i+ national library du bimiotheque nationale canada...
TRANSCRIPT
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'<ural 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.