  94  55 - 64  17  95  65+  14  96  l e s s t h a n 1/2 a c r e  41  97  less than 1 acre  12  98  b e t w e e n 1 and 5 a c r e s  26  99  g r e a t e r than 5 acres  11  100  less than 1 year  11.  which o f the f o l l o w i n g age g r o u p s i s a p p l i c a b l e t o you? 19-24  12.  Is the l o t you l i v e  years  on:  145  -14-  13.  14.  Sex o f respondent: male  39  101  female  51  102  Is the type o f d w e l l i n g you l i v e i n a: 72  103  m o b i l e home o n i n d i v i d u a l l o t  2  104  a p a r t m e n t o r townhouse  4_  105  duplex  1  106  s i n g l e f a m i l y house  m o b i l e home i n m o b i l e home p a r k 11 other (specify)  107  0 108  That concludes the survey.  Again, thank you f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n . Good-bye.  jkrquestion.f  146  APPENDIX  i o n a l  D i s t r i c t  FARLEIGH  O k a n a g a n - S i m i l k a n i e e n  LAKE/SIIATFORD  RURAL UYI.AW  of  3  NO.  147  LAND 901,  USE 19(17  CREEK  R e g i o n a l  D i s t r i c t  F a r l e i g h  of  O k a n a g a n - S i m i l k a m e e n  L a k e / S h a t f o r d  R u r a l  Land  I  N  Use  D  E  C r e e k  B y l a w  X  BYLAW S e c t i o n  1  T i t l e  S e c t i o n  2  A p p l i c a t i o n  S e c t i o n  3  Purpose  PAGE PART  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  A. 0  A  PART  I  and  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n  1 1  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  A. 1  Amendment  and  1  A  1  1  Bylaw  A A  1  2  1  A  1 . 3 1 . 4  P r o h i b i t i o n E n f o r c e m e n t  R e v i e w  V i o l a t  1  A  1 .5  P e n a l t y  1  A  1 . 6  S e v e r a b i l i t y  1  A  2  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n  1  1  0  O b j e c t i v e s  1  1  P r e a m b l e  1  2  Obj  1  i o n  and  6  P o l i c i e s  6 6  e c t i v e s  6  1 .3  P o l i c i e s  1 . 3 . 1  R e s o u r c e  1 . 3 .2  P r o v i n c i a l  6  Management P a r k s  and  R e c r e a t i o n  7  A r e a s  PART  II  7  1 . 3 . 3  Ag  1 . 3 . 4  P u b l i c  r i c u l t u r e  1 . 3 . S  R e s i d e n t i a l  8  1 . 3 . 6  R u r a l  8  1 . 3 . 7  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  1 . 3 . 8  H a z a r d  1 . 3 . 9  H e r i t a g e  R e s o u r c e s  10  1 . 3 . 10  R e s o u r c e  E x t r a c t i o n  10  S e r v i c e R e s o r t  8  Lands  2 .0  Land  2 . 1  G e n e r a l  2 . 1 . 1 2 . 1 . 2  8  Use  9  R e g u l a t i o n s  1 1  R e g u l a t i o n s ,  R e q u i r e m e n t s  and P r o v i s i o n s E l o o d p l a i n P r o v i s i o n s E n v i r o n m e n t a l  2 . 1 . 3  A g r i c u l t u r a l  2 . 1 . 4  Home  2 . 1 . 5  A c c e s s o r y  2 . 1 . 6  D o m e s t i c  2 . 1 . 7  Sewage  2 . 1 . 0 2 . 1 . 9 2 . 1 .10  S u b d i v i s i o n  2 . 1 . 11 2 . 1 . 12 2 . 1 . 1 3  Minimum M o b i l e  Impact Land  1 1 P r o v i s i o n s  R e s e r v e  1 2 1 2  O c c u p a t i o n s  1 2  B u i l d i n g s Water  1 1  1 3  S u p p l y  1 3  N o n - C o n f o r m i n g  P a r c e l s  1 4 1 4  N o n - C o n f o r m i n g  Uses  1 4  S i z e  1 4  D i s p o s a l  1 4  P a r c e l  E x e m p t i o n  f r o m  Minimum  P a r c e l  S i z e  Homes  1 4 1 5  2 . 1 . 1 4  C a m p s i t e s  1 5  2 . 1 . 1 13  T r a v e l  1 6  2 . 1 .16  S i t i n g  2 . 1 .17  H e i g h t  2 . 1 .18  L i v e s t o c k  T r a i l e r s R e q u i r e m e n t s E x c e p t i o n s  148  P r o v i s i o n s  f o r  B u i l d i n g s  16 1 7 17  PAGE PART  II  2 . 1 . 1 9  F e n c i n g  10  2 . 1 . 2 0  S i g n s  18  2 . 1 . 2 1  O f f - S t r e e t  2.2  Land  Use  2.2.1  L i s t  of  2 . 2 . 2  L o c a t i o n  2 . 2 . 3  RA  -  R e s o u r c e  A r e a  2 . 2 . 4  P  -  Park  P u b l i c  2 . 2 . 5  AG  -  A g r i c u l t u r e  P a r k i n g  19  D e s i g n a t i o n s Land  Use  and  20  D e s i g n a t i o n s  E x t e n t  of  Land  Use  20 21  D e s i g n a t i o n s and  21 Use  2 . 2 . 6  Lll  -  L a r g e  H o l d i n g s  2 . 2 . 7  RR1  -  R u r a l  R e s i d e n t i a l  23 1  24  2 . 2 . 0  RC1  -  R e s o r t  2 . 2 . 9  RE  -  R u r a l  R e s o r t  26  2 . 2 . 1 0  MU  -  M i x e d  Use  27  149  C o t t a g e  22 22  25  BYLAW  R e g i o n a l  D i s t r i c t  FARLEIGH  of  LAKE/S11ATF0RD  RURAL BY LAW  A  B y l a w  t o  F a r l e i g h A r e a  g u i d e  the  use  L a k e - S h a t f o r d  p u r s u a n t  to  P a r t  O k a n a g a i i - S i m i  LAND  NO.  of  the  lkameen  CREEK  1 907  d e v e l o p m e n t  C r e e k - A p e x 29  984  USE  904 ,  and  NO.  of  land  M o u n t a i n  M u n i c i p a l  i n  R u r a l A c t  the  P l a n n i n g  of  B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a .  The  R e g i o n a l  Board  S i m i l k a m e e n  i n  of  open  the  R e g i o n a l  m e e t i n g  d u l y  D i s t r i c t  of  a s s e m b l e d ,  Okanagan-  ENACTS  as  f o l l o w s : 1  T I T L E T h i s  B y l a w  may  be  c i t e d  " F a r l e i g h  L a k e / S h a t f o r d  No.  1 9 0 7 . "  904,  f o r  a l l  C r e e k  p u r p o s e s  R u r a l  as  Land  the  Use  B y l a w  APPLICATION T h i s  B y l a w  a p p l i e s  to  the  F a r l e i g h  R u r a l  P l a n n i n g  L a k e - S h a t f o r d  C r e e k - A p e x  M o u n t a i n  d e s i g n a t e d  by  the  M i n i s t e r  of  M u n i c i p a l  1986  and  as  shown  by  map  w h i c h  i s  a t t a c h e d  J u n e  24,  S c h e d u l e of The  t h i s  B,  as A f f a i r s  r e f e r e n c e  h e r e t o  and  on  on  forms  p a r t  B y l a w .  p r o v i s i o n s  S c h e d u l e  A  -  of  t h i s  S c h e d u l e  B  -  C  -  a t t a c h e d  h e r e t o  c o n s t i t u t e  the  S i m i l k a m e e n  i n c l u d e :  F a r l e i g h  L a k e / S h a t f o r d Bylaw  Use Land  Use  L a k e - S h a t f o r d R u r a l  and  F a r l e i g h  Area  Land  Map;  R e s o u r c e s  f o r m i n g  C r e e k - A p e x  P l a n n i n g  D e s i g n a t i o n  R e g i o n a l  R u r a l P o l i c i e s  R e g u l a t i o n s ;  F a r l e i g h  A g g r e g a t e  C r e e k  O b j e c t i v e s ,  M o u n t a i n Use S c h e d u l e  B y l a w  Land and  Use  A r e a ,  p a r t  of  D i s t r i c t  of  L a k e / S h a t f o r d  Map; t h i s  B y l a w ,  and  O k a n a g a n C r e e k  R u r a l  B y l a w  i s  Land  B y l a w .  PURPOSE The  p u r p o s e  p r o v i d e  a  r e g u l a t i o n s use  and  t h i s  w i t h  to  M o u n t a i n as  R u r a l of  the  i n  150  Use  o b j e c t i v e s ,  to  the  R u r a l P l a n  Land  the  r e s p e c t  d e v e l o p m e n t  C r e e k - A p e x r e f e r r e d  of  s t a t e m e n t  e x i s t i n g F a r l e i g h  P l a n n i n g A r e a .  to  p o l i c i e s  and  f u t u r e  and l a n d  L a k e - S h a t f o r d A r e a ,  h e r e a f t e r  4.  Those 100  p o r t i o n s  of  E l e c t o r a l  p e r t a i n i n g  to  the  R u r a l  P l a n n i n g  Bylaw  a r e  READ  a  FIRST  READ  a  SECOND  PUBLIC A c t  TIME  HEARING  a d j o u r n e d  t h i s  TIME  t h i s  A r e a  hereby  t h i s  HELD  D  Z o n i n g  B y l a w  L a k e / S h a t f o r d  i d e n t i f i e d  on  S c h e d u l e  No.  C r e e k  B  of  t h i s  r e s c i n d e d .  20th  day  of  August  ,  1987.  20th  day  of  A u g u s t  ,  1987.  p u r s u a n t  to  15th t h e n  A r e a  F a r l e i g h  S e c t i o n day  r e c o n v e n e d  t h i s  956  of  of  the  M u n i c i p a l  September  8th  day  ,  of  1987:  O c t o b e r  ,  1987. READ I  a  THIRD  hereby  of-  B y l a w  TIME  t h i s  c e r t i f y  the  No.  c i t e d  984  B y l a w  No.  984,  R e g i o n a l  Board  on  Dated  P e n t i c t o n ,  at  day  f o r e g o i n g  O k a n a g a n - S i m i l k a m e e n Use  22nd  as  the  F a r l e i g h 1987,  the  as  be  O c t o b e r a  t r u e  " R e g i o n a l a  day  THIRD of  t h i s  ,  and  c o r r e c t  D i s t r i c t  L a k e / S h a t f o r d  r e a d  22nd  B.C.  to  of  C r e e k  time  by  copy  of R u r a l  Land  the  O c t o b e r  day  1 987.  of  ,  1 987.  ,  1907.  S e c r e t a r y  APPROVED  by  the  of  M i n i s t e r  M i n i s t e r ,  of  RECONSIDERED  of  MUNIC i T A L ~ A F F A I  AND  ADOPTED  M u n i c i p a l  A f f a i r s  t h i s  day  1987.  RS  t h i s  C h a i r m a n  17th  day  of  December  S e c r e t a r y  151  ,  1987.  BYLAW  NO.  984  SCHEDULE  FARLEIGH  LAKE/SHATFORD  Clia i rman  S e c r e t a r y  152  CREEK  A  RURAL  LAND  USE  BYLAW  -1  A. 0  PART  A  A.1  ADMINISTRATION  A . 1 . 1  B y l a w The  A . 1 . 2  -  A D M I N I S T H A T 1 ON  Amendment  F a r l e i g h  and  AND  be  amended  w i l l  be  c o n d u c t e d  INTERPRETATION  R e v i e w  L a k e / S h a t f o r d  w i l l  -  as  C r e e k  n e c e s s a r y , at  l e a s t  R u r a l  and  o n c e  a  Land  Use  t h o r o u g h  e v e r y  f i v e  B y l a w  r e v i e w y e a r s .  P r o h i b i t i o n S u b j e c t  to  ttie  p r o v i s i o n s  C o m m i s s i o n  A c t  and  l a n d ,  i n c l u d i n g  u s e d ,  o c c u p i e d  or  o r  the or  s t r u c t u r e s  l o c a t e d  of  S e c t i o n  the  970  s u r f a c e  of  s h a l l  not  be  the  w a t e r ,  s u b d i v i d e d ,  u s e d ,  A g r i c u l t u r a l  of and  A c t ,  s h a l l  be  to  the  not  l i k e w i s e  c o n s t r u c t e d ,  c o n t r a r y  Land  M u n i c i p a l  b u i l d i n g s  a l t e r e d ,  p r o v i s i o n s  of  t h i s  B y l a w . A . 1 . 3  E n f o r c e m e n t The  P l a n n i n g  s u c h  o t h e r  shall,  By A. 1 . 4  the  t h i s  p r e m i s e s p u r p o s e  It  i s  I n s p e c t o r ,  the  and  or  R e g i o n a l  may  p r o p e r t y  at  a d m i n i s t e r i n g  u n l a w f u l any  f o r  e n t e r  any o r  It  i s  u s e d ,  A . 1 . 3  any  from  t h i s  or  of  u n l a w f u l  o b s t r u c t  p e r s o n  or  B o a r d , any  r e a s o n a b l e  e n f o r c i n g  l a n d  t h i s f o r  time  t h i s  c a u s e , t o  a l t e r e d ,  to  be  s u f f e r  o r  be  u s e d ,  l o c a t e d , i n  B y l a w .  any  o f f i c i a l  c a r r y i n g  to  s t r u c t u r e  r e c o n s t r u c t e d ,  o r  c o n t r a v e n t i o n 2)  any  b u i l d i n g  c o n s t r u c t e d , e x t e n d e d  p e r s o n  to  a p p o i n t e d  out  p r e v e n t under  d u t i e s  o r  s u b s e c t i o n  c o n s i s t e n t  w i t h  B y l a w .  P e n a l t y 1)  Any  p e r s o n  Bylaw of  i s  2)  who  summary  Each  of  an  the  to  c o s t  c o n t i n u a n c e  c o n s t i t u t e s  a  any  o f f e n c e  c o n v i c t i o n p l u s  d a y ' s  B y l a w  c o n t r a v e n e s  g u i l t y  $ 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0  a  of  of  t h i s  by  way  f i n e  of  new  p r o v i s i o n p u n i s h a b l e not  e x c e e d i n g  p r o s e c u t i o n . an  and  o f f e n c e d i s t i n c t  under  t h i s  o f f e n c e .  S e v e r a b i l i t y If  any  s e c t i o n ,  s u b s e c t i o n ,  B y l a w  i s  h e l d  c o u r t  of  c o m p e t e n t  not t h i s A . 2  B y l a w  or  of  by  V i o l a t i o n  p e r m i t  A . 1 . 6  B u i l d i n g  law.  1)  A . 1 . 5  and  a p p o i n t e d  a d m i n i s t e r  b u i l d i n g , f o r  D i r e c t o r  p e r s o n  a f f e c t  to  the  be  i n v a l i d  c l a u s e  o r  by  d e c i s i o n  the  j u r i s d i c t i o n ,  v a l i d i t y  of  the  s u c h  p h r a s e  of of  d e c i s i o n  r e m a i n i n g  t h i s any s h a l l  p o r t i o n s  of  B y l a w .  INTERPRETATION For  the  p u r p o s e s  e x p r e s s i o n s a c c o r d a n c e c o n t e x t  of  t h i s  c o n t a i n e d w i t h  the  o t h e r w i s e  B y l a w  h e r e i n  f o l l o w i n g r e q u i r e s :  153  a l l  s h a l l  w o r d s , be  terms  i n t e r p r e t e d  d e f i n i t i o n s  u n l e s s  and i n the  - 2 -  ACCESSORY  BUILDING  i n c i d e n t a l b u i l d i n g same  and  -  means  s e c o n d a r y  w h i c h  i s  b u i l d i n g  l o c a t e d  t h a t  or  of  whose  the  b e i n g  use  i s  p r i n c i p a l  e r e c t e d  on  the  l o t ;  ACCESSORY  USE  -  means  to  a  p r i n c i p a l  i n c i d e n t a l  -  k e e p i n g ,  h a r v e s t i n g  o r  p r o d u c t s ,  means  a  AGRICULTURE  and  the  the  w h i c h  use  same  p r o d u c i n g ,  a g r i c u l t u r a l  p r o c e s s i n g  r e a r e d ,  or  l o t ;  r e a r i n g ,  p r i m a r y  the  a n c i l l a r y  the  g r o w i n g , of  p r o d u c t s  i s  on  of  p r i m a r y  p r o d u c e d ,  or  h a r v e s t e d  p a r c e l ;  BUFFER  -  means  w h e t h e r  any  n a t u r a l  d i f f e r e n t  a c t i v i t y  and  as  a  a  -  i n t e n d e d  f o r  s t r u c t u r e  a r t i f i c i a l , l a n d  use  p o r t i o n  l a k e  BUILDING  s p a c e ,  or  s e p a r a t e s u c h  use  i n c l u d e s  a g r i c u l t u r a l on  a  to  or  of  o r  w h i c h  o b j e c t ,  i s  u s e d  a c t i v i t i e s  the  o r  n a t u r a l  to  a  l a n d  use  e n v i r o n m e n t  s t r e a m ;  means  any  r o o f e d  s u p p o r t i n g  s t r u c t u r e  or  u s e d  s h e l t e r i n g  or  any  use  o r  o c c u p a n c y ; COMMUNITY t h a t and  WATER  s e r v i c e s o p e r a t e d  SYSTEM  two by  or  a  -  means  more  a  s y s t e m  p a r c e l s  r e g i o n a l  and  d i s t r i c t ,  d i s t r i c t  under  the  Water  A c t  o r  w h i c h  r e g u l a t e d  under  the  Water  i s  U t i l i t i e s  A c t ,  DESIGNATED any  FLOOD  g i v e n  h a v i n g  a  o r  y e a r ,  -  s u c h  a  of  an  i s  A c t , A c t ;  w h i c h  may  as  e q u a l  to  i n t e r v a l  u n r e g u l a t e d  o r  Water  C o m m i s s i o n  f l o o d ,  owned  improvement  A c t ,  m a g n i t u d e  r e c u r r e n c e  a n a l y s i s  w a t e r w o r k s  M u n i c i p a 1  U t i l i t i e s  means  of  y e a r  200  f r e q u e n c y  the  of  w h i c h  o c c u r  b a s e d  a  on  h i s t o r i c  i n f l o o d  a  f l o o d  r e c o r d s ; DETACHED  ACCESSORY  b u i l d i n g  t h a t  to  i t  w h i c h  DWELLING rooms  -  i s  i s  BUILDING  d e t a c h e d  means  a  f a c i l i t i e s  c o m p l i e s  w i t h  the  f o r  two  or  more o r  d w e l l i n g ; not  a c c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g  a  s e t  of  and  o n l y  f a m i l y ,  means l a n e ,  one  C o l u m b i a  h a b i t a b l e  k i t c h e n  and  and  w h i c h  B u i l d i n g  any l o t l i n e w h i c h i s not  Code;  common t o a a f r o n t l o t  means:  a d o p t i o n  b)  an  p r i n c i p a l  q u a r t e r s  B r i t i s h  EXTERIOR LOT L I N E highway o t h e r than l i n e ;  a)  the  s e l f - c o n t a i n e d  l i v i n g  s l e e p i n g  -  means  a c c e s s o r y ;  c o n t a i n i n g  FAMILY  -  from  p e r s o n s f o s t e r  r e l a t e d  by  p a r e n t h o o d  b l o o d ,  m a r r i a g e ,  s h a r i n g  one  o r  more  t h a n  f i v e  u n r e l a t e d  p e r s o n s  s h a r i n g  one  d w e l l i n g ; FLOODPLAIN  -  f l o o d p r o o f e d by  a  or  an  n o t ,  w a t e r c o u r s e ,  FLOOR the  means  AREA  o u t e r  a r e a s  -  g i v i n g  c o r r i d o r s ,  of  l a n d ,  i s  s u s c e p t i b l e  l a k e ,  means  l i m i t s  a r e a w h i c h  the  of  a  a c c e s s  t o t a l  s t a i r c a s e s ,  s t a i r w e l l s , e n c l o s e d  p o o l s ,  u n c o v e r e d  b a l c o n i e s  the  154  and  s p a c e ,  to  f l o o d i n g  w a t e r ; measured  i n c l u d e s s u c h  f o y e r s ,  e n c l o s e d  s u n d e c k s ;  of  a r e a  and  b u i l d i n g ,  p o r c h e s  p a r k i n g  and  body  f l o o r  l a n d i n g s ,  m e z z a n i n e s , e x c l u d e s  o t h e r  b u i l d i n g ,  to  h a l l w a y s ,  or  w h e t h e r  t o  a l l  as  e l e v a t o r s ,  b a l c o n i e s  and  v e r a n d a s ,  and  u n e n c l o s e d  swimming  GRADE  -  (as  h e i g h t )  a p p l y i n g  means  the  a d j o i n i n g  e a c h  l o c a l i z e d  mounds  o r  to  tlie  a v e r a g e  e x t e r i o r  p e d e s t r i a n  or  w a l l  o£  of  of  the  -  means  need  b u i l d i n c j ground  b u i l d i n g .  s u c h  not  a v e r a g e  of  f i n i s h e d  a  d e p r e s s i o n s  e n t r a n c e s  d e t e r m i n a t i o n  d e t e r m i n a t i o n  l e v e l  as  be  Any  f o r  v e h i c l e  c o n s i d e r e d  l e v e l  of  i n  the  f i n i s h e d  g r o u n d ; GUEST  COTTAGE  e x c e e d i n g  45  p r i n c i p a l  s i n g l e  the  same  m  l o t  t e m p o r a r y , -  h i g h e s t  means  to  mean  the  l e v e l  g a b l e , c a s e p o i n t  on  not  as  o r  -  o t h e r  means  an  an  a n i m a l  -  of  LOT  -  any  R e g i s t r a t i o n  a  p a r c e l  of  l a n d  O f f i c e  -  means of  one  any  the  of  p u r p o s e s ; l a n d ,  e n t e r p r i s e  or  i n  the Land  a n o t h e r  i n c l u d e  and  by  t r a v e l  exempt  b e i n g  to  from  the  to  A s s o c i a t i o n ,  o r d i n a r i l y  i s  e q u i p p e d  d e s i g n e d ,  be  towed  t r a i l e r s ,  m a n u f a c t u r e d  S t a n d a r d s  m a n u f a c t u r e d  moved  o r  from  c a r r i e d ,  campers  p r o v i s i o n s  or of  one but  does  o t h e r the  M o b i l e  A c t ;  NATURAL any  where  BOUNDARY l a k e ,  the  long  c o n t i n u e d of  body  r e s p e c t  e s t i m a t e  the of  marsh  to  a  i n the  n a t u r a l  the  edge  so  of  the  c h a r a c t e r n a t u r e  t o of  boundary of  w a t e r m a r k of  w a t e r  and  y e a r s  l a k e ,  r e s p e c t  h i g h body  the  common  o r d i n a r y  of  w a t e r  o t h e r  a c t i o n  a r e  bed  v i s i b l e  or  u s u a l as  to  the  and  s t r e a m  d i s t i n c t  from  the  s o i l o l d  upon or  t h a t  as  of  w e l l  i t s e l f .  i n c l u d e s o r  so  mark  r i v e r ,  v e g e t a t i o n  dormant  w a t e r a t  the s i d e  In  b e s t c h a n n e l s  a r e a s ;  OFF-STREET  PARKING  v e h i c l e s  O N - S I T E  and a l l  t h e r e o f  a d d i t i o n ,  motor  the of  banks  i n  the  s t r e a m  measurement  s o i l  i n  means  p r e s e n c e  of  o t h e r  -  r i v e r ,  time  the  and  s t a b l e s ,  Kamloops  s t r u c t u r e ,  C a n a d i a n  or  or  the  p r o f e s s i o n  r e c o r d  the  c o n s t r u c t e d  as  o r  b u i l d i n g ,  use  of  of  w h i c h  the  i n  h i g h e s t  l i v e s t o c k  w h e t h e r  the  or  the  o r  n o t ,  of  a  the  d w e l l i n g  Home  r o o f , to  c o m m e r c i a l  or  v e h i c l e s  a  c o m m e r c i a l  w h e e l s  not  the  of  D i s t r i c t ;  HOME  to  f l a t t o  mushrooms;  T i t l e s  s t a n d a r d s  p l a c e  g r a d e  a  or  c o m m e r c i a l  p o u l t r y ,  of  g r o w i n g  Land  i n  f o r  by  the  c o n t a i n i n g  the of  f o r :  c o n f i n e m e n t  means  use  means  s t r u c t u r e s  b)  w i t h  a  on  the  r i d g e  o c c u p a t i o n  b r e e d i n g  a n i m a l s ;  the  f o r  r o o f ,  the  to  home  g u e s t s ;  from  r o o f ,  r e s t a u r a n t s ,  f u r - b e a r i n g  MOBILE  of  s l o p i n g a  a u x i l i a r y  i n s t i t u t i o n  Kamloops  m o b i l e  s u r f a c e  and  w i t h o u t  or  the  a  mansard  or  AGRICULTURE  a)  a  e a v e s  b u i l d i n g s an  of  not  a c c e s s o r y  e x c l u s i v e l y  r o o f  the  INTENSIVE or  or  d i s t a n c e  the  l i n e  i n c l u d e  k e n n e l s ,  used  d w e l l i n g  i s  s t r u c t u r e ;  OCCUPATION  does  of  g a m b r e l  the  c a r r i e d  i s  v e r t i c a l  s t r u c t u r e  w h i c h  a c c o m m o d a t i o n  p o i n t  b e t w e e n  a  of  HOME  the  f a m i l y  a r e a  d w e l l i n g  w h i c h  d e c k  h i p ,  of  s i n g l e  f a m i l y  and  to  r o o f ,  a  f l o o r  n o n - p r o f i t  HEIGHT the  i n  2  SEWAGE  p a r c e l  -  o t h e r  means than  DISPOSAL  b e i n g  -  s e r v i c e d ;  155  s p a c e on  a  means  f o r  p u b l i c  the  p a r k i n g  of  r i g h t - o f - w a y ;  d i s p o s a l  of  sewage  on  -  -4  O N - S I T E w e l l  WATER  s y s t e m or  o t h e r  -  not  PRINCIPAL a  PUBLIC  -  -  means  o r  PUBLIC  -  UTILITY  means  of  or  f l o o r  d o e s  b u i l d i n g s of  h a l l ,  i n  w h i c h  but  d o e s  m o b i l e  a r e a  home  i s  used  an  or  f a c i l i t i e s  a g e n c y  of  g o v e r n m e n t  p u r p o s e s ,  e d u c a t i o n ,  s a f e t y ,  w o r k s ;  s e w e r , by  not  h a l l ,  s t r u c t u r e s  u s e ;  b u i l d i n g s o r  community  b u i l d i n g s ,  b r o a d c a s t  t e l e p h o n e ,  and  a  t r a n s m i s s i o n ,  w a t e r  or  g o v e r n m e n t  i n c l u d e  i n t e n d e d  f o r  e q u i p m e n t ,  o r  s i m i l a r  o r  o i l  or  the  r e p a i r  a  a  u t i l i t y  gas  p u b l i c  s t o r a g e and  s t o r a g e  and  y a r d ;  ROWIIOUSE not  -  means  more  d w e l l i n g s  a  SERVICE  STATION  v e h i c l e  v e n d i n g  -  s a l e  not  or  o r  r e a r  f u e l s ,  the  i n c l u d e  means  the  two  between  h a v i n g  u s e d  p r i n c i p a l l y  l u b r i c a t i n g  r e t a i l  s a l e s  s e r v i c i n g  o t h e r  v e h i c l e  t h a n f a m i l y  w a l l  d w e l l i n g  p r e m i s e s  a c c e s s o r i e s ,  motor  more  e n t r a n c e s ;  motor  and  of  s i n g l e  a d j a c e n t  e a c h  means  of  m a c h i n e s  d o e s  and  and  s e r i e s  i n d i v i d u a l  common  f r o n t  r e t a i l  s a l e s ,  l a t e r a l s i x  d w e l l i n g s  i n d i v i d u a l  motor  a  than  w i t h  a d j a c e n t  but  a r e a  b u i l d i n g  p u b l i c  p u b l i c  company,  the  s u b d i v i d e d ,  r e c r e a t i o n  e s t a b l i s h e d  and  o t h e r  f i r e  l a n d ,  s e r v i c e s  w o r k s  a n o t h e r  i s  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,  c o m m u n i c a t i o n s  m a i n t e n a n c e  a  w a t e r ;  s i m i l a r  f o r  and  w e l f a r e ,  t a n k s ,  a  a  and  g o v e r n m e n t  p a r k  e l e c t r i c a l ,  means  park  a  p u b l i c  h e a l t h ,  -  means  by  a  from  easement  or  i t  p r o p o r t i o n  i n t e n d e d  USE  from  from  u s e ;  p u b l i c  p r o v i d e d  b l o c k  w h i c h  o r  l i c e n c e ,  p a r c e l  g r o u n d  l o t ,  major  FACILITY  s p a c e s  a  s u p p l y  s e r v e d ,  h i g h w a y ;  the  s c h o o l ,  f o r  a  w a t e r  under  to  o r  i n t o  p r i n c i p a l  PUBLIC or  any  o r  a  b e i n g  w a t e r  t e n u r e  BUILDING  w h i c h  means  p a r c e l  s u r f a c e  h e l d  i n c l u d e  f o r  of  i t  means  i s  -  the  p r o v i d e s  form be  PARCEL l a n d  on  w h i c h  s o u r c e ,  i n  SUPPLY  l o c a t e d  r e t a i l  of  by  way  motor  s a l e s ,  s t r u c t u r a l  or  f o r  o i l s  and of  v e h i c l e s ,  w h o l e s a l e  body  r e p a i r s  o r  p a i n t i n g ; SETBACK  -  a  of  c l a s s  s p e c i f i e d SIGN or  -  l o t  means  n o t ,  t o ,  f i g u r e s ,  a  s u r f a c e  o r  a t t r a c t s  any  or  r e q u i r e d  s p e c i f i e d  i n  d i s t a n c e  t h i s  B y l a w  between and  a  l i n e ;  w h i c h  message  minimum  s t r u c t u r e  p e r s o n  o t h e r  s p a c e ,  the by  means  s y m b o l s ,  w h e t h e r  a t t e n t i o n of  c o n t i n u o u s  o f ,  or  c o n v e y s  l e t t e r s ,  d e v i c e s  a  numbers,  o r  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ; SILVICULTURE as a b r a n c h of SINGLE not  FAMILY  DWELLING  p h y s i c a l l y  SITE  -  means  s u f f i c i e n t  means the f o r e s t r y ;  any  t o  p a r c e l  s a t i s f y  STRUCTURE  -  f i x e d  s u p p o r t e d  and  t o ,  means  i n c l u d e s ,  f e n c e s  and  -  a t t a c h e d  a  but  s i g n s ;  1.56  and  means  d w e l l i n g  to of  any  a  c o n s t r u c t i o n not  sunk  l i m i t e d  of i n t o t o ,  of  t r e e s  w h i c h  i s  d w e l l i n g ;  h a v i n g  p r o v i s i o n s  or  t e n d i n g  o t h e r  l a n d  the  by, i s  g r o w i n g  an  of any  a r e a  t h i s k i n d ,  land  or  B y l a w ; w h e t h e r w a t e r ,  b u i l d i n g s ,  - '3TOWNIIOUSG s t o r i e s u n i t s  s i d e  e x i t s  or  -  w h i c h  t r a v e l ,  -  w i t h  more  the  of  the  to  y e a r  u p s t r e a m  of  by  s i d e  a or the  to  any or  any  n a t u r a l  of  an  t h r e e  d w e l l i n g  r o o f  w i t h  d w e l l i n g , or  or  w i t h  p a r t y  w a l l s ;  p o r t a b l e  t e m p o r a r y  b a n k s  l a n d ,  of  d r a i n i n g  157  a  v a c a t i o n  s u r r o u n d i n g  p o i n t  w a l l s  as  d e f i n e d  c u r r e n t  one  e a c h  than  more  v e h i c u l a r  d e s i g n e d  w e l l  more or  under  common  means i s  not  t h r e e  e n t r a n c e s  means  d e p r e s s i o n d i r e c t i o n  i n t o  r e c r e a t i o n  WATERCOURSE b e l o w  b u i l d i n g  s h a r i n g  TRAILER  s t r u c t u r e  a  d i v i d e d  d w e l l i n g  TRAVEL f o r  means  l o c a t e d  p r i v a t e e a c h  -  h i g h  d w e l l i n g  u s e s ; a r t i f i c i a l and  a  s e r v i n g  bed to  w a t e r  at  l e a s t  s i x  a r e a  of  2  o r  km^  c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  0.6  m  g i v e months more  or  -6-  1•0  1.1  PART  I  -  OBJECTIVES  POLICIES  PREAMBLE The t h i s  o b j e c t i v e s B y l a w  r e l e v a n t i s s u e s  and  have  p o l i c i e s  been  the  i n  o r d e r  i n  an  R e g i o n a l  i n  a g e n c i e s ,  c i t i z e n s  i d e n t i f i e d  of  d e v e l o p e d  g o v e r n m e n t  c o n c e r n e d  1.2  AND  a r e a to  Board  c o n s u l t a t i o n r e s i d e n t s  d e a l  a n a l y s i s  w i t h  of  f o r  w i t h and  d e v e l o p m e n t  the  P l a n  A r e a .  OBJECTIVES 1)  To  promote  w i t h  the  a  r u r a l  n a t u r a l  l i f e s t y l e  t h a t  c a p a b i l i t i e s  i s  of  c o m p a t i b l e  the  l o c a l  e n v i r o n m e n t . 2)  To  p r e s e r v e  p o t e n t i a l 3)  To  and  of  promote  enhance  the  P l a n  o r d e r l y  a g r i c u l t u r a l  d e v e l o p m e n t  r e c r e a t i o n a l  p o t e n t i a l  a r e a  the  t h r o u g h  the A r e a .  of  w i t h i n  c r e a t i o n  the  the  of  A p e x - A l p i n e  f l e x i b l e  d e v e l o p m e n t  p o l i c i e s . 4)  To  promote  5)  To  e n s u r e  o r d e r  promote  7)  To  p u b l i c  e n c o u r a g e  the  v i s u a l  and  g e n e r a l  d i a l o g u e  p r o v i d i n g  s a f e t y  the  the  w i t h  P l a n  A r e a .  r e s i d e n t s  s e r v i c e s  and  i n  as  h e a l t h .  p r e s e r v a t i o n  l a n d s c a p e ,  f i s h  the  and  and  e n v i r o n m e n t a l  e n c o u r a g e  and  1.3.1  i n  w i t h i n  r e d .  To  To  g r o w t h  c o n t i n u e d  a s s i s t  6)  8)  1.3  a  to  r e q u i  e c o n o m i c  enhancement  w i l d l i f e  of  h a b i t a t ,  q u a l i t y .  p r o t e c t i o n  of  h e r i t a g e  f e a t u r e s  s i t e s .  POLICIES R e s o u r c e 1)  The  Management R e s o u r c e  p r i v a t e 2)  S i n c e  and  much  Okanagan  Area  d e s i g n a t i o n  Crown of  may  i n c l u d e  both  l a n d .  the  P l a n  P r o v i n c i a l  A r e a  F o r e s t ,  i s  w i t h i n  the  the  R e g i o n a l  D i s t r i c t  s h a l l : a)  r e c o g n i z e  t h a t  Lands  j u r i s d i c t i o n  o v e r  P r o v i n c i a l  f o r e s t  and  has  use  r e s p e c t i )  of  the  of  F o r e s t s  the  and  management  l a n d s  w i t h  t o :  t i m b e r  p r o d u c t i o n ,  r e l a t e d i i )  M i n i s t r y  f o r a g e  u t i l i z a t i o n  and  p u r p o s e s ; p r o d u c t i o n  l i v e s t o c k  and  and  g r a z i n g  by  w i l d l i f e ;  i i i )  f o r e s t  o r i e n t e d  i v )  w a t e r ,  f i s h e r i e s  r e c r e a t i o n ; and  and  w i l d l i f e  r e s o u r c e s  p u r p o s e s ; b)  c o n t i n u e  to  promote  a g e n c i e s  to  e n s u r e  development P l a n  A r e a .  158  d i a l o g u e an  p r o p o s a l s  w i t h  a w a r e n e s s t h a t  may  of  a p p r o p r i a t e f u t u r e  impact  the  - 7 -  3)  Where  p o s s i b l e ,  r e q u e s t  the  the  c o n s i d e r a t i o n a)  4)  i n  the on  In  l a n d  use  use  of  or  The  R e g i o n a l  of  the  r a n g e l a n d 1.3.2  P r o v i n c i a l The  R e g i o n a l  1 . 3 . 3  the  R e g i o n a l  as  a  of  a  5  b u f f e r  s t o c k b a r r i e r s o f f  p r i v a t e  D i s t r i c t  r e c o g n i z e s  and  F o r e s t s  and  R e c r e a t i o n s h a l l  m  w i d e  zone  to  on  keep  l a n d  i s  the  the  j u r i s d i c t i o n  L a n d s  f o r  Crown  of  t i m b e r  r e c r e a t i o n  a c t i v i t i e s  a r e  the  the  M o u n t a i n  of  out  r e c r e a t i o n a l  i n  s u c h  and  d e p o s i t s  P r o v i n c i a l  u n l e s s  R e c r e a t i o n  the  m i n e r a l  w i t h i n  a r e a s ,  c a r r i e d  p r e s e r v e  A r e a s  d i s c o u r a g e  d e v e l o p m e n t  P r o v i n c i a l  S k i  the  l a n d o w n e r .  D i s t r i c t and  h a r v e s t i n g  Apex  kept  management.  P a r k s  e x p l o r a t i o n the  o r  of  be  p r e s e r v e  A r e a .  the  M i n i s t r y  f o r e s t r y  C r e e k .  w i l d l i f e of  of  s h a l l  t o  r e t e n t i o n  S h a t f o r d  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 7)  the  f e n c i n g  l i v e s t o c k  g i v e  l o g g i n g ;  A r e a  P l a n  v e g e t a t i o n  of  of  o r d e r  d e s i g n a t i o n s  s h r u b  The  i n  the  s t r i p  s i d e s  to  A r e a .  R e s o u r c e  of  e n c o u r a g e s  of  s h a l l  Lands  i m p a c t  P l a n  s i z e s  D i s t r i c t b o t h 6)  as  p a r c e l  c h a r a c t e r  a l l  and  impact  e r o s i o n a l the  d e s i g n a t e d  l a r g e  D i s t r i c t  F o r e s t s  v i s u a l  m i n i m i z i n g  r u r a l 5)  the  a c t i v i t i e s Lands  of  t o :  r e d u c i n g  b)  R e g i o n a l  M i n i s t r y  and  t h e s e a  manner  a e s t h e t i c A r e a  and  p a r k s  and  as  to  q u a l i t i e s  the  Apex  of  A l p i n e  R e s o r t .  A g r i c u l t u r e A g r i c u l t u r e  i s  of  A r e a .  the  P l a n  c a p a b i l i t y e n j o y s f o r  a  s u c h , 1)  2)  an  s t a b i l i z i n g the  A l l  i n  c o u l d  d e s i g n a t e d  as  l a n d  The as  As  d e v e l o p e d .  be  u s e d  s h a l l  f o r be  b e i n g  a g r i c u l t u r a l as  c u l t i v a t e d  p r o d u c t i o n  or  used  s h a l l  for  be  A g r i c u l t u r e . D i s t r i c t  and  s h a l l  d i s c o u r a g e  f r a g m e n t a t i o n  of  the  l a n d s  d e s i g n a t e d  A g r i c u l t u r e .  Where  land  i t  the  i s  r e c o g n i z e R e s e r v e A c t ,  i s  i n  p o l i c y t h a t  l a n d s  p r o v i s i o n s the  much  p r o v i d e s  economy.  been  p u r p o s e s  i n l a n d  A g r i c u l t u r e .  p r e s e n t l y  R e g i o n a l  and  l o c a l  have  low  a g r i c u l t u r e  p u b l i c  p o t e n t i a l l y  a g r i c u l t u r a l  A l l  o p t i o n s ,  the  p o l i c i e s  w h i c h  a c t i v i t y  r e l a t i v e l y  the  p r o d u c t i v e  s u b d i v i s i o n  5)  from  e f f e c t  f o l l o w i n g  l a n d  e c o n o m i c  the  d e v e l o p m e n t  s u p p o r t  d e s i g n a t e d  4)  W h i l e  l i m i t s  s t r o n g  i n t e n s i v e  3)  i m p o r t a n t  the of  a l l  u s e s  s h a l l  of  the  r e g u l a t i o n s  A g r i c u l t u r a l the be  R e g i o n a l and i n  R e s e r v e ,  s u b d i v i s i o n  a c c o r d a n c e  A g r i c u 1 t u r a 1 t h e r e t o ,  Land  D i s t r i c t  and  Land G e n e r a l  to of  w i t h  the  C o m m i s s i o n O r d e r s  of  C o m m i s s i o n .  The  R e g i o n a l  the  g r o w t h  D i s t r i c t  and  s h a l l  d e v e l o p m e n t  o p e r a t i o n s .  159  c o n t i n u e of  t o  s u p p o r t  a g r i c u l t u r a l  -0-  1.3.4  P u b l i c 1)  S e r v i c e  The  R e g i o n a l  p u b l i c  D i s t r i c t  s e r v i c e  s u b j e c t  to  of  m a j o r i t y  r e s i d e n t s  w i l l  needs  t h r o u g h  a t t e m p t  P l a n  s u p p o r t  of  p e t i t i o n  t o  A r e a P l a n  or  meet  the  r e s i d e n t s , A r e a  the  r e f e r e n d u m  p r o c e d u r e . 2)  P u b l i c  s e r v i c e  p e r m i t t e d the  l o c a t i o n  l a n d 1.3.5  u s e s  R e s i d e n t i a l The  i s  r e s i d e n t i a l i n  d i s t i n c t  F a r l e i g h  a)  The  b)  of  needs  the  The  RR1,  i n  of  a r e a  and  Apex  A l p i n e  be  t h a t  a d j a c e n t  H o l d i n g s  of  the  a t  Lll  t h i s  p h y s i c a l  p u b l i c  and  and  RR1 due  R u r a l  r e f l e c t  i s  not  t o : the  of  t h a t  the  R e s i d e n t i a l  t o  a r e a s  of  p o r t i o n s  w i t h  f o r  A r e a  i n t e n d e d  t i m e  c o n s e n s u s  i n c o m p a t i b l e  be  R e s o r t .  C r e e k  l i m i t a t i o n s  n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l  w i l l  p r o v i d e  s e m i - u r b a n  (Lll)  E x p a n s i o n e n c o u r a g e d  d e s i g n a t i o n s )  A r e a to  S k i  a r e  d e v e l o p m e n t .  MU  F a r l e i g h  the  e x i s t i n g  - t h e  P l a n  the  d e s i g n a t i o n s  and  o r d e r  L a k e / S l i a t f o r d  L a r g e  - t h e  w i t h  RC1  the  s e c t i o n s  C r e e k of  w i l l  p r o v i d e d  c o n f l i c t  Lll,  p o l i c i e s  two  (RR1)  i n  u t i l i t i e s  A r e a ,  u s e r s .  r u r a l  r e q u i r e m e n t s  and  P l a n  not  and  L a k e / S h a t f o r d  1 )  the  ( i n c l u d e s  d e l i n e a t e d the  f a c i l i t i e s  w i t h i n  r e m a i n i n g  the  P l a n  e x p a n s i o n  r u r a l  A r e a ;  w o u l d  c h a r a c t e r  of  and be  the  a r e a . 2)  The  Apex  a)  The  A l p i n e R e s o r t  (MU)  The i n  C o t t a g e  the  M i x e d  Apex Use  M a s t e r  s e a s o n a l  1.3.7  the  M i x e d  u t i l i z e d  to  has  Apex  been  d e v e l o p e d  A l p i n e  to  h e l p  Use o n l y  R e s o r t .  R e s o r t  p r o v i d e h i g h  d e n s i t y  a p p r o p r i a t e  r e s o r t  c o m m e r c i a l  promote  e c o n o m i c  community.  R e s o r t  f o r  R u r a l  T r a n s p o r t a t M a j o r  p o r t i o n  (RE)  t h r o u g h  Road, of  e x i s t i n g a  Land  t o u r i s t  r e s o r t  i n c l u d e  Apex  d e s i g n a t i o n .  the  G r e e n  N i c k l e  r o a d s  P l a n  A r e a  M o u n t a i n  P l a t e  t h r o u g h w i t h  d e v e l o p m e n t to  the of  Road,  Road  and  as  shown  A r e a  a r e  a on  B.  c o n t i n u o u s  r o a d s  r e c o g n i z e s d e v e l o p m e n t  i o n  S c h e d u l e M a j o r  the  R e s o r t  r o a d s  M o u n t a i n  The  and  the  D i s t r i c t  3)  S k i  o r d e r  and  R e g i o n a l  2)  i n  s t a b i l i t y  C o n t r a c t  1)  the  e n t e r p r i s e s ,  Use  the  be  a c c o m m o d a t i n g  h o u s i n g  The i n  w i t h  i n  i n  and  to  A l p i n e  P l a n  f l e x i b i l i t y  R u r a l  (RC1) a r e  d e s i g n a t i o n  c o m p l i a n c e  A r e a  1.3.6  R e s o r t  d e s i g n a t i o n s  w i t h i n b)  S k i  a c c e s s  160  the  major and l a n d  P l a n  r o a d s  use i s  of  o u t s i d e l o c a l  and  e n c o u r a g e d .  to  the  be A r e a .  c o l l e c t o r  - 9 -  4)  O f f - s e t be  ''(•'  i n t e r s e c t i o n s  a v o i d e d .  and  w i t h  m a j o r  C r o s s - i n t e r s e c t i o n s  s h o u l d  be  p r o p e r l y  s p a c e d  r o a d s  a r e  a r e  t o  p r e f e r r e d ,  a l o n g  the  major  r o a d s . 5)  A l l  r o a d s  a r e  s t a n d a r d s  to  of  be  the  c o n s t r u c t e d  M i n i s t r y  of  to  the  d e s i g n  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  and  II i g h w a y s .  6)  C o n t i n u o u s  i n  use  and  of  f l o w 7)  8)  I t  l a n d  d e v e l o p m e n t  o r d e r a  t h r o u g h o u t  i s  r e c o g n i z e d  not  w a r r a n t  p u b l i c  The  f o l l o w i n g  a)  major and  r o a d s  i s  of  t r a f f i c  w i d t h s and  the  p o p u l a t i o n  the  P l a n  and  A r e a  d o e s  s e r v i c e . a r e  25  20  m  m  f o r  a r e  accommodate  r o a d s  of  P l a n  r o a d s  e f f i c i e n t  f o r  l o c a l  major  r o a d s .  r e c o g n i z e d :  the  P l a n  major  A r e a  t r a f f i c  f o r  c u r r e n t  n e e d s ;  c o l l e c t o r the  i n  t r a n s i t  w i t h i n  f u t u r e  t r a f f i c  l i m i t e d  d e f i n i t i o n s  movements  b)  the  c o l l e c t o r s ,  more  n e t w o r k .  d e v e l o p m e n t  r i g h t - o f - w a y  and  major  a  d i s t r i b u t i o n  road  t h a t  of  a l o n g  a c h i e v e  p r o p e r  d e n s i t y  Minimum  t o  the  low  r o a d s 9)  s t r i p  d i s c o u r a g e d  the  A r e a  a r e  i n t e n d e d  v a r i o u s and  t o  l o c a l  d i r e c t  i t  c o l l e c t  r o a d s t o  the  w i t h i n  the  major  r o a d s ; c)  l o c a l  r o a d s  p r o v i d e 1 . 3 . 8  H a z a r d 1)  a r e  a c c e s s  e x c l u s i v e l y to  i n t e n d e d  a d j a c e n t  t o  p r o p e r t i e s .  hands  L a n d s  a d j a c e n t  f l o o d i n g . t h i s to  B y l a w ,  f l o o d  s p a c e  to  Where  w a t e r c o u r s e s p o s s i b l e  l a n d s  s h o u l d  Development  s u b j e c t  be  r e c r e a t i o n  and  used  o r  may  to  a  o n l y  l a n d s  f o r  i s  no  a l t e r n a t i v e  l a n d  i s  r e q u i r e d  to by  l i a b i l i t y  p a r k s ,  a g r i c u l t u r a l  s u c h  s u b j e c t  p e r m i t t e d  g e n e r a l  f o r  of  be  where  open  u s e s .  o t h e r  u s e s  i s  d i s c o u r a g e d . 2)  Where  t h e r e  f l o o d a b l e  c o n s t r u c t i o n homes the  t o  the  be  and used  s t o r a g e  s h a l l  of  of  i n  of  t h o s e  d w e l l i n g  8  l o c a t e d  R e s e r v e ,  II the  and  to  and  on the  by  m o b i l e o r  f l o o d w a t e r s s p e c i f i e d  P a r k s ,  and  K l o o d p r o o f i n g b u i l d i n g s  f l o o d p r o o f i n g  s h a l l  p a r c e l  t o  by  the  be  p e r m i t t e d  s i z e s  A g r i c u l t u r a l  c l o s e d - s i d e d  s h a l l  o t h e r  c l o s e d - s i d e d  t h a n  not  u n i t s  s t r u c t u r e s .  l e s s  M i n i s t r y  g r e a t e r Land  l i v e s t o c k  r e q u i r e d  d w e l l i n g  l i v e s t o c k  161  bo  by  as  s t r u c t u r e s . 4)  and the  B y l a w .  s p e c i f i e d  P a r k s  w i t h i n f o r  t h i s  and  and  b u s i n e s s ,  s t a n d a r d s  a b o v e ,  u n i t s  b u i l d i n g s  d a m a g e a b l e  of  s t a n d a r d s  E n v i r o n m e n t  of  a v a i l a b l e ,  d e v e l o p m e n t ,  h a b i t a t i o n ,  E n v i r o n m e n t  P a r t  farm ha  f o r  goods  N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g than  s i t i n g  f l o o d p r o o f e d  M i n i s t r y  s e t f o r t h 3)  be  l a n d  f o r  f o r and  farm  f o r than  - 1 0 -  5)  Development p o t e n t i a l to  s o i l  on  w i l l  be  been  c o m p l e t e d  H e r i t a g e 1)  H e r i t a g e  g r o u p s  will,  of  p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l , o r  h e r i t a g e and  and  Branch  and  be  a s s i s t e d  p r o t e c t i n g s c e n i c ,  a r c h a e l o g i c a l  w i l l  be  r e s o u r c e  of  the  M i n i s t r y  and  o t h e r  where  p o s s i b l e  f e a t u r e s  e n c o u r a g e d c o n c e r n s  to  i n  and  s i t e s  w i t h i n  the  c o n s i d e r  p r o j e c t  p l a n n i n g  d e s i g n .  The  l o c a t i o n s  i d e n t i f i e d R e s o u r c e  on  of  h e r i t a g e  S c h e d u l e  B  t h a t c o u l d a f f e c t a or s i t e i n a manner o n s e r v a t i o n A c t , the i f y the H e r i t a g e uch development p r i o r b u i l d i n g p e r m i t .  o b j e c t s of  and  t h i s  s i t e s  are  B y l a w .  E x t r a c t i o n  i s  r e c o g n i z e d  Mines  and  t h a t  P e t r o l e u m  a d m i n i s t e r i n g  of  have  the  s i g n i f i c a n c e  4)  The  s t u d i e s of  a r c h i t e c t u r a l ,  W i t h r e s p e c t to development d e s i g n a t e d h e r i t a g e o b j e c t s p e c i f i e d i n the H e r i t a g e C R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t s h a l l n o t C o n s e r v a t i o n Branch about s to i s s u i n g a development or  2)  due  s u b s i d e n c e ,  C u l t u r e  3)  the  a  A r e a .  D e v e l o p e r s  It  or  d e t a i l e d  C o n s e r v a t i o n  i d e n t i f y i n g  P l a n  1)  to  h a z a r d o u s  s a t i s f a c t i o n  R e c r e a t i o n  i n  h i s t o r i c  1.3.10  s u b j e c t  a u t h o r i t y .  T o u r i s m ,  i n t e r e s t  2)  u n t i l  the  be  deemed  t o p o g r a p h y  d i s c o u r a g e d to  may  or  R e s o u r c e s  The of  w h i c h  h a z a r d  c o n d i t i o n s ,  a p p r o p r i a t e 1.3.9  l a n d s  n a t u r a l  the  the  M i n i s t r y  R e s o u r c e s  energy  and  i s  of  Energy,  r e s p o n s i b l e  m i n e r a l  r e s o u r c e s  f o r of  p r o v i n c e . R e g i o n a l e x h a u s t e d  e x t r a c t i o n v i s u a l  D i s t r i c t g r a v e l  s i t e s  l a n d s c a p e .  162  i n  e n c o u r a g e s  p i t s o r d e r  and to  the  o t h e r  r e s t o r a t i o n r e s o u r c e  p r e s e r v e  the  n a t u r a l  - 1 1 -  2.0  PART  II  -  2.1  GENERAL  LAND  as  2 . 1 . 2 1  N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g no  nor  s h a l l  i)  any  w i t h i n  i i )  7.5  w i t h i n  i i i )  or  the  goods  o r  any  the  n a t u r a l s l o p e  d)  a  or  of  b o u n d a r y  a  of  any  s t o r a g e  i s  s t a t e d  of  the  be  the  i s  by  and  l a n d f i l l . s h a l l o r  used f i x e d  f l o o d w a t e r . the  r e q u i r e d no  s h a l l  be  (i)  ( i i )  &  of  No  be  o t h e r  by  a b o v e ,  f a c e  or  c o m b i n a t i o n  ( i i i )  c l a u s e s  a d e q u a t e l y  a  o r  l a n d f i l l  c o n s t r u c t e d  or  s l o p e  the  by b u s i n e s s  a c h i e v e  c l a u s e  m  l a k e ,  c o m p a c t e d  damage  to  a  pad  1.5  a c h i e v e d  f u r n a c e s  t o  i n  of  e l e v a t i o n  of  t h a n  w a t e r c o u r s e .  be  e l e v a t i o n  the  a s p h a l t  d w e l l i n g ,  t o  i n  g r o u n d  c l o s e r  the  p r o t e c t e d  f r o m  the  l a n d f i l l a g a i n s t  f l o o d w a t e r s . ( i i i ) ,  r e n o v a t i o n  t h e r e t o , the  may  l a n d f i l l  be  from  o t h e r  l o c a t e d ,  and  o r  used of  o r  the  l o w e r  b o u n d a r y  u s e d  d i s t a n c e s  u n i t  a d e q u a t e l y  i n  b o u n d a r y ,  o r  s y s t e m  a r e a  f l o o d w a t e r s ,  c o n c r e t e  of  by  f l o o r  or  any  s u s c e p t i b l e  w o u l d  (b)  of  t h a t o r  an  i n c r e a s e f l o o r  a d o p t i o n  of  S i m i l k a m e e n i i )  b o u n d a r y  b u s i n e s s ,  r e q u i r e d  s t r u c t u r e  of  home  any  a  i n s t a l l a t i o n  C l a u s e s (a) a p p l y t o : i )  m o d u l a r  of  n a t u r a l  s t r u c t u r a l  s h a l l  e r o s i o n  be  e x t e n d e d ,  wooden  l o c a t e d ,  u n i t  the  a  home  b u i l d i n g or  of  by  of i s  o r  l a n d f i l l  p o r t i o n  t h i s  s l a b  e l e v a t i o n  home  e l e v a t i o n than  t o p i t  pond  a r e a ,  b e l o w  Where  u n i t ,  n a t u r a l  c o n c r e t e  e l e v a t i o n  e q u i p m e n t  o r  n a t u r a l  the  m o b i l e  the  r e q u i r e d  s t r u c t u r a l  the  the  of  a  w h i c h  w h i c h  moved  or  of  s h a l l  pond;  u n d e r s i d e  a  swamp,  b o t h  of  d a m a g e a b l e  above  m o b i l e  t h e r e o f  home  or  in  of  of  l e v e l on  c)  B y l a w .  p r o v i s i o n s  p a r t  h a b i t a t i o n ,  c a s e  s t o r a g e  m  15  t o p  f o r  f o r  use  w a t e r c o u r s e ;  w i t h  a r e a  s e c t i o n s  l a n d  l o c a t e d :  swamp  o t h e r  of  B y l a w ,  a l l  t h i s  o t h e r o r  m o b i l e be  l a k e ,  on  PROVISIONS  t h i s to  r e c o n s t r u c t e d ,  s t r u c t u r e  The  i n  a p p l y under  any  b u i l d i n g  c o n s t r u c t e d , or  AND  P r o v i s i o n s  B y l a w ,  b)  s p e c i f i e d  i n c l u s i v e  e s t a b l i s h e d  F l o o d p l a i n a)  REQUIREMENTS  o t h e r w i s e  t o  d e s i g n a t i o n s 2.1.1  REGULATIONS  REGULATIONS,  E x c e p t 2.1.1  USE  and  an  (c)  above  e x i s t i n g  d o e s  not  a d d i t i o n  to  a  i t s  by  l e s s  a r e a  s i z e  e x i s t i n g  R e g i o n a l Amendment  an  o r a d d i t i o n  s t r u c t u r e  a t  D i s t r i c t B y l a w  not  b u i l d i n g  i n v o l v e  t h a t p o r t i o n of a s t r u c t u r e c a r p o r t o r g a r a g e ;  163  s h a l l  than  the of  No. to  d a t e  t h a t 25% of  Okanagan 652;  be  u s e d  as  a  - 1 2 -  i i i )  farm  b u i l d i n g s  c l o s e d - s i d e d d w e l l i n g  u n i t s  8  w i t h i n  ha  and  exempt  from  (a)  ( i i i ) ,  but  e l e v a t e d  1  e l e v a t i o n . s h a l l  be  g r o u n d  e)  a so  of  t h i s  B y l a w the as  2)  M i n i s t r y  a p p r o p r i a t e  c r e e k  c r o s s i n g s on  o r  of  p a r t  the  o r  s i t i n g of  f l o o d i n g i n  a  and  d e v e l o p m e n t  R e g i o n a l  B o a r d .  d e v e l o p m e n t or  n e a r  m i t i g a t e d  i s  by  the  i s  and  d e s i g n  c r e e k  i s  r e c e i v e d  P a r k s  and  u n l e s s i s  and  p r i o r  r e c e i v e d  P a r k s  and  by o t h e r  a g e n c i e s ;  t h e r e o f  s h a l l  S h a t f o r d  C r e e k .  35  m  be of  c o n s t r u c t e d , the  n a t u r a l  R e s e r v e the  A g r i c u l t u r a l  A g r i c u l t u r a l A g r i c u l t u r a l  the  the  a g e n c i e s ;  p e r m i t t e d  and  w i t h i n  i n  of  a p p r o v a l  to  Land  the  Land Land  p r o v i s i o n s  of  Land  R e s e r v e  C o m m i s s i o n C o m m i s s i o n ,  t h i s  i t  A c t  i s and  i n  B y l a w .  O c c u p a t i o n s  S e c t i o n  2.2  d e s i g n a t i o n s home  of  t h i s  i n  o c c u p a t i o n  R e g i o n a l  D i s t r i c t , a  p u b l i c  M i n o r  Home  a)  minor  A  o r  use  of of  and  the  o c c u p a t i o n s  not  under  p a r k i n g of  not  l a n d  a r e  any  p r o b l e m s  s h a l l  n u i s a n c e  c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h i n  c o n s t i t u t e  any  use  p e r m i t t e d . the o r  k i n d .  O c c u p a t i o n home a  o c c u p a t i o n  d w e l l i n g  p u r p o s e s . a r e a  i d e n t i f i e s  home  s h a l l  t r a f f i c  p r o d u c e  B y l a w  w h i c h  g e n e r a t e  1)  f r o m  E n v i r o n m e n t  e x t e n d e d  A g r i c u l t u r a l  A  p a r c e l  b u i l t  s i o n s  not  or  Home  shape  the  be  M i n i s t e r  E n v i r o n m e n t  a r e  of  b u i l d i n g  to  o r  requirernents on  may  t o  L e v e l .  recommended  g o v e r n m e n t  no  of  r e q u i r e d  s i z e  e x i s t s  the  p r i o r  g o v e r n m e n t  a d d i t i o n  by  of  a p p r o p r i a t e  to  the  p r e v e n t e d  l o c a t i o n  M i n i s t r y  l a n d  a  of  c h a n n e l i z a t i o n  of  o t h e r  O r d e r s  2 . 1 . 4  be  u n l e s s  s u b j e c t  s u c h  s p e c i f i e d  P r o v i  to  i s  F l o o d  r e d u c e d  by  i s s u e d  and  Where  s i t e  The  i m p a c t s  p e r m i t t e d  b o u n d a r y 2 . 1 . 3  of  w i t h  be  s t a b i l i z a t i o n  moved  h o u s i n g n a t u r a l  r e g u l a t i o n s :  a p p r o v a l  3)  s h a l l  g r o u n d  the  w h i c h  p r o t e c t i o n  t h e n  not  the  c l a u s e  l i v e s t o c k  s t r u c t u r e  P a r k s .  f o r  a r e  f o l l o w i n g  than R e s e r v e  a r e a  n a t u r a l  above  lit  i s  s p e c i f i e d  e n v i r o n m e n t a l  the  the  b e c a u s e  u s a b l e  Impact  C r e e k  f l o o d a b l e  D e s i g n a t e d  l a n d  p a r c e l  p e r m i t  E n v i r o n m e n t a l  by  1  the  the  and  w o u l d  v a r i a n c e  1)  above  t h a t  no  r e q u i r e m e n t s  the  of  s t r u c t u r e ,  e r o s i o n  S h a t f o r d  of  a  and  e l e v a t i o n ;  E n v i r o n m e n t  The  r e q u i r e m e n t s  i n  C l o s e d - s i d e d  l o c a t e d  p r o v i s i o n s  g r e a t e r  the  e l e v a t e d  p a r c e l  on  s i z e s  Land  t o  i s  u n i t s Farm  A g r i c u l t u r a l  d e v e l o p m e n t  l o c a t e d  2 . 1 . 2  p a r c e l  i f m  d w e l l i n g  h o u s i n g .  the  f l o o d p r o o f  or  a  than  i n d u s t r i a l  Where  f o r  on  a r e be  i v )  o t h e r  l i v e s t o c k  No the  c o n n e c t i o n  more  u n i t than  d w e l l i n g w i t h  164  a  i s 50  u n i t  m i n o r  i n c i d e n t a l  f o r  to  the  r e s i d e n t i a l in2  of  the  may  be  used  home  f l o o r i n  o c c u p a t i o n .  - 1 3 -  b)  A  minor  home  w i t h i n  No  home  minor  goods, a  minor  The  t o  the  i s  c a r r i e d  p r i n c i p a l  o c c u p a t i o n ,  home  minor  by  the  m a t e r i a l s ,  e x t e r n a l c)  o c c u p a t i o n  e n t i r e l y  or  nor  home  be  of w i t h  a l l o w e d  u n i t .  o c c u p a t i o n of  u n i t .  s t o r a g e  c o n n e c t e d  s h a l l  d w e l l i n g  i n h a b i t a n t s  any  p r o d u c t s  o c c u p a t i o n , the  on  d w e l l i n g  i s  the  c a r r i e d  on  p r i n c i p a l  o n l y  d w e l l i n g  u n i t . d)  No  r e t a i l  s a l e s  p r o d u c e d 2)  M a j o r  Home  a)  major  A  use b)  A  on  home the  major  home  more  d)  home  r e t a i l  m a t e r i a l s ,  10  w h i c h  not  does  m  from  the  f r o n t  from  the  s i d e  A c c e s s o r y  on  i n  an  of  the  the  a r e  f o r  a  f l o o r  a r e a  s h a l l  a  l o t and  major a  the  s i t e  d w e l l i n g  employed p r i n c i p a l  back and  l e a s t  p r i n c i p a l the  major by  however o f f  the  d w e l l i n g  l e a s t  l i n e s .  o c c u p i e d  work  and  at  at  l o t  the  u n i t ,  to  a r e a s u c h  s c r e e n e d ,  s e t  on  home  A l l  l i n e  of  c a r r y  s t o r a g e  compact  r e a r  may  goods  f i n i s h e d  «|2.  be  of  e x t e r n a l  i n  200  s a l e  p e r m i t t e d .  or  w i t h  i n h a b i t a n t s on  used  home the  o t h e r  p e o p l e  s i t e  o c c u p i e d  u n i t .  B u i l d i n g s  a c c e s s o r y  u n l e s s  the  a c c e s s o r y  b)  the  i n  o c c u p a t i o n  l a r g e r ,  s h a l l  in  the  t o t a l  e f f e c t i v e l y  30  p r i n c i p a l  or  be  u n i t  a r e a  The  than  e x c e e d  a r e a  o c c u p a t i o n  No  o r  15  by  c a r r i e d  be  p e r m i t t e d  s h a l l  s t o r a g e  the  f l o o r  c o m m o d i t i e s  i s  be  be  a n d / o r  may  home  a s s o c i a t e d  d w e l l i n g  a)  the  p r e m i s e s  ha  o c c u p a t i o n  may  may  u n i t  o t h e r  the  p a r c e l s  O n l y  t o  p u r p o s e s .  m^.  s a l e s  of  s t o r a g e  2 . 1 . 5  of  major  100  on  p r o d u c t s  f)  a  On  the  goods  i n c i d e n t a l  u n i t  o c c u p a t i o n .  f o r  produced e)  50%  d w e l l i n g  e x c e e d  No  of  r e s i d e n t i a l  d w e l l i n g  than  u t i l i z e d not  s a l e  p e r m i t t e d .  b u i l d i n g .  p r i n c i p a l major  i s  f o r  o c c u p a t i o n  p r i n c i p a l  No  the  a r e  o c c u p a t i o n  p r o p e r t y  a c c e s s o r y c)  than  p r e m i s e s  O c c u p a t i o n  of  the  o t h e r  the  w i l l  b u i l d i n g  s h a l l  p r i n c i p a l b u i l d i n g  be  i s  e r e c t e d  a c c e s s o r y  b u i l d i n g  A c c e s s o r y  b u i l d i n g s  be  b u i l d i n g  s i t u a t e d to  w h i c h  i n c i d e n t a l  has  s i m u l t a n e o u s l y on  the  a r e  same  on  a  l o t  the  been  w i t h  e r e c t e d  the  l o t .  p e r m i t t e d  i n  any  land  use  d e s i g n a t i o n . 2 . 1 . 6  D o m e s t i c  Water  D o m e s t i c land  by  o n - s i t e  w a t e r a  o f  i s  to  community  w e l l s ,  d o m e s t i c  S u p p l y be  c i s t e r n s  l i c e n c e  i n  as  of  o r  the  165  to  s y s t e m ,  w i t h  S u b d i v i s i o n  d a t e  of  e v e r y  or  s u r f a c e  a c c o r d a n c e  O k a n a q a n - S i m i 1 k a m e e n  amendments  s u p p l i e d  w a t e r  by  w a t e r  p a r c e l under  R e g i o n a l Bylaw  a d o p t i o n  of  of  i n d i v i d u a l  No; t h i s  D i s t r i c t 300  and  B y l a w .  -14  2 . 1 . 7  Sewage a)  D i s p o s a l  E v e r y  r e s i d e n t i a l  f a m i l y  c o t t a g e s , s e r v i c e  as  w e l l  s y s t e m  O f f i c e r ,  o r  a p p r o v a l  must  B r a n c h , A l l  i n  sewage  c r e a t e d  r e g a r d l e s s of  the  the  r e c o g n i z e d 2 . 1 . 9  l a w f u l  of  c o n f o r m  t o  the  the  c a s e  of  from  the  of  E n v i r o n m e n t  of to  P a r k s .  meet  B . C .  or  e x c e e d  D i s p o s a l  H e a l t h  A c t .  t h e  or  d i m e n s i o n s ,  uses  a d o p t i o n  t h i s  B y l a w ,  i n  the  method  by  to  M e d i c a l  the  of may  be  used  a p p r o p r i a t e  w h i c h  sewage H e a l t h  i s  f o r  d i s p o s e d  O f f i c e r  of  i s  or  Uses of  p r e m i s e s  t h i s  B y l a w ,  e x i s t i n g a l t h o u g h  p r o v i s i o n s  s u b j e c t  to  A g r i c u l t u r a l  A l l  of  a t  the  s u c h  t h i s  p r o v i s i o n s Land  time  u s e s  B y l a w , of  the  C o m m i s s i o n  of  do  may  the  not be  M u n i c i p a l  A c t  A c t  r e g a r d i n g  u s e s .  s u b d i v i s i o n s  s e c t i o n s  of  s h a l l  the  T i t l e  A c t ,  Waste  Management  b)  as  of  L o c a l  If  a  250  the  or  a c c e s s and  d a t e  r o a d m  A c t ,  R e g i o n a l  Minimum  of  a  an  of  road  s h a l l  a d j a c e n t  and  t h i s  p o s s i b l e be  of  amendments  B y l a w . has  an  a  l e n g t h  to  be  p a r k b)  used  made  a c c e s s i b l e  r o a d .  S i z e  f o r  p u b l i c  p u r p o s e s ;  E x e m p t i o n  From  Where  r e a s o n s  f o r  of  two  Minimum of  f e a t u r e s  d e d i c a t i o n  i m p r a c t i c a l  to  meet  10%  and  more  u t i l i t i e s  o r  the  may  166  be  of  p a r c e l s  i n t o  one  S i z e  t o p o g r a p h y ,  p h y s i c a l o r  of  or  P a r c e l  s t r u c t u r e s , r e d u c t i o n  s e r v i c e s  i n the  o r  a c o n s o l i d a t i o n pa r e e l .  s u b d i v i s i o n ,  of  emergency  The minimum p a r c e l s i z e s h a l l be t h a t s p e c i f i e d e a c h l a n d use d e s i g n a t i o n of t h i s B y l a w u n l e s s p a r c e l b e i n g c r e a t e d i s : a)  Land  A c t ,  D i s t r i c t  300  s u b d i v i s i o n  where  A c t ,  M u n i c i p a l  No.  a d o p t i o n  t h r o u g h  P a r c e l  and B y l a w  r e l e v a n t  H e a l t h  A c t ,  s e r v i c i n g  or  w i t h  A c t ,  S e r v i c e s  g r e a t e r ,  i n t e r s e c t  comply  Condominium  O k a n a g a n - S i m i l k a m e e n  2 . 1 . 1 2  any  c a t e g o r y ,  S u b d i v i s i o n a)  2 . 1 . 1 1  and  Sewage  the  sewage  Management  must  the  a  H e a l t h  s e w e r s ,  Waste  s y s t e m s  to  M e d i c a l  s a n i t a r y  t o  n o n - c o n f o r m i n g 2 . 1 . 1 0  the  a r e a  the  c o n t i n u e d , and  by  a u t h o r i t y .  use  a d o p t i o n  a p p r o v e d  p r i o r  N o n - C o n f o r m i n g A  p u b l i c  P a r c e l s  of  s a t i s f a c t o r y  and  c o n n e c t e d  come  s i n g l e  g u e s t  be  p u r s u a n t  p e r m i t t e d  p r o v i d e d  and  c o m m e r c i a l  d i s p o s a l  N o n - C o n f o r m i n g  i n c l u d i n g  homes  s h a l l  r e q u i r e m e n t s  R e g u l a t i o n s  L o t s  as  M i n i s t r y  e x i s t i n g  2 . 1 . 8  m o b i l e  b u i l d i n g s ,  d i s p o s a l  b)  d w e l l i n g ,  d w e l l i n g s ,  p r e v i o u s i n c l u d i n g  e x i s t i n g  r i g h t s - o f - w a y  r e q u i r e d g r a n t e d .  p a r c e l  i t  s i z e ,  i s a  - 1 5 -  2 . 1 . 1 3  M o b i l e  Homes  M o b i l e w i t h  homes  c o n s t r u c t e d  s u b s e c t i o n s  a f t e r  1970  1978,  S t r u c t u r a l  m o b i l e  a r e  homes  a)  A l l  A l l  c)  A l l  A l l  s h a l l  comply  w i t h  (f)  No  be  i  i i  )  for  e f f e c t  home i t s  w i t h  be  be  the  the  a g a i n s t  the  m o b i l e  homes  d e s i g n e d  and  b u i l d i n g  r e g u l a t e d  c o n n e c t e d  a r e a .  to  s y s t e m  or  a a  p r i v a t e  s y s t e m . be  i n s t a l l e d  e l e c t r i c a l  i f  the  s t a n d a r d  i s  l e s s  than  and  o c c u p i e d :  i n s t a l l a t i o n s  r e q u i r e m e n t s A c t ;  i t s  r e s t r a i n e d  of  s h a l l  i n  s h a l l  the  the  be  a n c h o r e d  s u p p o r t  s h a l l  S a f e t y  i f  s h a l l  c o l l e c t i o n  of  the  of  the  v e n t i l a t i o n i n  f a i l  to  E l e c t r i c a 1  r e q u i r e m e n t s  r e g u l a t i o n s  r e g u l a t e d )  the  a c c o r d a n c e  b u i l d i n g  i i i  homes  a d d i t i o n s  homes  meet  -  (g).  s e c u r e l y  c o l l e c t i o n  i f  )  2 2 4 0 . 2 . 1  w i n d s .  sewage  m o b i l e  t h e r e t o  and  m o b i l e  i n  m o b i l e  sewage d)  Homes.  i n  community  b u i l t  M o b i l e  p e r m i s s i b l e  r e g u l a t i o n s  comply  f o r  h i g h  i n s t a l l e d  to Those  R e q u i r e m e n t s  f o u n d a t i o n s  or  a r e  (e).  s t a n d a r d  and  of  1978  CSA  a d d i t i o n s  moving  to  t h r o u g h  w i t h  2 . 1 . 1 3  e f f e c t s  (a)  comply  i n s t a l l e d  f r o m  b)  to  and  s u b s e c t i o n s  p r i o r  2 . 1 . 1 3  of  i t s  of  e f f e c t  rooms  the  i n  the  a r e a ;  h e a t i n g  i n s t a l l a t i o n s  r e q u i r e m e n t s  r e g u l a t i o n s  i n  of  the  e f f e c t  f a i l  t o  meet  b u i l d i n g  i n  the  r e g u l a t e d  a r e a . e)  The  f o l l o w i n g  a c c o r d a n c e S a f e t y i)  a c t i v i t i e s  w i t h  A l l  be  c o n d u c t e d of  the  m a i n t e n a n c e  equipment  i n f l a m m a b l e  l i q u i d s  the  s t o r a g e  the and  be  i n  Gas  and  as  a l l u s i n g  f u e l ;  d i s p o s a l  o i l s ;  of  a p p l i a n c e s  of  i n f l a m m a b l e  and  i n s t a l l a t i o n , m a i n t e n a n c e , c a r r i a g e , use of c o m p r e s s e d - g a s s y s t e m s .  i n  p l u m b i n g  and  and  a d d i t i o n s  must  and  o i l - b u r n i n g  l i q u i d s i i i )  s h a l l  r e q u i r e m e n t s  A c t : i n s t a l l a t i o n  i i )  f)  the  and  a l t e r a t i o n s  a c c o r d a n c e  r e g u l a t i o n s  witli i n  to  the  m o b i l e  b u i l d i n g  e f f e c t  i n  the  homes and r e g u l a t e d  a r e a . g)  The  p l a n  not  e x c e e d  w h i c h  the  a d d i t i o n t h r o u g h 2 . 1 . 1 4  a r e a  of  the  a d d i t i o n s  p l a n  a d d i t i o n s s h a l l  the  have  m o b i l e  a r e a a r e an  t o  of  a  m o b i l e  home  s h a l l  the  m o b i l e  home  to  a t t a c h e d , e x i t  or  and  a c c e s s  e v e r y o t h e r  than  home.  C a m p s i t e s C a m p s i t e s  w i t h i n  r e g u l a t i o n s  of  S i m i l k a m e e n  B y l a w  P a r k  the  P l a n  R e g i o n a l No.  B y l a w .  167  A r e a  a r e  D i s t r i c t  713,  of  C a m p s i t e  s u b j e c t  to  the  O k a n a g a n and  M o b i l e  Home  - 1 6 -  2 . 1 . 1 5  T r a v e l a)  T r a i l e r s  One  t r a v e l  t r a i l e r  r e s i d e n t i a l t r a v e l  land  t r a i l e r  may  a c c o m m o d a t i o n p e r i o d  may  use  of  between  accompany  on  be  any  used  q u e s t s  J u n e  1  a  l o t f o r  or  p e r m i t t e d  or  s i t e .  the  v i s i t o r s  and  The  s h o r t - t e r m d u r i n g  September  15  the  of  any  y e a r . b)  In  the  R e s o u r c e  R e s i d e n t i a l d e s i g n a t i o n s l i e u  of  a  s u b j e c t i)  s i n g l e  f a m i l y  d w e l l i n g  the  f o l l o w i n g  M e d i c a l  no  must  to  use  p e r m i t t e d  o r  i n  m o b i l e  home,  c o n n e c t e d  s y s t e m  to  a  a p p r o v e d  by  O f f i c e r ;  a  e x c e p t  i s  be  d i s p o s a l  H e a l t h  a d d i t i o n s  p e r m i t t e d  land  c o n d i t i o n s :  t r a i l e r  sewage  R u r a l  H o l d i n g s t r a i l e r  t r a v e l  the  A g r i c u l t u r e ,  barge  t r a v e l  p r i v a t e  i i )  and  one  to  the  A r e a ,  1,  t r a v e l f o r  t r a i l e r  s h e l t e r s  a r e  a g a i n s t  sun  or  r a i n . 2 . 1 . 1 6  S i t i n g 1 )  R e q u i r e m e n t s  R e s i d e n t i a l a)  f o r  B u i l d i n g s  S i z e i )  S i n g l e  i i )  s i n g l e  a  f l o o r  c o t t a g e  of  of  more  s h a l l  than  b u i l d i n g  10  60  not  have  m^.  not  45  have  a  f l o o r  m^.  s h a l l  not  e x c e e d  a  in.  r e s i d e n t i a l l o t  s t i p u l a t e d  A c c e s s o r y  b u i l d i n g s  l i n e s i n  d e s i g n a t i o n  a c c o r d i n g the  i n  s h a l l to  a p p r o p r i a t e  s e c t i o n  2.2  be  the of  s e t b a c k  r e q u i r e m e n t s  l a n d  use  t h i s  B y l a w .  B u i l d i n g s  S i z e The  f l o o r  s h a l l the b)  s h a l l  t h a n  S e t b a c k s  from  a)  l e s s  C o t t a g e  r e s i d e n t i a l  A l l  2)  d w e l l i n g  of  L i m i t a t i o n s  h e i g h t c)  f a m i l y  g u e s t  H e i g h t  D w e l l i n g  a r e a  Guest  a r e a  A  F a m i l y  A  A  b)  B u i l d i n g s  not  a r e a  p r i n c i p a l  H e i g h t  of  e x c e e d  an  a c c e s s o r y  the  g r o u n d  b u i l d i n g s  i n  the  R e s o r t  M i x e d  Use  d e s i g n a t i o n s ,  and  e x c e e d  the  i n  L a r g e  the  of  L i m i t a t i o n s  of  m  a r e a  b u i l d i n g .  A c c e s s o r y 5  b u i l d i n g  f l o o r  h e i g h t  d e s i g n a t i o n s .  168  s h a l l  of  H o l d i n g s  not  C o t t a g e , the and  e x c e e d  a  R u r a l  and  s h a l l  p r i n c i p a l R u r a l  h e i g h t  R e s o r t not  b u i l d i n g  R e s i d e n t i a l  1  - 1 7 -  c)  S e t b a c k s D e t a c h e d  a c c e s s o r y  s e p a r a t e d  a t  b u i l d i n g s  l e a s t  3  in  s h a l l  from  the  be  p r i n c i p a l  b u i l d i n g . 3)  Farm  B u i l d i n g s  a )  H e i g h t Farm  b u i l d i n g s R e s o r t  L a r g e  s h a l l l i m i  and  R u r a l  e x c e e d  (LH)  the  R u r a l  i i )  R e s o r t  m  and  A l l  i i )  any  back  H e i g h t  f o l l o w i n g  t h e i r  s h a l l  of  12  in  u n i t .  k e n n e l s ,  s t a b l e s ,  f a c i l i t i e s ,  f a c i l i t i e s  and  f e e d l o t s , p i g g e r i e s ,  o t h e r  o p e r a t i o n s  i n t e n s i v e  s h a l l  be  s e t  f r o m : f r o n t  2)  s i d e  3)  e x t e r i o r  and l o t  r e a r  l o t  l i n e s : l o t  l i n e s :  15  the  n a t u r a l  w a t e r c o u r s e :  30  m  m  l i n e :  any  s t r u c t u r e s  s e t  l o c a t i o n o r  o t h e r  f l a g  f o r t h d o e s  a r e  i n  not  30  b o u n d a r y  m  of  30  exempt  t h i s  a  l a k e  or  in  from  B y l a w ,  c o n f l i c t  r e g u l a t i o n s  the  h e i g h t  p r o v i d e d  w i t h  s p e c i f i e d  t h a t  a d j a c e n t  i n  t h i s  l a n d  B y l a w .  p o l e  chimney s p i r e  d)  t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s  e)  m i c r o w a v e  f)  s i l o  g)  w i n d m i l l  L i v e s t o c k any  the  mast  or  a n t e n n a  tower  P r o v i s i o n s  l o t  i n  d e s i g n a t i o n a)  l i v e s t o c k d i s t a n c e  E x c e p t i o n s  l i m i t a t i o n s  On  maximum  minimum  s t o r a g e  1)  4)  .18  in  d w e l l i n g  C o m m e r c i a l p o u l t r y  2.1  d e s i g n a t i o n s h e i g h t  R e s i d e n t i a l :  h o u s i n g  a  a g r i c u l t u r a l  c)  12  b u i l d i n g s l o c a t e d  manure  b)  R u r a l  H o l d i n g s :  from  a)  use  the  (RR1)  S e t b a c k s  be  u s e s  land  f o l l o w i n g  i n 1  maximum  L a r g e  i)  The  b u i l d i n g s  R e s i d e n t i a l  t a t i o n s :  6  2 . 1 . 1 7  B u i l d i n g s  l i v e s t o c k  (RE),  H o l d i n g s  not  i)  b)  L i v e s t o c k  L i m i t a t i o n s  R u r a l and  and  the  R u r a l  i d e n t i f i e d  t o t a l  number  o t h e r  l a r g e  s h a l l  not  R e s i d e n t i a l on  of  a n i m a l s  e x c e e d  t h e r e o f ;  169  one  S c h e d u l e  c a t t l e , o v e r f o r  1  (RR1)  h o r s e s ,  the e a c h  l a n d  use  B:  age 0.4  of ha  sheep s i x o r  or months f r a c t i o n  o-  -i b)  t h e t o t a l  n o t e x c e e d  s h a l l  l o t a r e a  l i v e s t o c k  i n  o f  than  o r  r a b b i t s  o r  t h e number 25  e x c e s s  o t h e r  housed  o r  p l u s  o t h e r  o f  s m a l l  c o l o n i e s  o n e f o r e a c h  o f  46 in  2  0 . 4 h a .  h o u s e h o l d  p e t s  a r e t o b e  c a g e d .  Fencing On  a n y l o t o r  i n  s i t e  n o  f e n c e  s h a l l  be more  then  1.0  m  h e i g h t .  Exempt L o t s  i o n l o c a t e d  i n  d e s i g n a t i o n s  sect i o n 2 .1.20  f o w l ,  b e e s ,  p r o p e r l y  2.1.19  o f  a n i m a l s ,  of A l l  number  f u r - b e a r i n g  R e s o u r c e  a r e exempt  A r e a  o r  from  A g r i c u l t u r e  t h e p r o v i s i o n  l a n d  u s e  o f  2.1.19.  S i g n s A l l  s i g n s  V e h i c l e  s h a l l  b e  i n  c o m p l i a n c e  A c t , t h e Highways  w i t h  t h e  A c t a n d t h e  Motor  f o l l o w i n g  r e g u l a t i o n s . a)  No s i g n s  o r  p e r m i t t e d i)  a d v e r t i s i n g  o t h e r  t h o s e home  than  d e n o t i n g o r  o f  t h o s e  d e n o t i n g  i i i )  t h o s e  a d v e r t i s i n g  iv)  t h o s e  a d v e r t i s i n g  i s v)  grown  a  u t i l i t y ,  c o m m e r c i a l  No s i g n , s h a l l and  e x c e p t i n  F o r a l a n d  d)  or  a  o r  t h e s a l e  o f  r e n t a l  o f  t h e  s i g n  0 . 6 m  upon  w h i c h  a r e a  t o  o n l y  s i g n  3  t h e s i g n  i s  a n y l o t  from  s h a l l  o b s t r u c t  p r o j e c t  a  l e n g t h ,  a b u t s .  c o m m e r c i a l  f r e e - s t a n d i n g  i s  p e r m i t t e d ,  a n d i s  c o n d i t i o n s :  m  s e t back  s i g h t i n g  i n  s i g n  s t r e e t  s i t e  o n e  n o t e x c e e d  than  s i g n s .  d e s i g n a t i o n ,  2 . 4 in i n  t h e l o t o r  2  m  o r  e n t e r p r i s e  s h a l l  u s e  o n e f o r e a c h  t h e f o l l o w i n g  n o t more  a n d  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  l a n d  i n  2  l i m i t e d  t o  f a c i l i t y  i n a  4 . 5 in  2  i n  a r e a  Roof  s i g n s  minimum  d i s t a n c e  o f  l i n e . o v e r  o f  a n d f l a s h i n g  170  a n d  l e n g t h ;  a  a  p u b l i c  p u b l i c  r i g h t - o f - w a y  road  o r  i n t e r s e c t i o n . e)  p r o p e r t y ;  a g r i c u l t u r a l  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  b u s i n e s s  b e  t h e s i g n  No s i g n  t h e s a l e  b u s i n e s s  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  s u b j e c t  i i )  o c c u p a t i o n ;  t h e l o t o n w h i c h  c o m m e r c i a l  c o m m e r c i a l  i s  o r t h e  s i g n s ;  u s e d e s i g n a t i o n  b u s i n e s s  i )  a  e x c e e d  s h a l l  f r o n t a g e c)  t h e owner  p r o p e r t y ;  p u b l i c  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  l o c a t e d  b e  s i t u a t e d ;  p u b l i c  v i )  o f  t h e  home  o n  s h a l l  f o l l o w i n g :  t h e name  a d d r e s s  i i )  p r o d u c e  b)  d i s p l a y s  t h e  s i g n s  a r e  p r o h i b i t e d .  - 1 9 -  2 . 1 . 2 1  O f f - S t r e e t Space  f o r  r e s p e c t  P a r k i n g the  of  o f f - s t r e e t  a  c l a s s  p a r k i n g  of  b u i l d i n g  RE  and  of  motor  v e h i c l e s  p e r m i t t e d  d e s i g n a t e d  as  RC1 ,  ML)  s h a l l  m a i n t a i n e d  i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  the  the  p r o v i s i o n s  of  be  i n  in  a r e a s  p r o v i d e d  and  f o l l o w i n g  r e g u l a t i o n s . a)  Where  p a r k i n g  a r e a  to  be  t h i s  B y l a w  c o m p r i s e d  of  r e q u i r e  more  a  than  5  s p a c e s : i)  e a c h  o f f - s t r e e t  d e v e l o p e d o u t l i n e d i i )  the  p a r k i n g  a c c o r d i n g i n  Diagram  p a r k i n g  a s p h a l t ,  a r e a and  p r o v i s i o n s  to  p a r k i n g  s h a l l  d i r e c t l y  s h a l l  be  s u r f a c e d work  have i s  l a k e s ,  or  w i t h s i m i l a r  a d e q u a t e  s u r f a c e  Runoff  i n t o  s h a l l  d i m e n s i o n s  be  b r i c k  d r a i n  a r e a .  the  I;  c o n c r e t e ,  m a t e r i a l s ,  s p a c e  to  w a t e r  from  not  to  be  s t r e a m s  o r  any  the  d r a i n e d o t h e r  w a t e r c o u r s e ; i i i )  the  minimum  o u t l i n e d to  in  s p a c e  Diagram  1  accommodate  s m a l l  s p a c e s  a r e  c l e a r l y  s i g n e d  f o r  s m a l l  s p a c e s , s p a c e s O f f - s t r e e t  of  use  up  to  25%  be  d e s i g n a t e d  the  than  number f o r  s h a l l  by  g r o u p e d In 5  any p a r k i n g  of  r e q u i r e d  s m a l l  be  20%  t h a t  o n l y .  more  may  s p a c e  r e d u c e d  p r o v i d e d  i d e n t i f i e d ,  c a r  c o n t a i n i n g  p a r k i n g  be  c a r s ,  the  a r e a  d i m e n s i o n s  may  and  p a r k i n g  b)  p a r k i n g  c a r  p r o v i d e d  u s e .  as  f o l l o w s : i)  b u i l d i n g s  c o n t a i n i n g  two  or  l e s s  d w e 1 1 i ng s : two i i )  s p a c e s  D w e l l i n g s  in  c o m m e r c i a l sum  of  i i i )  b u i l d i n g s  the  of  one  s p a c e s use  used  r e q u i r e d  and  f o r  A p a r t m e n t s  s p a c e  f o r  the  f o r  the  number  and  per  and  Townhouses:  b a c h e l o r  d w e l l i n g ,  1.5  per  one  bedroom  d w e l l i n g ,  and  s p a c e s  per  two  s p a c e s two  a l s o  d w e l l i n g  M u l t i - U n i t -  d w e l l i n g  u s e :  c o m m e r c i a l type  per  o r  more  bedroom  d w e l l i n g s iv)  P u b l i c  I n s t i t u t i o n  Bu i I d i -  one  s p a c e  f o r  p u b l i c  of v)  and  R e c r e a t i o n  ngs:  f l o o r  f o r  e v e r y  s e a t i n g  a r e a ,  f o u r  s e a t s  a n d / o r  one  w h i c h e v e r  i s  p r o v i d e d per  15  m  2  a p p l i c a b l e  H o t e l s : -  one  per  t h r e e  two  s e a t s  f a c i l i t i e s  171  s l e e p i n g f o r  u n i t s  d i n i n g  and  p l u s  one  lounge  per  - 2 0 -  v i )  M o t e l s ,  R e s o r t s ,  one v i i )  s p a c e  R e s t a u r a n t s , one  v i i i )  S e r v i c e  p e r  r e n t a l  C a f e s ,  s p a c e  C o m m e r c i a l  C a m p s i t e s :  p e r  u n i t  T a v e r n s ,  t h r e e  R e t a i l ,  B a r s :  s e a t s  O f f i c e ,  P e r s o n a l  B u i l d i n g s :  one  s p a c e  p e r  28  m  o f  2  f l o o r  a r e a  IH AC|<AM_ I H I II i fiitun  I'ackiinj  Uimuii:) tuns  OF  LIMIT  JtwlKIHC  LOI  ANGLE  AlWj 1 e  iijwftis  Or  S t a l l  Curl)  C l c i r  U i cl L l l  wid  l.t-MHjtll  Lll  PAR ALLCL  PAHKIHG  C  PAHKINC  Or i v u w a y  ivoway  Widlll  WMlh  Onu-Way  Two-Way  r  l>  0  i! u g  2.7  m  3.0  m  6.6  in  30  "  2 . 7 m  5 . 4  m  5 . 2J  in  3 . fi  in  6.0  tii  45  "  2 . 7 in  J . U1  m  6.01  in  4.1  ni  0.0  ni  2 . I in  3.11  in  6 . 37  in  5 . 0  in  0.0  m  2.7  in  6  ni  7.2  m  7.2  m  i  u u  2.7  60 90  "  m  2 . 7 m  REGULATIONS  PERTAINING  2.2  LAND  U S E  2.2.1  L i s t  o f  The  TO  EACH  LAND  U S E  DESIGNATIONS  Land  U s e  F a r l e i g h  D e s i g n a t i o n s  L a k e - S h a t f o r d  C r e e k - A p e x  P l a n n i n g  A r e a  a s  i n t o  l a n d  u s e c a t e g o r i e s  t h e  i d e n t i f i e d  TABLE Land  U s e  Name  L a r g e R u r a l R e s o r t M i x e d  A r e a  a n d P u b l i c  A g r i c u  R u r a l  i n  M o u n t a i n  S c h e d u l e  l i s t e d  i n  B  1  D e s i g n a t i o n s  RA U s e  I t u r e M o l d i n g s R e s i d e n t i a l  P AG Lll  1  C o t t a g e  RR1 RC1  R e s o r t  RE  U s e  MU  172  i s  T a b l e  A b b r e v i a t i o n  R e s o u r c e P a r k  DESIGNATION  R u r a l d i v i d e d I.  -21  2 . 2 . 2  L o c a t i o n The  and  E x t e n t  l o c a t i o n s  e s t a b l i s h e d B 2 . 2 . 3  a t t a c h e d  R e s o u r c e 1)  of  by  the  t h i s  (RA)  P e r m i t t e d  Uses  f o l l o w i n g  w i t h i n a)  I.and  Use  Land  Use  Bylaw  are  D e s i g n a t i o n s D e s i g n a t i o n s  i d e n t i f i e d  on  S c h e d u l e  h e r e t o .  A r e a  The  of  -  the  uses  a r e a  t i m b e r  and  no  o t h e r s  d e s i g n a t e d  p r o d u c t i o n ,  as  are  p e r m i t t e d  R e s o u r c e  u t i l i z a t i o n  A r e a  and  (RA):  r e l a t e d  p u r p o s e s b)  2)  3)  a g r i c u l t u r e  c)  g u e s t  r a n c h e s / r i d i n g  d)  d o m e s t i c  e)  l i v e s t o c k  f)  s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s p r o v i d e d that no m o b i l e d i m e n s i o n as o r i g i n a l l y m a n u f a c t u r e d of l e s s tha  g)  major  h)  p u b l i c  i)  p a r k s  j)  m i n e r a l  w a t e r  s t a b l e s  s u p p l y  b u i l d i n g s  home  and  f a c i l i t i e s  k e n n e l s and m o b i l e homes, home has an o u t s i d e d e s i g n e d and n 3 m  o c c u p a t i o n s  f a c i l i t i e s and  s t o r a g e  g o l f  and  and  u t i l i t i e s  c o u r s e s  a g g r e g a t e  e x t r a c t i o n  Crown land w i t h i n the P r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t may managed and used o n l y for those purposes s p e c i f i e d i n the f o r e s t A c t and P r o v i n c i a l R e g u l a t i o n s . R e g u l a t On  a  be 1'orest  ions  p a r c e l  R e s o u r c e l o c a t e d  l o c a t e d  A r e a or  a p p r o v e d ,  (RA),  a l t e r e d , w h i c h  in  an  no  s t r u c t u r e  and  area  no  d e s i g n a t e d s h a l l  s u b d i v i s i o n  c o n t r a v e n e s  the  as  be  b u i l t ,  p l a n  f o l l o w i n g  p r o v i s i o n s : a)  Maximum m o b i l e  b)  number homes:  R e q u i r e d i) i i ) i i i )  of  b u i l d i n g  f r o n t s i d e  and l o t  e x t e r i o r  c)  Minimum  p a r c e l  d)  S e r v i c i n g and w a t e r  s i n g l e  two  per  s e t b a c k  r e a r l i n e s : l o t s i z e :  s t a n d a r d : s u p p l y  173  f a m i l y  d w e l l i n g s  and  p a r c e l  l o t 3  from: l i n e s :  8  in  in  l i n e :  5  20  ha  o n - s i t e  m  sewage  d i s p o s a l  - 2 2 -  2 . 2 . 4  Park 1)  and  P u b l i c  P e r m i t t e d  Use  Uses  The  f o l l o w i n g  the  a r e a  a)  (P)  u s e s  and  d e s i g n a t e d  P r o v i n c i a l  no  as  p a r k s  o t h e r s  P a r k  and  a r e  and  p e r m i t t e d  P u b l i c  P r o v i n c i a l  Use  i n  (P):  r e c r e a t i o n  a r e a s b)  P r o v i n c i a l  c)  o t h e r  d)  p u b l i c  e)  2 )  R e g u l a t  f a c i l i t i e s  b)  p a r c e l  s i z e :  on  s i t e  b u i l d i n g  s i d e  and  l a n d  the  land  u s e s  t h r o u g h s h a l l  than  s e t b a c k  l o t  to  (c)  b u i l d i n g l e s s  0.2  (e).  be ha  from:  l o t  l i n e s :  l i n e s :  3  8  m  m  l i n e :  5  in  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  u s e s  Apex  w i t h i n  r e c r e a t i o n  M i n i s t r y  of  M o u n t a i n  A g r i c u l t u r e  and  a r e a s  i s  E n v i r o n m e n t R e c r e a t i o n  2 . 2 . 4 . 3  r e g u l a t i o n  P r o v i n c i a l  p a r k s  of  and  the  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  and  P a r k s .  A r e a  i s  s u b j e c t  t o  a b o v e .  (AO)  P e r m i t t e d  U s e s  The  f o l l o w i n g  the  a r e a  u s e s  and  d e s i g n a t e d  as  no  o t h e r s  a r e  A g r i c u l t u r e  p e r m i t t e d  i n  (AG):  a g r i c u l t u r e s t o r a g e g r o w n , on  c)  l o t  o n l y  n i s t r a t i o n  s u b s e c t i o n  b)  no of  r e a r  e x t e r i o r  P r o v i n c i a l  a)  and  m a i n t e n a n c e ,  l a n d  1)  any  f r o n t  i i i )  The  2 . 2 . 4 . 1  e r e c t e d R e q u i r e d  Admi  a p p l y  s u b s e c t i o n s  Minimum  i i )  2 . 2 . 5  u t i l i t i e s  r e g u l a t i o n s  i n  i )  The  and  i o n s  f o l l o w i n g  a)  4)  s i t e s  p a r k s  i d e n t i f i e d  of  r e c r e a t i o n  c e m e t e r i e s  The  3 )  f o r e s t  and  land  of  h a r v e s t i n g a l l  s a l e  r e a r e d  or  the of  of  same t r e e s  s i l v i c u l t u r e  a g r i c u l t u r a l  p r o d u c e d  and  on  the  p r o d u c t s same  l o t  or  o w n e r s h i p and  the  c a r r y i n g  f o r e s t  out  of  p r o t e c t i o n  p r a c t i c e s d)  s i n g l e  f a m i l y  p r o v i d e d  t h a t  d i m e n s i o n  as  m i n o r  home  and  no  home  m o b i l e  o r i g i n a l l y  m a n u f a c t u r e d e)  d w e l l i n g s  of  l e s s  174  has  d e s i g n e d  than  o c c u p a t i o n s  m o b i l e  5.5  in  homes,  an and  o u t s i d e  - 2 3 -  f)  major of  home  the  o c c u p a t i o n s ,  A g r i c u l t u r a l  w i t h i n  the  g)  p a r k s  h)  e c o l o g i c a l  i )  g r a v e l  j)  and  p u b l i c and  r e c r e a t i o n  w i l d l i f e  e x t r a c t i o n ,  a p p r o v a l f o r  l a n d s  r e s e r v e s  r e s e r v e s  s u b j e c t  Land  to  a p p r o v a l  C o m m i s s i o n  f o r  of  l a n d s  the  w i t h i n  ALR  p u b l i c  f a c i l i t i e s  a p p r o v a l f o r 2)  to  C o m m i s s i o n  ALU  A g r i c u l t u r a l the  s u b j e c t  Land  of  l a u d s  the  and  u t i l i t i e s ,  A g r i c u l t u r a l  w i t h i n  the  s u b j e c t  Land  to  C o m m i s s i o n  ALR  R e g u l a t i o n s S u b j e c t  to  p r o v i s i o n s  C o m m i s s i o n  A c t ,  d e s i g n a t e d be  b u i l t ,  p l a n  as  on  of  a  the  A g r i c u l t u r e  a l t e r e d  a p p r o v e d ,  A g r i c u l t u r a l  p a r c e l  or  l o c a t e d  (AG)  l o c a t e d ,  w h i c h  no  Land  an  a r e a  s t r u c t u r e  and  c o n t r a v e n e s  i n  no  s h a l l  s u b d i v i s i o n  the  f o l l o w i n g  p r o v i s i o n s : a)  Maximum  number  m o b i l e two On  of  s i n g l e  f a m i l y  d w e l l i n g s  and  homes: per a  p a r c e l  p a r c e l  w i t h i n  the  d w e l l i n g  i s  f o r  o p e r a t i o n s .  farm  p e r m i t t e d  A g r i c u l t u r a l  Land  o b t a i n e d  p r i o r  d w e l l i n g  on  s e c o n d  a  a  i t  s e c o n d i s  C o m m i s s i o n  to  p l a c i n g  i s  n e c e s s a r y  A p p r o v a l  p a r c e l  d w e l l i n g  ALR i f  must  a  the  be  s e c o n d  w i t h i n  not  from  the  ALR  n e c e s s a r y  i f  for  the farm  o p e r a t i o n s . b)  R e q u i r e d i)  f r o n t  i i )  d)  the  L a r g e 1)  r e a r  H o l d i n g s  l o t  l i n e s : l o t  p a r c e l  3  s i z e :  from: l i n e s :  8  m  m  l i n e :  5  20  in  ha,  Land  s t a n d a r d :  w a t e r  P e r m i t t e d  s e t b a c k  A g r i c u l t u r a l  S e r v i c i n g and  2 . 2 . 6  l o t  e x t e r i o r  Minimum by  and  s i d e  i i i ) c)  b u i l d i n g  or  as  a p p r o v e d  C o m m i s s i o n  o n - s i t e  sewage  d i s p o s a l  s u p p l y  (LI!) Uses  The  f o l l o w i n g  the  a r e a  a)  s i n g l e  u s e s  and  d e s i g n a t e d f a m i l y  p r o v i d e d  t h a t  d i m e n s i o n  as  g u e s t  c)  major  d)  a g r i c u l t u r e ,  no  o t h e r s  L a r g e  and  no  home  m o b i l e  of  l e s s  a r e  p e r m i t t e d  H o l d i n g s  d w e l l i n g s o r i g i n a l l y  m a n u f a c t u r e d b)  as  m o b i l e has  d e s i g n e d  than  5.5  i n  (Lll): homes,  an  o u t s i d e  and  m  c o t t a g e s home  o c c u p a t i o n s  175  e x c l u d i n g  p i g g e r i e s  and  f e e d l o t s  - 2 4 -  2)  R e g u l a t On  a  i o n s  p a r c e l  L a r g e  l o c a t e d  H o l d i n g s  a l t e r e d  or  i n  (LH),  l o c a t e d ,  a p p r o v e d ,  w h i c h  an  no  a r e a  d e s i g n a t e d  s t r u c t u r e  and  no  s h a l l  s u b d i v i s i o n  c o n t r a v e n e s  the  as  be  b u i l t ,  p l a n  f o l l o w i n g  p r o v i s i o n s : a)  Maximum  number  m o b i l e one  g u e s t  home b)  and  i )  1)  and  one  m o b i l e  p a r c e l  l i n e s :  3  8  in  in  l i n e :  5  4  and  d w e l l i n g  from:  l o t  s i z e :  d w e l l i n g s  in.  ha  o n - s i t e  sewage  d i s p o s a l  s u p p l y  R e s i d e n t i a l  (RR1)  Uses  The  f o l l o w i n g  the  a r e a  a)  s i n g l e  uses  and  d e s i g n a t e d f a m i l y  p r o v i d e d  t h a t  d i m e n s i o n  as  b)  minor  c)  a g r i c u l t u r e ,  d)  p u b l i c  e)  p a r k s  as  o t h e r s  a r e  and  no  home  m o b i l e l e s s  p e r m i t t e d  R e s i d e n t i a l  d w e l l i n g s  of  home  no  H u r a l  o r i g i n a l l y  m a n u f a c t u r e d  2)  l o t  o r  per  s e t b a c k  s t a n d a r d s :  w a t e r  P e r m i t t e d  p a r c e l ,  l i n e s :  p a r c e l  S e r v i c i n g and  R u r a l  l o t  f a m i l y  c o t t a g e  r e a r  e x t e r i o r  Minimum  d)  per  g u e s t  and  f a m i l y  s i n g l e  b u i l d i n g  s i d e  i i i )  2 . 2 . 7  one  f r o n t  i i )  s i n g l e  one  c o t t a g e  R e q u i r e d  c)  of  homes:  m o b i l e has  5.5  i n  (RR1  I :  homes,  an  d e s i g n e d  than  1  o u t s i d e  and  in  o c c u p a t i o n s s u b j e c t  f a c i l i t i e s  to  and  s u b s e c t i o n  2 . 2 . 7 . 2  (e)  u t i l i t i e s  R e g u l a t i o n s On  a  p a r c e l  R u r a l b u i l t , p l a n  a l t e r e d  Maximum one home  l o c a t e d ,  w h i c h  number homes:  g u e s t and  R e q u i r e d i) i i ) i i i )  c)  an  ( R R I ) ,  a r e a  d e s i g n a t e d  no  s t r u c t u r e  and  no  c o n t r a v e n e s  as s h a l l  be  s u b d i v i s i o n the  f o l l o w i n g  i o n s :  m o b i l e  b)  in  1  or  a p p r o v e d ,  p r o v i s a)  l o c a t e d  R e s i d e n t i a l  c o t t a g e one  g u e s t  b u i l d i n g  f r o n t s i d e  and l o t  e x t e r i o r  Minimum  of one  p a r c e l  176  s i n g l e  f a m i l y  s i n g l e per  f a m i l y  p a r c e l ,  c o t t a g e s e t b a c k  r e a r  l o t  l i n e s : l o t a r e a :  3  l i n e : 0.8  or  per  d w e l l i n g s  and  d w e l l i n g  and  one p a r c e l  from: l i n e s : in 5 ha  m  0  m  m o b i l e  -2'j-  d)  S e r v i c i n g and  e)  s t a n d a r d s :  w a t e r  A g r i c u l t u r a l On  any  as  R u r a l  l o c a t e d  i n  R e s i d e n t i a l  a c t i v i t i e s  are  d i s p o s a l  1  an  a r e a  (RR1),  d e s i g n a t e d  the  f o l l o w i n g  p r o h i b i t e d :  c o m m e r c i a l  i i  )  f e e d l o t s  i i i  )  mink  i v )  sewage  R e s t r i c t i o n s :  p a r c e l  i )  o n - s i t e  s u p p l y  or  k e n n e l s  r a b b i t  farms  p i g g e r i e s  v)  s t a b l e s any  v i )  o t h e r  c o m m e r c i a l  a n i m a l - r e a r i n g  o p e r a t i o n 2 . 2 . 8  R e s o r t 1 )  2)  C o t t a g e  (RC1)  P e r m i t t e d  Uses  The  f o l l o w i n g  the  a r e a  a)  s i n g l e  f a m i l y  b)  p u b l i c  f a c i l i t i e s  c)  p a r k s  R e g u l a t On  a  u s e s  and  d e s i g n a t e d  o t h e r s  R e s o r t  a r e  p e r m i t t e d  C o t t a g e  i n  ( R C 1 ) :  d w e l l i n g s and  u t i l i t i e s  i o n s  p a r c e l  l o c a t e d  i n  R e s o r t  C o t t a g e  ( R C 1 ) ,  b u i l t ,  a l t e r e d  or  p l a n  no  as  a p p r o v e d ,  an no  a r e a  l o c a t e d ,  w h i c h  d e s i g n a t e d  s t r u c t u r e and  no  c o n t r a v e n e s  as  s h a l l  be  s u b d i v i s i o n the  f o l l o w i n g  p r o v i s i o n s : a)  Maximum one  b)  s i d e  i i i )  and l o t  p a r c e l  where  an  where not  d w e l l i n g s :  l o t  f r o m : l i n e s :  3  8  in  m  l i n e :  5  in  s i z e : a p p r o v e d the  p u b l i c  minimum  a p p r o v e d  p r o v i d e d ,  0.4  w a t e r  p a r c e l  p u b l i c  the  w a t e r  minimum  s y s t e m  a r e a  i s  s y s t e m  p a r c e l  a r e a  ha  d)  Minimum  e)  S e r v i c i n g sewage  an  r e a r  l o t  p r o v i d e d , i i )  f a m i l y  s e t b a c k  l i n e s :  e x t e r i o r  Minimum i)  s i n g l e  b u i l d i n g  f r o n t  i i )  of  p a r c e l  R e q u i r e d i)  c)  number  per  s i t e  w i d t h :  s t a n d a r d s :  d i s p o s a l  177  and  20  m  o n - s i t e w a t e r  or  s u p p l y  community  i s 840 i s i s  m  - 2 6 -  2 . 2 . 9  R u r a l The  R e s o r t  (RE)  p r o v i s i o n s  s p e c i f i c a l l y  of  to  Use  C o n t r a c t  1)  P e r m i t t e d  R u r a l  a r e a  R e s o r t  d e s i g n a t i o n  i n c l u d e d  i n  R . P . O . S .  a p p l y hand  L U - 7 - D . Uses  The  f o l l o w i n g  the  a r e a  a)  s i n g l e  f a m i l y  d w e l l i n g s  b)  s e m i - d e t a c h e d  d w e l l i n g s  c)  rowhouses  townhouses  d)  u s e s  and  d e s i g n a t e d  no  as  and  o t h e r s  R u r a l  a r e  p e r m i t t e d  R e s o r t  i n  (RE):  a g r i c u l t u r e  e)  community  f)  r e c r e a t i o n 1)  l o d g e  w i t h  p i t c h  t e n n i s  and  one  p l a y i n g  i v )  one  community  v)  one  s u r f a c e d  one  h)  s t a b l e s  i )  one  community and  s m a l l  f a c i l i t i e s  i n c l u d i n g :  p u t t  g o l f  c o u r s e  c o u r t s  i i i )  g)  g u e s t  f a c i l i t i e s ,  one  i i )  2)  the  the  f i e l d swimming t e r r a c e  g a r d e n  and  c o r r a l s  s k i  p o o l  p l a y  one  f o r  a r e a  g r e e n h o u s e  h o r s e s  l i f t  R e g u l a t i o n s On  a  (RE),  p a r c e l no  l o c a t e d ,  of  and  no  c o n t r a v e n e s a)  Maximum  number  or  more  No  i i ) i i i )  i n  s i d e  the  and l o t  l o t  a v e r a g e  d w e l l i n g s : S e r v i c i n g o n - s i t e  two,  one  t h r e e  d w e l l i n g s : or  u n i t s  l o t  d e n s i t y  as  or  R u r a l  8  in  in 5 of  per  community w a t e r  178  u n i t  f r o m : l i n e s :  3  f o u r a r e  in s i n g l e  f a m i l y  h e c t a r e  s t a n d a r d s :  community  or w h i c h  l o c a t e d  d e s i g n a t e d  l i n e :  u n i t  a p p r o v e d ,  be  20  s e t b a c k  r e a r  R e s o r t  a l t e r e d  f a m i l y may  t h a n  a r e a  R u r a l  p r o v i s i o n s :  l i n e s :  e x t e r i o r  Maximum  i n  b u i l d i n g  f r o n t  p l a n  s i n g l e  i n d i v i d u a l l y ,  i)  d)  of  as  b u i l t ,  d w e l l i n g s  c l u s t e r s .  R e q u i r e d  be  f o l l o w i n g  f a m i l y  p e r m i t t e d  c)  d e s i g n a t e d s h a l l  s u b d i v i s i o n  the  s i n g l e  b)  l a n d  s t r u c t u r e  sewage  s u p p l y  d i s p o s a l  R e s o r t .  -272.2.10  Mixed 1 )  2)  Use  Permitted  Uses  The the  f o l l o w i n g u s e s a n d no o t h e r s a r e p e r m i t t e d i n a r e a d e s i g n a t e d as M i x e d Use (MU).  a)  multi-unit  b)  buildings containing a commercial m u l t i - u n i t apartments  c)  single  d)  hotels  apartments  family  use and  dwellings  e)  restaurants,  cafes  f)  public  g)  offices  h)  commercial  i)  retail  j)  first-aid  k)  personal service establishments including, but n o t l i m i t e d t o , b a r b e r shops, b e a u t y salons, drycleaners, laundromats  1)  recreational vehicle establishments  in)  gas and o t h e r  n)  public  o)  parking  houses,  taverns,  recreation  bars  and n i g h t  clubs  facilities  stores stations  sale,  automobile  facilities  and  service  service  and  rental  stations  utilities  lots  Regulations On a p a r c e l l o c a t e d i n a n a r e a d e s i g n a t e d a s M i x e d U s e ( M U ) , no s t r u c t u r e s h a l l be b u i l t , a l t e r e d o r l o c a t e d , a n d no s u b d i v i s i o n plan approved, which contravenes the following provisions: a)  Maximum number o f b u i l d i n g s : b u i l d i n g may b e l o c a t e d o n a  b)  B u i l d i n g s e p a r a t i o n : b u i l d i n g s on one p a r c e l s h a l l , be s e p a r a t e d by a d i s t a n c e o f a t l e a s t 5 metres  c)  Required i) ii) iii)  d)  building  front side  setbacks:  l o t line: and r e a r  exterior  more t h a n parcel  5 in  l o t lines:  l o tline:  5 ro  Servicing standards: approved w a t e r and sewer systems  179  3 m  community  one  

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.831.1-0302384/manifest

Comment

Related Items