National Library I+ otc,, BiMiotheque nationale du Canada

- -

Canadian Theses m i c e Services des theses canadiennes

Ottawa. Canada K1 A ON4

CANADIAN THESES

NOTICE La qualit4 de cetle microfi~hed6~end grandement de la qualit6 de la thbe soumise au microfilmage. Nous,avons tout fait pour assurer une qualit4 sup4rieure de reproduction.

The quality otthis microfiche is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original thesis iubmitted for microfilming. Every effrxt has teen m+ to ensure the highest quality of reptoduc- tion possible. -

If pages are missing, contact the university which granted the degree.

S'il manque des pages. veuillez communiquer avec I'univer- srt6 qui a confdrd le grade

Some pages may have indistinct print especially i f the original wefe typed with a typewriter rbbon or i f the univer-

sity sent us an inferior photocopy.

La qualit4 d'impression de certain.=-pages peut laisser A .&hirer, surtout si les pages originales ont 616 dactylographih A I'aide d'un ruban use ou si I'universite nous a fail pafvenir une photocopie de qualit6 inferieure.

-

Previously copyrighted materials (journal articles', published Les documents qui font d6# I'objet d'un droit d'auteur (articles rests, etc.) are not ilmed. . de nevue, examens publilies. etc.) ne sont pas microfilm4s.

Reproductton in full or in part of this film is governed by the La reproduction, meml partielle, de ce microfilm est soumise Canadian Copyright Act. R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30. A la Loi canadiennr! sur le droit- d'auteur, SRC 1970, c. C-30.

t~ THESE A ETE MICROFILM~E TELLE QUE

NOUS L'AVONS RECUE

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED

PROTECTION: THE COUNTY OF LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA

Samuel Arnold Wirzba - B.A., University of Lethbridge, 1984

THES IS S U B M ITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

In the

Natural Resources Management program .

THE REOUIREMENTS-FURTHE-DEGREE -OF - ,

Report No. 48

Samuel Arnold Wirzba 1987 --

- --- -

SIMON FRASER UNiVERSlTY P -

April 1987

All rtws reserved. This work may not be reproduced in m o t e or in part, by photocopy

or other means. wlthout permission of the author,

Permission has been granted to the National Library of Canada to microfilm this thesis and to- lend or sell copies of the film.

The author (copyright owner) h,as r e s e r v e d o t h e r publication rights, and neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced - without written permission.

L'autorisation a &t6 accordhe h la ~ibliotheque nationale du Canada de microfilmer cet t e t h h e - e t - de --p&ter-ou-- de vendre des exemplaires du film.

L' auteur (titulaire' du droit d'auteur) se r6scrve les autres droits de publication; ni la th&se ni de longs extraits de celle-ci n e doivent gtre irnprimhs ou autrement reproduits' s a n s s o n autorisation &rite.

I S B N 0 - 3 1 5 - 3 6 3 6 8 - 1

c

APPROVAL

~ a p t e ; sgmuel Arnold &rzba %

, \- 7 . p"

Degree: Mas , % Natural Resources Management

of Rural Subdivision on Agricultural 5

~ i t l e of thesis:' fhe impact

Protection:

Land

The County of Lethbridge, Alberta - ..

/ Examining Corrlmittee:

nior Supervisor

Ted Nichols& External EX-ner Planning ~ a g k e r Oldman RtverzRegional planntng Com~tss ton ~ e t h b r ~ d g e , A b e ~ t a

Dare Approved: h9arch 27. 1987

. . t i

PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE

t I h e r w r a n t to Simon Fraser Uni s r s l t y the riqht t o lend - my thes is , p ro j ec t o r extended essay ( t he ti. of which i s shown below)

t o users o f the Simon f raser Un ive rs i t y L lbrary, and t o make p a r t i a l or /

s i n g l e copies on ly f o r such users o r i n response t o a request from the

l i bea ry p f any o ther u n l v s r s f t y , o r o ther educational I n s t i t u t i o n , on

i t s own behaif o r f o r one of i t s users. i f u r t he r agree t h a t permission -- -- -

for multiple copying of this rork for scho ler ly purposes m y be g r a n w

by m. o r tho Dean of Graduate - - ~ t ~ d i e s . I t i s understood t h a ~ copy lng

o r pub l l ca t l on of t h i s work for financisl galn s h a l l not be allowed 4

r i4hatft my wr f tten pemfss ion. d

THE INPACT OF RVWL S U B D I 1 ~ I S I O S OX AGRICULTURAL LAi'YD

PROTECTIOS : THE COLXTY 02 LETHBRIDGE , ALBERTA -

Author: F I

fsignaturef

.- - - ABSTRACT

, Y - - --- -- -

The irreversible loss of agricultural land to competing land uses is a

continuing concern in Canada. Rural subdivision results in the conversion of - agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Land use change brought about by rural

subdivision often leads to permanent land withdrawals from a steadily diminishing

agricultural land base. Empirical research is needed to assess the extent of

agricultural land losses associated with rural subdivision.

This research project assesses the extent of rural land use change in southern

Alberta. One research objective is to examine evolving agricultural land protection

policies for the Oldman River Regional Plqnning Commission (ORRPC) and the

County of Lethbridge. A review of regional and municipal land use planning

documents reveals that rural land use policies have become more restrictive over

time to ensure the conservation of better agricultural land. Planning documents are

influencial in controlling land use change as they stipulate uses which are permitted

fic criteria to be considered by subdivision on agricultural land and outline speci

approving authorities when reviewing

protection has-Smained a high priori

Lethbridge.

rural subdivision applications. Agricultural land

ty for both ORRPC and the County

A second objective i.s to determine the impact of rural subdivifion on

agficultural land losses in the county of Lethbridge. Subdivision applications for the

- County of Lethbridge were indirectly examined by consulting ORRPC subdivision

registers for the period 1974 to 1985. ~ecorded data were tabulated to determine

the number of subdivision applications approved for different land use categories,

the extent of land fragmentation, the quantity and quality of land approved for

a subdivision using Canada Land Inventory (CLI) agricultural capability-ntings, and the

amounf of land involved in subdivision appeals. Out of 529 applications submitted

for rural subdivision, 37% (196) were approved for land conversions to

noriagricultural uses on CLI class 1 to 7 land; out of 21,000 acres under application

f o i all CLI classes. 2886 acres were appr~ved for nonagricultural uses and 10,331

acres were approved f o r agricultural use;-1828 acres were approved for country

# %

residential use; rural residential land uses had the, highest subdivision refusal rates - - - - - - - - - - -- -

of all land use categories; subdivision had resulted in the creation of numerous

small land parcels for all land use cate'gor-ies; and, out of 2446 acres under . ~ubdivrs ion appeal for nonagricultural land uses, 632 acres were upheld for

subdivision.

The last research objective is to make policy recommendations for improving

the land use planning and subdivision processes to ensure future farm land b I

protection. What is needed is a provincial land use strategy. improvements In land

classification, greater restrictions on country residential land use, an assessment of - -

the role of the Alberta Planning Board, and a public education program.

This research project would not have been p k i b t e without access to

subdivision data which were maae available by fhe Oldfin River Regioqal Planning

Commission (ORRPC). ORRPC staff have also contributed significantly to the

research project., Ray Joll ife clarified the mechanics of the subdivisi,on process and a /'

provided guidance in interpreting information within the subd/vision registers. Tom

Golden critically reviewed the first draft of the subdivision study and conclusions, *

an area in which he has considerable planning experience. The writer is especiplly

indebted to Ted Nicholson for his willingness to become an external examiner, and

for the productive ideas generated in dkrussions with him that eventually led to

the selection of this research topic. Ted Nicholson commented on every aspect of

the first' and subsequent drafts, providing detailed suggestions for improving the

research and

completeness.

Chad Day quick1

critically examining

; w o n d e d to rep

drafts for their co r rec tnw an Y lace the former senior supervisor, Tom

Gunton, who was granted academic-leave status. Chad Day's thoroughness in

reviewing each'draft has resulted in a much improved and more readable final draft.

Comments by Michael M'Gonigle in the latter stages of the research project led to

minor revisions _and improvements. To Deanne Wirzba I am also indebted, both for

her encouragement, and her Willingness to type numerous revisions of the first - draft. d -

Though helped throughout by others, the final form and content of this

research project is solely my responsibility. -- - -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . ................... Approval : ..................................................................... ............................................ I I

... Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1 1

...... ....................... ........................................................................................ Acknowledgements ; : v

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ i x

List o f Figures .....,................................................................. .................................................... x

I . INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 a 0

.............................................................................................. Status of Agricultural Land 1

Rural Subdivision ................................................................ .- ............................................. 3 ~ ..

Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 4

....... I I . THE ALBERTA LAND USE PLANNI.NG PROCESS ............................................ m 5

Regional Planning ......................................................................................................... : ...... 5

Pfarming knstruments .......................................................................................................... 7

Alberta Planning Board ...... ; ............................................................................................... 8 #

Land Subdivis ion. ................... L ........................................................................................... 9

* 1 1 1 . DEVELOPMENT -OE AGRICULTURAL LAND PROTECTION POLICIES WITHIN ........ THE OLDMAN RIVER REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION: 1973 t o 1985 1 1

............................................................................ Proposed Preliminary Regional Plan 1 1

Preliminary Regional Plan ............................................................................................. . . 12

Rural Land Uses ............................................................ .- ..................................... 13

.................................................................................................................. Conclusion 15 3

.......................... Rural Land Use Amendments t o the Preliminary Regional Plan 16

Rurai Land Uses ...................................................................................................... 17

Conclusion ....................... :: ........................................................................................ 18

Draft Regional Plan .......................................................................................................... 20 I

Rural Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 21

Conctusion ................................................................................................................. 22

Proposed Regional Plan ................................................................................................... 23

The Alberta Planning Board ......................................................... .- ................ 26 Regional etan ................................................................................................................. 28

Regional Goals .................................................................................................... 29

Rural Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 29

Conclusion .............................................................................. 3E-- .

'county o f Lethbridge General Municipal plan and Land ............... 33 . z ................................................. Agricultural Uses ................................................ 33

............. Country Residential Uses ....................................................................... ; 35

Other Land Uses .................................................................................................... 36

................................................................................................................. Conclusion 39

Conclusion ........ ; .............................................................................................................. 40

.............. .................. . IV THE IMPACTS' OF SUBDIVISION ON AGRICULTURAL LAND : 41

......................................................................................................................... . Introduction 41

........................................................................................................................... Objectives 44

Method ........................................................................................................................... 46

Rural Subdivision Applications .................................................................................... 50

Number of Applications ........................................................................ .............. 50 ..

... .................................. Status of Subdivision Applications .. ........................... 52

Intended Use of Land Under Application ...................................................... 52

......................................................... ORRPC Decisions- for each Intended Use 55

............................................................................ . Number of Lots to ~ e r - e a t e d 57

....................................... Agricultural Land Capability and ORRPC Decisions 59 ....

% * %. .: ?- ........................................... " Z Acreage and Number of Lots Under Application 63

............. ................................................................. Effects o f Rural Subdivision ......... ; 66 . 7 - ..................................... Lots Approved by Size ................................................... 67

........................................................ Agricultural Capability o f Land Approved 76

.................................................................................. Acreage o f Land Approved 81

............................................................................ Appeal o f Subdivision Applications 81

.................... ........................................................................... Number of Appeals 81

...................................................................... Alberta Planning Board Decisions 85

Intended Use of Land Under Appeal ................................................................. 88

Agricultural Capabittty o f Land Under Appeal ................................................. 88

Acreage Under Appeal ....................................................................................... 93

. v . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................... ........................................ 98

................................................................................................. Subdivision Applications 98

Disposition of Subdivision Applications by Intended Land Use ....................... 10 1 - - - - - P - P -

e

Subdivision ' Impacts .................................................................................................... 102 . , .

Lots Given Finaf ~ p p r o v a f ............ , ................................................................ 103

Acreage and CLL Class of Land given Final- Approval ............................... 105 , ,

Appeals ......................................................................................... ............................. 110

Alberta Planning Board ................................................... : ................................. 113

Institute a Provincial Land Use Strategy ................................................. 119 . - 1mprove.Existing Land Classification Systems ............................... ,., .......... 121 -- - .

#

Restrict Country Residential Use ...................................................... ............. 122

Redefine Roles of- the Alberta Planning Board ............................................ 123

Public Education .............................................................................. ' .................. . 125

L l ST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 126 - /' Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................ 129"

Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................... 13 1

- - Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................................. 132

Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................................ 133

viii

- ~-

A Table

LIST OF TABLES - _

-

-- 1 Policies affecting country residential land use within the ORRPC and ............................ County o f Lethbrid,ge: 1974- 1985 .......................................... 37

. ..................................... - 2 Disposition of rural subdivision applications: 1974-1985 53 - - -

3 Intended use of subdivision applications: 1974-1985 ....... ; .................................... 54 - -

4 Subdivision applications approved, approved conditionally, or refused for . , ....... each intended use: 1974- 1985 ..................................................................... 56

5 Number of lots to be created- per application for each intended use: 3 1974-1985 .................................................................................................................. 58

-

6 Decisions on subdivision. applications by CLI class and intended use: '

..................................................................... 1974- 1985 ............................................ 60

7 Acreage and number - ~ f lots under application by C i l class and intended .......................................................................................... ....... use : 1974- 1985 y...y

, 64

. ' 8 Number of lots under application and approved for . each intended use: 1974- 1985 ................................................................................................................ ,69

... 9 Total number of lots approved by size for each intended use: 1974-1975 74

10 Acreage, number of lots, and number of applications approved by CLI ........ class and intended use: 1974-1985 ........................................................ ! 77

11- ~ c r e a g e and percent of acreage approved for each CLI class in relation .......................................................... to acreage under application: 1974-1 985 80

.............. 12 Acreage approved for subdivision for ' each intended use: 1974-1985 83

Number of appeals for refused. and conditionally approved applications: .................................................................................................................. 1974- 1985 84

Appeals as an approximate proportion of applications refused and + . .* .................................................................. . cond i t im l l y approved: 1974- 1985 86 ,L * '

Compar~son of ORRPC decisions on applications and Alberta Planning Board decisions on appeals: 1974- 1985 .......................................................... 89

Appeals upheld and denied by the Alberta Planning Board for each .................... intended use: 1974- 1985 .................................................................. 90 - -

, Appeals upheld for each intended use by CLI class: 1974- 1985 ....................... 91

Acraage under appeal which was upheld for each Yntended use by CLI class: 1974- 1985 ................................................................................................... 94

Acreage under appeal which was upheld for all intended uses combined: 1974- 1985 .................. : ....... : ......... : ......................................................................... 96

............................. Acreage under appeal approved for subdivision: 1974- 1955 112

Land conversion as a proportion of County of Lethbridge land base: ..................................... ............................................... 1974-1985 .- ................. 116

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

. - .................................. ................. ......................................*......*.*... 1 Oldman River Region.' : 45

2 Applications for rural subdivision in the County of Lethbridge and Oidman River planning region: 1974- 1985 ............................................................ ....... 5 1

........................... 3 Subdivision applications submitted and approved: 1974-1985 .: 68

4 Acreage under application and approved for CLI class 1-2 and 3-4 land. 1974- 1985 ................................................................................... r ........ ...'.............. ....... 82

5 Appeals upheld b y the Alberta planning Board: 1974- 1985 ............................... 87

' 6 Disposition of rural subdivision applications for the County- of L e t ~ b r i d ~ e : ................................................................................................................. 1974-1985 9%

7 Acreage under subdivision application for the County . of . Lethbridje: ................................ ............................................................................... 1974- 1985 ; 106 -

8 .Acreage approved for subdivision for 4 land uses in the County o f ......................................... Lethbridge: 1974- 1985 ; ................................................. 108 ..

daterrorwton wrh sustsmed use Envrronrnenr Canada, t985r I t IS however stilt &

uwtea: is whet exlent absolute fend losses have affected the frvereti grciducrlve

capsttry of the land bes6,for crag producrion as ;rnproved farming tschntquss and - n

tand mbnagarnen: ptactrces haye made i t possible to utilize exisring farm land mare

4 lr

rerneintng tot future land additions in goma provinces. Due. to large clearing and - ,--

' capital investments. reduced so'il ferr i t i t y . . intrasssd pfobkbility of crop faliure, and

#tt.sndoneQ, rta? msbif;r%d for al)rcculrurar' use. Thts srtuaf~on tnd~estes that, under *

ptesenr tffcaare and crop condrrmns. the outer timtts o f the sgrrculturel land base

h w e Etaen asrabftahed.

' McCuelg and Mannmg (Envtronrnen: Canada. 1982) indicate !hat farm lend

losses can be btfse! 35' urea1 increases in '~mpzoved' farm land and, in some

Htgh capabil~ty f a rm land is being alienated at an a lnrmmg rate In some e

. r eg~ons , fsrgety as a result o f urban pressure. In this Instance, land conversion to

urban-related uses in w r a l areas is governed prtmarrly by - - - market - - - forces. Normal l ) --

the agriculturut industry cannot compete wt t h urban-related uses f a r agr ~cu l t u ra l

land. The demand f o r land bv urban-related uses has led to the i r reversib le loss o f 0

large t rac ts o f p r lme far& land. whtch in turn leads t o a 10;s of . open space

values, the des.zruction o f , i rreplsceebic_ e c o i o g ~ c a l Jresources, and ul t tmatelk - : jeopsrdfzes fu ture eood product ton (Krueger, 1977 1. T o o f f s e t product ton losses

assoc ia ted w t t h a shrinkrng s g r ~ c u l t u r a ~ iana base. remaining fa rm land wtli have tc

be more' intenstvely ut i l ized. wh ich ~ n d o u b t e d l ) ~ w i l l hcceierate the long-term

dest ruct ion o f the so i l resource.

There has -been some e f f o r t l o d ispei tne no t ion that agricultural land

prese ivat lon is in the publ ic interest. In terms o f socia l and e c o n o m i j w e l f a r e .

Frankena and Schef f m a n ('i980) and Veeman (1982) tndicate that The rattonales fo r

preserving f a r m land fo: f o o d p r o d u c t ~ o n m,av b e undesirable, or even unacceptable,

when consrdered In l ight af other s o c ~ a l benef t ts whrch cou ld be derrvecf f r o m the F

land resburca. These wr i ters . whose 8rgumen:s are based. large1 y on economic 4

theory. main ta in that the case f o r preserv ing p r ime f a rm land fo r agricultural

reasons becomes progress ive ly weaker when' one considers the use o f c lose

subsrttutes fo r r aw land, the augmentat ton o f r a x land by capi?al investments and

technotogtcal changes, or poss ib le oppor tun i tv costs w h ~ c h might b e invo lved In

preserv ing f a r m land. Due t o numerous compe?tng demands fo r agricultural land, 0

which vary ' f rom reg ion t o regton. and because o f e f f i c tency and eoutty

considerat ions. rt canno? be ' foreordained that preservat ton of p r ime f i r m land IS i n -. -

the p u b l i t in teres? ' ('Jeeman. 1982. 881 In contrast . Krueger (1977) bel leves that 11

rs Clangerous to put t o o much fa t th In s n o r t d u n econDmtc reasoning when . >

consrderrng an e c o l o g ~ c a l resource wh ich must serve man in perpetui ty. W h ~ l e i t has -

been c o m m o n to descr ibe Canada's agrtculturai land base as e f in t te , d w i n d l ~ n g , and

threatened narurai resource. mo re empir icat research is. neeaed at regional and

provtncial fevels t o confrrrn or r e fu te the proposi tcon that the rate o f rural land *

convers ton i s -scceierattng.

Rural Subdivtsion - - -

- - - - - - -- - -- -- - -

- - -

Var~ous forms o f land use plannlng and management, as we l l as conservation

, and p a s m a t r o n s t ra tq res . have been suggested and adopted t o deaf w i th

agr rcultural land deptetmn. Fegislat w e approaches which have been inst ftuted at

provtnc~al and regional levels in Canada are summari ied by* Beaubien and Tabacknik

(Sc~ence-GounuJ sf Canada. 1977). Mannmg (Environment Council o f Alberta. 1983).

and Rounthwalte (1983). In Alberta. province-wlde public hearings were conducted

during 1983 t o assess the status o f the agr'icultural land base. T w o technical

reports prepared for the bearings p r w i d e d d e t a i k d and comprehenstve in format ion - --

' on land use activi t ies which lead to agricultural land withdrawals in the province

(Envtronment Council o f Alberta, 1981a; 1982). .These were Urbanization o f

Agrrtultqral Land.-and Rural 5ubdiv1s ion in the E d m ~ n t o n , Battle River, Red Deer. and

, Calgary Regtonal Ptanning ~ o m m i s s i o n s , 1977-1979. The essential f indings in these a .

reports were confirmed b y other provinciai studies which indicated that substantial

quantities o f agricultural land are being removed f r om production b y rural a, subdtvis~on and urban annexation (Alberta Agriculture, 1982; 1983). The above

reports and studies clearly show that subdivision act iv i ty i n rural Alberta accounts +. C

for sfgntftcant agricultural land losses, especially in areas close t o major populat ion -

centers and d u r ~ n g periods o f Increased economic act iv i ty.

While severs; provincial studies exist o n the impact o f rural subdivision wi th in

Alberta {Miller and McArthur. 1974; Alberta Agriculture, 1982; 1982). few detailed

published studies describe the ef fec ts o f subdivision at local and regional levels.

~ h o r n ~ r o k (Envlronment Council o f Alberta, 1982) has completed a detailed . - .. - guant~tat tve analysis o f >ubdivlsron act<bky"within ruraJ municipalit ies o f the

Edmonton, Battle River, Red Deer, and Calgary regional planning commissions. This

study provided detailed informat ion on land use change associated w i th rural

subdtv~s ion In central Alberta. No similar study presently exists fo r the Oldman 7

7

Rlver Regional Planning Commission (ORRPC) i n southern Alberta. This research was

undertaken t o supply data on the ef fec ts o f rural subdivision in a rural municipal i ty

within the Oldman River planning region.

Obiect ives

. - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --

- -

I This research project has t w o major purposes: t o examine evolv ing agricultural

- - -

land use ~ o l t c i e s for ORRPC. and t o determine the extent o f rural subd~vis ion

act iv i ty which occurred i n the County o f Lethbridge f rom 1974 t o 1985. To provide

some understanding o f the regulatory procedures associated w;th rural subdivisio( C .

chapter t w o of this study w i l l br ief ly examine the Planning Act, 1977, and describe #

the major authorities and instruments involved In the land use p lann~ng process. A -

detailed discussion of the development o f rural land use pol icies in the Oldman

Rtver p h n r n g region is provtded In chapter three: these pol icies stipuTate TZ&d ijses--- - -

w h ~ c h are permit ted on agricultural land wi th in the County o f Lethbridge. Rural

subd tv r~ ion act iv i ty in ;he County o f Lethbridge is addressed In chapter four a r d /

f ive, including a descript ion o f study oblecttves, methodology, and aquired data. a -

discussron o f study f indings. gind the presentatron of conclusions. The last chapter -- provides recommendattons for rmproving agricultural land use planning and

1

management i n Alberta.

CHAPTER II

Land use planning in Alberta is achieved primari ly f fWou~--aCfmEi iSfT~ iGio f -

The Plarming Act, 1977, the most recent o f a long series o f planning statutes dating

back t o 1913. Provisions wi th in this act give authority t o regional and municipal

agencies t o adopt and administer several planning instruments, which together

comprise a sophisticated system for control l ing and regulating the development and

use o f land in both urban and rural settings. .A review of the major themes o f The

Plarfntng Act, 1977, an& discussion o f the m a j o ~ elements a f - the- planning p rocess in-

Alberta, w i l l not be provided here as these have been addressed elsewhere, (Alberta

Municipal Af fa i rs. 1980). Instead, emphasis is placed on those authorities, agencies,

planning mechanisms, and processes which direct ly af fect rural land use. - -

d

Reqional Planning

Planning at the regional level is conducted through regional planning

commissions i n Alberta. Regional planning was inst i tuted toedecentralize planning

functiops and was t o ensure that regional and local authorit ies had considerable - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - -

opportunities i n influencing land use development wi th in their respective

jurisdictional areas. A t present there are 10 regional planning commissions which

provide planning services fo r a major por t ion o f the province. Regional planning

centers around the regional plan which, together wi th the act, provides the basic

framework wi th in which all other planning takes place.

Each regional planning commission was created b y the Lieutenant-Governor in -

Council through an order in council. Organizationally, planning commissions have a

voting membership made up of delegates f r o p elected council3 representing urbat:

and rural municipalit ies wi th in the region. Collect ively, regional planning comissiu:;

members act as a board when deciding po l icy questions, dealing w i t h subdivisions,

giving direct ion t o commission staf f , and adopting a regional plan. Based on *

planding commission recommendations, the minister o f municipal af fa i rs regiOnL - -

decides wh ich munic ipa l i t ies in a reg ion m a y have representat ives on the %

c o m m i s s i o n and h o w many representat ives each m a y ha . In pract ice, 9 o f the 10 4 - -- c o m m i s s i o n s have v i r tua l ly a l l m u n i c I p a l i t i e s ~ ~ s e t 3 e d ~ L ~ e r urban centers will

have 2 or 3 v o t i n g delegates. --

- - @+

9-

The mandate of a reg iona l planning commission, set out in sec t ion 26 o f The

Planning- Act, 1977, i s t o :

prepare a regional plan; r

assist member munic ipa l i t ies i n the p'reparation o f loca l s ta tu tory plans.

and lana use b y l a w s ; -

p r o v i d e advice and .assistance t o member munic ipal i t ies;

encourage pub l ic par t ic ipa t ion in planning mat ters ;

.. c o m m e n t o n p roposed urban annexations; and .

act as a subd iv is ion approv ing a u t h o ~ i l y where such author i ty has no t been - - -

delegated t o a munic ipa l counci l .

Planning c o m m i s s i o n s are g i ven l i m i t e d author i ty i n con t ro l l i ng r e g ~ o n a l land use

and development. Their m a i n ro le i s t o advise, i n fo rm, and make recommendat ions

t o member munic ipal i t ies. Th is arrangement sat is f ies ex is t ing p r o v ~ n c i a l p o l i c y wh ich

enshrines loca l au tonomy and g ives munic ipal i t ies and prov inc ia l government

departments, n o t p lanning commiss ions , p r imary power t o con t ro l land uses. A s The

Planning A c t , 1977, has n o spec i f i c p rov i s ions f o r p ro tec t ing agricultural land,

reg iona l p lanning c o m m i s s i o n s and loca l munic ipal i t ies are g iven the d iscre t ion t o .

adopt rural land use, po l i c ies wh ich ensure conservat ion o f the land resource.

A r o l e o f regional p lanning commiss ions i s ,to p rov ide serv ices t o

munic ipa l i t ies wh ich cannot be e f f e c t i v e l y prov ided ' b y the province. 'lt is general ly

recogn ized that regional p lanning agencies benef i t A lber ta b y p rov id ing e f f ~ c i e n t and =

* economica l p lanning serv ices t o loca l munic ipal i t ies. Add i t i ona l l y , they serve as an

e f f e c t i v e f o r u m f o r addressing land use issues at the intermunic ipal leve l and in

coo rd ina t ing e f f o r t s t o ensure real izat ion of shared rnun~cipal obpcttves, such as

agr icul tura l land conservat ion.

Considerable planning development precedes rat i f icat ion o f a regional plan. A

pre l~minary regional plan is adopted f i rst b y most planning commissions. I t is in - - - - -- - - - - - -- -

effect for the interim period during which a draft regional plan is prepared.

~ o t towing revisions and refinements suggested b y member munieipatiries and the -- -

general public, the draft regional plan is put before the commission for adoption.

Once adopted, the draft regional plan is reviewed b y ,the Alberta Planning Board t o '

ensure its conformity wi th existing provincial guidelines and policy. The board may

return the plan wi th sugges60ns for changes, after which the board sends the plan

to the minister o f municipal af fairs for ratif ication. The process o f completing a

regional pCan involves considerable e f fo r t b y one or more commiss ion committees

and planning staf f , and typical ly takes several years t o complete.

Planninq Instruments

The regional plan i s the 'primary planning document in a hierarchy o f plans

authorized by ' The Plannirlg Act, 1977. Regiona4 plans contain goals and object ives-

for guiding land use and development within each commission's regional jurisdiction.

Specific policies indicate how regional goats and objectives are t o be achieved. -- -

These policies provide both general and specific guidelines for directing the future

growth and deveiopment o f the region. Most regional policies are not designed to'

regulate and control land use in a strict sense. Policies are generally intended t o -. --

7-

advise member municipalities. Local statutory plans and land use bylaws which are

adopted at the municipal level must conform wi th the regional plan.

Local planning instruments ' include general municipal plans, land use bylaws, -

sea structure plans. and area redevelopment plans. Of these, the f i rs t t w o are

f ~ u n d in, most municipalities. General municipal plans contain specif ic policies

which help ensure that orderly and eff ic ient land use occurs at the m u m i p a l level

while land use by'laws, in ef fect zoning bylaws, provide detailed regulations which pp -- - - - -- - - -

restrict and prescribe the size and use o f land and buildings within a municipality.

General municipal plans are mandatory for rural municipalit ies having a population

o f 10,000 or more. but are ~ .- of ten adopted by smaller municipalit ies as well. Land

use bylaws are mandatory for all=municipalities with a population of 1000 or more.

General municipal plans and land use bylaws set out detailed policies and standards - - - - - - - - - --

for the future use o f land w%ch are suited t o the unique needs of each *

municipality. Area structure plans and area redevelopment plans specify, sometimes - --

in considerable detail, patterns o f develop ent suitable for specific areas of a '

municipality.

I

Alberta Planninq Board

The Alberta Planning Board, - - empowered by The Plann~ng Act, 1977, functions

as a quasi-judicial tribunal which hears matters related to planning decis~ons at

regional and local levels. The board exerts considerable influence on the use and

development o f land, particularly as it relates to agricultural land conservat~on. In

its role as a provincial watchdog agency, the board is authorized:

1. to provide guidance on the contents of regional plans; 2. to review regional plans and changes to them (regional plan ,

amendments); to approve them or not; and to make recommendat~ons to the Minister o f Municipal Affairs on whether they should be ratified or not;

3. to serve as a quasi-judicial body, to hear and resolve disputes between agencies on planning matters; and

4. in its role as a quasi-judicial body, to conduct hearings into appeals from decisions made by subdivision approving authorit~es (Alberta Planni'ng Board, 1983% 8),

Additionally, it approves the annual budgets and work programs of regional planning

commissions. The board has prepared three gu~deline documents for use in 0

reviewing regional plans. The Revised Guidelines .for Regional Plan Preparation and

Review (1982), .Rural Industrial Land Use: Some Policy Guidelines for the 1980's

(19811, and Framework for Application of Regional Plan Guidelines (1982) documents

provide provincial policy dealing with the use and subdivlision o f land for various

uses.

Land Subdivision

Havlng briefly

Planning Board, arld

- i described the role of ptanning7ommlsSoTs~~t~K~Albert~~~~

placning instruments, i t remains to outline the means by which

land use change occurs. Subdivision is a key means of changing the use to which '.T* f ' 1

land is put as t,h~s activity frequently splits existing land parce'ls to create smaller b L- -

\ lots for a1ternativ.e uses. In this sense subdivision is often the first step in

developing an area for 'some alternative use. Regional planning commigsions are the

subdivision approving authorities for most rural municipalities in the province. In

areas not covered by a regional planning commission, Alberta Municipal Affairs

administers subdivision approval. Several larger municipalities have been granted the

power to be their own sdbdivision approving authority.

'All subdivision activity must comply with provincial subdivision regulations.

The Subdivision Regulation 132178, empowered under The Planning Act, 1977,

provides detailed restrictions and requirements for the subdivision of land. Variotis

procedures associated with Ihe subdivision application process are set out in the

Subdivision Regulation and m;'nimurn subdivision standards for each type of land

use are provided. A detailed history and description of subdivision regulations in

Alberta was provided by Dant (1979a; 1979b; 1979c; 1979d). -- 0

St&d~vision usually involves dividing a parcel of land into two or more

smaller parcels so that separate certificates of title can be registered with the Land

T~t les Office. Subdivision can also involve an adjustment of existing boundaries,

such as taking part of one parcel and adding it to. an adjoining parce!. Applications

for subdiviston in most rural municipalities are submitted to a regional planning

cornmlsslon, which may refer applications to a subdivision committee for review.

The commission determines whether-to approve, conditionally approve, or refuse a

subdivision apptication subject to the Subdivision Regulation and having regard to

a land use bylaw, t m g i c m & plan, wtd m y statutory pkn for the area in

que.stion. ltocal municipalities tend to recommend for or against approval of . appl~cations in line with their general plan and land use bylaw. Planning

staff provide information and-make recommendations to the subdivision - committee

for each application based on: site inspections, comments from other agencies,

local knowledge, and provisions contained in relevaat planning documents and - - - - - - - - - - - - -

regulations. Some discretion is allowed in the Subdivision Regulation and local land ,' -,

use bylaws t o accommodate unique situations. 0

I f a subdivision application is conditionally approved or refused by the .- subdivision approving authority, the applicant has the right to appeal the decision to

-7 the Alberta Planning Board. Municipalities, or an owner of 16nd adjacent to the

i

subdivided parcel, also have the right t o appeal any decision:* board regularly

holds hearings within each region to examine evidence presented by. affected 2 - -

parties, other agencies, and the subdivision approving authority.- Appellants are -&

invited to present their case a t these generally informal hearings. The board then

decides on whether to uphold or deny the appeal, or to change conditions of

approval based on information provided and on criteria pre % ented in relevant

planning documents. Board decisions are binding and nonappealable, except on & - 1)

matters of law or jurisdiction. Normally, threetboard members attend an appeal

hearing; two can form a quorum. The board is governed by the

Administrative ~rocedures Act. '

A more detailed description of the subdivision and appeal process is provided

by Alberta Municipal ~ f f a i ; s (1980). Mildon (1981). and in "umerous pamphlets

published by regional planning commissions and the Department of ~ u n i c i ~ a l "

Affairs.

CHAPTER Ill * -

DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PROTECTION POLICIES WITHIN THE OLDMAN -- -

RIVER REGIONAL ~ N ~ N G C O M M ~ O N : ~ ~ ? ~ TO 1985

A suryey of regional planning documents over time reveals that the Oldman

River Regional Planning Commission (ORRPC) has played, and still plays, an

important role in shaping agricultural land use policies in its planning region. Along

with other regional planning cornmissions,QRRPC has been influential in creating

general public awareness of important agricultural issues such as the fragmentation

and loss of productive farmland to competing land uses. Policies adopted by the =

commission in two key planning documents, the Preliminary Regional Plan and,

subsequently, the Regional ~lan;are intended primarily to guide, and* some degree

regulate, rural land use development to achieve established regional goals and to

serve as a means for realizing regional economic, social, and environmental

Regional planning policies play an important role in guiding land use activity < -

within large geographic regions of the province. Hence, it is imperative that regional

plans adequately address land use i s su2bh i ch affect the future well being of each - -

region. OSRPC planning documents have-emphasized the value of protecling the -

agricultural land - base, which is o f special importance to the economic health of the

Oldman River region. The commission has adopted rural land use policies designed

to conserve agricultural land for agricultural uses. This chapter reviews the .-, a

evolution of rural land use policies found in ORRPC planning documents.

Pro~osed Preliminarv Reqionai Plan

Work was begun in drafting a preliminary regional plan fo'r the bldman River

regton in 1971. Two years la-a proposed preliminary regional plan was prepared

which outlined problems and opportunities unique to the region and presented

detailed recommendations for the development and betterment o f , the Oldman River

regibn. Various ia-house reports, which provided background information and --

analysis, served as the basis for recommendations contained in the plan. The - - proposed prel iminary regional p lan was then opened t o rev iew and',cgmments by

member municipalit ies. Af ter revis ions b y c ~ m ~ l ' s s i o n torn-mltteesf f i i s p lan was

adopted b y ORRPC as the Prel iminary Regional Pian in July 1974. Fol lowing -

approval b y the Provincial Planning Board and ra t i f i ca t~on b y the minister o f

municipal af fa i rs, the Prel iminary Regional Pian became the f ramework f o r assessing

al l land use pol ic ies and developments t o be undertaken in the pegion. --

The proposed p lan contained both long-term goals and speci f ic objectives

which were retained unaltered in the approved Preliminary Reg~onal Plan. ~ l ' s o

included were guidelines f o r d i rect ing future growth and devetopment w i th in the --

region and a presentation o f problems, opportunities, and recommendat~ons for each

sector or signif icant land area w i th in the Oldman River planning region. ~ t t e d i o n

will n o w be focused on the Preliminary Regional Plan.

Prel iminary Resional Plan

The Prel iminary Regional Plan was a p ~ r o v e d by the Provincial Planning Board

(now the Alberta Planning-Board) in December 1974. At that t ime it was clearly

pointed out that ". . . this plan should not be v iewed as a f inal and inf lexible - - --

document. I t will be mod i f ied and updated as circumstances warrant" (ORRPC, 1974,

foreword). A f t e r presenting the aims and objectives o f the commission, the

Prel iminary Regional Plan addressed regional concerns and their attendant pol icies.

Pol ic ies dealing w i t h agricultural land and rural land use development are highlighted -- here.

The pressing need fo r agricultural land use pol ic ies is made evident when one

considers that agriculture i s the mainstay of the regional economy and the

dominant use of land i n the Otdman ,R~ver region. Thus the Pretiminary Regional

Plan ackwwiedged the key importance o f thrs land resource in the overall wlC <-

being o f the region. A f te r point ing out the exist ing state o f af fa i rs, which was \

largely the absence o f adequate land use controls and ever mounting pressure for

nonagriculturai use of rural land, the Pretiminary Regional Plan adopted the fo l low ing -

-

policy:

, Provisions shall be made fo r the accommodation o f non-agricultural uses in r w a l a r e a ~ c c o r d i n g -to c c i t e r b estabCisheLin t h i s P C a ~ s u c b t R ~ - - - f ragmen ta t i o ro f agricultural land is minimized and land use conft icts are avoided (ORRPC, 1974, 17).

The plan recognized that policies and regulations which reflected orderly, "eff icient,

and sensitive land use management were required t o resolve and avoid rural land

use conflicts. *a ' .

Rura/ . Land Uses

Agriculture was t o be the paramount use o f high capability farm land in rural

areas. While acknowledging the l imitations o f the ~ a n a d a Land Inventory (CLI) soi l

capability mapping system (appendix I), the' Preliminary Regional Plan indicated that v

agriculture should be considered the predominant use ofdCLI class 1 t o 6 land and

that prime agricult&f land (class 1 and 2) should be reserved specif ical ly f o r .

agriculture. Agricultural land subdivision, except fo r intensive agricultural uses, was

to be restricted to land parcels o f no less than 80 acres. Specific criteria t o be

used in judging the merits o f subdivision applications for nonagricultural uses o f

agricultural land numbered

'suitability o f the land for

the proposed and residual

use to. o-ther existing land . -

eleven, o f which the more significant addressed the

the proposed use, availabi l i ty o f alternative sites, size o f

parceis, and the knpact and relationships o f the proposed I

uses. Airports, l ivestock confinement operations, and - expanding urban centers were indicated as possible uses o f CLI class 1 and 2 land,

but only i f less productive alternative sites could not be obtained. Farmstead

separation - the legal separation for residential use o f an area in .use or formerly - -

used for a farm home or farm buildings, or both, f rom an existing agricultural

parcel - would be permitted i f the subdivided parcel was not less than 3 and not

more than 20 acres in size, provided thai the residual parcel contained at least 80 - -

acres.

Detailed policies relating t o l ivestock confinement operations in rural areas

streseed locational consideratipns and means o f reducing environmental impacts.

The potentially adverse effects of large rural landholdings and foreign ownership

were noted brief ly. Policies here stressed the need fo r integrating large holdings

into existing rural faci l ties and ttie need for developing restr ict ions t o limit this

land use activity.

Policies concernec 4-

- - -- - - - - - -- --

wi th rural residences - dwellings l o c s e ~ in p redommpt l y . rural as opposed t o urban areas - stressed the need to mrtrgate ccsnftms crearecr -

- by country res idencec vacation resorts, and commercial and recreational faciltt~cs- -

w i th existing land uses. Emphasis was placed on the need for surveys end

additional studies t o be undertaken in the future t o determrne the most suitable

locations, or establish development criteria. for s r t~ng rural residenttal land uses.

These surveys were t o consider various factors including the soc~at . economtc. and

environmental impacts o f rural development on surrounding areas and exlsttng land - -

uses, and the capabilities o f prospective sites for water conservatron, w r l d t ~ f e

conservation, recreation, and agriculture. Recommendations p r o v ~ d e d by these s tud~es

and surveys were t o become the basis for decrdrng whlch rural resraen!rat uses

would be permitted within each area i n questron.

?O enswe that existing agricultural lands would be protected. interim

regulations fo r country residential subdiv *ision were provided. These regulat Ions

permitted a maximum o f one country residence on an isolated parcel 'of land not '

less than 1 'acre and not more tha cres rn size wrth SIX provrsos, whlch are

condensed below:

1. the parcel was cut-of f b y some iopogrzphic feature. such as a ratiway

or i r r igat ion canal, making it logical ly impractical to farm wtth any

adjoining farm land as a unit;

2. the proposed location was suixable fdr country resrdential use rn the - - -

opinion o f the subdivision approving authority; a

3. the proposed parcel was separated by the mrn:mum drstance requrrement

f rom other specif ied land uses;

4. the proposed subdivision would not tmparr the recreatton, scentc, or o t h e r

such public value o f nearby areas;

5. the nearest point of the parcel wouid be sltuated at leas1 two mrles I

f r om the corporate l imi ts o f any town, c i ty, or vitlage; and

6. the Department o f Agriculture and local i r r iga t~on distr ict had, provrded

'

gcn+gral!y i & 4 a ~ ptectsron anc! pfaced mtnims! resrricttons a n nonsgctcultural uses of

prrcjucrive farm Isnd. Some polrc 8s left constderabfe room for rnterpretatron.

O l h ~ 5 tnfircated :Re need for addrttonai studies to clsr* rssues and provtde future

drrectror? I F pCiircy !ormufatton. fcrsmercws ooltries woufd permit ORRPC to exercise

fame 01scf61;8n Wtt4~. rev~ewtng subdiviston aqpi~carions. Hawever, the Preliminar+

?famework whrzh woufd con:rol ruta! iand uses.

30i tzre5 w~tnrn rhe Preiirn~nary Reg~onaI P r m were deliberately vague and i

~ t ~ r ~ i ~ s r v e ' for severat Feasons. F i r s : , praf~mrnary regtonal plans were to usher' In a

ne*. md t~ some entent ;rntertatrt. era of regional piannrng in Aiberta. Refinements

:n -sgtonri ulrnnrng enc the sub~equen! development of regtonal plans wouid

procaec? with tne tvoiutton a& allon of t h t s planning approach. Second,

:mpicrnenir)fto~ ob e regtonal poircy framework, part~cularly one that

*oc;15e6 or; rura; :and uses, was sttii a po l t t~caf ly s@nsltrve s t ep In land management -

-Hir?rr A!be:ta f rnaliy, given !hat i o c a b s u r o n o m ~ and municipal land use plann~ng

w c a sntfanchad rrbdttron5, mabe the sdop:ton of regions! pol~cies: of any kind. 1

r r mus: bs emphastz.ed tna! the Preliminary Regional P Ian represented only the

i t s purpose w p s to

o provide interim

poltcra$ !o help ensure order tr iand use rnsn&gcrnent and f scilitate implementatlon'

Q! + -=we cf ) fngmhmftve ~ e p m a t ptm. Thus the Fetiminmy Regional Ptan may b e

nu: en)$ gurde ruStlrvrs~on rdmlnislratron and the draftrig- of municipal iand use

3 0 i 1 C r ~ S . bur. wo+! dtrett end gurde ORRPC in completing priorired studies and

f rBnrn5 i w * ~ c \ - p~oporalr tha? would permit more comprehen'sivk and detailed policy

formulat ions and object ives t o be reel lzed i n the future.

Rural Land Use ~ r n e n d m e & s t 0 t h e Pre l imtna~v Reqionat -Plan

i?.

4 A major amendment t o the Prel iminary Regional Plan and ra t i f ied

in 1980 after considerable discussion between commit tees.

provincia l agencies. and interested individuals. The Rural Land Use Amendments t o

the Prel iminary Regional Plan were considered t o be a slgnrf,kant part o f an L i r

evolv ing planning process- which emphasized the Importance o f the land resource.

The amendments reiterated the need t o conserve and protect agr~cu l tura l land f r om

i n d ~ s c r ~ m i n a t e development t o ensure the future we l l b e ~ n g o f the Oldman R ~ v e r

regton. Polictes contained w i th in 'the amendments were designed t o be f l e x ~ b l e

enough t o meet the needs o f a ve ryqd lve rse reg&n. and were t o continue t o evolve

w i t h changing condit ions. whi te ensuring suf f ic ient detai l t o permit their ongotng

use when considering subdiv is ion appl icat ions. In drscussing the phi losophy o f the

amendments i t was po in ted out that the implementat ion o f detai led pol lcres, t o

comp ly w ~ t h the broad f ramework suppl ied b y the amendments, was the '9

respons ib i l i ty o f individual munic ipal i t ies when drafung municipal plans and land use

bylaws.

The Rural Land Use Amendments replaced that s e c t ~ o n o f the Prel iminary 4

Regional Plan d e a l i n a w i t h rural land uses. The, preamble and observations

sect ion *o f the amendments rea f f i rmed three basic ORRPC pol icy. ro les : (1) t o

pro tect and conserve .pr ime agr~cu l tura l land fo r agricultural use. ( 2 ) t o locate

nonagricultural uses o n Lnonagricultural land or lands o f lo& agr~cul tural productive

capabi l i ty , and (3) t o min imlze conf l ic t between nonagr~culrural uses and agricultural

land or uses. More s igni f icant ly, the de f in i t i on o f land considered t o be pr ime

agricultural land was changed t o ~nc lude CLI class 3 and 4 land f r o m the previous

ciass 1 and 2 designation. Pr ime ranch land (CLI class %to 6) was t o be protec ied

f o r ranching purposes.

Rural Land Uses -

When considering the potential uses o f rural land, the amendments stressed , - - - - - - - - - - - -- --

that agricultural use, country residential use, farmstead separation, or any use would

be permitted i f in compliance w i th the cmdi t ions specif igd in various sections o f

-merits. Land uses would also have t o be i n conformi ty w i th The Planning

Act, pol icy requirements o f the Preliminary ~ e g i o n a l Plan, or any statutory plan o f

individual municipalities. I f a subdivision application met w i th the requirements o f

the amendments, then the subdivision approving authority was, in i ts deliberation

over a decision, to consider fourteen additional criteria. These were t o ensure that

all relevant factors were considered when deciding o n the suitabil i ty o f a given

land use i n a rural area. The extent t o which potential impacts o f subdivision were

analyzed by ORRPC would have been a key f a c t o r h e success o f these criteria.

The minimum lot size for land t o be subdivided fo r agricultural use w a s o t o be

80 acres; the residual lo t resulting f rom any subdivision was also t o be at least 80

acres i n area. Exceptions t o this provis ion were possible when land was t o be used

for intensive agricultural purposes or when topographic' features made the 80 acre

minimum impossible or,impractical.

Subdivision applications for intensive agricultural uses were t o be approved

only i f the land in question comprised ah existing farmstead which was 10 acres or 9

less in area, was a cut-off parcel, or was previously used fo r intensive agricultural

purposes such as a feedlot. Detailed policies w i th regard t o locational

considerations and the mit igat ion o f environmental impacts o f l ivestock

were also provided.

-- Subdivision for country residential use would be permitted on agri

feedlots

cultural land

only i f the land in question was a cut-off parcel, an existing farmstead subdivision,

or in an area designate*d as a special area for. country residential use. The

proposed subdivision was t o be a specif ied distance f rom any incompatible land

uses and was t o be located so as not t o impair or inhibit public use o f natural

resources in the immediate vicinity. Cut-off parcels and special areas fo r country

residential use were described in some detail. A cut-off parcel referred t o a land

unit that was physical ly separa d f r o m the major area o f a land parcel b y a + physical feature acting as an impediment t o logical farming operations. The

--

permi t ted size o f a cut-of f parcel. for s u b K t v i s l o n p u r p o S e s ~ ~ e d ~ w i t h e C L I

' capabil i ty o f land. Special areas for country residential use referred t o areas

designated b y ORRPC, pursuant t o a wr i t ten requis<- f r o m a municipal council. for

country residential use where the land in question had: a l o w agricultural productive -

capability, cou ld not be logical ly farmed, was badly fragmented, or i f CLI class 5 / -

0

and 6 land, required 40 or more acres t o graze one animal unit per year.

Subdivision f o r country residential use i n such designated areas was t o be etther

preceded by the adoption o f an area structure plan. or con fo rm t o an exist ing one,

The amendments a lso addressed subdivision for farmstead separation.

Separation wou ld be permi t ted i f the approving authority was assured that the

farmstead t o be subdivided was l im i ted in size t o the exte-nt o f the o r tg~na l -- --

farmstead, that the residual lo t contained at least 75 acres, that buildings,

structures, and ut i l i t ies were present at the t lme o f application, and that the costs

o f returning the land t o agricultural use wou ld -be uneconomical. In an appendix,

ORRPC recommended that the province contr ibute toward the preparation o f a more

complete ;oil c lassi f icat ion system (ORRPC. 1980). I t was also recommended that

necessary procedures be adopted t o return cut -o f f parcels to agricultural use where -- - -

such parcels were created b y the action o f provincial agencles or author1 t lesy c

The Rural Land Use Amendments provided speci f ic pol ic ies for conserving the

agricultural land base f o r agricultural use whi le permi t t ing nonagricultural uses O t i

agricultural land in accordance w i th ' stated criteria. These c r~ te r i a and p b l ~ c l e s were

t o be used by ORRPC when deciding whether subdivision appl icat.ions for

agricultural or nonagricultural uses were t o be permit ted on land having a CLI class

rat ing o-f 1 through 6 . In some instances pol ic ies rhangeB significantly f r o m those

found i n the Prel iminary Regional Plan; i n other instances they - -~ were expanded or

reduced t o address speci f ic areas o f concern. Although a number o f pol ic ies were

rest r ic t ive i n nature, t o provide a . much - clearer d i rect ion in rural land use

management, a degree of flexibility was maintained to accommodate legitimate land

use alternatives. The amendments were to help ensure that land fragmentation was - - - - -- -- - - - - - - --- -- -

curtaited for all rural land uses i d u d i n g agriculturat uses and that, so far as - - possible, nonagricultural uses were relegated to unpraductiue sites, to existing sites

used for or subdivided for nonagricultural uses, or to ar& posing- substantid _

limitations to, or not viable in light of, conventional farming practices. In short, the

Rural Land Use Amendments made a reasonable and balanced effort to ensure the

conservation of good agricultural land.

The Rural Land Use Amendments were significant as they addressed important

theoretical and practical aspects of land use planning. Regional planning in Alberta

places considerable emphasis on the maintenance of flexibility in policies and

guidelines contained in regional planning documents. Such flexibility is favored over C

and against rigorous centrals- and heavy-handed regulatory planning approaches

which often assume a static unchanging world. To be effective, planning documents

must meet their objectives while responding to changing economic and

env~ronmental conditions.

A__mgndments are an Important means by wh~ch otherwise rigid policies and

pianntng priorities can be adapted to sftuations and circumstances not present when

the preliminary regional plan came into effect. Earlier policies, which have become

unworkable or inappropriate with passing time, ,must be amended to ensure that

conflicting demands a"d social goals are satisfactorily resolved. The relevance of a

regional plan is ensured through the evolution of policies tailored to address issues

and concerns of the present. In this ser~se the Rural Land Use Amendments were a

major overhaul of ear4ier rural land use policies contained within the Preliminary

Regional Plan. Major amendments to a regional plan are, however, time consuming

as the process typically requires prolonged discussion between planning staff and

commrssion members followed by public hearings, adoption of the amendments by

the ptanning commission, further discussion preceding approval by the Aberta

Plann~ng Board, and ratification by the minister of municipal affairs.

Draft ~eq iona l Plan

- - - - - - - - -- - - 7

From mid-1980 to earty in 1982, nine commission were involved

in extensive meetings which led to the preparation of a P h . 11) -

February of 1982 the ORRPC Draft Regional Plan was released for review to

municipal coun ils, the Alberta Planning Board, provincial government departments, 5 and the public. It was a continuation of the planning process identifying regional

issues and providing guidance in regional land use. and development. Aga~n it was

stated that:

Most o f the Plan's proposed policies are advisory rather than regulatory since a regional plan is not intended to comprom;se local autonomy. In," substance it provides a regional perspective and a consistent framew.ork within which more detailed planning can be carried out at the municrpal level (ORRPC, 1982, 1).

The underlyin philosophy for not framing more detailed regulatory or restrictive 3 policies with4n the regional plan, though implicitly allowed under The Planning Act.

1977, was to ensure that local jurisdictions were able to tailor polrcres suited to

local ctrcurnstances.

Twelve broad goals were presented to form a reg~onal strategy for the - - Oldman River region. These goals summarized the content of the entire plan In the

sense that they pinpointed major p d i c y areas and were the foundation for al i -- + .

policy statements contained within the plan. Of these, two goals may be singled

out as noteworthy for this discussion. One was to "retam and protect the strong

agricultural land basev and the other indicated a need for the development of a

comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to land use management for rural land

uses and urban-rural land uses In fringe areas surrounding urban centers (ORRPC.,

1982, 13). Means of achieving and implementing these broad regional goals were

described in some detail; issues, objectives, and policies for each goal were then

elaborated in relevant sections within the Draft Regional Plan.

Protecting agricultural iand for agricultural use was o f central importance

within the context of a regional strategy. Thus the Draft Regional Plan emphasized

rttatton. of land use- martagernem poticies in rurat areas which were

conserve agricultural land for agricultural, uses; locate nonagricultural

uses o n nonagricultural land or land o f l o w productive capability irn such a manner<

so as t o minimize rural -confl icts; and t o l imi t agricultural land fragmentation. Some

rurat tand use poficies contained r~guIatory~requireemm~ts~>urti-fing9permlfte~Ta~C~

uses, minimum parcel sizes. use of cut-off parcels, and other specif ic constraints.

These policies were t o be used as criteria when considering the merits o f

subdivision applications fo r rural areas. Rural municipalit ies were encouraged t o

include in their land use bylaws detailed policies which would l imi t the manner and

fo rm in which rural development would occur.

Rural Land Uses

The draft Regional Pla.h incorporated the Rural Land Use Amendments in their

entirety when dealing w i th the conservation and use o'f agricultural land in rural

areas. The amendments were, however, t o be st~bjected t o further r e v i e d t o ensure

& xonsistency w i th the rest o f the proposed plan as they would have t o be readopted

to be part o f the proposed plan.

In addition to the Rural Land Use ~mendme'k ts , the Draft Regional Plan ohad

new sections detailing issues, objectives, and recommended policies for industrial

and comrnerc;al development in rural areas and for the development o f urban-rural

fringe areas. Increased pressure for commercial and industrial development in rural

areas, and particular problems associated w i th such development, were pointed out

in the Draft Regional Plan. Policies dealing specif ical ly w i th rural industrial lami

development touched on the fo l lowing themes: -

~ndustr ia l faci l i t ies which are unsuitable in urban areas, and consequently

must be located in rural areas, were identified;

Industries would be concentrated in predetermined areas t o minimize - t

impacts and land losses;

isolated development would be permitted only fo r those industries having

specialized needs, those which were incompatible w i th other industries, or

those which had some special relationship w i th the agricultural sector; and

rural industrial use would be relegated t o areas which were badly

fragmented, had l o w agriculturai productive capability, could not be

r

l o g i c a l l y used f o r agricultural purposes, o r had a CLI c lass i f i ca t ion o f 5 t o

0 7 and w o u l d require 40 acres or m o r e land t o graze one animal uni t per

The D r a f t Regional Plan p rov ided several ob jec t ives and numerous poli&iz t o -

fac i l i t a te deve lopment and management o f land in urban-ruret f r inge areas. Pol ic ies - related t o the conservat ion o f agricultural land included the f o l l o w i n g :

f&

annexat ions were to,be based o n legi t imate need;

expansion w a s t o occur i n an* order ly , rat ional, and e f f rc ien t manner;

c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n land uses in f r inge areas were t o be min imized;

the agriculturat capabiTity o f so i t and the l oca t ion o f i r r i ga ted or

po ten t ia l l y i r r iga ted areas were to ' b e considered p r io r t o any development;

and

agricultural land w i t h i n the f r inge area was t o be p ro tec ted f 6 r agr icul tura

use un t i l needed f o r urban expansion.

Conclusion -

The D r a f t Regional Plan w a s thorough in i t s p r e s e n t a t ~ o n o f issues and

objecti;es re la t ing t o uses o f agricultural land and in recommend ing p o l ~ c i e s t o

p ro tec t agricultural land f r o m ind iscr iminate development. Emphasis w a s p laced 03

the use o f regional po l i c ies as guidel ines c r b road d i rec t ives t o b e considered b y

reg iona l munic ipa l i t ies w h e n deve lop ing munic ipal p lans and land use by laws. In'

most instances the d ra f t .plan presented unrestr ic t ive adv iso ry po l ic ies , made

ev ident by the use o f w o r d s l i ke "should" and "may," l i m i t i n g regulatory or

mandatory po l ic ies , in w h i c h instance the w o r d "shal l" w a s used. t o those areas

where they w e r e deemed abso lu te ly imperat ive. Rational, o rder ly , and e f f i c i en t land

use management w a s s t r e s s d throughout.

The D r a f t Regional Plan p r o v i d e d a more comp le te and deta i led approach t o - - rwai iarrd use ptmnirrg mb in recommending potictes for mtntmirmg tam3

impac ts than the Pre l im inary Regional Plan. The dra f t p lan c ia r i f i ed n

reg iona i concerns assoc ia ted w i t h the use and deve lqpment o f agricu

out l ined spec i f i c guidel ines t o address those issues wh ich w e r e curre

anticipated in the region. Again, the intention of the draft plan was not to impose

an inflexible and unconditional framework of binding policy on municipalities so as

to ensure the long-term piesefiation of fSrm and -SncX-land.TCdo so w m p C

possibly thwart development in other key sectors of the region. - Rather, policies

were infefided to provide a framework for more detailed planning at the local level

while ensuring consistent safeguards in the region as a whote. Individual

municipalities were to incorporate the substance of broad regional policies when

developing local plans and land use bylaws. The Draft Regional Plan anticipated --

that, with its guidance, the protection ~f agricultural land would be pursued at the

municipal level.

Lastly, the draft plan, in recognizing the provisional nature of any policy

framework in a world of ongoing change, affirmed the need to redefine issues, 0

address new objectives, and consider new regional priorities as they arose. Hence,

continuous monitoring to assess the validity of regional policies, ongoing studies to

examine both old and new reg i~na l issues, and sustained dialogue with the public,

munrcipal councils, and provincial departments would be needed to ensure that

provtnciai, regional, and local interests were considered within the regional plan.

The Draft ~ e ~ i o n a l Plan would have been highly influencial in guiding regional

-development while remaining responsive to inevitable chanzng regional conditions. -

Proposed Resional Plan

-

tn January 1983 ORRPC released a substantially shorter second draft, the

Proposed Regional Plan. This document, prepared under the guidance of commission

committees and in cooperation with government departments and other agencies,

was submitted to the Alberta Planning Board for review. Preliminary observations

on the Proposed Regionai Plan by the board led to the publication of a Revised

Proposed Regional Plan in September o f 1983.

The Proposed Regional Plan was severely criticized by staff of the Alberta

Planning Board. The proposed plan was thoroughly evaluated by the Inter-Agency

Planning Branch, which acts as a technical advisor to the board, in A Review

Report: Proposed Oldman River Regional Plan (July 26, 1983). A cover Jstter t o the

review report indicated that the board had a number o f serious concerns about the -- p------ --

plan:

. . . i t comes close t o being a blueprint for economic development; i t Is overty prescriptive, w i th the Commission i tse l f assuming a regulatory role and a large part o f the implementation responsibil it ies; i t fai ls t o provide guidance t o municipalit ies i n their preparation o f planning documents; it has a rather negative tone, especially towards certain types o f development, as well as towards the various authorities or agencies involved. Also, the plan is too lengthy (Alberta Planning Board. 1983b, p. 2 o f letter).

The board provided both general observations and detailed review comments

covering every aspect o f the proposed plan. Numerous crit icisms touched on the

actual content of the proposed plan wi th respect t o the fo l lowing issues:

policies were either l o o restr ict ive or infringed on municipal prerogatives;

// numerous sections were t o be deleted as they were redundant. contained

questionable or irrelevant material, or were outside the scope o f a regional

plan;

semantic and interpretational di f f icul t ies needed clarif ication; and

numerous sections needed t o be replaced by more general pol icy - -

statements which were advisory in nature. .-

2

I t was stressed throughout the rpview report that the Proposed Regional Flan, both .-

in i ts form and content, did not comply w i th provincial criteria in two

- + + board documents: Revised Guidelines for Regional Plan Preparation and Review

(1 982) and Framework fo r Applica:ion o f the Regional Plan Guidelines (1982).

Consequently, the board returned the Proposed Regional Plan w i th suggestions for

changes.

Act icg on the Alberta P l a n n i ~ g Board's comments and suggestions, the

corr.mlsslon revised numerous poi icy are_as and deleted those Items exp l~c i t l y CI - - - -

in tne board's review repor;. This meant, essentially, that those .sections 07 the

p r o ~ o s e a Regiona! Plar, perceived as overly specif ic. detailed, or prescr ipt~ve In

nature were revised or comple:ely eliminated to be replaced by more general

poiicies. The approach and format o f the plan were also changed t o comply w i - 7

provincial criteria set out in the Alberta planning Board's guidelines and framework

In terms o f a policy framework designed t o achieve specif ic regional - - --- - - -- P pppLp -- pp -

- -

objectives, such as the corkervat ion o f agricultural land and control i n d '$i

management of nonagricuttmai uses in rurat areas, the Pmpasecf Regrtsnat-Pb was

the most detailed ORRPC regional planning document reviewed. it was largely this

detail, which was considered necessary b y ORRPC t o achieve i ts specif ic objectives

and facil itate implementation o f a regional land use strategy, that the baard found

obectionable. I t fe l t that great speci f ic i ty at the regional level would seriously

impinge on local planning e f fo r ts and thereby hinder municipal self government. I t

was the board's befief that the primary purpose of a regionat plan was -to provide

direction t o member municipalit ies through the presentation o f general and - -

-

comprehensive guidelines that reflected regional and provincial, not local, concerns

(Alberta Municipal ~ f f a i k , 1987). A s such, str ict agricultural land protection

measures were to remain the prerogative o f municipal jurisdictions. Stated P'

differently, the board fe l t that a rigorous pol icy framework aimed at protecting

agricultural land for agricultural use was not a suff ic ient ly legit imate regional

concern t o warrant the strong protectionist measures adopted in the Proposed

Regional Plan. In this sense the board's posi t ion on the means t o be employed in

protecting agricultural land was at variance w i th the posi t ion advocated b y the

commission. ORRPC fel t that a strong pol icy framework was essential t o ensure

protection o f the-agricultural land resource, which was both the mainstay o f the

regional eccqomy and by far the predominant land use.

The Alberta Planning Board has considerable authority in influencing the Y

content of regional plans. In many instances str ict adherence t o the board's

gutdel~ne documents is required when preparing regional plans. ORRPC members

were involved in extended meetings w i th the board t o address board crit icisms o f

the Proposed Regional Ptan, Dif fertng viewpoints were fuity discussgd and mos t

d l f f ermcss negotiate& On a few points ORWC q u i d to _@g _ba~d's demands

t o secure approval o f the regional plan. The role o f the board in plan preparation

and review i s discussed below.

The Alberta Planning Board

The Planning Act, RSA 1980 contains few prescriptions on what a'regional---

plan may contain in terms of policy. Section 47 states that a regional plan shall .bl

e-

provide for the present and future land use and development of the planning region

and "mayn regulate and control such use and development. Section 52 states that

the Alberta Planning Board shall revjew a proposed regional plan adopted by a

regional planning commission and return i t to the commission with suggestions for

change^, or aqprove it and send i t to the minister with or without

recommendations. Given its plan review function and faced with an act that was

sufficiently open-ended, permissive, and broad in scope, the board established

provincial guidelines delimiting the format and-content of regional plans. Although

no specific provision was made in the Act for the b6ard to adopt guidelines, these

were seen as necessary to carry out the reg io~al plan review process and were

thus endorsed by the minister (Alberta Municipal Affairs, Alberta Planning Board.

1982a; l982b).

The two guideline documents differ in purpose. The Revised Guidelines for

Regional Plan Preparation and Review reflect two major themes. First, it affirms the

board's interpretation of The Planning Act, that regional plans are intended to serve

as general- policy documents dealing with issues truly regional in their significance.

Second, it emphasizes provincial government-dbjectives which stress the exercise' of

municipal planning prerogatives in dealing with local land issues. The guidelines C

document outlines criteria and conventions which are to be considered when

determining the scope, policy content, and presentation format of regional plans.

and provides a description of the plan review and approval process. The Framework

for Application of Regional Plan Guidelines document i s "intended to provide a

reliable indication of the Provincial Government's expectat ions in terms of the key

elements to be addressed in regional plansw (~ lbe r ta Municipal Affairs, Alberta

Ptarrning Board, 5982a, p. i). As such, it is to provide provinciat dtreetion cm L~

important aspects of regional plan coverage including the conservation of 0

agricultural land.

, Although both board documents embraced the philosophy that comprehensive

land use planning and development control should occur at the local level, they

appear to compromise municipal autonomy -inPtwo ways-: b b y i m p b s K g P ~ s t r a l n t s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

which may be at variance with local land use management objectives; and by

restricting the freedom of local government by dictating general policies which

must be incorporated in all regional plans. As member municipalities of a regional

planning commission have voted to adopt the policies contained within a proposed

regiona! plan, any imposition by the board to significantly alter the plan to bring it

into conformity with its own guidelines >could compromise the discretion and

latitude .of municipalities to direct land use management at the local l e v e e

Provincial criteria contained within the guidelines and framework documents, though

ostensibly presented as guidelines, have led to substantial .changes in the strllcture

and content of regional plans. It is thought that the board's power to moderate

policies within regional plans weakens the effectiveness of regional planning

commissions to guide the use and development of land and thus it is questionable

whether this is consistent with the intent of The Planning Act, 1977. ~ ?- -

Criticisms of the rural land use policies in the Proposed Regional Plan by the

board's staff seem terse and austere. Board staff indicated that these sections of

the plan had missed the intent of the framewmk document and thus would require

considerable revision and rewriting. The general tone of the comments suggested 3 that ORRPC had gone >too far in protecting agriculturaf land through use of detailed

and restrictive polices. Existing policy provisions were also criticised for being

inappropriate, too administrative in nature, overly prescripti-ve, and in some

instances, not even policy statements. Consequently, it that numerous "

policies be deleted, others be replaced by general and that all

policies comply with the framework document. As the proposed 'plan was not

acceptable, ORRPC had to defer to the board's requested changes and alter the plan

to comply with provincial criteria. The board did not, however, unilaterally revise

the regional plan. Through a number of lengthy meetings, over the course of

several months, b ~ a r d members convinced ORRPC of the merits associated with a

tess regulatory ptanning document that would allow local planning discretion.

Reqional Plan

The Regional P l a n w a s r a t i f i e d in Marah T985 6 y p t h ~ ~ ~ m ~ c m k t e r 6 ~ p p 7 ~ ~ ~ -

munic ipal a f fa i rs , f i v e mon ths af ter it &a; adopted b y ORRFC. Thts document t s

c l o s e l y s imi la r i n organizat ional structure and content t o the Proposed ffeglonal

Plan. F . .

I t s ta tes that a reg iona l p lan i s t o ". . . be regarded p r ~ m a r ~ l y as ' a doturnen! '

se t t i ng ou t t o guide the phys ica l deve lopment o f a reg ion. and p r o v ~ d ~ n g a--*'

f r amework f o r munic ipal p lann ing activities" (ORRPC, 1984. p I). Th ls I S e c h ~ e v e d In

large measure through p o l i c y s ta tements wh ich clarify the uses & wlrrch land 1s

put. It i s crucial .to keep i n m i n d that t w o pr inc ip les were adopted In f o r m u l e t ~ n q , -

po l i c ies conta ined w i t h i n the ~ e g i o n a l Plari:

1. the Regional Plan is t o pe rm i t mbnic ipal governments the degree o . .

f l ex ib i l i t y t hey need t o mee t the requirements o f The .Plann~ng Act

t o s a t i s f y loca l aspi rat ions, and

2. po l i c ies conta ined w i t h i n the RegJonal Plan are t o act as gu~de l l nes

f ramework f o r munic ipa l i t ies as they prepare t h e ~ r o w n , m o r e d e t a ~

* 3 -

and

or a

ed.

plans; because m o s t po l i c ies ,a re adv isory i n nature. they Can o n l y be -* J

recommended to member munic ipal i t ies.

Consequent ly , f e w po l i c ies are mandatory or ob l iga tory o n 'member m u n r c ~ p a l ~ t ~ e s . - -

Po l ic ies w i t h i n t k e Regional Plan are designed t o ensure that r e g ~ o n a l goa ls and

ob jec t i ves can be attained.

The Regional Plan adopted n e w te rms when re fe r r i ng t o agr icu l tura l land. '

"Better agricultural land" i s n o w used t o re fe r t o land hav lng a CLI c l a s s i f r c a t ~ o n of a

1 t o 4 f o r agricultural use except f o r cu t -o f f parcels 10 acres or less In size, or

". . . land wh ich a rural mun ic ipa l i t y determines as s o bad ly f ragmented by ex ls t lng

u s e o r ownersh ip tha t the land has a t o w agricultural cspab i l r ty and cannot b e used

f o r agr icu l tura l purposes" (ORRPC, 1984, 1). "Poor agr icu l tura l land' re f@$ to l a n d

wh ich is n o t be t te r agricultural land. Add i t i ona l l y , the pruclse mzan lng o f the w o r d s

- "may," "should," and "shal l " are g i ven in the de f in i t i on section o f the 'p lan .

developman! af s ragtctnsi ritategy, within which rnibjor policy areas and their 9

reitfrsttive g ~ b b are identt3rsd. t5 s key componanr of the plan. What is significant 0

shout thai; s t l r t i ~ n a! the ptbn ts the prtlssntatiun of more detailed rursf land use

7 To encourage sgrtcuftutal pussurfs and the protsct~on and conservation of B81tw agrsculluts! lend. 8. fu f t r n r t the trqmanratmn of better sgricutturel land. 9. To tocrrts nun-a~ricuttutrri uses such as country restdences and rnbuBtftbt snd comrnererrrt deurstopmrrt, Mere possitrfe, ori - no-SCIfttfumra$ land or on pour agrtcufturai iand, provided the sreas in

, ~uusfmn dr) not constitrare a trittcal wildlrfe zone. 10. Ta ancousbge the f ~ t a l m n of intensive sgrrcufturbt opsratrons In such 0 msnmf that t~nfttcts wtth other land uses sra m~ntmized. 2 I . f a encourage urban expsnsion in rural areas, metnly in selected h&m5~ts, such that r he goat of protecting and conservtng egr~cul tural land i s not conpramrsed (ORRPC. 1984, 4).

, T h e w f tve (ioztis are ful"ly elaborated in terms of objectives and detailed policies

- wtfhtri the fano us6 msnsg6rnenf section of the Regional Plan. t

D '

-

/

Land use mbnsgrnena in rural qrsss ts conjtdered in - terms of five distinct land

irsse: +gricuttura. tntensrve sgriculrure, couhrry re~rdencss . industrial and commercial

d w a l 6 m a n r . and hamlets. Earlier sections of the plan dealing with-iand use

m&nugermw irs urban and urban-rural fringe sreas stress ccmsideration of the

egrteufrwsi potenits! of a land un!r when. urban expansion into fringe areas must

Pszlrctas bsuhng wtrh the use of agricultursi land are to be based on the CLI

ctass:!rc&!i0n system cr: on more eletaitad snatyscs of the capability of fend for

a~rtculfura~ use when avsilabie. A number of poticy sta:ements stress that

b@rtutlurg; land 4s ro be protected from subdtvis!on.fm nonagriculturai uses. As IS

qow re be expected, pr~mary re6ponsibility is placed on rural municipalities which

rhar controts are provided in their land use bylaws to identify

agrrcuirurd land from non-agricul;ural development* (ORRPC, 1984,

20). When dealing w i th iand subdivision for agricultural use, the plan requires that

minimum lot size standards be set by member municipalities in statutory plans - - - - - - -- --

which, in turn, should adhere to the 80 acre minimum-recommended irt the plan.

Possible exceptions t o this recommendation are provided in other advisary palicies,

It is also recommended that wherever possible, irrespective o f the use involved,

land subdivision should result in a parcel at least 80 acres in area. Finally,

nonagricultural uses o f agrjcultural land *. . . may only be approved i f the land to

be subdivided is poor agricultural land, unless such locations are not reasonably

available" (ORRPC, 1984, 2 1).

When considering country residential use G? rural land, policies stress

conformi ty o f subdivision applications t o requirements contained within municipal

land use bylaws and other statutory plans. Some detail 'is provided as t o where

country residential development may occur t o minimize land use confl icts.

Furthermore, country residential development is not- t o inhibit public access nor

disturb scenic and recreational qualities o f an area.

Policies address country residential development as either single-lot residential

subdivisions or grouped country residential subdivisions. Within the former category,

subdivision o f a developed residence or an undeveloped residential lot f rom a

previously unsubdivided quarter section is allowed provided that municipal bylaws

and statutory plan requirements are met. For an existing developed residence,

provisions suggest that the p~roposed country residential lot be as small as possible

t o conserve agricultural land, that direct legal and physical access t o a public

roadway is possible for both the country residential lot and residual lo t , and that

the proposed lot w i l l not interfere w i th arl"y local irrigation system. Provisions for

a site without a developed residence suggest that the poposed lot be located on

soi l having the lowest capability for agricultural use, that subdivision occur only i f

the quarter section is comprised o f poor agricultural land, and that the proposed lot

be on a buitdabte site that can be adequatety serviced and has d ~ r e c t tegal and

physical access. -

-f When dealing with policy related to grouped country residential subdivision the

th-e soZiT, economic, cultural, and environmental resources of the region are utilized

in a beneficial manner without jeopardizing regional stability or growth. Agricultural

tan4 p~otect ion is addressed within this context.

pi i n states that better yr ic l~ l tura l land shall not be subdivided for grouped country L

residential purposes. Remaining ,2olicies outline~cTnsideGtions WJjZKZhOuIdbe

taken up by municipalities when drafting land use bylaws. It is recommended that '

an area structure plan, showing conformity to policy statements outlined 'within this

section of the plan, be prepared prior to permitting grouped country residential . -

development; -- -+.

7

ties dealing with industrial and commercial development in rural areas

recommend that such development be grouped in suitable areas rather than , . scattered or isolated, that the minimum amwnr o; land required be used, and that

the use or fragmentation of better, agricultural land be minimized. Industrial and

commercidf development should be located on poor agricultu~al land unless such

areas,are, in the opiriion of the subdivision approving authority, not reasonably

available. Guidelines are given to indicate what types of induqrial development are n '\,

suitable for rural areas.

Policies concerned with intensive agricultural use of rural land stress

minimization of environmental impacts, consideration of locational restrictions, and

recommend size limits for subdivjded parcels. .

Conclusion

To surnrnariie. the Oldrnan River ~ e ~ i o n a l Plan represents a substantial

achievement in the planning process implicitly referred to in The Planning Act. The

Regional Plan is intended primarily to elucidate regional goals, objectives, policies,

and implementation procedures which would be in the best intereqt of the region. /

These components are crucial for guiding land use development to help ensure that

Those objectives and policies within the plan dealing with rural land use 'L

/' management clearly reflect the maturation of a policy frameworg begun a decade

earlier in the Prel iminary Regional Plan. Rural land use pol lc ies in the Regional Plan

are intended t o be as thorough as possible, given the constraints Imposed b y the -- -- - -- ppp

guideline documents o f the Alberta Planning -Baard. The overal l thrust o f the

numerous object ives and po l ic ies i s the protect ion o f agr1cultur3l-land fo r -

-.z n

agrlcultural use, keeping the agricultural land base Intact, and mtntmtztng land use

conf l ic ts In rural and urban-rural fr inge settings. Considerable a t t en t~on IS devoted -

t o speci fy ing provts ions which desprve close consideratton b y member

municipaltt les when prepartng rural land use by laws and other statutory plans.

Few mandatory res t r~c t l ons are imposed b y the plan fo r regulating land uses.

Instead. mos t p o l i c ~ e s are presented as recommendations whlch should be

considered, or act iv l t les are described which may be approved or proh ib~ted, I n s

munlclpal statutory plans. Adv lsory po l lc les are not Intended t o compromtse

- ieglonal goals, which serve t o conserve and limit fragmehtation o f agrtcu&ral land.

Rather they are t o provide needed f lexibt l t ty t o ensure that al l relevant

cons lderat~ons at the local level can be properly evaluated and then brou$b into

con fo rmi ty w t t h the broad objectives and poltctes o f the Regional Plan. Rural land

use guldeltnes are careful ly worded t o ensure that necessary controls are provided

t o protect agricultural land wl thout b e c o m ~ n g unduly restrrcttve on what uses shall *

or shall not be permitted: Thus the ". . . conversion o f better agrtcultural land to - -

non-agr~cul tural uses . . . shall b e avoided wherbver alternattve courses o f act ion

are reasonably avatlable" (ORRPC. 1984. 20). However. the potent ia l for a l lowlng

nonagr~cul tural uses on better agrlculturai land artses w l t h s i c h qual i f~ers . The

tempering o f land use guidelines. whi le p r o v i d ~ n g crucial f lexibl l t ty f o i Iegttimate

a l te rna t~ve uses o f better agrtcultural land, provides loopholes for accommodating

undesignated acttvlttes. I t was the Alberta Plannlng Board's bel tef . whtch was

instrumental in changrng those sections o f the Proposed Regional Plan which were

thought t o be over ly restrictive, that future

r igorous, uncondit ional po l i cy f ramework.

opt ions should not be preclude 7 by. a

County of Lethbridsre General Munici~al Plan and Land Use BY-Law 2-

- - - - - - -

General municipal plans and land use bylaws guide land use management in t

rural municipalities. Of the.

Oldman River region which

of Lethbridge were chosen

of competing demands for

Municipal Plan and revised .-

adopted, four 'months after

several municipal plans and land use bylaws within the

were available for review, those adopted by the County

as t h i s r; ral municipality is subjected to a wide variety

use of agricultural land. In August 1985 a General

Land Use Bylaw for the County of Lethbridge were

the Regional Plan came into effect. The major function

of a general municipal plan is to set out specific objectives and land use policies 4*

which are suited to and reflect circumstances unique to the local area. These

policies and objectives are, to some extent, implemented through a more detailed

local land use bylaw. A land use bylaw is a regulatory document, similar to a

zoning bylaw, which is used to manage local land uses. Although both documents

are intended to address local'aspirations and needs, they must conform with

mandatory provisions of the Regional Plan. The general municipal plan is an

important statutory plan as "Policies in this plan represent a transfer of much of , . - c - -

the responsibilty for subdivision and protection of agricultural land from the

regional planning commission to the local municipality as outlined in the Regional

Plan" (ORRPC, 1985a, 1). It is important to note that both documents are binding on

the regional planning commission when it reviews subdivision applications in its

capacity as a 'subdivision approving authority. - - -

Agricultural Uses < .

%.

Policies dealing^ with agricultural land uses are considerably more detailed in

the county's General Municipal Plan than is the case for the Regional Plan. A much - narrower definition of "better agricultural land" is provided to include land having a

CLI classification of 1 to 4, comprising 160 acre parcels of dryland or 80 acre

pwcets o f irrigated tand; tand havmg a CLt ctassification of 5 to 7 with permanent P

water rights; and land contained in an irrigable unit where the irrigation district

indicates that the unit should not be subdivided. It is interesting to note the high

priority given to the protection o f irrigated land, irrespective of parcel size, for

every CLI class. Irrigation greatly increases the productivity - o f agricultural land and

makes smaller scale farming operations economically viable. The minimum parcel - - -- - - - - - - -- - - --

size o f land used for agricultural purposes must be 80 acres fo r irrigated land and

760 acres for dryland.' The minimum residual parcel size required following f--

subdivision o f land for nonagricultural uses, including feedlot operations. must be / 80 acres fo r irrigated land and 150 acres for dryland. Cut-off parcels 10 acres or

less in size and fragmented land containing 20 acres or less o f - CLI - class 1 to 4

agricultural land may be removed f rom agricultural use i f approved by the County

o f Lethbridge. The maximum parcel slze for any nonagricultural use w i l l be 10 acres

except where an existing development indicates more land is needed. *

3

Policies 'dealing w i th the use o f agricultural land emphasize the need to

piotect agricultural land. The General Municipal Plan states that grouped country - -

residential use and commercial land uses'should not be considered as discretionark

uses in rural agricultural districts. A rural agricultural district is one of several land

use distr icts, outlined in the County of Lethbridge Land Use ByLaw, for which

detailed regulations are p r o v W . The purpose o f a rural agricultural district is to:

A l l o w agriculture t o continue as the main land use in the county and ensure that i t can continue t o o.per-ate unencumbered by conf l i c t~ng land uses, while giving the county the f lexibi l i ty t o al low isolated uses in certain locations as a support t o the agricultural base (ORRPC, 1985b, 7).

The fo l lowing uses are either permitted, prohibited, or discretionary in a Rural

Agricultural District wi thin the County o f Lethbridge.

PERMITTED USES

1. First farm residence

2 . Second farm residence

3. Auxillary building or uses

PROHIBITED USES

1. Grouped industrial development

- 2. G r o u ~ e d country residences

3. Stripping and sale of topsoi l

DfSCRETlONARY USES

1. Home occupations

2. Isolated single lot country residences

.- -

3. lsolated single lo t rural residences

4. Private recreation

1 - - - - - -- - -

5. Livestock conf inement tots

6. Livestock sales faci l i t ies

7. Public and institutional

8. Horticulture

9. Drive-in theaters

10. Resource extraction and associated works

11. Signs

The above categories suggest that good agricultural land will be protected primari ly - . '

for agricultural and farm related use while some discretionary uses w i l l occasionally

be on such land. Nonagricurtural uses may only be permitted on land

which is considered t o be poor quality agricultural land.

Policies. dealing wi th intensive agt+xltural uses, primarily. l ivestock confinement

facil it ies, and horticultural uses stress the need t o minimize the indiscriminate use d

or fragmentation o f better agricultural land and minimize conf l icts wi th other uses.

Consequently, approval for subdivision fo r these uses w i l l o n Q T e - recommended

where they were functioning prior t o the submission o f a subdivision application, i f

located or] an existing farmstead - an area in use*or formerly used for a farm

house or farm buildings - or i f - a n a cut-of f parcel 10 acres or less in size.

Country Residential Uses P

Two types o f country residential use are considered in the General Municipal

Plan. These are 'either single or grouped residential uses. Single lo t country .

residential uses may consist of either developed residences, existing farmsteads, or

new dwellings. Specific policies apply t o each o f these residential uses.

DEVELOPED RESIDENCE: Subdivision approval w i l l be recommended for existing

developed residences - dwellings which are habitable, are serviced b y appropriate

util it ies, and have established legal access - i f locatedoon an unsubdivided quarter

section, i f the land area o f the proposed lo t is as small as possible but no greater

than 10 acres in size, and i f the proposed lot w i l l not interfere w i th the irr igation

system o f the area. - -

FARMSTEAD: Subdivision f o r a farmstead will be recommended fo r approval i f the - - - - - - - - --- - - - -

farmstead existed prior t o subdivision application, if separation o f the farmstead

does no t compromise the agricultural use o f surrounding land, i f i t is ecanomical ly

unfeasable t o return,the farmstead t o agricultural production, and i f ' the proposed

parcel is l im i ted t o the original farmstead up t o a maximum o f 10 acres.

NEW DWELLING: Subdivision approval f o r a new dwel l ing w i l l be recommended only

i f a developed residence or a farmstead exists on the parcel t o be subdivided. i f

the proposed single residential l o t is as small as possible a ~ d does not exceed 5

acres, and i f the proposed l o t is a buildable site', can be serviced, and has direct

legal and physical access t o a public roadway.

EXISTING PARCELS: Subdiv is ion o f an exist ing isolated -country residential parcel

may be recommended i f it . is located o n poor agri'&ltural land.

When dealing w i t h grouped country residential use on ly t w o po l i cy statements

are giyen. Good agriculaural land w i l l no t be approved for grouped country

residential use. This land use will on ly be permit ted i n areas so designated wi th in

a land use bylaw.

General Municipal

Other Jand Uses

Policies deal

A comparison o f country residential pol ic ies taken f r om the

Plan w i t h evolv ing ORRPC regional pol ic ies is shown in table 1.

ng w i t h commercial and industrial land uses indicate those uses

which may be permit ted o n good agricultural land i f alternative sites on poor

agricultural land are no t reasonably available. Emphasis is placed o n concentrated or

grouped develdpment in rural areas rather than scattered, isolated, or s

indiscr iminately dispersed subdivision fo r these uses. Addi t ional ly, the county

requires assurance that fac i l i t ies w i l l actually be constructed so that subdivrded lo ts

are not l e f t idle. .

Last ly, pol ic ies dealing with urban-r"rat fr inge areas emphas~ze the need t o

protect and conserve agricultural land f o r agricultural use unt i l such lands are

needed f o r urban expansion.

TABLE 1. p o l i c i e s a f f e c t i n g country r e s i d e n t i a l land use wi thin the O R W C and County of Lethbridge: 1974-1985,

Preliminary Regional ~ l a i

(1974) RURAL RESIDE3CES - surveys a r e t o be

i n i t i a t e d t o determine and recommend s u i t a b l e loca t ions o r c r i t e r i a f o r evaluating proposed l aca t ions .

- interim r e g u l a t i o n s provided* permit CR use on ne l e s s than 1 and no g r e a t e r than 20 a c r e l o t s on *cut-off pa rce l s , a reas deemed s u i t a b l e f o r CR use by t h e ORRPC,

* p a r c e l s a t lea* 3 mile away from other c o n f l i c t - i ng land use%,

*land t h a t wi l l -ho t i n h i b i t public access o r detr imental ly a f f e c t t h e a reas na tu raa resources ,

*land 2 miles d i s t a n t f r o m the corporate l i m i t s o f urban cen te r s .

Rural Laqd Use Amendments

COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL USES may be located on - an e x i s t i n g farmstead subdivision ,

- a cut-off p a r c e l , - land designated as a s p e c i a l a rea f o r CR use .

must be loca ted - at l e a s t & mile away from ofher conf l ic t ing l a n d u s e s ,

- on land t h a t w i l l no t i n h i b i t public access o r detr imental l -y a f f e c t t h e a r e a s n a t u r a l resources.

FARMSTEAD SEPARATI O N S - w i l l be approved i f 'confined t o t h e s i z e of t h e o r ig ina l farmstead,

- t h e r e s idua l l o t i s a t l e a s t 75 ac res i n s i z e ,

*bui ld ings and u t i l i t i e s were i n exis tence a t t h e time of appl ica t ion , a

* c o s t s of r e t u r n i n g the land t o ag. use are uneconomical, - -

' * l o s s of e x i s t i n g ag. f a c i l i t i e s w i l l n o t compromise ag. use of the land.

TABLE 1. Cont inued

~ e g i o n a l plan ..-- (1985)

RESIDENTIAL ' SUBDIVrSI ON should - occur on poor ag . l a n d , ' - be a t l e a s t 4 m i l e away from o t h e r

c o n f l i c t i n g l a n d u s e s , - n o t i n h i b i t p u b l i c a c c e s s o r d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t t h e a r e a s n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s .

SINGLE LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION - s u b d i v i s i o n of a developed r e s i d e n c e from an unsubdivided f shall be approved s u b i e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n s t *proposed l o t be as small as p o s s i b l e , * b o t h subdivided and r e s i d u a l l o t s have p h y s i c a l and l e g a l a c c e s s ,

' s i z e and l o c a t i o n Ji t h e proposed l o t does n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t r r i g a t i o n systems.

- subd iv i s ion of a s i n g l e undeveloped l o t - from an unscbdiv ided may be p r o h i b i t e d

or appmved by r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . If pe rmi t t ed then 2 p r o v i s i o n s should apply t ' should only o c c u r i f t h e s e c t i o n i s comprised of poor ag . l a n d ,

' s u b d i v i s i o n should be d i r e c t e d t o - t h a t a r e a of t h e % s e c t i o n w i t h t h e 1o.rest s o i l c a p a b i l i t y . - m u n i c i p a l i t i e s should a s s u r e through

p r o v i s i o n s t h a t t h e proposed l o t i s s u i t a b l e f o r development , i s p r o p e r l y s e r v i c e d , and t h a t a c c e s s meet wi th e s t a b l i s h e d p r o v i n c i a l c r i t e r i a .

GROUPED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION '

- b e t t e r ag. l a n d s h a l l n o t be subdiv ided f o r grouped CR u s e ; a t t h e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s d i s c r e t i o n , t h i s u s e may be p e r m i t t e d on poor ag. Land. - where al lowed, such development should meet wi th p r o v i s i o n s o f munic ipa l s t a t u t o r y vlans which i n t u r n should r ecogn ize i2 c o n s i d e r a t i o n s provided i n t h e Regional P l a n . - i f wkthin d i s t a n c e c r i t e r i a t o an urban c e n t e r , a j o i n t p l a n should guide such development. - an a r e a s t r u c t u r e p l a n should be prepaqed p r i o r t o development a p p m v a l .

County of Le thbr idge Genera l

bffunicipal Plan (1985)

SINGLE LOT CR USE - s u b d i v i s i o n f o r an developed r e s i d e n c e unsubdivided w i l l p e l m i t t e d &f t h e ' l o t i s 10 a c r e s o r

e x i s t i n g on an be

l e s s in si z'e ,

' subdivided and r e s i d u a l l o t have d i r e c t l e g a l a c c e s s ,

* l o t does n o t a f f e c t t h e areas i r r i g a t i o n system. - farmstead s e p a r a t i o n w i l l

be p e r m i t t e d i f ' b u i l d i n g s a r e i n p l a c e when a p p l y i n g f o r s u b d i v i s i o n ,

' t h e c o s t o f r e t u r n i n g farm- l and t o , a g . u s e i s uneconomical, ' s e p a r a t i o n w i l l n o t compromise ag. u s e of l a n d ,

' l i m i t e d i n s i z e t o t h e o r i g i n a l fa rmstead n o t exceeding 10 a c r e s . - s u b d i v i s i o n f c r a vacan t

l o t w i l l be pe rmi t t ed i f *a developed r e s i d e n c e o r fa rmstead e x i s t s on t h e p a r c e l t o be s u b d i v i e d ,

' t h e l o t does n o t exceed 5 a c r e s ,

' t h e s i t e i s s u i t a b l e f o r development and s e r v i c e d , 8ubdividod and r e s i d u a l l o t s have d i r e c t l e g a l abcess . - s u b d i v i s i o n of an i s o l a t e d

CR p a r c e l may be cons ide red i f l o c a t e d on poor a g . l a n d .

GROUPED CR USE - w i l l n o t be p e r m i t t e d on good ag . l a n d . - a r e a s must be d e s i g p a t e d wi th in t h e land u s e bylaw.

~ b b r e v i a t i o n s : ORRPC - Oldman River Regional {Planning Commission C R - c o u n t r y r e s i d e n t i . a l ; ag. - a g r i c u l t u r e .

Much of the general municipal plan dealing with land use objectives and IIL-\-

policies is devoted to specifying rural land uses which wi l l be permitted i f in

compliance with stated criteria. -- What is stresse i s the importance o f

agriculture to the county's well being. Hence, to conserve and

protect agricultural land. It. is acknowledged that all agricultural land, and especially

irrigated land, has potential for some appropriate agricultural use and thus should be

preserved to the greatest extent possible for farm or ranch use.

Numerous mandatory restrictions spezify activities which wil l or wil l not be

permitted on rural' land. Clearly articulated criteria serve to guide the subdivision

approving authority in deciding whether a subdivision application conforms to the ,

General Municipal Plan and Land Use Bylaw. Detailed policies, especially in the case .

of country residential uses, Indicate that considerable effort has been made to

prevent nonagricultural uses from locating on good agricultural land. Restrictive

policies ensure that frzgmentation of agricultural land wil l be y y d and that

permitted uses, whether agricuitural or nonagrkdtuial, m u d conform t o h i m u m 'b

and maximum parcel and lot-size standards. Subsdivided parcels, wherever possible,

are to be smaller than the maximum allowed to ensure that good farmland is not - - - - -

unnecessarily taken out of production. . -

fn summary, the General Municipal Plan is strongly protecrionist in orientation ,'

when dealing with agricultural land. The policy framework presents clearly 'defined 1

limits on what land uses wil l or wil l not be permitted cn good agricultural land. In

some instances policies are strict and rigid, as for country residential uses, while in

otr:er insta~ces needed flexibility is insured so as not to preclude future / - /

opportunities. The General Municipal Plan and Land Use Bylaw are important -

planning documents which clearly endorse the protection of agricultural land by

recognizing the value of this diminishing resouke and by reaffirming that

inefficient, indiscriminate, and ad hoc planning can compromise future agricultural

options which are vital to the County of Lethbridge. !

Conclusion

ORRPC planning documents have e m p h a s i z e d x e preservat ion o f agricultural -

t and. from 1974 onward, rurat tand use pot ic ies have become m o r e spqi f tc, artd- to

s o m e extent m o r e restr ic t ive, t o ensure the conservat ion o f bet ter agricultural land

and m in im ize the f ragmenta t ion o f f a r m land. Po l icy p rov i s ions were intended t o

p ro tec t CLI class 1 t o 4 land f o r agriculturak use, and t o ensure that nonagr~cu l tu ra l

uses w e r e located o n poore r agricultural land where reasonabiy available. I t h u s t

b e emphasized that reg iona l p lanning documents can o n l y p rov ide broad and gen#al

land use po l i c ies t o guide planning at t h e munic ipal level. T o ensure Cscal

au tcnomy, regional p lans cannot b e o v e r l y res t r ic t i ve in regulat ing land uses. T h ~ s

a l l o w s member munic ipa l i t ies t o exercise considerable d iscre t ion and planning

f l e x i b i l i t y w h e n dra f t ing loca! p ians and land use by laws. It. i s the prerogat ive o f

rural mun ic ipa l i t ies t o ac t i ve l y pursue agricultural land preservat lon.

CHAPTER IV

THE IMPACTS OF SUBDIVISION ON AGRICULTURAL LAND

Introduction

Agricultural land is being placed under increasing pressure fo r conversion t o

alternative uses. Intense competit ion has developed a m v g different land uses for

util ization of the land resource in urban fringe and shadow areas.. Such competit ion

leads to changes in land use in rural areas and, invariably, t o land use confl icts.

Competing land uses which have a legitimate need fo r rural land include urban

development, forestry, recreation, energy exploration, resource extraction,

transportation and, ut i l i ty 'corridors, industrial and commercial facil it ies, wi ld l i fe

habitat, and public facil it ies. While some o f these uses are compatible wi th /

agricuiture to varying degrees, others are completely incompatible. Land use

ptessures in rural areas are described and documented in a growing body o m

literature devoted t o the preservation and o f agricultural land (Steiner and

Theilacker, 1984).

While demand for the rural land resource by competing land uses leads t o a

remova

loss o f

erosion

I o f agricultural land f rom crop production, other factors contribute t o the - - - -

productive farm ~ n d ranch land. These include livestock overgrazing, soi

, soi l salinity, poor farming practices, surface and subsurface pollution, a -

improper soi l reclamation. When these factors are considered together wi th land

removals, the combined impact overshadows relative ef fects a s s x i a t e d w i th either

land use change or soi l degradation.

Although many factors have an impact on agricultural land, all o f which merit

detailed study, attention here w i l l be focused on rural subdivision. Land subdivision

is the primary means for changing the use t o which land is put. Rural subdivision

act iv i ty is not without impact, for as this study w i l l show, i t o f ten results in the

direct loss o f agricultural land t o alternative uses and imposes numerous constraints

on the use of farm land for crop production. Rural subdivision is directly linked t o

the unrelenting spread o f urban i n f l ~ e n c e s and encroachment o f urban land uses and - -

values on the rural landscape. While the pervgsive influences o f urbanization fo rm s .

strong undercurrent in al l rural land use change, polit ical, jurisdictional, and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

regulatory processes also contribute significantly. These three processes establish

the insti tut ional framework in which rural subd~vistcxt o p w w an& p~eciuee

externalities which' either promote or inhiblt rural land conversion t o nonagr~cu;tural

'\ uses. Changes prompted b y supply and demand forces, whlch are of ten the result

o f changing l i festyles and techno!ogical advances, also Influence the rate and extent

o f rural land use change. FS

L P

7'

Subdivision o f land i n rural areas has several Impacts on the agrlcultural land

base (Thompson, 1981a). The most notable direct Impacts of subd lv~s ion are the

loss o f agricultural land t o competing uses and fragmentatron of farm land. Land

fragmentation directly af fects the economlc v~abi l r ty of farmlng. The cre.at~on of

numerous disconnected and trregular shaped t and un tts compl ~ca tes farm tng and

makes future farm land consolidation and expansion d ~ f f ~ c u ! t . Subdlv~slon not only

results in the loss o f agricultural land but also creates numerous ~ndlrect Impacts

that both jeopardize the integrity o f the agr~cultural land base and Impede or . res t r~c t farming activities.

~ inanr ' ia l gains t o be made through subdivision have encouraged land -

speculation. Land speculation, in turn, fosters unpredictable or unstable forms o f

land tenure which o f ten results in irresponsible use o f the l i n g resource. F o r -

example, i f a speculator' has decided that the prospective use o f farm land is io be

for nonagricultural development, the speculator may strip and sell the topsoil or

temporari ly rent the land for agricultural use In which case the renter, realizing the -

short-term situation, actively mines the soi l o f rts nutrients 'and utilizes other poor >

land management practices. Also, through speculat~on land may oe temporarily glven

Over t o .some other act iv i ty whose environmenta! impacts d'iminlsh or destroy the

productive potential o f the soil. I f the speculator's market judgements are rncorrecr.

t he tand may never be deveioped fo r i ts intended use, eventuatty reve-trlng back ro

agricultural use w i th i ts capabi l i ty - for agricultural production ser~ously dimin~shed.

In other instances, !and sales may be s low or transactions w i l l drag out over a

considerable period during which the land s i ts idle and becomes weed tnfested.

Ptrrrrrs::=e subdivi$mn, which results in the creation of nonsgriculturst prsrcels far in

advmcr of expectad development, ties u p Jsnd !hat could otherwise be productively - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

utif rzed for agricuttwal pwpossn

' Volatile changes in rural .srrbdivistun have contributed to inftated market values

for rursl land,. to the extent that agricultu~prt land can be priced out of the market

for egfttl~1IufbC use. This -rS esp~ciulty the t s s e in periods of eccrnomic growth

duftn$ w R ~ f ; tsnd ronversron ro nonagrtrufiurrrl uses is accelerated. Rural municipal -

governments msy be recept lve to alternet tve land uses as ronagricultural

, davefopmsnr btosdarns {he tax base and provtdes sddttionel tax revenues. Oue to an .

uncefraxnty tn taure fdntd- USES. ~spectalfy f r r w@&S travrng hrgh development I

potsnrrst. farrn&s may dectde to frrntr capitai- mvestments. Land is tonsequentiy not 0

developed or utilize6 to its fullesr agrituiturai potentiel. Nonafjrieultural development

also produces visrtous disruptions ro sgrlcultural scttr i ty. Mcst notably, haphazh

rural svbdiv*;-sion eontzibut& to the c r e a r i ~ n of iilogical farming units end

ssrnat tmes tmerfares wirh normal farming operations.

Country restdentisf devetopmenr. which is frequently the major alternative use

of 8gricutrur'E;f fend. creates conflicts with agricultural related land uses. Social

conlltcrs ofrsn wise between farmers and aural resrdentrsf dweliers due to the

notse, odor. or v ~ s u s t effects o? farming prsctrces. In some instances resu3snts are

tnftueirctbl tn closing down livestock cZ6nfinement operations where these c8use

unplaasanl notse or smeiis. Country restdetnces are assocrated with the expansion or

improvement of rural servrces and facthties whtrh may trnpose addittonal cos t s on b

farmers by raising munrctpsl l a x rates. Increases In the n~q- tber~cr f r e s ~ d e n t s In rural h

areas may atso strain extsttng municip8l rnd educational budgets. & b n t r y

res~denl ta l development also opens access tnto rural areas which st& ts t r s f f tc and L urbumi~_z who would otherwtse no! fmd themselves rn such a settmg. T s, in turn, 2.

For rhe above reasons, country residential development i s often Feen as an + ' - rnfruslon of urban-oriented values and i i festyies into the agrjcuitural community. As

d resutt. nor orrty 1s agricutrurai tand removed from production, but socisf, d

economic, and poli t ical confl icts arise. Because o f the confl icts and impacts

associated w i th this use, the Province ' o f Alberta and regional planning commissions -- -- - -- -- - -.-

have adopted the posi t ion that -country resTdentiZ develo?ment cannot make -

unlimited use of, land valued highly for agricultural production (Alberta Municipal

Affairs, Alberta Planning Board. 1983a). Impacts* are fel t not only f rom country

residential subdivision; industrial. commercial, and other nonagricultural II

i n rural areas likewise creates problems.

-

Obiect ives *

A prelimmary investigation was made o f the effects of rural subdiv~sion

within a rural -municipality experiencing ongoing land use change in the Oldman

River region o f southern Alberta. The rural municipality under investigation, the

County of Lethbridge, fal ls into the jurisdiction o f the Oldman River Regional

-. Planning Commission (ORRPC) (fig. 1). In i ts regional planning documents. ORRPC - has adopted rural land use management policies which stress that better agriculturat

land is t o be protected and conserved for agricultural uses, and that the u

fragmentation o f agricultural land is t o be m i n i m i g d wherever possible. Subdivision

act iv i ty within the County o f Lethbridge was examined f rom 1974 t o 1985 to

determine i f the subdiv is~on p r o c e s r e s u l t e d ~ in the loss and fragmentation of

agricilftural land. and i f so. how much and what type o f land was affected.

Of the eight rural municipalit ies within the ORRPC planning region (1986: 4

municipal districts: 3 counties; and 1 improvement district), the County of Y

Lethbr~dge was selected for study purposes as t unquestionably was, and I S , - -

subjected t o the $reatest subdivision pressure and agtivity. Persistent subdivision

pressure in this county is largely the result o f factors stemming f rom the location

of the City o f Lethbridge. Much o f the land base within the County of Lethbridge

is comprised o f highly productive agricultural land. intensively util ized through

irr igation farming. Towns, bi l lages, and hamlets within the county are largely rural

in character. A s of March 1979 the county had a land base o r 7 1 1,530 acres. *

FIGURE 1. Oldman River Region.

COUNTY OF LETHBRIDOE NO 26 BRll

This study has four specific objectives:

1. to determine the number, type, and status of subdivision applications for - - -- - - - - ---- --

the County of Le€hbridge over a ,l2-year period, 1974 to 1985;

2. to determine the effects o'f subdivision in terms of acreage agproved for

subdivision, number of lots created. and. the capability of land involved

Y for six land use categories;

3. to determine the extent to which appeals have affected the amount of

land approved for subdtvision; and

4. to present conclusions and recommendations for improving agricultural 6

iand conservation at local, regional. and provtncial levels.

This study could be utilized as the basis' f,or a more detailed and

comprehensive study incorporating data from other rural municipalities to make, time

and spatial cornparisoris- B y comparing the rate and extent of rural subdivision in

urban frrnge and shadow areas of Lethbridge with other major urban centers in

Alberta, i t would be possible to determine the degree of change in land demand

and infer tne relative succ&ss- of each regional planning comm~ssion in conserving

agricultural land. Addittonally. more rigorous stattst~cal anaiys~s could be

future research to discover the lrnkages between land use po l~cy changes

subdivision activity.

utilized In

and

Research materials and data for this study were based largely on

documemation available from.ORRPC and through consultation with its planning

staf f . As subdivision applications were not directly available for invest~gatioti, due

the~r confidential status, primary data were obtained from ORRPC subdivision

- Subdivis~on registers summarize key facts ccmpiled-from subdtvision

appl tcat ions for review purposes. Only data for applicat rons recorded In ORRPC

registers were used In this study. Applications not transferred to the registers, and

appltcations recorded without a dectsion, were disregarded. making the number of

appiications used in this study slightly lower than the number received. Not all

subdivisions occurring in the County of ~ o t h b r i b ~ e are processed by ORRPC. Under t

section 86 of The Planning Act, RSA 1980, the Land Titles Office may provide a

separate tit le for land parcels not having u ~ e r g ~ ~ ~ b d i v i S i 0 ~ a p p r o V a r b y ~ ~ -

subd'r tision approving authority i f the land involves some registered obstruction and

if certified by an appropriate government department. 0

Data were recorded and tabulated for each calendar year from 1974 to 1985

inclusive. Only subdivision activity'within rural areas of the County of Lethbridge

was reviewed. Subdivis~on within the boundaries of hamlets, villages, towns, and r '?

the City of l.&hbridge was -not considered in this study. -

Information which was tran~ferred from the subdivision registers onto printed

data cards included the following:

year and file number

legal land description

ORRPC's initial decision and final ruling

total area subdivided

number of lots created

lot sizes

intended land use or uses

appeal of ORRPC's decision u

Alberta Planning Board ruling i'f appealed. z 9

The format of printed data cards used in recording information from subdivision

registers is shown in appendix 2. A complete listing of dbta recorded in ORRPC

subd~viston registers is found in appendix 3.

Ind~vidual applications were followed through to the appeal stage for each

application; appeals were not treated as a separate data set. The =final ruling of *

ORRPC on-a subdivision application, though frequentLy falling into the next calendar

year, was included in data for the calendar year in which the application was a_

submitted. ~

Minor difficulties associated with a nonuniform recording system within the

registers resulted in the need for interpretive work of data coritained in the 1974

register. I n 1975 a new, more w e l l defined, format o f data presentat ion was

employed which was preserved throughout successive years. Remarks and marginal -

notes contained in the 1974 register madgPit p o s s i b l e t 6 d i s a ? j m ~ ; d ~ ~ ~ t o the / -

same categories used i n the registers f r o m 1975 on. In general, f e w ambiguit ies

were evident w i th in the recorded data making the transfer o f in format ion t o printed 1

data cards re la t ive ly stra ight forward. Data o f an equivocal nature could generally be

i n f e r r e d f r o m other in fo rmat ion and remarks provtded. . *

-. . The registers d id no t prov ide in format ion on the exist ing land use at the t ime

o f subdiv is ion application. In format ion o n the agricultural capabi l i ty o f land, based

o n the Canad,a Land Inventory (CLI) ciasi f icat ion system, was obtained f r o m a d - - -

speciat ly produced large-scale CLI map (1:63,360) f o r the County o f Lethbridge. -- -

Unfortunately, th is scale does no t prov ide suf f ic ient detai l t o determine the a

capabi l i ty o f smaller land parcels on ly several acres in size. Inadequacy o f the map

scale led t o class de f in i t i on problems. especial ly i f on ly a f e w acres were t o be . .G

subdiv ided out o f a quarter sect ion o f land comprised o f up t o three d i f ferent CLI

classes. I n instances where more than one CLI class was invbfved for a legal land --

descript ion, the class contain ing the' greatest acreage o f several classes fo r that C - >

land descr ipt ion was chosen t o be representative. I t is the general bel ief among

ORRPC s ta f f that CLI maps o f t en overstate agricll l tural land quality, E x s t i n g CLI -- -

4 data are over 20 years old. + ---.-

Stated intended land use categories use8 in i h i s study have been l i rnl ted t o

the f o l l ow ing six, a l l o f which were contained in the registers. t

AGRICULTURE: includes bo th intensive and extensive f a rm operations.

COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL: includes rural acreages and farm'stead separation

uses.

RESIDENTIAL: re fers t o rural residences located o n smaller

adjacent t o urban boundaries or in cluster developments.

SMALL HOLDtNG: invotves parcels o f tand used fo r unspec

nonagricultural, purposes.

lo ts , o f t e n

i f ied, genera

1NDUSTRlAL and COMMERCIAL: re fe rs t o subdiv is ions s o described w i th in the

registers.

OTHER: includes the fo l lowing uses which are indicated in the registers: park,'

cemetery, bird sanctuary, school site, irrigation and drainage canabs, go l f

course extensions, waterr9servoi r . ~ c h u r c h , ~ c a m p g r o u n ~ ~ s ~ w a g e l a g o o n i d b

transmission site, and riding arena. - --

Virtually all applications involved land subdivision for one intended use only.

Excluding agriculture, each o f the above intended land uses would result in

land use change i f the existing use was agriculture. The only exception .was

farntstead separation, included En the country residential use category above, where

the previous land use was, o i had been, residential though considered as an

agricutturat use o f land. That is, there was no conversion of so calted agricultural - -

land t o other uses, only the t i t le o f an existing residential site was changed.

The total area t o be subdivided and the number o f lo ts t o be created were

clearly indicated in the registers. The total area subdivided refers t o the acreage o f

the lot being created excluding residual land f rom the original parcel. When t w o or

more lots were t o be created, and individual lo t sizes were not recorded, the total

ares t o be subdivided was divided b y the number o f lo ts t o be created t o give an

average lot size.

Subdivision applications were either: approved, approved w i th conditions, or

refused by ORRPC. In some instances applications were withdrawn b y the applicant

prior to, or after, a decision was given. Expired app1ica:ions were treated as

withdrawn. Applicants wishing t o challenge an ORRPC decision appealed t o the

Alberta Planning Board. Appeals were either upheld or denied b y the board.

Occasionally an .appeal was abandoned b y the applicant and thus treated as a

withdrawn application.

Canada Land Inventory classes were divided into three separate categories: CLI

class 7-2; CLI class 3-4; and CLI class' 5-7. Although ORRPC

1-4 +and 6s better agri-cuttwat tand in tts Regtonat Ptan, these

separated into two categories t o pro;ide greater d e t a i l o n the

for each intended use (ORRPC, 1984).

considered CLI class

f o w classes were

type o f land involved -

Not al l data were available fo r each application recorded in the registers. In - - - -

several instances, irreconcilable errors or simple omissions were present for an - - - --- - -- --- - - - - - - - -- --

application in the subdivision registers. - Therefore, the numbers provided in total d

columns may show slight variation among tables.

Data f rom printed cards were manually processed and tabulated. ~ u m e r i c a l '

values which were derived were constantly cross-checked across tables t o ensure - accuracy and consistency.

Emphasis throughout this study is placed on agriculturai and country residential

land uses as these t w o uses comprise the overwhelming major i ty o f applications. -

- -

In many instances the other four intended land uses - residential, small holding,

industrial and commercial, and other intended uses - yield too l i t t le data t o be

significant statistically.

Rural Subdivision A~pl icat ior, ;

Number of Applications

Over the 12-year period f rom 1974 t o 1985, a total of 529 applications were

re-corded fo r rural subdivision in the County o f Lethbridge (table 2 ) . W e number o f 0 - - - - --

applications increased steadily f rom 1975, the year during which the fewest

applications were submitted (22), t o a peak level in 1982 when. almost three t imes

that number o f applications were processed by ORRPC (65) (fig. 2, plot--A). -

Thereafter the number o f applications stabilized ' in the l ow 40's. The f ive years

f rom 1978 t o 1982 showed the greatest act iv i ty ig number o f applications for rural

subdivision; over 50 applications w e r e submitted each year for this period.

While the number o f applications fo r rural subdivision in the County of

Lethbridge (plot A) rose sl ightly f rom 1979 to 1982, the general trend for all rural

municipalit ies within the Oldman River planning region (plot C) showed a strong i

decline .for the same period. It IS, however, important to note that a direct

comparison between these two p lots is misleading as the former excludes data for - I

subdivisions in hamlets ~k ich- - i s - ' inc luded in the latter. The general pattern o f . -

FIGURE 2. Applications for rural subdivision in the County of Lethbridge and Oldman River planning region: 1974-1985.

A - subdivision applications for rural areas only in the County of kthbridge. B - subdivision applications for rural areas and hamlets in the County

of Lethbridge.

6 - subdivision.applications for rural areas and hamlets for all rural municipalities in the ORRPC: counties 2, 5 , 26; municipal districts 6, 9, 14, 26 ; and Impmvement &strict 6.

NOTE: Data for B and C are presented in calendar years up to 1977 and in fiscal years from 1977 onward as f d in ORRPC annual reports. Data for A are presented entirely in alemiar years.

Abbreviations: O M - 01- River Regional Planning Comnission.

applications submitted for all rural municipalities over 12 years @lot C) is not at

all reflected i r . the erratic behavior of applications submitted for subdivision within

the County of Lethbridge @lot 6). - -- - - - - - - -- ppppp

-

I

Status of Subdivision Apptications --

Two decisions were predominant for subdivision applications (table 2). For all .

years combined, the decision .to conditionally approve applications accounted for the

greatest number of applications (45%) closely fol lowed by the decision to refuse

subdivision applications (42%). The decision to approve applications was of greater

consequence from 1974 to 1978 than- f rom 1979 ~ n w a r d where its frequency of use

was curtailed. A trend is noticable for applicatioi;~ conditionally approved or A-

refused. While i t is generally true that these two decisions accounted for the

majority o f applications in any year, the annual proportion of refus3ls for - --- --

subdivision applications was greater for 1974 to 1980 while, alternatively, the

proportion of applications conditionally approved was greater from 1981 to 1985,

during which time the percentage of such decisions inc'reased annually: The high

proportion of conditional spprovals for applications is especially noticeable in 1984

and 1985.

l ntended Use of Land Under Application , ~ -

-

Of the six intended use categories, applications were primarily for the

subdiv is iodof land for agri'cultural-use or for country residential use (table 3). In

all years, except 1974, 1977, and 1978, subdivision applications for cauntry

all other intended uses. The large proportion of e

applications for country residential use is especially noticeable during 1975, 198 1,

1982,- 1983, and 1985 when this use accounted for more than one-half of all 0

applications. From 1977 to 1983, the annual proportion of applications for country

residential use steadily rose from -34% to 61%. a

Except for the three years in which agriculture applications outnumbered other

intended uses, agriculture was clearly the second most preferred land use.

Residential and small holding uses were largely inconsequential for any glve>n year.

-

TABL

E 2.

Disposition of

rural subdiviqion applications; 1

974-

1985

.

Year

i -

qRR

PC Decision

I A

AC

R W *

I TO

TAL

- No.

% No.

&/

% No.

, %

No.

% No.

%**

19

74

13

39

6 18

14

42

0

0 33

100

1975

7

32

3 14

10

45

2

9 22

108

Total

47

. 9

239

45

2 23

42

20

4 52

9 100

- I * refers primarily t

o kithdrawn applications- but also i

ncludes expired applications.

** pe

rcientages may not add t

o 100.0

due to rounding.

Abbreviations :

A - approved;

AC

- approved conditionally;

R - refused; W

- withdrawn;

No.

- number;

% - percent; ORRPC

- Oldman River Regional Planning Com

issi

on.

6 I

L

I

I I

TABLE

3.

Sta

ted

in

ten

ded

use

of

sub

div

isio

n a

pp

lica

tio

ns:

19

74-1

985.

Yea

r -

Inte

nded

Use

AG

CR

R

SH

I/c

OTH

ER

TDTA

L N

o.

% N

o.

- 8

No.

%

No.

%

No.

% No.

% No.

% *

P 974

23

. 64

' 7

217

2 - 6

2

6 0

0 1

3 33

100

1975

7.

32

13

-

59

'

0 0

1

5 0

0 1

5 22

100

-'%

I

I I I

To

tal.

19

9 3 8

24

6

4 7.

15

3 8

2 25

5

36

7

* pe

rcen

taff

es

my

no

t ad

d to

100

.0 d

ue t

o r

ound

ing :

i A

bb

rcv

inti

on

s:

AG

- ag

ricu

ltu

re;

CR

- co

un

try

rc

sid

en

tiil

;

R -

resi

de

nti

al;

SH

-

smal

l ho

ldin

g;

I/C

-

ind

ust

ria

l co

mne

rcir

i2 ;

% -

per

cen

t ;

No.

-

num

ber.

Of the two remaining intended land use categories, more applications were

submitted, on average, for "othsr" intended uses than for industrial and commercial

land uses. Except for two insta~ces,-l979-and-1984;each oP tkesSe7wotard use pp

- categories represented less than 10% of all applications for any given year.

ORRPC Decisions for each Intended Use

ORRPC decisions for agricultural use applications were variable from year to

year (table 4). For this use, ORRPC alternated between conditionally approving or

refusing applications. Con@itionally approved applications were however

proportionally equal to or greater in number than any other decision for 9 out of - - -

12 years, accounting on average for 52% of all decisions in any given year. The

use of conditional approvals is especially noteworthy during the period 1981 to

1985. fu l ly approved applications for agricultural use became almost nonexistent

after 1978. '

Conditionally approved and refuTsed subdivision applications were also

dominant for country residentiz use. In this instance, however, the alternative was

true; in 9 out of 12 years ORRPC refwed more applications than it approved or 1

conditionally approved. On average, 56% of applications were refused annually. The

proportion of applications refused for country residential use was generally greater - -

i

'during the first -7 years than in the last 5 years which were marked by a steady

decline in the number of refused applications. Conversely, the proportion of

conditionally approved applications increased significantly over the last 6 year&

b (1980-1985). The decision to fully approve country residential applications became

almost nonexistent after 1979. - - - . 4

Decisions on applications for residential or small holding uses were either

refusals or conditional approvals. Frequently, only 1 application was submitted

or residential and small holding uses. The small number af applications

together with the variability of ORRPC decisions throughout the 12 years, t

make i t impossible to discern a clear patted of decisions for these land uses- --

- TA

BLE

4.

Subdivision applicat

ions

app

rove

d, app

rove

d co

ndit

iona

lly,

or re

fuse

d fo

r each

intended use:

1974

-198

5.

Year

-

1974

19

75

L''-% 19

78

1979

2980

V

I Q

I 19

81

1982

19

83

1984

19

8 5

APP -

Intended Use

No.

11

4

6 N

o.

13

3

No

.1

36

N

o.

3 1

0

8

No.

3

13

6 N

o.

07

7

No.

0

9 14

N

o.

0 14

8

No.

1

13

' 7

No

.0

91

No.

0

10

3 N

o.

06

4

AA

C

R A

AC

R

A

AC

R

AA

C

R

AA

C

R

AA

C

R A

AC

R

Total

No.

20 1

01

73

%*

10

52

38

* percentages

may

not

add

add

to 1

00.0

due

to ro

undi

ng.

I i Abbreviations:

AG

- agricultur

e; CR -

cou

ntry

res

iden

tial

; R

- res

iden

tial

; SH

- mll h

old

ing;

I,

I/C

- industrial com

nerc

ial ;

A - approved ; AC

- 'approved co

ndit

iona

lly ;

R -

refu

s ;

App

- applicat

ions

; No.

- number;

% - pe

rcen

t; O

W - OlQnan

River Regional

I Planniq Comnission.

! %

The majority of ORRPC decisions for industrial and commercial. and other

m e n d e d land uses were conditional appro~sis, averaging 67% and 56% respectivgiy - - - - - - - - - -- - ---

for sfiy given year. Of sit intended lmct uses, ?he 'other' caregory contained the - -

throughout the 12 .years, The percentage of refused applications far industrial pnd

c&qrnercisl, and other iand uses was considerably lower than for the other four '

land use categories.

~ u b d i v i s i o n dpplications favoring the creation o f multiple lots f rom an existing

tand parcel occurred most frequentfy for rssidentral. country residenttat, and - rndl;strist and commerrciai l b d - uses (table 5 ) Here, yatrr-to-year variability in the

P

number of tors created per applrcat~on prsctudes the possibilt?y-of idenlrfytng any

trend. Often oniy one appl:ratmn tn a given year, for any one of the six m e n d e d

trse categortes. ts responsibfe for the htgh average fatto o f iots per app~ichtion.

Examples 8re 1981 for rndustrrel and C Q ~ ~ @ ~ C I U I use and 1974 for country ,

resfdent ial use.

Bozh sgrrcutture! and country res~denrtal iahd use categories contarn a

subsiantr8lly greater number of applical~ous f rom which it is p ~ s s i b l e lo establish a

relr8ble ratla of the number o f iots created per applrcstion. The calculaied ratio

tends to be greater for country reside"&ial use, bur is no; substantially greeter then L

the ratio df luts created per appltcarton for agricultural use. Excluding data for 1974

and 797% \;ohen the number of lots ro be crested per application for country 1(

restdentla: use was atypical. the 10-y&r (1976-19853 average ratio fo r country

res~dentral bse was 1.6 lots per application. The average rs t io for agricultural use

was 1.2 lots per application. Except for 1974 and 1975, annual fiuctustions in the ,.

value of rat ios were confined within tight timits for these t w o land uses.

te permr: any clear statement on the presence of a pattern in the number o f ia?s

created per application. On everage, 4.6 lois wer to be created fur indrtstrial and P ~ o m r n e r c ~ a f uses, givmg rhts category the highest lot per application ratio, For other

intended uses it is clear that al l appl ications were intended t o create on ly one lot.

This category is i n marked contrast t o the other f ive intended use categories which .@

showed variabi l i ty in the number o f I ~ t s topbe c rea ted pet-applE_cationtromyear_to- e3

year.

Agricultural Land Capability and ORRPC Decisions - .

In every year, w i t h the exception o f 1976, the major i ty o f ORRPC decisions

concerning agricultural land use 6pp~icat ions were for CLI class-1 and 2 land (table >

6). In i t s decision t o either approve, condi t ional ly approve, or refuse applications

fo r agriculture, in 8 out o f 12 years over 60% o f ORRPC decisions annually were

fo r land having a CLI rat ing o f class 1 and 2 while less than 40% o f decisions

were f o r class 3 t o 7 land. The actual decisions given f o r each CLI class are t o o

erratic over the study per iod t o indicate any clear trend other than the fo l lowing:

generally more condit ional approvals were granted fo r each CLI class annually than

any other decision, especial ly during the last 6 years, 1980-1985.

1";;

S imi lar ly f o r country residential use, in 7 out o f 12 years over 60% o f ORRPC

decisions annually were f o r CLI class 1 and 2 - land. Proport ional ly more

applications were refused than approved or condi t ional ly approved f o r each CLI

class i n this land use category.' %r7 annual comp'arison o f the propor t ion o f - - - - - -

decisions fo r CLI class 3 and 4 land clearly shows that for every year, except -.

1981, more decisions were made . for country residential use on class 3 and 4 land

than f o r agriculture. That is, there were p p o r t i o n a l l y more applications submitted

for country residential use o f CLl class 3 and 4 land than was the case fo r

agricultural use. Both

class 5 t o 7 land.

The major i ty o f

involv$g CLI class 3

decisions fo r class 1

pr imar i ly class 1 and

or&fusals for each CLI

o f the above land uses contained relat ively f e w decisions f o r

decisions f o r residential land uses were fo r applications

and 4 lar J c losely f o l l owed b y a large propor t ion o f

and 2 land. Small holding subdivision applications involved

2 land. Decisions alternated between conditional approvals and

class w i th in these t w o intended use categories.

040

ION*

000

400

f

000

000

000

000

000

0 0 4

0 0 4

0 4 0

0 0 0

0 4 0

000

4 o m

o o m

000

W N C U

b N b

00 -

O O M

hNV)

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

d o 0

O Q O

000

000

0 0 4

O O N

m o d

0 4 4

004

4 N 4

0

0, ~d

n r - 4

0

d

N

0

l-i

PJ

0

0

4

0

M

O N O

Obrn

u)*lr) d

000

000

N O 0

000

000

000

0 0 0

004

000

000

040

000

000

O N M

000

000

O M -

O O N

000

O M N

40 -

9 t- ul l-i P

T

004

-*s ONQO

cW

000

000

O N 4

000

000

O O M

000

000

000 a

000

000

000

004

ONr-

O M 9 rl

000

O N Q

000

000

000

000

0 4 4

008-4

O d d

N W N

4 W r -

0 0 0

004

or--

<Ye

O Q O 0

0 0 0

0""

d o 0

y W

y 000

ul Ln VI

aj d 7 o o o n

;j y 000

F 4

VI Ln " * a :' M

;i , 4

ON-

0-9 -

O d d

A n overwhelming major i ty o f appl icat ions fo r industr ia l and commercia l land

uses invo lved CLI class 1 and 2 land. - Here condi t ional approval decis ions were - - --

more frequently given than either approvals o r refusals. Subd iv is ion appl icat ions f o r -

other intended uses were found pr imar i l y o n land hav ing a CLt ctass rating o f 1

and 2. Here the ini t ial ru l ing o f the ORRPC w a s t o o variable t o s ta te that any one

decis ion predominated during the study period.

When al l land uses are combined, i n 10 out o f 12 years (excluding 1974 and

1976) 60% or more o f decisions annually were fo r appl icat ions where the intended

land use was t o be located o n CLI class 1 and 2 land. hat is, p ropor t iona l ly more

appl icat ions were t o r high capabi l i ty land than f o r land having a lower agricultural

capabi l i ty. It i s interest ing t o h o t e that 56% o f the County o f ~ e t h b i i d ~ e i s -

compr ised ~ . f CLI class 1 and 2 land (appendix 4). This t rend i s ev ident no t on+y -

f o r a l l intended uses combined but is general ly the case 'for each intended use

category. Comparat ively f e w decisions were made f o r land having a CLI class

rat ing o f 5 t o 7.- While the actual number o f each decis ion var ied considerably o n

an annual basis fo r each CLI class w i th in each intended use category, proport ional ly ,

one decis ion dominated throughout the 12 years

intended use category.

t

Acreage and Number of Lots Under Application

The acreage under appl icat ion showed w ide

f o r each CLI class w i th in each

f luctuat ions f r o m year t o year fo r

each CLI class w i th in each intended use category (table 7). Substant ia l ly more

acreage wb; under appl icat ion f o r agricultural use than fo r other land uses. For a l l

12 years combined, 9351 acres o f class 1 and 2, 4221 acres o f class 3 and 4, and -%

1363 acres o f class 5 t o 7 land were unde'r appl icat ion f o r agricultural use. The

ma jo r i t y o f agricultural lo ts were t o be si tuated o n class 1 and 2 land.

Except f o r 1976 and 1983, considerably more acres under appl icat ion f o r . - 7.

country ' resident ial use or ig inated f r o m class 1 and 2 land than f r o m ciass 3 t o 7

land. When consider ing the to ta l acreage fo r each CLI class, 2957 acres o f class 1 /

and 2 . 1385 acres o f class 3 and 4, and 365 acres o f class 5 t o 7 land were under

appl icat ion. I t i s also o n the best agricultural land that the ma jo r i t y Of country

TO

.

Acr

eage

and

num

ber

of

lots

und

er a

pp

lica

tio

n b

y C

LI

cla

ss a

nd i

icen

ded

use

: 19

74-1

985.

A

Under

YE A

pp

1974

A

cres

b

ts

1976

A

cres

L

ots

1977

A

cres

h

ts

1978

Acres

Lot

s

1979

A

cms

Lot

s

1981

A

cres

L

ots

1982

A

cres

L

ots

Inte

nded

Use

AG

CR

R SH

I/

C

anW

WA

L

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Cla

ss

a1

cla

ss

CLI

Cla

sq

UI C

lass

CL

T C

lass

TABL

E 7.

Continued

Und

er

1983

Acres

Lots

1984

Acws

' Lots

1985

Acvs

Q\

Cn

bts

Total

Acres

bt$

CLI Class

CLI Class

a1 Class

CLI Class

a1 Class,

CLI

Cla

ss

a1

Cla

ss

Abbreviation:

AG -agriculture;

CR i

country resi$ent.i.al; R

- residential ; SH -

mal

l ho

ldin

g;

I/C

- industrial c

yrrial ;

CLI

- C

anada Land Inventory; App

- application.

I I

j.

I

residential lo ts were t o be created. Relatively f e w acres or lots involved class 5 to

7 land.

- - - - - - -- - -- - -

- Applications fb r residential and smill holding land uses were for land having s

class 1 t o 4 rating* Wi th f e w exceptions, the amount of Land to utiCi& and the Pt,

number o f lots t o be created annually fo r these t w o uses was marginal.

. . Industrial and commercial, and other land uses were to be situated prima'rily

o n CLI class 1 and 2 land w i th some use o f class 3 and d. The acres and

lo ts involved were highly variable f rom year-to-year but clear that more lots

were intended for industrial and commercial use than for other land uses. -

Thus, the bulk o f land under application is primari ly for CLI class 1 and 2

land (13,376 acres) w i th a moderate amount o f class 3 and 4 land involved (5880

acres) and a smaller, though not insignificant, acreage involving class 5,to 7 land

" (1744 acres).

Effects o f Rural Subdivision

Thus far this study has analyzed the composit ion o f applications for rural

subdivision within the County o f Lethbridge. Having determined the make-up o f - - - --

applications in the preceeding section,,/it is now possible to single out the impact

o f subdivision applications which were given final approval by ORRPC. Although

this section incorporates data f rom appeal decisions, appeals and their impact are

separately discussed in the fo l lowing section.

Subdivision ap-iven final approval include applications for which set

condit ions had been satisf ied or for which appeals were upheld by the A'lberta

Planning Board. A note o f caution is however needed when interpreting data for

this section. Applicants may have chosen not to carry through w i th subdivision. ln -

this case, subdivided lo ts would not be registered w i th the Land Titles O f f ~ c e , - -

though f inal approval was granted by the subdivision approving authority. 3

The number and percentage o f applications ult imately approved in relation t o

the total number o f applications submitted is i l lustrated in figure 3. The proport ion

o f applications utfimately approve& ranges from-a-tow o f 4 7 % ~ t r i - g P I o f - 7 8 % ~ -

No clear trend is apparent. The t w o highest percentages o f f inal approvals occurred

in the last t w o years. f'

Lots Approved by Size

The number o f lo ts given final approval by the ORRPC, b y lot size, for each

intended use is shown in tables 8 and 9. The lot size categories selected fo r this

study are similar t o those used b y Thompson (Environment Council o f Alberta, -

1982). The numb'er o f lots in each size category varied, o f ten considerably, for each

intended use f rom year-to-year. Unless indicated otherwise, the data presented in

this subsection are f rom table 9.

Parcels for agricultural use tended t o be larger in size than those for other

land uses. The bulk of agricultural applications in any given year were fo r the

subdivision o f land into parcels ranging f rom 20.1 t o 80 acres. Of these, the

greatest proport ion (49%) were fo r the subdivision o f land into lo ts 40.1 t o 80

acres in size. Most applications in this size category were fo r spl i t t ing

quarter-section parcels into t w o equal -- sized - - halves. On average, - lo ts greater than - - - - - - - - - -

80.1 acres were approved 80% o f the time.

Applications for country residential use were primari ly for the creation o f lo ts

10 acres or smaller in size. Few applications were submitted fo r the subdivision o f

land into lots for country residential use greater than 20 acres. Larger lots, ranging

f rom 20.1 t o 40 acres, had the highest approval rate (74% on average). The , w b e r

o f lots approved for each size category was erratic f rom year t o )#ear. No clear

pattern emerged other than the fol lowing: as the number o f lots t o be created for

a lot size category increased, the number o f a'pprovals became proport ionally less.

Thus, l o t s ranging in size f r o m 5 t o 1Q a G F W had the I w s t appr~vaC rate. Tki-s

may have reflected the decision t o refuse subdivision for country residential use ,

when i t involved the creation o f mult iple lo ts f rom a single existing parcel. Overall,

30% o f al l country residential lo ts were approved for subdivision over 12 years,

o o b o o o

000 r l 0c

TABLE 8 .

Cont in

u, ,d

Lot

Size

Yea

r (A

cres

) - To

tal

Total

Tot

al

1nt&

dSd

Use

No.*

A**

No.

A No.

A "

'NO

. A

No.

A No.

A

No.

A

t

O O O O Q O 0

000000 0 N O O O O Q -.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O C l O G O

o o o c ~ o o o.,

M O O d M O 0 m d o o o o 4 M N W - d M M O d

rl

' I - 0. k

E n '

which i s less than hal f of the propor t ion approved f o r agriculture (65%). Country

residential use accounted f o r 40% (196 l o ts ) o f al l !ots created (498) f o r al l * - - - -- - - -

intended uses over the study peri-od. - - - -

a

Residential lot; less than 5 acres in size compr ised 8 9 2 o f l o t s for this use.

O f these, the major i ty we re appr-ovzd f r o m 1974 t o 1979 and the major i ty were

refused f r o m 1980 t o 1985 (table 8). For ty one S r c e n t o f a l l residential lo ts under

appl icat ion were approved. ' > .

Smal l hold ing appl icat ions Were errat ic in terms o f l o t s intended for each ,size

category f r o m year-to-year. For ty seven percent o f al l l o t s fo r th is use were li --- --

approved, s l ight ly higher than f o r rgsidential uses.

- -- - - - -

Virtual ly al l (97%) l o t s t o be created fo r industrial and c o m h e r c l a ~ uses weri:

less than 10 acres i n size. The ma jo r i t y o f these lo ts were approved. (Seventy

seven percent o f al l industr ial and commercia l lo ts under appl icat ion were approved.

~ a s t l y , appl icat ions f o r other intended land uses were f o r l o t s o f varying .size

but, as fo r industr.ial. and commercia l use, the r n a j o r ~ t y o f l o ts created were under

10 acres in size. Psoport ional ly more l o t s were .approved for "{other" intended uses

than was the case f o r the other f i v e land use categories. For al l 12' years b

combined: 87% o f lo ts under appl icat ion were approved. " 6

Agricultupl Capability of Land Approved ," - I ,

6

The ma jo r i t y o f land u l t imate ly approved for . subd~v i s i on was CLl class 1 and \

2 land (table 10). Whqn compared t o table 7, which depicts the a

under appl ic&t ion fo r each CLI class,.it i s possib le t o determine C

number o f l o t s w h ~ c h were approved fo r s u b d i v ~ s ~ o n fo r each CLI class and, I

intended use.

The'acrebge approved f r o m year-to-year f o r each CLI class IS h ~ g h l y variable.

For agricuftural use. 6960 acres o f CLI class 1 and 2 and 2363 acres o f class 3 and

4 land (Dotre approved over 12 years which resulted respect ively in a 74% and 56% h

approv 1 I rate. Seventy four per tent (7008 acres) o f p lass r5 t o 7 land was approved x

TABL

E 10.

Act

eage

, nu

mbe

r of

lo

ts,

and

num

ber

of applications approved b

y CLI class

and intended

,use

: 1974-1985.

Year

A* -

, In

tend

ed U

se

I 1

AG

CR

R SH

I/C

(YIH

ER

TOTA

L i

I

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Cla

ss -

CL

I C

lass

1978

rats

QP

'

1979

~

r:re

s k

lts

A~)

P

1980

&

res

LQ

ts,

&P

TABL

E 10.

Continued

'

Year

A*

- -

Intended Use

. AG

CR

R 3 l

I/C

- UmER

TOTA

L P

CLI Cl

ass,

CLI Class

CLI Class

CLI Class

CLI crass

CLI Class

CLI

aa

ss

B

1-2 3-4 5-7

1-2

3-4

5-7

1-2

3-4

5-7

1-2

3-4

5-7

1-2

3-4

5-7

1-2

3-4

5-7

1-2

3-4

5-7

1981

Acres

683

380

0 78

20

0 0

00

16

00

0

15

0 1

60

768 421

0 tots

11

7"

O 10

3 0

0 0

.O

10

0 0

15

0 1

1.

0

23

26

0 *PP

11

6 q

10

3 0

00

0 1

00

0

10

11

0 '2311

0

1582

Acres

Lots

Am

I

1983

Acres

Lots

APP

1984

Acres

Lnts

App

1985

Acres

Lot

s 4%'

- i

Tot

al Acres

6960 2363 1008

951

821

56

9 19

3 103

19

0

354

69

0 443

39

0 8820-33301067

bts

107

39

12

91 100

5 1

7 10

6 1

0 6919

0 26

8 0

300

174

27

I\~

P

94

33

8 84

41

5 1

71

41

01

74

02

38

O 223

94

14

* includes applications under appeal which were upheld.

Abbreviations:

AG

- agriculture; CR - country residential

R - residential; SH

- small holding;

I/C

- industrial carmercial; CLI

- Canada id

d Inventory;

A -

a*m

ved;

Ap

p - a

pplications.

I

,.

for subdivision.

It is clear that the establishment o f country residential and residential land - - -- 0- - - - -- - - -- - --- --- p-----p

uses on the best agricultural land (class 1 and 2) was curtailed during the study

*period. For country residential use, 951 acres o f C t t ctass 1 and 2, 8 R acres o f -

class 3

resulted

and 4,

in a 3

and 56 acres o f class 5 t o 7 land were given f inal approval. This

i 2%. 59%, and 15% approval rate f o acreage under application for each . of the above CLI classes respectively. For residential use, 17% o f CLI class 1 and

2 and 6 5 8 'of class 3 and 4 acreage under application was approved. The exact

11- holdings; 64% o f class 1 and 2 andJi7% o f c lass '3 and opposite is true for sma

4 land was approved for

I"dustria1 and commercial, and other intended land uses bxperienced the. highest

approval rates. The 354 acres o f CLI class 1 and 2 .land, subdivided represents a . - " - ' < -

90% approval rate and the 69 acres o f class 3 and 4 land subrjivi'ded represents a . , 96% approvai rate for 'industrial and commercial 'use. .For ohe; intended uses: 443

* - acres o'f class 1 and 2 land were subdivided for a" 96% appfoval rate and 39 acre;.

I * - /

' , v

o f class 3 and 4 land were subdivided for a 65% approval rate:These percentages

reveal that vi.rtually all ..land under applicati'o'n for these use categories was given -. . T .. -6

f inal approval.

The percentage o f land approved for each CLI .class for al l intended, uses '

. . - 1,

* - combined shows considerable variation f rom year-to-year' (table 11). When ,

' \ b .

considering all 12 years o f data, 66% (8820 acres) o f class 1 a n 6 2, '575 '(3330 9

acres) o f class 3 and 4, and 61% J1067. acres) o f class 5 >o 7 land & d ~ r

application for ' subdivision was approved for all intended uses.. What. is-signtf icant I -

is that approval rates were considerably higher forb class 1 and 2* 1an.d f rom 19B1 . . e

onward than for the period up to, and including, 1980 as a greater -pro&rt io" oY ' ,

9

agricultural land under application was permitted for agricultural:&e in the la t te r . + ' ? ?

period ( tabhs 7 and 10). When consideririg al1,CLI classes together:- theLacreage. , - -

approved for each o f the last four yeais,. 1982 t o 1985. inbicates' a much higher a .

approval ;ate than for any other peridd during the. 12-year study peribd (table 11) . i -

When represented diagrammatically, the data f rom table 11 'show more t le&ly thei

Yea

r -

t

TABL

E 11

. -A

crea

ge

and

per

cen

t o

f ac

reag

e ap

prov

ed f

or

each

CL

I c

lass

in

re

lati

on

to

ac

reag

e4 un

der

app

lica

tio

n:

1974

-198

5.

To

tal

Acr

es

to b

e P

erce

nt

of

Sub

divi

ded

from

k;c

res

App

rove

d A

cres

App

rove

d a

ll A

pp

lica

tio

ns

for

Su

bd

ivis

ion

*

for

Su

bd

ivis

ion

C

LI

Cla

ss

CLI

C

lass

C

LI C

lass

1-

2 3-

4 5 -

7 T

ota

l 1

-2

3-4

5-7

To

tal

- i-

2

3-4

5-7

To

tal

,

* in

clu

des

npp

l ica

tio

ns

unde

r ap

pea

l w

liic

h .w

ere

uphe

ld.

F",

Ab

bre

viq

tio

ns:

C

LI

- -n

ada

Lan

d In

ven

tory

. I

proportion o f acreage approved,for CLI class 1 and 2 and class 3 and 4 land in

relation t o the acreage under application (fig. 4). .- - - - - - - - - 7--- - -

- , . C

Acreage qf Land roved . ' -

L .

The total acrea.ge a'ppcoved for each intended use 1s highly variable f rom

year-to-year across 'all intended ubse categories, making i t d i f f icu l t t o ident i fy any >

.cl'ear- pattern (tabie 12). TKe grdi test amount o f land under application fo r 7

subdivision over the 12 years was fo f agricultural use (10,331 acres) fo l lowed by

country residential.use (1828 acre,^). While annual figures for industrial and

commercial ,and other 4and uses are erratic, both util ized approximately-the'same

amount o f land over 12 years: 423 acres fo r industrial and commercial use and 482

acres for' o.ther/intended uses. Residential and small holding Iwid uses had a k

marginal e f fect durihg the years up t o 1976. Thereafter, the acreage approved for>

these t w o ;ate&& virtually disappeared.

%

- When surveyed yearly, the greatest amount of land approved fo r all intended

uses combined Was duriqg .1974 (2157 bcros) while me fewest acres approved for

all intended uses combined was during T975 (464'acres). ~ ~ a i n no clear trend o f

&resg&,ipprohd ove'f' t i h e appears except that the acreage, approved &om '1982 on

has been steadityc fal l ing along with the acreage under application. The total ' -- -

combined acreage appiroved amounted t o 13,217 acres which represents 63% o f the^ . 9

2 1,000 acres under application during the 12-year study period.

* . - " a

ADDeal o f ' Subdivision A ~ ~ l i c a t i o n s u ,

Number d Appeals , ,

. -

The ndmber o f pppeals lodged w i th the Alberta Planning Board for each ,

decision .were highly vkriable (table 13)- Appeals b y applicants are possible only

when ORRPC has decided t o refuse or conditionally approve an application. I f

ORRW fai led t o provide a decision for a subdivision application withif! the t ime

prescribed, the applicant also had recourse t o appeal, bvt examples o f ' this were not \

apparent in the subdivisicn registers. In addition t o land owners l iv ing adjacent t o

FIGURE 4. Acreage under application and appioved for CLI c lass ii 1-2 and 3-4 land: 1974-1985.

CLI Class 3-4 1800

1400

I - acreage under application

! - - - - acreage apdmved , includirtt applications under appeal which were upheld

I ' >

*

2200

1800 .

1400 VJ Q, I- Y l0OOq

600 -

200 *

CLI Class 1 -2

.' \ L- - J

b TABLE

12.

Acr

eage

app

rove

d fo

r su

Wiv

isio

n f

or e

ach

inte

nded

use

: 1974-1985.

Yea

r --

Acr

eage

App

rove

d*

" AG

7

CR -

R I SH

I/c

OTHE

R -

TOTAL -

1974

16

97.

415

12

19

0

14

2157

1975

386

75

0

3 0

0 4 6

4

1984

658

137

1 0

39

4 839

1985

303

185

0

4 10

85

587

Tot

al

10331

1828

31

122

423

482

13217

L

%

C1

* in

clu

des

ap

pli

cati

ons

unde

r ap

peal

which were

uphe

ld.

i 2

'

(I

Abb

revi

a ons:

AG

- agriculture;

CR

- country residential;

S# - swll holding;

I/C

- industrial commercial.

'9tr.

TABLE q.' : w r of appeals ' for &&sed Ad conditionally appmved . *. 'applications: 1974-1985,' =P

I . i rtb , + , ,

. Year - C . 3 , .

ORRPC Decisi& Appealed

Approved L

, Total Conditionally Re fused ,- " Appeals

*No. 4' No. 8 - yo.* - 4

0 0 ' ' 6 16)O I 6 100 1 25 3 75 F 4 100

Total a 12 9 117 91

* includes a-bndoned appea 1 s . Abbreviations: So. - number; % - percent; ORRPC - Oldman

River Regional Planning C m i s s i o n ,

parcels to b e subdivided. a munic ipal i ty or a school board may appeal an ORRPC *

decision; ORRPC staf f indicated such appeals were infrequent.

Condi t ional ly approved apptications w e r e infrequently appealed except for 1985.

The pattern which emerges f r o m the data is roughly &e appeal d w i ~ ~ svecy - --

second year fo r condi t ional ly approved applications. Mos t appeals (91%) invo lved

applications r b u s e d b y the regional planning commission. As i s t o be expected, the

gieatest number o f appeals were-conducted during the years- which the greatest

number o f subdiv is ion applications were f i l ed w i t h ORRPC. 1978 t o . 1982 (fig. 1).

The number o f appeals re lat ive to the number o f subdivison a p p l i c a t i ~ n s is - - * - -

shown in table 14. ~ h e K considbri condrt ional ly approved appllcat ions, the -

propor t ion o f appl ications appealed i s somewhat var~ab le f r o m year-to-year.

averaging 5% annually. Appeals o f condi t ions imposed by ORRPC were nonexrstent > for 5 o f the 72 years thereby contr ibut ing to the low overalf propor t ion o f appeals . for this decision. In marked contrast. appi lcattons which &ere refused were

appealed w i t h regulari ty; on average, 53% o f refused appl cat Ions were appealed

annually.

When al l appl ications are combined, 24% were appealed' annr-rally. The number , I

o f appeals lodged w i t h the Alberta Planning Board was unusally high rn 1980 (43% - - - - - - --

of a l l applrcations) and at a l o w pornt tn 1984 (12% o f al l applicatlons). The former

high percentage o f appeals can be exp la~ned by the dispropprt ional ly high number 7

of re fused appi.ic8tions for that year.

A/ berm Planning Board Deci, 'ons

Subdtvls ion appeals are heard by the Alberta Planning Board. A bo&d d e c i s ~ o n /

t o uphold an appeal resul ts i n the decrsion o f the r e g ~ o n a l plannrrig commrsslon

being overturned. Where an appeal d e c i s ~ o n i s upheld. the appeal IS sustarned or

al lowed. A n m a ! board decisions show considerable var labill: y. Qn average.

appaals were upheld or approved f o r subdivrs~on, and 55% o f appeals were . annuafly (f ig. 5) .

Alberta Planning 6 o a r rulings on appealwere remarkably different for --

applications which were refused compared to those which were conditiondly -

app&d A , itable 1 r condiWbrta~ appreved applications; -tkeboa&ttpAet692% -

, and denied 8% of als. For refused applications, the b o d upheld 41% and

9- > k.5' * - -

denied 59% of appeals.-,'lri this instance the boaruhowed breater support for

ORRPC refused decisiohs than conditional approvals. This 'was the case for all

years except 1984 and 1985, during which the board upheld more refused

applrcations. In summary, the Alberta PI oard was generous in upholding

appeals for conditionally approved applic , meaning that ORRPC conditions were

overturned. The board was, however, m ed in denying appeals for refused --- - -

applicattons, in which case the ORRPC decision to not approve subdivision was

supported.

- Intended Use of Land Under Appeal 4 r r

More appeals occurred for-country dsid tial use than for any other intended $$q land use (table 16). Appeals for Bgricultu a1 and use applications occupy a distant

3 % >

second in terms of number f appeals, fdllowed by industrial and commercial and 9 - .

small holding land use More appeals were denied than upheld for 0 -- .

country residential and s+ll holding applications while the opposite was true for

agncutture and industriat and cornmere~atapptications. These g e n W ttenndsSmnay, -- -

however, show some variation $&@'rg.1 year to year. No appeals were upheld for ? 3

res~dential land uses. When combnihg a l l intended uses i t is generaily the case that P

slightly more appeals were denieq in any given year than upheld.

2 Agriculrural Capability of Land under Appeal

i J '1 L-

For each tntended use categdry, the majority of appeals were for class 1 and

2 land fotiowed by class 3 and 4 -1qnd (table 17). From 1974 to 1985, 62% (47) of Z

appeats originated from ctass t dnd 2 land for country residential use; 47% (22) of

these appezds were upheLd by t h e A W t a Pl- Board. For the same period, 79% ,

(27) of appeals originated from class 1 and -2 land for agricultural use; 5 6 8 (15) of

these appeals ware upheld by the board. Proportionally more appeals were upheld

for ctass 3 and 4 and class 5 to 7 land for agricultural use than for country -

TABLE 15. Caparison of ORRPC decisions on applications and Alberta Planning Ebard decisions on appeals : 1974 -1985,

Year

Total

-- -- - .-- -

- -

o m Decision 7 p&ning Board Decision - - -

Upheld Denied ~o'tal No. of No. of No. of Appeals % Appeals % Appeals %

Abbreviations: A€ - approved condit ional ly; R - refused; % - pewent; fio. - number; ORRPC - Oldman River Regional Planning C m i s s i o n . t

'I'mLE 1

6, Appeals

uphe

ld and d

enied

by t

he Alberta Planning Board for ea

ch i

ntended use: 1974-1985.

Yea

r -

Intended U

se

AG

CR

R SH

I/

C

OTHE

R TO

TAL

/'

U

D U

D

U D

U

D U

D U

D - - - -

- -

- - - -

U D

--

~.

NO

. ~.

NO

. ~.

NO

. NO

.~

. N

o.N

o.

No.&.

No.

b*

No.

t*

1974

0

0 2

2 0

0

1 1

0

0 0

0 3

50

3 SO

19

75

1

0 2

1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

3 75

1

25

Tot

al

19

16

31

45

0 3

2 3

* percent

of appeal decisi

ons

uphe

ld o

r de

nied

. \

Abbr

eviaf ions:

AG

- ugricultur&

~k -

country r

esidential;

R - re

side

ntia

l; SH

- small hold&;

- I/C

- industrial corrmercial ;

U - upheld;

D - de

nied

; %

- pe

rcen

t; No.

- number.

b A

0

I

I I

I

I 'I

y 00 m v, aft

g a 7 0 0 rn

;i y o 0 4 .

resident ial use. A Very smal l number o f appeals ex i s ted - fo r the remaining four

intended use categories over the 12 years. When al l intended land uses are - -- -

combined, 68% of appeals were for the best agricultural land. CLTc lass 1 and 2. Of

these appeals, 49% were upheld by the Alber ta Planning Board.

Acreage Under Appeal

- - - The greatest number o f acres under appeal

f o r q r i c u l t u r a ! use (table 18). For th is use, 1703

o f class 3 and 4, and 227 acres o f class 5 t o 7

and successful ly appealled were

acies o f c~lass 1~ and 2 . 518 acres

land were under appeal f o r all 12

years combined. For each o f the CLI classes, 41%, 4396, and 100% o f acreage under - -

appeal was upheld or approved f o r subdivision.

- The to ta l acreage invo lved in appeals fo r country resident ial- use was 2167

acres, -- wh ich accounted- f o r 44% o f the to ta l acreage under appeal. This is an

as to~ i i sh ing ly high propor t ion when compared t o the agricultural acreage under

appeal. But as explained above, this was due in large part t o the number o f appeals

lodged w i t h the board f o r ' c o h t r t { resident ial use. O f the 1301 acres o f class 1 and

2, 568 acres o f class 3 and 4, and 298 acres o f class 5 to+tand involv.ed, the

propor t ion o f acreage under appeal upheld was considerably less than for

.agriCulture, being 19%, 47%, and 2% f o r each CLI class respect ive ly .

The acreage under appea.1 f o r the remaining land use categories was slight in

compar ison t o agricciiiure and cquntry resident ial uses. The acreage uphe1.d fo r each ,

intended use and CLI class can be compared w i t h the to ta l acreage approved fo r . .

each intended use and CLI class (table 11) t o assess hat propor t ion o f . the tota l

approved acreage was f r o m appeals. - - .

Of the 4894 acres under appeal. 3 6 8 or 1779 acres were upheld b y the Alberta

Planning Board (table 19). The propor t ion o f acres upheld varied great ly f r o m --

year-to-year. What i s evident, however, i s that the percentage of acreage upheld is

not retated t o the acreggge under appeal. Nor i s the percentage o f acreage uphetd

d i rec t ly related t o the number o f appeals submit ted t o <he board. The erratic ~- .; propor t ion o f acreage upheld yearly can be explained b y the unique c i r ~ u ~ s t a n c e s

r o e

b 0 n d

r n b NN b l o

0 0

00

OD0

00

0 0

In0 4

00

00

00

00

00

00

ee

h0 rr) 4

L n d o m I+

00

00

h* drh bnN

- 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

00

0 0

0'0

0 0

n o

d 0 I+

0 0

0 0 ma,

00 m

TABL

E 1

8.

Continued

Yaa

r A

cms

-

' Intended U

se AG

CR

R SH

I/C

O

?H

ER

v

'Iw

L

CLI Class

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Class

CLI

Cla

ss

CLI

Clg

ss

CLI Class

CLI Class

1984

&

@l&

68

0

0

53

16

0

00

0 0

0

0

00

0 0

0

0

121

$6

0

Upheld

68

0

0

0.16

0

,o

0

0

00

0 0

00

00

0 68

16

0

1985

Ap

led

184

0

0

26

3' 0

00

0

Up

Ed

112

0

0

26

0

0

00

0

sled 1703

518

227

1301 568

298

4

lh

0

38 113

0

Zl

d

695

225

227

248

265

6

i 0

0

0 0

,Upheld

41

\4

3 100

19

47

2 0

0

0 1:

0

I.

Abbreviations:

AG

- agriculture;

CR -

country residential;

R - r

esidential;

I/C

-, industrial camrercial; CLI

- Can

ada Land Inventory;

t - SH

-

mil

l holding;

percent.

TABLE 19. Acreage under appeal combined: 1974-1985.

-

Year

1974 1975

Total

Acreage Under Appeal

which was upheld for all intended uses

Acreage Under S Acreage Appeal Upheld Qheld

244 2 L 250 b 47

~bbrev ia t i on : % - percent]

. surrounding each application which was considered by the board when making its . -

decision. That is, appeal decisions are largely a function of the board's - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

interpretation of evidence submitted for each sppfitation. w

\ n 0 -

The rrnpcr of rursf srtbcfwtisron in ?arms of the quantity and quatily of agficullursl

land affected was descrrbad In chsp16r 3. This chapter wilt review sbfien?

drscusssd. tonciustons sra based orr the examination of ,taUufer data, rtsfarence to r

legs! prannrng $nsrrurnanrs rn s f f e e l during the study period, and distusstons with

, QRRPC plsnnmg srafl . J . -

The ORRPC mlntrnrzad the end ttsgmsnrsrion of sgrrcd~ural band w t b ? ~ q , ~ P

a .

I .;.: $ 6' a. t t.

?he County o f Lsrhbr#dgc from 1976 to 1985. In i t s capactty as the s ~ b d t v t ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~

approving author 1 1 y tor the County of Lerhbzldge, ORRPC rejected subdrvrston

% ~ p l t c a r ~ o n s which dtd not conform wrth extstrng regtonel and munccrp8t land us@ \

' polrctes rharebp protectrng agrtcuftufal land from development ' l o ailernatwe uses.

C f xtslrng aubdtvtsran regulatrons sncf plenntng tnstrurnents were found to be affective

tn conservtng sgrrcutrurar land for sgrtcuttwal uses. In the sbsance of planning a conrroi5 and land use rsstr8 t s . b srgnifrcsnlly greater prapottlQn of prtrne r

a g i w r ? u r & ~ rand would undoubtedly be convert%@ lo nonagficutturs~ usas. Appeaf

datrstoqs bv thlt Alberta Planning Board have resulted tn the f ~ v e r s a l of ORRPC

. \ Awlttattons submttled lor furel subdrwstOn wrrhrn the County of Lcthbttdge

in number from 1975 to 1982, after whtch the annual number of

ORRPC plsnntng staff betieve rhsr marker factors. related ,

were 4ib:gely r(r8ponsibIe 1 0 1 rha stsbrlirarran of -

aubdtvmon crpphcar tons @I!@? 1982. f he iatbf number of subdtvrsion appltcsr ions

submrtlrd during the 12-yeat panod was 529 {ltg. 61 tn ganerai. more appl~carttons

were condrlronaf ly epprovad than refused during the study period.

FIGURE 6. Disposition of mral subdivision applications for the,bunty of kthbridge: 1974 -1985,

X - total nmbcr of applications subnittcd.

B - applications approved. r,

C - applications approved resulting in the conversion of land to nunagricultural uses.

D - applications appealed.

E - appeals upheld by the Alberta Planning Board.

F - appeals upheld resulting in the conversion of land to nonagricultural uses.

A subdivision appl icat ion IS condi t ional ly approved when approval is

?contingent upon fu l f i l l i ng one or more set condi t ions which must b e sa t is f ied - - t * - -

- , bring the subdivision in:o con fo rm i t y w i t h exist ing regulations. pol ic ies, o r bylaws. 4

The - ma jor i ty o f such appticat ions are f ina l ly approved, either b y 'the applicant

rne&lng d q u i r e d condi t ions imposed by the subdiv is ion approving authori ty, or by

the Alber ta Planning Board upholding a p p e y s againsl'one or more condit ions. The %

p ropor t ion o f applications condi t ional ly approved was greatest during the per iod

f r o m 1981 t o 1985. Complex. interrelated factors 'may we l l account fo r the

preponderance . o f conditional approvals as 'opposed t o refused decisions. I t i s

postu lated that the increastng number o f condi t ional approvals f r o m 1981' o n m a y

b e the result o f increasing con fo rm i t y o f appl icat ions t o regional po l ic ies and,other

legal instruments. greater sophist icat ion b y ,ORRPC in rev iewing subdiv is ion

applications. a greater awareness b y applicants o f what types o f subdiv is ion are

acceptable. or some combinat ion o f these factors. -_ --

The d e c i s ~ o n t o approve app l i ta t ions w i thout condi t ions shod% a marked

decline in use f rom 1980 on suggesting a t ightening o f cont ro l over rural

s u b d l w . Cotn t ld lng w ~ t h the a d o p t ~ o n of the ural Land Use Amendments in

1980, virtually al l s u b d i v i s ~ o n appl icat ions were b ject t o conditions. many o f F which were o f a technical nature. Al though generally no t t o o onerous, condi t ions

were impdsed t o ensure that:

a surveyor's sketch was prov ided where necessary;

subdivision - w o u l d not a f fec t the operat ion o f an i r r igat ion d is t r ic t ;

land taxes were paid;

a deirelopment agreement w ~ s m p l e t e d t o cover the c o s t s o f servicing

the subdivided si te; -

municipal land reserve requirements- were met ; and

where necessary. a fo rma l waiver o f a Subdiv is ion f legulat ion prov is ion

was requested f r o m the ~ l b e r t a e l a n n i n g Board t o nu l l i f y an encumbering

legal stipulation. --

appl icat ion may be refused f o r a number o f reasons including the

fo l lowing. It:

does not conform to the

d= 4 does not conform to the

does not conform to % the

Subdivision Regulation or The Planning Act; id

-

adopted regional plan or amendments; -- ---

-7" general municipal plan, land use bylaw. or area

structure plan; or

is not suitable for the intended use in the opinton of ihe subdiv~sion

approving authority.

On average, 42% o f subdivision applications were refused annually.

. - Disoosit ion o f ' Subdivision ~ ~ ~ l i c a t i o n s bv Intended Land Use

Mil ler and McArthur (1974) ind iched that a greater proport ion o f rural

subdivision applications were for agricultural use than for country residential use in C

the ORRPC 'planning region f rom 1969 to 1973. The converse is true when data are

64 considered for the County o f Lethbridge; the ma] r l y o f subdivision - ---- applications in

each year, except for 1974, 1977. and 1978, were for country resid3ntial use

fo l lowed b y agricultural use. On average, only a small proportion o f applications

were intended for industrial, commercial, or other uses. However, the stated

intended use on some applications may conceal, in whole or in part, the actual or

eventuai use o f iand. For example, an applicant may ostensibly indicate that

agriculture is the intended use while, in actuality, the land is t o be used primarily

for country residential l iving.

When considering all subdivision applications submitted for the study period.

country residential use was the predominant 'intended land use. The proportion o f

applications for country residential use increased noticeably during the last six

years, 1980- 1985. When includ~ng other nonagricultural land use 'categories. the - major i ty (62%) o f subdivision applicatians over 12 years were for the transfer o f

land out o f agricultural use i f fu l ly approved.

0 R R P C . d e c i ~ s on subdivision appiications showed considerable var iab i l~ ty

f rom year t o year for most intended uses. Country residential applications were

refused on average 56% of the t ime and conditionally approved40% of the time,

while 38% o f agricultural applications were refused and 52% were conditionally

approved. The number o f applications which were conditionally approved for both

of these uses increased over the years. I dustrial and commercibl. and. other

intended uses were either approved or c ditionally approved with few refusals. I

.% ORRPC decisions for each intended use indicate that country residential *

applications were refused proportionally more often than was the case for any

other intended use category. Obviously ORRPC felt that country residential was not

a preferred or suitable use of g od agricultural land. Widespread proliferation o f C b this use on agricultural land was curtailed through existing regional and municipal

land use policies. The original fi les detailing reasons for the refusal o f subdivision -

applications were not available for documentation, d however, staff indicated good

agricultural land was often involved.

One may speculate that in the absence o f subdivision review procedures by a k.

subdivision approving authority, more frequent and haphazard subdivision o f land for

country residential use would occur. That is, increased rural residential subdivision

wo Id- occur to meet current demand, and more importantly, speculative subdivision P would tie up a considerable amount o f land t o me demand. Thus, land

subdivision for nonagricultural purposes is within the

context o f regional and municipal policies and provincial regulations, which reflect

land use priorities perceived by the public, planners, and politicians for each

geographic region. It appears that existing planning documents and other legal

instruments, which are the basis for deciding subdivision applications, have

effectively mitigated against wholesale land transfers to country residential use,

which could easily occur i f market conditions alone prevailed.

Subdivision Impacts

Applications approved, conditionally approved, or ~e fused by ORRPC in i ts

initial decision are not an accurate measure o f the number of applications given

fmal approval. Applicants may choose not t o subdivide, refuse to satisfy conditions

set by the subdivision approving authority, or have ORRPC's decision reversed by

appealing to the Alber;ta Planning Board. Consideration of only those applications -

given f ina l approval helps make i t possib le t o determine the impact. o f rural

subdivision w i th in the County o f Lethbridge. The propor t ion o f applications given 4 --- -

final approval generally ranged f r o m 55 t o 65 percent fo r m o s t years under study.

* -

Lots Given Final Approval - The ma jo r i t y o f subdiv is ion appl icat ions fo r all intended uses except

agriculture were fo r l o t s '20 acres or smaller in size. Indeed. when considering all

intended uses together, 70% (344) o f l o t s g iven f inal approval were 20 acres or less

in size. The result is a substantial acreage t ied up in smal l land parcels.

Considerable land f r z p e n t a t i o n ' has occurred through subdiv is ion fo r

agricultural uses. Of 238, lo ts under appl icat ion fo r th is use, 155 (65%) were

approved f o r subdivision. A lmos t one-half o f - al l applications given f inal approval

fo r agr~cul turp l use d u r ~ n g the study per iod were fo r the creat ion 'of lo ts ranging In

slze f r o m -40.1 t o 80 acres, many o f which ~ n v o l v e d spl l t t lng a cquarjer sect lo" o f

land in to t w o equal sized lots. Smal le r lo ts (5-10; 10.1-20 a c r e z j w e r e frequently

approved fo r agrdcultural use (81%; 64%). Both the Prel iminary Regional Plan (1974

t o 1985) and the Rural Land Use Amendments (1980 t 1985) st ipulated t h a t ' t h e

min imum lo t size fo r agricultural product ion was t o b f 80 acres. Exceptions t o this

st ipulat ion were possib le - fo r cu t -o f f parcels and land used fo r intensive. agricultural

product ion. Though not a lways indicated as such wi th in the subdiv is ion registers.

lo ts smaller than 4C acres were somet imes intended fo r intensive agricultural use.

I f i t is surmised that intended agricultural parcels under 40 acres o f ten became de

facto country resident ial parcels, then out o f 57 lo ts or approximately 1000 acres, a

substantial por t ion could have been converted t o nonagricultural uses.

M in imum parcel sizes f o i agricultur,al use are def ined in regional and municipal

planning documents. Exist ing po l i cy o n the min imum parcel size fo r agricultural use

re f lec ts the pos i t ion o f ORRPC and the municipal i ty that w i th in the County o f -

Lethbridge intensive agricultural operat ions such as l ivestock confinement faci l i t ies,

tree farmsf and market gardens, could be economical ly viable. T h ~ s is especial ly the

case when such parcels are located o n high capabi l i ty land fo r which i r r igat ion

r ights exist. I t can be argued that even i f 80-acre parcels i n themselves are not

viable, they present opportunities fo r future farm land consolidation, or through

rental arrangements enhance agricultural productivi ty b y al lowing farmers t o bolster - - --

their existing land base. One key reason ORRPC had adopted the 80-acre minimum -- for agricutturat use in i ts regional plan was t o force clandestae _ -.-- country residential

applicants t o purchase at least that much land for subdi#ision purposes. In this way

the 80-acre minimum became a deterrant t o ruGl residential use and has reduced

land fragmentation. T h ~ s po l icy also makes i t easier-.for farmers t o rent-smaller

land units t o expand their operation;

approval^ o f lots fo r country res ident ia l~use was more restr icted than was the '

case for other land use categories. Out o f 657 lots intended for country residential

use, 196 (30%) were approved fo r subdivision. The bverwhelming major i ty (142) o t a - -

country residential lots approved were for the creation o f lo ts 10 acres or less in t

size. While the Preliminary Regional Plan stipulated that country residences not

exceed 20 acres in size, the Rural Land Use Amendments provided no guidance as

t o the minimum size o f a country residence or farmstead separation. The County o f

Lethbrldge General Municipal Olan permits country residential use on lo ts not

exceed~ng 10 acres.

ORRPC was predisposed against applications which would involve the

subdivision o f larger tracts o f land into mult iple lots fo r country residential use.

For example, in 1974 and 1975, applications which would have involved the creation

o f 123 lots, 5 t o 10 acres in size, and 76 lots, less than 5 acres in size

respectively, were refused. This resulted in the final approval o f only t w o country

residential lo ts for the latter year and none in the f i rs t year (table' 8). There were

7 and 13 applications for country residential use in 1974 and 1975 respectively )I

(table 3). By refusing applications intended t o create 461 individual country

residential lo ts during the study period, ORRPC prevented the fragmentation and

alienation o f agricultural land to. large-scale country residential development. --

The major i ty of lots intended for industrial, commercial, and otper uses were

approved. Approximately 77% (88) and 87% (34) of all intended lo ts were given f inal

approval for industrial and commercial, and other intended uses respectively. Both

o f these land use categories had substant ial ly higher approval rates than even

agricultural use. The greatest ma jc r i t y of lo ts t o be created fo r these two land use

categories were 10 acres or less i n size; m o s t o f these were given f inal approval.

The high approval rates f o r bot-h categories indicates that these land uses compl ied

w i t h exist ing regional development pr ior i t ies and subdivision regulations. -- I

Acreage and CLI Class of Land given Final Approval

The ma jo r i t y o f land approved f o r subdivision was fo r agricultural uses. O f .

the 21,000 acres under appl icat ion between 1974 and 1985 (13.376 acres o f class 1

and 2, 5880 acres o f class 3 and 4, and 1744 acres o f class 5 t o 7). 13,217 acres

were u l t imate ly approved fo r subdiv is ion 188_20 acres o f class 1 and 2, 3330 acres

o f class 3 and 4, and 1067 acres o f slass 5 t o 7) (fig. .7). Of the acreage given

f inal approval, 78% (10,331 acres) was f o r agricultural use, 14% (1828 acres) was for

country resident ial use, 1% (153 acres) was fo r resident ial an_d*small holding uses,

and 7% (905 acres) was f o r industrial, commercial , and other uses. These figures

ve r i f y that the dominant intended use o f land fo r subdiv is ion w i th in the County of

Lethbridge was agricultural use. This was generally n c t the case fo r rural

municipal i t ies w i th in more central ly located regional planning commissions o f

Alberta, such. as the Batt le River RPC and Red Deer RPC, which had a greater

acreage subdivided t o country resident ial use than agricultural use (Environment ---

Council o f Alberta, 1982).

-

When dealing w i t h each land use ceparately, o f the 14,935 acres under - -

appl icat ion fo r agricti l tural use. 10.331 acres were g iven f in& approval f o r 1

subdivision. iepre>ting a 69% approval rate. Of the 10,331 acres given f ~ n a l

approval, 9323 acres invo lved CLI class 1 t o 4 land.

Only 951 acres o f class 1 and 2 (out o f 2957 acres under application), 82.1

acres o f class 3 and 4 land (out o f 1385 acres u n i 8 application), and 56 acres of

class 5 t o 7 land (out o f 365 acres under appl icat ion) were given f inal approval f o r

country resident ial use. The to ta l acreage approved fo r country resident ial use fo r

ali CLI classes combined was 39%, representing 1828 acres. When dealing w i t h the

four major land use categories shown i n f igure 8, country resident ial use had,

105

F I W 7 . Acreage under su'bdivision application for the County of Lethbridge: 1974-1985.

A - total acreage under application.

B - acreage approved for subdivision. C - acreage approved for nonagricultural subdivision. D - acreage appealed. -

E - acreage under appeal upheld. - -

F - acreage under appeal upheld for nonagricultural subdivision. \

proportionally, the fewest acres approved and experienced the lowest approval rate

for class 1 and 2 land. Only agricultural use had proportionally fewer acres '

pp - 2

approved than country residential use o n class 3 and 4 land.

That rural residential uses were seen by ORRPC as incompatible wi th land

having a high agricultural potential is suggested by the large acreage refused

subdivision for CLI class 1 and 2 land. The data indicate that 68% of country

residential and 83% of residential acreage under application was refused subdivision - for class 1 and 2 land. It is interesting t o note 'that the acreage approved for

country residential use on poorer agricultural land ( c ' k s 5 t o 7) was proportionally

greater than fo r better agricultural land (class 1 t o 4) when data for 1975 are not

considered. This is also true o f land approved for agricultural use; the rate o f

success in terms o f total acreage approved increased on lower capability class 5 to

7 land.

Virtually all o f the land under application for industrial and commercial, and

other intended uses was approved for subdivision. While the total combined acreage

approved for all these uses (905 acres) is roughly one-half of the acreage approved

fo r country residential use (1828 acres), the former land use categories experienced

a subst.aritially higher approval rate (91%). Industrial and commercial uses were

recognized as legitimate land uses in both provincial and regional policy documents.

ORRPC planning staf f surmise that the greatest proport ion o f land approved

fo r each intended use category was previously used fo r agricultural purposes. Miller

and McArthur (1974) reported that 95% t o 98% of the land intended for subdivision

within the Oldman River planning region was in agricultural use at the t ime of - subdivision f rom 1969 t o 1973. Thus, o f 13,217 acres approved for subdivision,

10,331 acres (78%) would remain in agricultural use and 2886 acres (22%) would be

transferred to' nonagricultural uses (fig. 7).

- Most land approv.ed fo r subdivision was good agricultural land. Approximately

92% (12,150 acres) o f the .acreage approved for sub&vision over the i2-year period

was class 1 t o 4 land. When considering the acreage o f land approved for

nonapicultural uses, 2827 acres o f class 1 t o 4 land were transferred out o f

FI(;URE 8. Acreage approved for subdivisiofi for 4 land uses in the County of Lethbridge: 1974-1985.

Agriculture

Industrial Commercial

Country Residential

Other

A - acreage, under application, CLI claw 1-4 land. 3 .

B - acreage approved for subdivision, CLI class 1-4 land.

agricultural use. in comparison, during the same period, 9323 acres o f class 1 t o 4 9 -

land was app;oved for agricultural subdivision. The to ta l ~ c r e a g e under applicbtion - - -- - - - - - -- - -

and appeal for 'a l l land use categories is summarized in figure 7.

- -

In summary, the major i ty o f land given subdivision approval was for

agricultural use. When comparing acreage approved t o acreage. under application for

rural subdivision, industr'ial and commercial, and other intended land uses received

the highest approval rate. Of all, intended use categories, country residential and

residential uses were mos t greatly curtailed, especially where these t w o uses were

t o be- situated on the best agricultural land (CLI class 1 and 2). When considering

the quali ty o f agricultural land involved, less than one quarter o f c lass 1 to 4 land

approved was intended f o r nonagricultural purposes. A s one would expect.

subdivision pressure wi th in each intended use categoryDwas greatest for class 1 and 4

2 land, fo l lowed b y class 3 and 4 and class 5 t o 7 land. It i s generally the cass

that the best zgricultural land is the mos t desirable and suitable fo r nonagricultural

uses, hence in greatest demand. The acreage under application and the acreage

ul t imately approved fo r each intended use and each CLI class declined f rom 1982

ORRPC pol icy restr icted nonagricultural act iv i ty on h ~ g h capabil i ty land unless

no atternative sites were avai table or suitable. Such -aRernative sites may; tioweveF,

have been d i f f icu l t t o locate as the County o f Lethbridge is situated in an

agricukurat heartland where much o f the land -base has a high soi l capability. A s is

seen f r om the data presented in appendix 4, a very large proport ion o f land wi th in

the county has a high capabil i ty for agricultural production; 86% o f all land wi th in

the county has e L I rat ing o f class 1 t o 4. Most o f class 5 t o 7 land is coulee

land ly ing adjacent t o r ivers and lakes. Class 1 t o 4 land is predominant around the

periphery of most villages: towns, and the City o f Lethbridge, areas where the

major i ty o f country residential, industrial, and commercial development occurs. I f

the requested use o f land is t o be accommodated, f e w alternative lower capabi l~ ty

4 sites may be found in an area composed o f land having a h ~ g h agricultural

- - - - - - - - - -- -

The Planning Act, 1977, atlows subdivision applicants the right to-appeal -

decisions made by the subdivision approving authurity, ORWC decisions may-&

appealed either because an application has been - refused or the conditions imposed -7

were seen as unacceptable. On average, 248 of applications were taken to appeal.

The proportion of appealsfw any given year was not so much a function of the -

number of applications submitted as it was a function of the pattern of decisions

given by ORRPC. That is, the proportion of appeals rose with an increase in the

number of applications refused by the subdivision approving -- authority. In' 'fact, - 53% -

-c

of the applications which were refused by the ORRPC were appealed. Conditionally

approved applications were seldomly appealed; on average, only 5% of such

decisions were taken to appeal annually. ~bv ious ly , for the great majority of

applications which were conditionallf approved, the conditions imposed were s-- - -

justified or irrefutable in light of the stated intended use. Conditions were thus 4

viewed as an imposition that could be tolkrated given that final approval was the

expected ourcbme if set conditions were satisfied.

Most (60%) appeals were for applications intended for country residential use

followed by a considerably reduced number of appeals (28%) for agricultural use. - - - - - - - - -

Appeals for the other four intended uses were largely inconsequential: 5,% were for

industrial and commercial uses; 4% were for small holding uses; 2% were for

residential uses; and 2% were for other uses. As more applications were intended

for country residential use, and since this land use was refused with the greatest

I frequency of all intended yse categories, one would expect the greatest number of

appeals stemming from this use. The large number of appeals for country

residential use. 76 out of a total of 126 appeals, illustrates the dissatisfaction of

appellants with ORRPC decisions for this use. Furthermore, it indicates the

determination 'o f applicants to subdivide land for country residential use by

appealing to a quasi-judicial authority, the Alberta Planning Board, which is

- empowered to overturn ORRPC decisions.

The number o f appeals upheld f rom year t o year showed great variability,

ranging f rom 20% t o 80%. When a subdivision appeal is upheld, the appeal is -- - ---- - - - -

sustained or a l lowed;~onsequent ly , the ORRPC decisiori is overturned. Conversely. 9

when an appeal is denied. the ORRPC decision stands. On average. 4 5 S z i F j i j i j p e i r l S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

were upheld. More appeals wsre denied fo r residential and country residential uses

than were upheld. The opposite was true for agricultural, industrial, and cammercrel

uses where more appeals were upheld than were denied b y the board. C.

- Appeals for *applications conditionally ,approved by ORRPC were upheld In most

instances (92%7 by the board, meaning that the 0RRPC..dec1s1on was reversed in - - - - -- -

favor o f the appellant. Thus, conditions imposed b y ORRPC' were dismissed or -

amended in the majority of 'appeal cases brought before the board. The board's -d

frequent support of the appellant's case may be interpreted by an appl~cant for

subdivision as an incentive to, appeat conditions imposed by the regtonaf pfanntng

commi.ssion. Refused applications which were appealed were upheld ,on average 41%

o f the time. Here +he board showed greater reluctance in overturning applications

refused by ORRPC than was the case for conditionally approved applications.

The majority o f appeals (68%) were for applications ~nvo lv ing C t l class 1 and # -

2 land. +Slightly more appeals were upheld for agricultural use o f class 1 and 2 - - --- - - - - - -- -- -

land (56%) than was the case fo; country residentla1 use of class 1 and 2 land.

The majority o f land in applications where a; appeal was upheld mvolved

agricultural use. Appeals for agricultural use affecting 695 acres o f cldSs I and 2

and 225 acres o f class 3 and 4 land were upheld. In comparison, eppeals involving - -

248 acres o f class 1 and 2 and 265 acres o f class 3 and 4 land were upheld for

country residential use. Out o f 4894 acres appealed during the study per~od , 1779

acres were upheld, 1147 o f which were for agricultural use (table 20). The rernbrnmg 1

acreage upheld (632 acres) would undoubtedly have resulted in the tran'sfer o f land . -

out of agricultural use. About 13% o f {be acreage ultimately approved for

subdivision within the County o f Lethbridge during' the 12-year study p e r ~ o d resulted

f rom successful appeals. The Alberta ~ ~ d n n i n ~ Board, therefore, had considerable

' influence on the amount o f land subdivided for agricultural and nonagriculturet uses.

than is' possible by a subdivision approving authorily. The board is not exp l~c i t l y

required t o consider the agricultursl capabittty of land under sppeat nor ts tt 'bound -

by the provmcisf Subdrviston Reguletron or tts own gutdeltne documents, all o f

whtch support the conservar i on o f better agrtcuttural land (Alberta Plann~ng Board.

79038). According to The Planning Act, rhe board IS to have regard for reg~ona i and

other Statutory plans and must con fo rm w i th existing land use bylaws. When

hearing appssts, the board gives consideration t o rhe merits o f an appl#catton and

the facts presented at the hssrrng by the appellant, the subdtvtsion approvtng

authority, and other part ies if appropr~ate. A decision is made based upor, relevant h

planning documents and evtdence presented t o the board.

Under The Planning Act. the board has been given the power to exerclse 1

d i s c r t o n when revtewtng s u b d ~ v t s ~ o n appeals. The board need only conform to

mandatory requtrements In land use bylaws. Unlike the s u b d l v ~ s ~ o n approv~ng

authortty, the board has the authority t o watve the Subdivis~orr Fiegulatton as wel l

as relevanr pol icy sections in statutory plans. In light of the facts brought out in

: an appeal hearing, the b o a r d c a n extend compassion t o appellants by re lax~ng - - -

c~nd r t i o r i s In exlsttng reg~ona l and munictpal plans.

A subdivision a p p r o ~ i ~ g authority must 'ensure that subd iv~s ion applications k conform t o exist ing planning instruments and the Subdivision Regulation. The

Ptanning Act provrdes ir t t ie f lex ib i l i ty to sut$d~vis ion .approvtng authortties. An

i approving buthmity-can - on ly take advantage of drscret~onary secttons in a land use

Sylaw when reviewing subdivision applications. i t can atso request that stipulattons

ir: the Subdivrston Regulat~on be itfted through a' waiver, whtch may be approved or

refused b y the board. Gordon (Environment Council of Alberta, 1 9 8 1 ~ ) has argued

that an important function o f the board may be to relteve subd~vis ton apgroving

authorit ies of the need t o a l low exceptions t o esiablished pol icies and restrtctrons

found in statbtory plans

provincial teve!, regional

and land use bylaws. With an bppeal body at the

planning. commissions may In fact be encouraged to adhere

stringently t o planning documents and the Subdivision Regulation.

- -

The bXarB-can exert considerable influence on land use change in light o f i ts

discretionary power. However, the boglrd hast indicated that the conservation o f

better sgricultural land is a priority when hearing subdivision 'appeals (Alberta

Planning Board, 1983a). To substantiate this, a study was completed on the impact

o f board appeal decisions on the conversion o f agricultural land t o other uses

(Alberta Planning Board. 1983a). This province-wide study, dealing wi th three

d;stinct t ime pe;~ods (1979. 1981. and 1983). indicated that out o f 1026 appeals to

the board, only 9 percent resulted in the conversion o f better agricultural land (CLI

class-- i t g 4) t o nonagricultural uses. These appeals were at lowed as they

represented first-parcel out property, or the land in question was fragmented b y

some obstruction making i t economically unvia t o farm. More research is needed *

t o a sess whether the board is rationally rev ieGng subdivision appeal cases., or .R whether board decisions are swayed Sy poli t ical attitudes or other biases.

,'

4 s the board has the power t o overturn decisions made b y a subdivision \

approvrng authority. appeals are, in eff ect,encouraged. Generally, appeals ar easily B conducted aslthe majority o f research and f ie ld work has already been compbtdd

by the subdivision approving authority, lawyers are not required, no fee is involved,

and tt is cohvenient for the appellant as the board travels bimonthly t o cities

throughout the province. \ -

Even when !regulated, .persistent pressur) exists for residential subdivision o f

farm land. When cons~dering country residential, residential, and small holding land

uses together, the data provided in this study indicate that: 50% o f all submitxed

applications were for rural residential use; 44% o f all applications ult imately

approved were for ruraT residential use; 44% o f all approved lo ts were for rural

; and 15% (1922 acres) o f CLI class 1 t o 4 land approved for

s for rural residential use. However, the quantity o f land excluded

during the 12-yeaFstudy period does not appear t o pose an ihmediate threat ' to

good quality agriculutural land within the County of Lethbridge. The landfemoved

through subdivision for nonagriculturai uses represents less than one-half of one - - -

percent of class 1 to 7 land within the County of Lethbridge (table 21).

Rural larid conversion to nonagticultural tls2s is successfully regulated through -

various planning documents. Statutory plans and planning instruments in existence 8

throughout the study period, which were the basis for deciding subdivision

applications, have minimized the impact of rural residential land uses In the County

of Lethbridge by:

directing the subdivision approving authority to refuse subdivision

applications in violation of existing policies and subdivision regulations;

ensuring conformity of approved subdivisions to existing statutory plans

and land use bylaws; a

establishing minimum lot sizes for rural residential land uses; and

controlling the transfer of good agricltural land, CLI class 1 to 4 , to rural

residential uses.

The Regional Plan (1985) and the County of ~ethbric&&eneral Municipal Plan (1985)

and Land Use Bylaw (1985) have, together with earlier ORRPC planning documents,

imposed constraints on land use change. Existing policies have, unquestionably,

minimized otherwise rampant land speculation.

It is possible that in the absence of planning restrictions the integrity of the

agricultural land base would be seriously undermined by haphazard, nonagricultural

development. To create a simple scenario, i f country residential development were . .

allowed to take its course unimpeded by subdivision contro,ls and if demand for

such development were to reflect trends and conditions found in the 12-year study

period, then in the next 24-year period (1986 to 2009) approximately 8600 acres of

class 1 to 4 land would be taken out of agricultural production (table 7). This

figure should be viewed as a conservative estimate as i t does not account for the

considerable impact of specuiative applications. If existing policieflnd restrictions ~ -

were to remain intact throughout'the next 24 years, then only 3500 acres of class 1

to 4 land would be lost to country residen ial development within the County of L Lethbridge, based _OD figures -obtained from this study (table 10). In all likelihood

TABLE 21. Land conversion as a ;.,roportion of Caunty of Lethbridge - land base: 1974-1985. - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - -- -

CLI Class County Land Area Land ecluded* % hand Excluded

1 - 2 395,000 1860 " 0.47~

Total 211,530 2886 0.410

* Includes land removal through subdivision for country residential, residential, mall holding, industrial cmrcial, and other land uses.

-

th is number wouM b e reduced even further as the County o f Lethbridge's current

General Munic ipal Plan and Land Use B y l a w are more restr ic t ive than regional - - - - - - - - - --

planning documents in e f f e c t t b m g h o u t the study period. Addi t ional ly , ex is t ing

regional and munic ipal p lans have a psychological e f f e c t on wcryld-be count ry

resident ial land speculators and l i ke l y deter such individuals f r o m apply ing fo r , i

&ubdivision. Thus, i t i s thought that the percept ions o f potent ia l land developers are

; altered once they become cognizant o f agricultural land pro tec t ion po l lc ies fo r the r'

area in B y st ipulat ing cr i ter ia f o r acceptable land convers ion, regional and -2

municipal p lans can discourage soc ia l l y unacceptable land development.

-

It appears as though the desire f o r somedurban people t o o w n land in the

country o r l i ve in a rural se t t ing cont inues unabated, s low ing on ly during per iods o f

economic downturn. Several reasons exist wh ich m a y account fo r this. For some, J

land ownership i s p r imar i l y f o r investment purposes and status, f o r others land

&.- p rov ides a sense o f s tabi l i ty . and securi ty, f o r others i t p rov ides the opt ion o f an

al ternat ive l i fes ty le . For many it i s l i ke l y some combinat ion o f these factors.

~ n d t h e r , m o r e d i f f i cu l t t o document, 'demand factor i s perhaps the cultural ly induced

desire f o r man t o main ta in l inkages W ~ t h the land resource, or t o s a t ~ s f y atav is t ic

needs wh ich are deeply r o o t e d in the human psyche. For whatever reasons, i f l e f t

unrestrained, rural subd iv is ion w o u l d lead t o the creat ion o f thousands o f land

parcels, many o f which w o u l d never be developed.

is no t reasonable t o expect that agriculture s b u l d be the preeminent use o f

p r o d u c t .f

i v e land. Some have argued that i n l ight o f a shrinking agricultural land base .t r

*" p rov inc ia l l y and nat ional ly, s t r ingent- po l ic ies and pro tec t ive measures must be

adopted t o l i m i t and d i rect nonagricultural land uses t o areas where impacts o n

agricultural p roduct ion are minimized. -However , compet ing uses fo r agricultural land

m a y make m o r e intensive use o f the land, m a y f inancia l ly ou tb id agriculture, or

m a y b e seen as v i ta l t o the economic and socia l health o f the reg ion or province. - -

Such a l ternat ive uses must consequer . ly be accommodated and integrated ' i n to a

broact land use planning process c o m m i t t e d t o the preservat ion o f better

agriculutural land. What i s needed i s P

. . . careful judgment b y all those in the planning and development process to ensure that a balance is achieved between uncontrolled development, which may result ir! the indiscriminate loss o f farmland; and rigid prohibition of d e v e l o p m e ~ w h i c h p r o t e c t s - f a r m k n i b u t ~ ~ injures other aspects o f the economy (Albertao Planning Board, 1983a, 3).

Finally, land conversion t o nonagricultural uses may have considerably less

impact on the land resource when compared t o farming practices which destroy the

prodactive capacity o f soil. Rural subdivision is only one o f many factors which

can be detrimental to wise use o f the agricultural land base. Problems associated

with soi l degradation in Canada have been highlighted in a report prepared by the

Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry entitled, Soil at -

Risk: Canads's Eroding Future (1984). More studies are needed at the regional and -

provincial level to determine the extent o f agricultural land losses, whether through

poor farming practices, or land use change.

CHAPTER 'VI

This study has prov

used in Alberta, documen

ided a brief description of the land use planning p r o e s s \

ited changing rural land use policies adopted by ORRPC in

i ts regional plans, and has provided an in-depth analysis o f the effects of rural

subdi'vision within the County o f Lethbridge. A t various points throughout the

discussion attention was drawn, both implicit ly and explicitly, t o weaknesses or

shortcomings of the present land use planning process as i t affects the use and

development o f agricultural land. In this final chapter, several recommendations are -

made t o resolve wTiaTare thought t o be existing deficiencies in the subdivision

process and to suggest possible alternatives fgr improving the p l a n n i n m A s s t o

ensure greater emphasis on agricultural land protection. Recommendations for

protecting agricultural land in an Alberta context have been presented in deta

elsewhere (Canadian Institute o f Planners, Alberta Association, 1983; Alberta

Department o f Municipal Affairs, 1984; Environment Council o f Alberta, 1985; Red

Deer Regional Planning Commission, 1983; Alberta Land Use Forum, 1976)

l nstitute a Provincial Land, Use Strategy

Init ial ly there is a need for the clarification o f goals and priorities at the

provincial level to guide competit ion among alternative land uses. It is felt thad

strong provincial leadership is required i f issues surrounding the use of agricultur,al

land are to be adequately addressed. The extent to which agricuitural land is to be

protected should be determined through cmminated dialogue among provincial

agencies, regional planning commissions, municipalities, experts, and the public. Such

discussion should lead t o a comprehensive provincial pol icy statement, supported by I

legislation, which f i rmly establishes criteria for the preservation of agricultural land.

The fol lowing four subject areas should be addressed in a provincial strategy.

First, iand which is t o be maintained for agricultural use must be identified.

This in itsel$ can be problematical as a r igid .uniform definition o f land which is t o

be protected does not reflect regional variability nor take into consideration

regional requirements. Nonetheless, soi l ,groups, agricultural zones, or agricultural

districts whose high productivity ensures the well-being o f the agricultural sector

must be delineated and expli=itly defined, for either the province as a whole or at

the regional level. This would help guarantee that prime agricultural l a d , however a

defined, could be singled out as the paramount use of land and managed as such.

Second, a framework outlining the grounds on which alternative land uses w i l l

be permitted in areas protected for agricultural production is needed. The protection --

of agricultural land cannot be absolute as a rigorous protectionist posit ion would

impinge on the availability o f land for competing, uses. Consequently, policies must --

be drafted which stipulate that nanagrjcultural uses must, wherever feasible, be

located outside o f identified agricultural land protection areas. Fmthermore, the need ,

for the alternate use o f land muSt^^he cleariy-demotistrated as mus t the reasons

why lower capability land cannot &eked. Urban expansion and industrial

development' should be directed away f rom protected land where reasonable options

exist. Protected agricultural land should, as far as possible, be kept in agricultural - use.

Third, the identification o f acceptable l.evels o f land conversion' is needed. By

establishing measurable objectives, mandatory monitoring can be instituted to

document land use change, the extent of land fragmentation, and impa'ct o f rural

subdivision. Periodic r e v i e w o f land use change, conducted at municipal and

' regional levels, wolrld fo rm the basis for corrective action and would facil itate

evaluation o f the success of the program. Each regional planning commission

should conduct detailed studies t o determine the extent t o which the rural land

resource has been converted f rom agricultural to' nonagricultural uses.

Finally, regional planning commissions should be given a strong role in

preserving agricultural land. The success o f land use^ planning at the regional level,

coupted wi th the ability o f each planning commission to specifically address

regional land use concerns, makes planning at this level highly desirable. Regional

planning commissions must ensure that the regional plan is at least as strict as

provinciaf policy. Member municipalit ies^~must be strongly encouraged t o adhere, in

their statutory plans and land use bylaws, t o regional po l i cy regarding the

protection of agricultural land. I f necessary, regional planning commissions should -- -

be gi;en enforcement powers t o irTiplemen?ihe regional

The above four 'points, which constitute the main elements of a provincial. --

strategy or policy framework, should be contaiped in a provincial s la tu te which may

be given the t i t le: Alberta Agricultural Land Protection Act. Existing provinTi'el

criteria contained in the guidelines and framework documents o f the Alberta

Planning Board should be harmonized wi th the new act and incorporated in the new f

legislation. Provincial agricultural land protection policies would be binding and

therefore consistently employed at all tevsls o f government.

A provincial land use strategy is not. however, without problems. Most

notably, i t forces land owners who want to'subdivide or sell farm land for a profi t - -

or change of fifestyle t o aquiesce t o the high.er social good o f protecting

agricultural land. Stated differently, a land owner, who because of a favorable

location can command more than agricultural value for all or part o f the land under

consideration, would be encouraged t o sacrifice potential prof i ts t o protect the

greater public good. To of fset both real and opportunity losses, compensation for

affected land owners would bb required. In essence, such a program would require

lsnd owners t o forfei t the opportunity t o sell property t o the highest bidder, who - ofte;l seeks land for nonagricultural purposes. Land owners' rights are strongly

entrenched in North American culture, hence the poli t ical l iabilit ies of such an

approach are formidable. -C

-- -

I mprove Exist ing Land Classif icat ion Systems P 4

I t is wideiy recognized that the Canada Land inventory (CLI) map series on

agricultu!at land capability is too general and unreliable for comprehensive land use

planning. What is needed is a detailed, large scale inventory of the soil resource

which w i l l permit users t o make site-specific land use planning decisions. A new -

province-wide classi f icat ion system should overcome the shortcomings of the CLI -r

system and address the productivity o f land for different agricultural uses, such as

irrigation, dryland, and $razing uses. While municipal tax assessment records can be

" - v used in the interim, a comprehensjve study should be initiated t o define and

establish a new system for mapping the soi l resource province wide.. Additionally, p-

- ---

the costs and benefits of this new system must be determined.

Restrict Country Residential Use

The amount o f productive agricultural land lost t o country residential uses has

been substantial, more so in some planning regions than others. Wf i l e existing

regional planning policy has greatly curtailed such land development-vlithin the h

Oldman River planning region, stronger measures are needed. Three considerations P i

are proposed t o address the problem. - -

The potential and actual abuse of the "f irst parcel out" provincial criterion

should be eliminated.' Presently provincial guidelines permit one parcel t o be

removed f rom an unsubdivided quarter seetion for residentipl use. This provision

was introduced to, among othe; things, permit farmers or those actively engaged in

agricultural pursuits t o retire in the country. But increasingly i t has been used t o

facil itate nonfarm residential uses (~ lber ' ta Planning Board, 1983a). For example,

owners o f large tracts o f land can legitimately subdivide out one parcel for each

quarter section, which then may be sold or developed for country residential use.

Because this prbvision is automatic and uncontrolled, i t adds to ' landl ragmentat jon - -

and can make future farming di f f icul t . Consequently, the existing provision should

be subject t o normal requirements for subdivision. A new provision should be

drafted to ensure a l i fet ime interest lease for retired farmers, rather than a transfer

o f tit le, w h e r e i ~ the land would revert back70 the purchaser o f the quarter section

upon the death o f the retired farmer.

Section 86(2) of The Planning Act, RSA 1980 should be amended. This section

allows% a registrar o f the Lan Titles Of f ice t o grant a separate t i t le for parts o f 4, parcels which are cut-off b y r r t w a l or man-made features. ThTs practice

completely bypasses the formal subdivision process and effectively subverts the

land use planning process. The existing section o f the act al lows fo r widespread %

profiferatiBn o f nonagricultural par,cels in the absence, o f planning control. Thus, t

section 86 should be amended to ensure that all cut-off parcels defined b y this

sect ion must be dealt with b y .@I subdivision approving authority.

There should b e i n c ~ s s s e d emphsison-rouped-countr~sirfential

development. Isolated rural residences are disruptive t o farming practices and add

t o the fragmentation o f the agricultural land b a s e ~ f v l o r e restr ic t ive po l icy i s needed

t o reduce such act iv i ty , especially where isolated rural residences are being located

o n land h a ~ i n g a high agricultural value. Cluster development should be encouraged I

in areas deemed suitable b y both the municipal i ty and the regional planning

commiss ion in accordance w i th a$jricultural land protect ion policies. When comparing

' isolated and grouped country residential development it can generally be said that

mult iparcel devefopments: --

have only one interface between adjoining land uses compared t o the -

many interfaces o f separated single-lot residences;

have fewer impacts and are less disruptive in nature t o adjoming land

uses compared t o many isolated lots;

. occupy sites careful ly selected f o r such use tinlike isolated lo ts which

tend t o be scattered o n land o f varying soi l capabi l i ty;*

are more easi ly and cheaply supplied w i th municipal ser;lices compared t o

many isolated lots; and > -

involve smaller l o ts per residence compared tg many larger ~so la ted lots,

Mult iparcel s u b d i ~ i s i o n s should have Ia ts reduced in size t o no 'more than 3 or 5 m

acres.

Redefine Roles of the Alberta Planning Board

A t present the Alberta Planning ~ o a r d i s given considerable leg~s la t i ve

f reedom t o w ie l d i t s authority. Cr i t ic isms against i t have included the fo l lowing

m a t t e r q (Alberta Municipal Af fa i rs , 198 1 ; 1984). The board: 'i - e f fec t ive ly undermines responsible planning at lower levels b y a c t ~ n g as

a n impe&ment t o the exerdse , o f municipal and rebional p lann~ng

prerogatives;

has weakened regional plans be low what was considered desirable by

regionat planning commissions; -

- exerts undue authority in influencing regional objectives and policy 7 statements' by having the power - - - - to - - - overrule - - - - - - - - and - dictate the contentcof

regional plans;

seems to x s u m e more 'discretionary power than pr6vided to i t-6y The

Planning Act;

- - adheres to no clear rationale when dec id ih on subdivision appeals; and

on occasion undermines local autonomy by 'approving appealed subdivision

gpplications not recommended by G, ral municipalities and turned down b y

the subdivision approving authority.

To counter these criticisms, i t is recommended that the Alberta Planning Board -

take on a more advisory role in commenting on the content of regional plans. The /

board should be given the power to enforce and ensure that regional and municipal

do not violate provirrciaf guidelines and statutes. Additionally, the board

should more rigorously adhere to provincial regulations, regional and municipal m

, statutory plans and land use bylaws, and any evidence provided to it by a regional r

<

planning c.ommission when deciding on subdivision appeals. The board should

uphold subdivision appeals only i f i t is clear that the subdivision approving

authority did not act in accordance with statutory plans and land use bylaws when

refusing or conditionally approving applications. Naturally, the board must consider \

new evidence wHich is presented a t the appeal hearing.

The board, acting as a quasi-judicial body, must retain-discretion when

deliberating over appeal cases as some appeals are based on difficult situations.

The review of subdicision appeals is inextricably associated with human perceptions,

value judgements, and interpretations, all of which make objective decisions

difficutt. To facilitate protection of agricultural land, the board should adopt a - -

, policy statement which defines its objectives when hearing appeals. Such a policy

statement would help ensure greater consistency in appeal decisions, and provide -

gwdance for subdivision appoving mthritfes, without unduty restricting ttre boartfs -

latitude of discretion. There is, unquestionably, a legitimate role for an appeal

tribunal such as the Alberta Planning Board. -+

I

Pub1 ic Education

- -- - -- -- -

Lastly, a public information program should be initiated t o educate the public

about the agricultural land resource. While clarifying prasenc a& futu~e m m e s

surrounding the land base and stressing the importance of this finite resourde for

Albertans, the program should also describe the need for provincial policy. whtch

would act as a and consistent framework to provide province-wtde

directives and in managing the land resource. An ongoing publ~c

education campaign-ould undoubtedly make a n agricultural land protect~on program

more palatable and thereby win additional political support. ---- -

u .

mmuw of P~eimrnarv Fianas of the R I C_9IQnaI Pfannin~

snton. Afbaria. - -

-h 1 AIbwta. Enwan m ? Council of Alberta. 196lr. jLlbsnlzation of AcviCultural Lana. ? ' Ptrrprted by P. 5. Thompson. Edmonton. Alber!a.

. jS%'fr. Anrrcrrftwsl L a n m n b a Ptsnnina in Atbett~: A Review pl Plsmtqn -ion and P t m m . by Gordon. Edmonton. Alberta.

. 1983. Aczrtc(LUytf! Land P r p ~ y i o n Mechanisms in Can#&. by E. W. Manning. k•÷fnonton. A berta.

' S

~ ~ b a r t k - Land Use Forum. 1976. Lmd Use Forum R 8 ~ 0 t t and Recommendetion~. Edmunron., Alberta.

Chapter 89. "fdmonton. Alberta:

, 1979. Subdivision Reaulat ion. Alberta Regulation 132/78 wi th amendments. Edmonton, Alberta: Queen's Printer. c r ~ -

Canada. Environment Canada. Lands Directorate. 1978. The €anat% tarrd trrverrtorv: Qbiectives. S c o ~ e and Oraanization. Report No. I . Ottawa: Supply and Servrces Canad.&

. 1981. Land Use Classification Systems: An Overview, by R. C. Scace. Working Paper No. 14. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.

. 1982. Aqrrcultural Land-Use Chanqe In Canada: Processes and Conseauences. b y J. O. McCuaig and E. W. Manning. Land Use In Canada Series. No. 21. Ottawa: Supply and Sevices Canada.

. 1985. earadation of Canada's Prairie Aqricultural Lgndg: A Gurde to lterature andpAnnotated Bib l ioora~hv. by P. D: Bircham and H. C Bruneau. - --

orking Paper No. 37. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.

Canada. Science Council o f Canada. 1977. People and Aqricultural Land. by C. Beaubien and R. Tabacnik. Perceptions Series. vol. 4. Ottawa: Supply and Sevices Ganada.

Canada. Standing Committee on Agriculture. Fisheries. and Forestry. 1984. s o i l at Risk: Canada's Erodins Future. Ottawa: Supply and Servrces Canada.

e

Canadian Institute o f Planners. Alberta Chapter. 1983. Posi t fon Paper on Securttv of the Aqricultural Land Base in Alberta. EdcponA.m, Alberta.

Dan:, N. 1979a. "The Subdivision o f Land in Alberta." M u n i c i ~ a l Counsellor 24 (Februrary): 6-8. '9

. 1979b. "A History of Subd~viston In Alberta: Part 2." Mun~clpal Counsellor 24 (March/April): 2 1-30.

*

. 1979c. "A History of Subdrvision rn 3." Munrc l~a l Counsel lor 24 (May /June): 28-32.

. 1979d. "A History o f Subdivision In ~ l b e r f i art 4." Munlc~pal Counsellor 24 (Jul y /August): 29-3 1. :'L

Frankena. M. W. and D. T. Scheffman. 1980. Econom~c Anelvsls o f Provincial Land u s e Policies in Ontario. Toronto: Un~versrty o f Toronto Press.

Golden, Tom. duly 1986. Personal communication wi th county planner, Oldman River Regional Planning Commission. Lethbridge, Alberta.

Jol i f fe, Ray. May 1986. Personal communication 'with subdivrs~on of f ~cer , Oldman River Regional Planning Commission, Lethbridge. Alberta.

't

Krueger, R. R. 1977. "The Preservatron o f Agricultural Land In Canada." In Manaqrnq snada's Renewable Resources. pp. 1 13- 13 1. Edited .by R. R. Krueger and 6. itchelt. Toronto: Methuen. . .

A Man-ni g, E. W. 1984. "The bread-basket begins to run o w h hdazlnslca (May): 27-33. -

Mitdon. Marsha. 1981. Planninq and ahe Law: A Citizen's Guide. Ten Volumes. -€ dmonton, Alberta: Communitas Inc. p

A-

Milter, R. J. and G. R. McArtbur. 1974. A n Overview o f Rural Subdivision m Alberta. Technical* Report 48. Edmonton. Alberta: Alberta Land Use .Forum.

2 Nicholson, Ted. August 1986. Personal Communication wi th plannmg manager,

Oldman River Regional Planning Commission, Lethbridge, Alberta.

Oldman River Regional +tmning Commksiort-7973~OMman-Riwr-Re~b~re~imimy- Reqional Plan: Part 1 Summarv and Recommendations. Lethbridge, Alberta.

. 1976 ~kddman River Resion: Pretiminarv R w i e ~ a t , Ptan. Lethbridge. -

Alberta. I'

. 1980, Rural Land Use Amendments t o the Oldman River Resion: Preliminary Reqional Plan. Lethbiidge, Alberta.

. 1982. Oldrnan River Resion: Draft Reqional Ptan. Lethbridge, Alberta. i

. 1983. Oldrnan River Reqion: P r o ~ o s e d Reqional Plan (Revised). . Lethbridge, Alberta.

. 1984. Oldman River al Plan. Lethbridge, ~ l b e i t a .

. 1985a. County o f Lethbridqe CeneAl ' ~ u n i c i o a l Plan: BY-Law No. 805. Lethbrldge. W t a .

. 1985b.y Countv of Lethbridse Land Use BY-Law No. 806. Lethbridge, Alberta.

Red Deer Regional Planning Cammission. 1983. Environment Council o f Alberta Public Hearinqs on Maintaininq and Ex~andmq the Aqricultural Land Base in Alberta: A Brief Presented-by the Red Deer Reqional Planninq Commission. Red Deer, Alberta.

Rounthwaite, 1. H. 1983. Leqal Technicrues for the Preservation o f Aqricultural Land. Edmonton, 'Alberta: The Alberta Law Founddtion.

Slmpson-Lewis, W. L. and E. W. Manning. 1981. "Food for thought: can we preserve our agricultural land resource?" Alternatives 10: 29-42.

Steiner F. R. and J. E. .~heilacker.. eds. 19 Protecting Farmlands. Westport, CN: - The AVI Publishing Company.

Veeman. T. S. 1982. "Maintainirg-Quantity anb Quality o f the Agricultural Land + Base." In Canadian Aqriculturat Economics Society: Proceedinqs o f the 1981

Annual Meetinq, pp. 79-101. St. Catherines, Ontario: n.p.

APPENDIX 1 b

, The 'canad? - Land Inventory (CLI) i s a comprehensive survey wh ich 'has 2

-

c tass i f ied tands according t o their phys ica l capabi l i ty for use in agriculture, forestry,

recreat ion, and w i ld l i f e . The CLI w a s fo rma l l y in i t ia ted i n 1963 as a cooperative

federal-provincial p rogram (Environment Canada. Lands Directorate, 1978). The ro les

the Government o f Canada and p'rovincial governments agreed t o are fu l l y

described in Scace (EnviroEment Canada. Lands Directorate, 1981).

The CLI s o i l capabi l i ty f o r agriculture c lass i f i ca t ion groups mineral so i l s in to

seven classes according t o their po tent ia ls and l im i ta t ions fo r agricultural use. I t is

important t o real ize that the c lassi f icat ion sys tem does not at tempt t o describe .the

product ive capaci ty o f s o i l c lasses in terms o f crop yields. Instead, tHe CLI sys tem

was intended to be a ctassi f icar ton o f the variety o f crops that cou ld b e i

successfu l ly g rown o n so i l s o f a g l ven class. Capabi l i iy rat ings were based - - - -

p r imar i l y o n agrocl imatrc data and so i l survey data. The CLI agricultural capabi l i ty I

ctass groupings o f A lber ta so i l s are as f o l l o w s (Alberta. Energy and Natural

Resources, 1983).

CLASS 1 so i l s occur in areas having n o c l imat ic l im i ta t ions or in areas where '

c i jmat ic l im i ta t i ons have been rectifies b y irr igat ion; they are highly suited fo r a I

w i d e r a n g 2 o f crops.

CLASS 2 so i ls occur in areas where there are some c l imat ic l ~ m ~ t a t i o n s due t o

e ~ t h e r a lack o f precip i tat ion, a shbrtened growi-or some adverse so i l

character ist ic that presents a - m o d e r a t e degree o f ; im i ta t ion t o c rop growth.

CLASS13 so i l s occur in areas with moderate to moderate ly severe so i l and/or

landscape l im i ta t i ons wh ich tend to reduce the range of crops t h s can be grown. ,

su f fe r f r o m man): combinat ions o f adverse c l imat ic , so i l ,

resul t ing in severe l im i ta t ions ; such so i ls are

sui table fo r o n l y a very na r row range o f c rops as the r isk o f c rop fai lure i s high.

CLASS 5 soi ls -present very severe l imi tat ions t o crop

adverse climate, soil, and/or landscape char&teristics - - - - - - - - - which - -

aB, for annual cultivation. 4

growth as a result o f

m d e r s them unsuitable -

CLASS 6 soi ls have sucn severe l imi tat ions that improvements are not

feasible, but t b y do have some natural jrazing potential. #

CLASS - 7 soi ls have no capability for arable agriculture or permanent pasture. -

1 -

- -

Format

regi'sters,

data cards

APPENDIX 2

- -- used in recording information from ORRPC subdivision

County of Lethbridge Year

Land Locat ion i

CLI Class

Sub. by PLAN TRANSFER Existing Use

ORRPC Decision - Final Ruling 7

Owner Total Area Sub.,

# of Lots Created Lot Size(s)

Intended Use (s)

Remarks :

Appealed: YES NO Board Ruling

Remarks :

APPENDIX 3

The fol lowing is a l ist of information tranSf erred f rom subdivision applications

to ORRPC subdivision registers b y calendar year for the County o f Lethbridge, i975

1995.

File number.

Date application received.

Legal land description.

Owner and developer. /

Subdivider.

Surveyor. \

Type o f subdivision: by plan or transfer.

Area: total acreage to be subdivided.

Number of, lots: size o f individual lots may be given.

Reserve requirement: land provided; deferred; paymeni in lieu; and area o f

reserve in acres.

Details of land use: residential; comrhercial; industrial; country residential;

agricultural; 06 miscellaneous. Often the intended use is indicated i f

misceilaneous.

Information f rom municipalities and authorities. Indicates which agencies

reviewsd the application or f rom which agencies comments were requested.

.Date application was sent t o outside agencies.

Date outside agencies replied.

Date o f decision.

Decision: approved; conditionally approved; refused; appeal upheld; appeal

denied; waiver; and development powers.

demarks including Alberta Planning Board Orders.

Fees involved.

Date registered. --

Registered plan ' number. H

APPENDIX 4

-

The land -area o f the County o f Lethbridge (March 1979) b y CLI class IS as

b f o l l o w s :

CLI class 1 - 46,750 acres

CLI class 2 - 348,250 acres

CLI class '3 - 165.855 acres

CLI class 4 - 48,790 acres

CLI class 5 - 32,350 acres

CLI class 6 - 46,120 acres \

CLI class 7 - 23,415 acres

The to ta l land area f o r the County of Lethbridge i s 71 1,530 aCres.