Edmonton (Alta.) - 1977 - Submission by the City of Edmonton to the Province of Alberta concerning..

ri Qz212222g Qttzzlejcn,,

o / 9- „)ttr tie 0 P42.Q°12tot.

A Submission by The City of Edmonton to The Province of Alberta Concerning BilI•15, The Planning Act -1977

City of Edmonton June 28, 1977

SECTION I

Introductory Comments, Overview Statement, and Matters of Major Concern to the City of Edmonton

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

This report is presented to the Province of Alberta as the City of Edmonton's formal submission concerning 3111-15, the proposed Planning Act of the Province of Alberta tabled in the Legislature in the 1977 spring session.

The document has been prepared by the City of Edmonton, and is based on extensive discussions with City of Calgary Planning staff involved in that City's review of Bill-15 and representatives of various regional planning commissions in north and central Alberta. The report is presented in two sections in an effort to separate those items and comments concerning matters of major significance in terms of cost, administrative difficulty or jurisdictional change (Section I) affecting the City of Edmonton according to the provisions of the new Act, and those matters pertaining to procedural, organizational or text amendments suggested (Section II). Further, it is the City of Edmonton's intention that the format and organization of this report will facilitate the Provincial Government's review and comparative analysis with submissions presented by other Commissions or agencies in the Province of Alberta.

The City of Edmonton wishes to take this opportunity to compliment the Province of Alberta for the forthright and open forum which has been established and maintained to provide an adequate opportunity for Alberta municipalities to provide input and comments on the provisions of Bill-15.

The City's comments are presented in the interests of ensuring all aspects of this very significant legislation affecting Alberta municipalities and jurisdictions are constructively and thoroughly considered. It goes without saying that the City of Edmonton is prepared to meet with the Provincial Government at any time to provide elaboration of any of the comments presented or to provide additional assistance as may be required in the final preparation of the revised Planning Act. Wherever possible, the City of Edmonton has endeavoured to minimize the extent of its comments where Edmonton's concerns parallel those presented by other Planning agencies, especially those of the City of Calgary.

In conclusion, it must be emphasized that the City of Edmonton has reviewed the proposed new Act in a very thorough and rigorous manner. The comments presented by Edmonton in this report should not be constituted as a criticism of the philosophy or intent of the Bill. Rather, it is Edmonton's intention that the comments be received as constructive suggestions to the Provincial Government for consideration prior to enactment of Bill-15. The City of Edmonton is concerned that the legislation ultimately adopted reflect a full consideration of the requirements and implications to all parties affected or operating under the provisions of the proposed Planning Act. To facilitate the Provincial Government's review, the City of Edmonton comments are presented on a section by section basis directly coinciding with the numerical assignments of Bill-15. The following "Overview Summary of Major Concerns" and the remainder of Section I document the City's concern with specific provisions of Bill-15 which could result in significant cost escalation and/or serious procedural difficulties thereby disrupting the efficient conduct of planning and land development practices in Edmonton.

As a final observation the City of Edmonton would like to emphasize that constructive and substantive review of Bill-15 has in many significant respects been hindered by the lack of access to or knowledge of the contents of the new Subdivision and Transfer Regulations which the City understands is currently under consideration by the Provincial Authorities.

OVERVIEW SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCERNS

This review has been prepared by the City of Edmonton in response to the presentation of Bill-15--The Planning Act--in the Provincial Legislature in March, 1977. During the past two months the City has conducted a comprehensive review of Bill 15 to assess the potential implications of the provisions of the proposed Act on the City's operations and jurisdiction. During the conduct of this review several matters of very serious consequence to the City have been identified. While the specific nature of the City's concerns are elaborated upon in detail in later sections of this report, the following matters warrant special attention by the Province of Alberta in the redrafting of Bill-15 prior to presentation to the Legislature in the Fall of 1977: Subdivision Approving Authority: The City of Edmonton has serious reservations about the provisions of Section 31 which could potentially result in the indiscriminant authorization of subdivision approving authority' to municipal councils throughout Alberta.

The provisions of this section also could represent a serious reduction in the authority and effectiveness of the regional planning commission whose prime responsibility, in the City of Edmonton's estimation, should be to ensure that development within the commissions' respective jurisdictional areas occurs on an orderly efficient basis in those areas immediately bordering the Province's major metropolitan centres. To ensure that development in the Province is effectively and carefully managed, Edmonton submits that subdivision approving authority should be retained by the Cities of Edmonton and Calgary in addition to the regional planning commission. In the event that the province elects to retain the current provisions of Section 31 of Bill-15, Edmonton would strongly urge that specific criteria indicating the cirumstances under which subdivision approving authority would be granted to municipal councils other than Edmonton, Calgary, and the regional planning commissions be included in the Act. Reserves: As is indicated in the detailed comments provided in Section I of this Report, the City of Edmonton would find it extremely difficult to ensure the responsible design and development of subdivisions at reasonable cost and standard under the provisions of Section 89 to 96 of the proposed Act. In particular, reduction of reserve dedication for circulation purposes from 30 per cent of gross area to 25 per cent of net developable area will impose serious constraints in many circumstances on the development of adequate standard arterial roadways systems suited to present and projected future requirements. The City of Edmonton has endeavoured to demonstrate that the imposition of the unnecessarily restrictive circulation reserve provisions of the proposed Act may lead to a substantial increase in both the cost of future subdivision development and in some circumstances reduced aesthetics as a result of the necessity to minimize the provision of adequate setbacks from major roadways, increased requirements for off-street parking, etc.

Replotting Schemes: As a result of Edmonton's historical development through the gradual and frequent annexation of tracts of rural land including numerous country residential and other subdivisions, the City has found the replot process to be one of the most effective means of encouraging economic and expeditious development of large tracts of land containing numerous fragmented and irregular parcels. Indeed, the City of Edmonton has been the only Alberta planning agency to routinely utilize the replot procedure. Based on the City's successful experience with literally hundreds of replots using the "replot by area" method, the City of Edmonton is gravely concerned with the provisions of the proposed Act which eliminate the option of using the "replot by area" method as the method more suited to the individual municipality's specific requirements. Further, it is exceptionally difficult to accept the "replot by value" method as a more equitable procedure than the "replot by area" procedure. This City's experience would appear to demonstrate conclusively that replot by area procedures are inherently more equitable since no appraisal of value is required and the procedure results in significant savings through the elimination of appraisal requirements, value negotiations and determinations, litigation, etc.

Replot Compensation: Edmonton considers it inequitable that the various land owners in a replotting scheme share in the cost of preparing a replot scheme but not in the cost of any compensation required to ensure implementation of the proposed scheme. Certainly under normal circumstances, substantive benefits could be expected to accrue to property owners involved in a replotting scheme other than the municipality.

Local Autonomy: In many areas throughout Bill 15 the ability of local authorities to effectively plan and manage land development and to control land use has been diminished or usurped. Throughout this report the City of Edmonton has endeavoured to identify areas where the present jurisdictional authority of Alberta municipalities has been reduced or eroded. Specifically, however the City is most concerned about the provision of subdivision review, subdivision appeal and reserve entitlement privileges to the local school authorities. The City submits that the current procedures employed under joint planning agreements ensure the local school boards' early and influential involvement in the land planning process to guarantee that local school requirements are adequately met. The provisions of Bill-15 relating to the local school authorities' responsibilities and privileges could, in many instances, lead to reduced efficiency of the subdivision process, delay, and in many instances undesirable "balkanisation" of interests to the detriment to the community as a whole.

Subdivision and Transfer Regulation: The City of Edmonton considers it unacceptable and unreasonable that Alberta municipalities should be required to undertake a review of this most significant and influencial legislation without the benefit of any enlightenment concerning the provisions of the new Subdivision and Transfer Regulation for Alberta repeatedly referred to in the proposed Act.

In summary, the City of Edmonton would encourage the Province of Alberta to maintain and foster improved communications with Alberta planning authorities in the process of redrafting Bill-15. This report provides extensive comments on all significant aspects of Bill-15 of concern to the City of Edmonton in addition to a host of numerous suggestions for organization, procedural or other amendments. The requirement to provide Alberta planning agencies with adequate lead time (a minimum of two years is suggested) to implement the provisions and requirements of the new Act following adoption in the Fall Legislature cannot be overstated.

- iv -

-1PART 1, DIVISION 1

APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION 7.1

The City of Edmonton has difficulty in the interpretation of Section 7.1. In particular, the City is concerned that this Section may provide an avenue for the Minister to amend the Planning Act by regulation. Further, the phrase "from time to time a point of further or other time for doing it" may be too vague and lead to misinterpretation or abuse of this provision of the Act. It should be emphasized however, that it is most difficult to comment at this time on the provisions of Section 7.1 since the City has not had the opportunity to review the proposed revisions to the Subdivision and Transfer Regulation, to which we understand the phrase "a time fixed by or under this act or the regulations" directly applies.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Provincial Government provide CLARIFICATION of the intention of Section 7.1 prior to enactment of any legislation, and further, that the Provincial Government consider amending Section 7.1 in such a manner as to alleviate the concerns of the City of Edmonton. If such an amendment is not forthcoming the City of Edmonton would request that a clarification of the intention and powers granted to the Minister by this Section be provided.

PART 2, DIVISION 3

MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS 27.

The Cities of Edmonton and Calgary have jointly reviewed the provisions of Bill-15 respecting the establishment of municipal planning commissions. As has been indicated on several occasions in the past both Edmonton and Calgary are seriously concerned about the lack of consideration given to the particular requirements of the Province's two largest metropolitan areas. Edmonton considers it unacceptable and impractical to endeavour to establish regulations and provisions within the Planning Act which cover all small rural settlements and municipalities in addition to the large urban centres of Edmonton and Calgary. This City, has, however, in the past, been generally content with the provisions and the recognition given to the particular requirements of Edmonton and Calgary in the establishment of municipal planning commissions. Bill-15 is disappointing in this regard, since it fails to give the recognition previously granted to the two major metropolitan areas. The City of Edmonton supports the City of Calgary in its presentation, and the position which it has

2

adopted regarding the presence of technical staff as members of the planning commissions. In short, the City of Edmonton is content with the provisions of the present Planning Act in that it feels that these provisions lead to a balanced, consistent approach to the administration of the activities of municipal planning commissions.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City of Edmonton concurs with the City of Calgary by recommending that Section 27.2 be AMENDED to conform to the provisions of the present Act which reads as follows:

"27.2 A municipal planning commission shall be composed of, (a) in the case of a city, not less than five members, at least one-half of whom shall be appointed officials of the city, and (b) in all other cases, not less than three members."

31.

Section 31 provides that the Minister may now authorize, at his discretion, a council to act as a subdivision approving authority.

The council, if such authority is delegated by the Minister, may act with or without conditions on matters pertaining to subdivision within its jurisdiction or delegate these matters to its municipal planning commission. This provision of the Act has in the case of the City of Edmonton, serious consequences to the orderly and economic development of both the City and the Edmonton Region.

The City of Edmonton is, at the present time, seriously concerned about the manner in which subdivision approvals and authorities have been granted in the Edmonton Region in recent years.

Section 31 would imply that the regional planning commissions currently empowered with subdivision authority will no longer have such authority. The implications to the City of Edmonton and to the Edmonton Region of such a change are ominious given that it is now foreseeable that there will be no agency charged with overall responsibility to coordinate subdivision activities which influence or have effect on inter-municipal relations and agreements or the rational extension and planning of areas beyond each individual municipality's jurisdiction.

As a result of these concerns, Edmonton recommends that Subsection 31 of Bill-15 be removed since it does not appear to be in the best interests of the municipalities affected, nor does it appear to be in the best interests of long range orderly and economic development in the Edmonton Area. If a municipality such as Edmonton, is to exercise jurisdiction over subdivision and development matters to ensure that development of the Region proceeds on an economic, efficient basis, it is essential that subdivision approving authority be explicitly directed to the Cities of Edmonton and Calgary, as well as the regional planning commissions.

- 3 -

The City of Edmonton also submits that it does not appear acceptable that a Council might act in a capacity to administer and review all subdivision applications. This is especially true in the Cities of Edmonton and Calgary, given the complexities and the amount of time required to ensure that subdivision applications are adequately reviewed, consistently administered and processed.

Further, as Calgary emphasizes in their submission it is possible that a Council through the retention of subdivision authority may be subjected to political rather than planning considerations in its debate on the approval or acceptability of subdivision applications.

Finally, there also appears to be some inconsistency between Sections 28.3 and 88.2(a)(ii) in the delegation of responsibility to municipal planning commissions and the subdivision approving officer concerning the approval of routine subdivision applications. Edmonton would support Calgary in its suggestion that an authorized subdivision officer or planning commission member be in a position to approve such subdivision applications, but also have the ability to refer more complex matters to the full commission for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City of Edmonton submits that the following section should REPLACE Section 31 in its entirety.

"31.1 The subdivision approving authority for a municipality shall be (a) the regional planning commission in those municipalities where a regional plan has been prepared and adopted by the regional planning commission, or (b) a council where subdivision approving authority has been delegated to the council by the minister, or (c) in the City of Calgary, the City of Edmonton and such other municipalities as the minister may designate, the municipal planning commission.

2

Where a council acts as a subdivision authority, the council may, by resolution, with or without conditions, delegate to a municipal planning commission appointed by it the power to act as a subdivision approving authority for the municipality.

3

A municipal planning commission with the power to act as a subdivision approving authority may, of its own accord or with the

-4-

consent of the council, if acting by virtue of a resolution of council pursuant to Subsection 2, delegate its power with or without conditions to one or more of its members or an authorized officer of the approving authority, or both, and thereupon the power may be exercised or performed by such persons in addition to the commission."

PART 4, DIVISION 1

LAND USE BYLAW 65.2(e)

At the present time, in the City of Edmonton, it is normal practice to notify owners of land likely to be affected by the issuance of a development permit through the use of the City's own assessment records. This system, which has been employed in the City for some time, results in the notification of land owners likely to be affected on an expedient and economic basis. The requirement to notify "registered" owners of land likely to be affected will, in the opinion of the City of Edmonton, result in a process which will be more cumbersome, inefficient and, in particular, very uneconomic, since it will be necessary to SEARCH ALL TITLES through the Provincial Land Titles Office, a process which at the present time is not automated, as are the City of Edmonton assessment records.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 65.2(e) be AMENDED to read as follows:

"65.2(e) prescribe a procedure to notify owners of lands likely to be affected . . ."

PART 4, DIVISION 2

REDEVELOPMENT LEVIES, OFF-SITE LEVIES AND DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS 70.1

The City of Edmonton is concerned that the application of redevelopment levy funds collected for specific areas may result in circumstances detrimental to the successful implementation of area redevelopment plans. This could occur through the diversion of development activity away from the specific areas in which the redevelopment levy is imposed. In addition, Edmonton concurs with the position adopted by Calgary that the developments occuring prior to the requirement of dedication of reserve under subdivision should be required to dedicate reserve or money-inlieu of reserves in advance of the issuance of development permits for redevelopment of the said land. Where money is collected through the redevelopment levy in place of reserve, as

- 5 --

is often the current practice for new developments, a register should be developed to ensure that the monies collected in any specific area are applied to that area for redevelopment or community enhancement. In addition, if any cost is incurred as part of the preparation or implementation of an area redevelopment plan those costs should be reimbursed from funds collected under the area redevelopment levy.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 70.1 be AMENDED as follows:

"70.1 A council, may by bylaw, provide for the dedication of ten percent of the land or a money-in-lieu-of reserve equivalent where a person applies for a development permit on a parcel of land in respect of which no reserve dedication has previously been made under this or any other Act at the time of subdivision or previous development.

2.

Where reserve dedications are made under Subsection 1: (a) shall be provided prior to the issuance of a development or building permit, at the discretion of the municipality, (b) reserves or money in place of reserves shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections 93 and 94, (c) a reserve fund shall be established into which any monies-in-lieu-of reserve will be deposited and maintained which will identify the communities from which the monies in the fund accrued, (d) any money in place of reserve shall only be used for the provision of facilities within the area from which the money accrued, or by such other method as council determines, (e) monies can only be expended or dedicated, or land only be used, for the purposes detailed in Section 97.2"

70.5

The City of Edmonton is concerned that the provisions of Section 70.5 may impose serious hardship on the City for the effective application of funds collected under a redevelopment levy, particularly in inner-city and older established neighbourhoods. At the present time the City provides funding and administrative services for the development and maintenance of grounds and parks facilities, associated with schools. This arrangement is accomplished through a "joint planning agreement" with both the separate

-6-

and public school boards and the City of Edmonton participating.

If the provisions of Section 70.5 were to apply to the City of Edmonton the municipality would be required "to provide land for school buildings" in addition to the substantial services and investments provided through the existing joint agreement procedures.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 70 be EXPANDED to provide flexibility in the application of the provisions of Section 70.5 This may be accomplished by the ADDITION of a new Section, 70.6, as follows:

"70.6 Notwithstanding the above, in those municipalities where a joint planning agreement exists between the local authority and the one or more school authorities the provisions of Section 70.5 shall not apply."

PART 4, DIVISION 3

NEW SECTION The City of Edmonton is largely satisfied with the provisions contained in Bill-15 to ensure full and adequate enforcement of existing and proposed regulations, standards, bylaws, etc. However, the City would strongly urge that an additional provision - 76.(g) be included to permit the development officer to file a notice of illegal development when a court order or stop work order has been issued against a property. Such a provision should help to protect the legitimate interests of the public in the event properties affected by a court order or stop work order are resold.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following provision - Section 76.(g) be ADDED:

"76(g)

file a notice of illegal development against a property when either a court order or stop work order has been issued against a property."

PART 4, DIVISION 4

DEVELOPMENT APPEALS 80.2(b)

The City of Edmonton submits that development appeal boards are neither legally equipped to act as courts of record, nor is it desirable or practical that development appeal boards be raised to this status. Further, since the decisions of the development appeal board are made by lay individuals and not determined by

- 7 -

precedent, development appeal boards should not be required to give reasons for board decisions. Notwithstanding the above, the requirement for the board to maintain a record of the reasons for its decisions would result in significant additional costs to large municipalities such as Edmonton, related to recording, filing, record retrieval, and in many instances, legal counsel to the board in its deliberations.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 80.2(b) be AMENDED as follows:

"80.2(b) give its decision in writing within 15 days of the conclusion of the hearing."

PART 5, DIVISION 2

APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 81.2(b)

This section of the Act provides for the separation of titles for parcels created by a highway plan. The City of Edmonton is concerned that parcels so created could potentially not be subject to subdivision or zoning control since it is possible for an individual to make direct application to the Registrar of Land Titles for such a separation. The City of Edmonton submits that this provision is impractical and could result in the creation of subdivided parcels which do not satisfy minimum basic standards established be the local authority such as siting, access, parcel size, etc., and in new areas efficient planning could be complicated in that the subdivision approving authority could be required to deal with a greater number of individual owners. Accordingly, it is recommended that Section 81.2 be subject to the approval of the subdivision approving authority.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 81.2 be REWORDED as suggested below.

"81.2 A Registrar may accept for registration an instrument that has the effect or that may have the effect of subdividing a parcel if the subdivision affects or otherwise deals with land that is (a) a quarter section, river lot or settlement lot shown on an official plan referred to in Section 32 of The Surveys Act that is filed or lodged in a land titles office, or (b) a part of a parcel that is separated from the remainder of the parcel by a highway a plan of which has been registered in a land titles office, or

- 8 -

(c) a part of a parcel where the boundaries of the part are separately described in a certificate of title other than by reference to a legal subdivision, or (d) a part of a parcel where the boundaries of the part are described on a certificate of title by reference to a plan of subdivision."

82.(a)

The amendments to this Section must be read in conjunction with amendments proposed in Section 31.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is suggested that Subsection (a) be REPLACED with the following:

"31.(a)(i) a Council, or (ii) in the City of Calgary, the City of Edmonton and such other municipalities as the Minister may designate, the municipal planning commission."

82.(c)

Again, amendments to Section 82.(c) should be read in conjunction with proposals presented for Section 31.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 82.(c) be REWORDED as suggested below:

"82.(c)

in those municipalities to which Section 31.1(b) applies: (i) the Municipal Planning Commission, Or

(ii)any one or more of its members, or (iii)an authorized officer, of the approving authority, or any combination thereof, as the case may be."

85.2

This Section details circumstances under which an approving authority shall not approve an application for subdivision and, among other things, requires the proposed subdivisions to conform to approved regional statutory plans or land use bylaws but drops the requirement of the present Act to ensure conformity with statutory plans or bylaws under preparation.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following Subclause be ADDED:

"85.2(e) the proposed subdivision conforms to the provisions of any proposed regional plan, statutory plan and land use bylaw that affects the land proposed to be subdivided."

-9

PART 5, DIVISION 3

LAND PROVIDED TO THE CROWN, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND MONEY IN PLACE OF CERTAIN RESERVE LAND

89.-97.

General Comments

Sections 89 through 97 of Bill-15 appear to introduce greater complexity into the entire issue of "reserves". In the City of Edmonton's estimation, it is likely that the new provisions could substantially delay the subdivision approving process, increase municipal costs with regard to adequately providing for circulation needs, and generally fail to ensure the effective performance of the municipality's role in the land development process.

Principal concerns of the City of Edmonton relate to: a.

The reduction in circulation reserve from the present 30% to 25%, with no provision for obtaining additional land if good planning or engineering principles dictate the need;

b.

The apparent exclusion of the "deferred reserve" provision and caveat;

c.

The increase in autonomous power to the school boards; (i.e., right to industrial reserves, etc.);

d.

The omission of any reference to a "reserve fund" and procedures for its administration;

e.

A restriction of the municipality's use of reserve lands in contrast to the absence of any restrictions on the use of reserve land by school authorities;

f.

The lack of any provision for the disposition of reserve land as contained in Section 262 of the current Act; and

g•

The imprecise nature of the wording contained in many sections of the proposed Act, which, it is felt, may lead to confusion and uncertainty in the administration of the procedures prescribed.

89.

This section introduces the concept of circulation reserve, environmental reserve, municipal reserve and school reserve and the idea of dividing certain reserve land between the municipality and school authority. The emphasis seems to put the school authorities and municipal councils on a somewhat equal negotiating basis. Under the provisions of the current Act, the municipality has greater leverage than the school authorities. Also, the school authorities are not presently entitled to environmental reserve, nor do they retain title to school sites if they are no longer needed for school purposes, (and, therefore cannot themselves dispose of the reserve).

-10Due to the present provincial restrictions on the school authorities building program, increasing the power of school authorities would be counter productive to expediting the subdivision approval process.

RECOMMENDATION:

That reference to school reserve and school authorities in Section 89 be DELETED; That reserves be divided ONLY into circulation reserve, environmental reserve and municipal reserve; and That consistent with the present Act, the municipality should retain all discretionary power with regard to reserves.

90.

This section deals with the dedication of land for circulation.

It includes the very significant reduction of circulation from its present 30 percent of the gross area being subdivided to 25% of the net area after deducting the environmental reserve. To illustrate the significance of a reduction in circulation reserve allocation from 30 percent from gross area to 25 percent of net developable area if one assumes a hypothetical 200 acre subdivision, the municipality would be entitled to a maximum dedication of 60 acres for circulation purposes according to the provisions of the current Act (30 percent of gross area). If however, the provisions of Bill-15 were applied to the same 200 acre subdivision it is conceivable that the amount of land dedicated for circulation purposes could be substantially reduced especially if large tracts of "undevelopable land" are designated as "environmental reserve" in the subdivision. For example, if 20% (not unreasonable based on Edmonton's experience) of the subdivision area (40 acres) were considered undevelopable and hence taken as an environmental reserve, the dedication of circulation reserve would be calculated on the 25 percent of the net developable area or in this example, 25 percent of 160 acres resulting in a dedication of only 40 acres--substantially less than is currently permitted under the existing act. As a summary observation, the City of Edmonton would point out that at the present time the City utilizes a 30 percent net area calculation in the determination of circulation reserve entitlement to most subdivisions. In certain circumstances-especially where major arterial roadway construction is envisioned and necessary to provide adequate circulation, the City may find it necessary to utilize calculations based on gross area. Such circumstances are rare but nevertheless ensure that transportation systems in new subdivisions of a sufficient standard and capacity are provided.

To achieve this significant reduction in circulation reserve proposed in Bill-15 the City of Edmonton has determined that most of the subdivisions would be laneless, and problems related to the provision of off-street parking, the development of effective

noise buffers, and many other innovations in transportation facility development with regard to greater circulation efficiency would be required. This, in itself, could be a very desirable improvement. However, the City's experience with laneless subdivisions seems to demonstrate that such subdivisions require greater municipal expense for compacting utilities located under existing city streets rather than in lanes. Other engineering refinements would also be necessary to achieve an appropriate level of circulation within the restrictions of the 25% dedication.

To illustrate the extreme difficulty in reducing circulation reserve to the proposed 25% of net developable area, the following chart of existing circulation reserve is provided:

Average

Outline Plans

Minimum

Maximum

25.43%

Kaskitayo

34.39%

26.00%

Hermitage

15.42% gross dev. area 25.00%

27.44%

Clareview

21.00%

28.00%

26.00%

Steele Heights

26.00%

26.00%

26.28%

Castle Downs

21.8%

30.6%

28.96%

Riverbend

25.82%

30.00%

31.00%

Mill Woods

26.38%

35.65%

26.38%

West Jasper Place

21.88%

30.6%

27.00%

cZ, of Gross Area, not Net as New Act states.

Only the Kaskitayo average circulation figure approaches the proposed 25% figure. Further, it must be remembered that the figures provided are GROSS figures while the 25% figure in the proposed Planning Act is a NET figure.

Given present market preferences; future trends; existing City standards (i.e. lanes, walkways, right-of-way widths); and the present state-of-the-art of subdivision design, it is unlikely that appropriate subdivison standards and design can be achieved within the proposed dedication of 25% of the NET developable area for circulation reserve for all subdivisions.

It should also be pointed out that by unduly restricting the amount of land available for circulation the proposed Planning Act may unwittingly limit future innovative transportation

- 12-

technology, such as light-rail rapid transit (which requires a 50 foot right-of-way, and future walkway-bikeway proposals. Basically the City of Edmonton submits that more flexibility is required.

The City of Edmonton would also submit that rapid transit rights-of-way should be specifically included as a legitimate use of circulation reserve.

To alleviate a concern of the Province over the possible use of circulation reserve for non-circulation purposes, a clause could be included which states that only circulation use should be made of circulation reserve. The City of Edmonton would support such a provision. In addition, the City of Edmonton would submit that in the event that the provisions for circulation reserve dedication currently contained in Bill-15 are retained an opportunity to • assess the financial and technical implications of a reduction of the current reserve of 30 percent to an allowable 25 percent, should be afforded. Such an opportunity would permit exploration of the possibilities of innovation in engineering, technical design, to determine whether such provisions are technically feasible and desirable and whether these provisions can be achieved within the suggested 25 percent dedication.

RECOMMENDATION:

93.

The City of Edmonton strongly urges the Province of Alberta to: 1.

RETAIN the provisions of the current Planning Act which permit a 30% circulation reserve dedication and thereby enable greater flexibility of subdivision design and anticipated innovation in transportation technology.

2.

ADD the requirement to Section 90 that all land taken as circulation reserve either be used for circulation purposes (comprehensively defined) or if disposed of that the monies obtained be used for circulation purposes.

This Section deals with the 10% reserve dedication provision.

Edmonton concurs with the City of Calgary that the Section should be amended to delete the split between municipal reserve and school reserves. More importantly, however, the City of Edmonton would emphasize the requirement to provide a mechanism for deferring the provision of reserve by a subdivision approving authority.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 93 be AMENDED to include a mechanism for the deferral of reserves.

"93. A subdivision authority may defer by agreement and caveat the provision of reserve

-13-

until application is made for further subdivision or development of land."

94.

The City of Edmonton has two concerns relating to the suggested procedure, namely, that a more specific date be established for completion of the appraisal and that provision be made for updating the appraisal. It is also important to note that no provision to allow that land required to be purchased for reserve purposes is purchased on the basis of a similar appraisal.

RECOMMENDATION:

95.

Section 94 should INCLUDE PROVISIONS requiring that appraisals be carried out within three months of subdivision submission.

This Section adds new complications to the provision of municipal reserve. Provision of municipal reserve over 10% is now linked to density. If a density in excess of 23 persons per acre of 6.5 dwelling units per acre on the developable land is proposed then additional dedication to a maximum of 5% may be requested.

Whether this density and calculation applies only at the site specific level or the neighbourhood level is not stated. The City of Edmonton would recommend accordingly, that the provision of adequate municipal reserves for higher density areas must be clarified. However, the intent of this section is generally acceptable, since residential density does have a specific bearing on the number of students generated and the amount of parkland required. Perhaps density could also be linked to the provision of additional circulation reserve, since obviously more people generate more cars and consequently the need for innovative solutions to transportation problems.

RECOMMENDATION:

That up to 5% of the gross developable area should be available for additional circulation reserve in higher density areas, and that Section 95.2 be amended to provide greater clarity and direction to the subdivision approving authorities in the interpretation of the provision "may require reserve in addition to that required to be provided under Section 93 . . . of all or each part of the developable land that would be the subject of the densities referred to in Subsection 2." The City of Edmonton would request clarification of these provisions, but would otherwise support the recommended amendments as presented by the City of Calgary.

In particular those referring to Section 95.1 as follows:

"95. In this Section, 'developable land' means that area of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision less the total of

-14 -

(a) land required to be provided for public roadways, rapid transit rights-of-way, walkways and public utilities under Section 90, and (b) land required to be provided as reserve land."

96.

This Section of the Act determines how reserve or money in place of reserves is to be distributed between the municipal and local school authorities. Since Edmonton has already implemented a joint use agreement (as referred to in 96.(b)(i)), Calgary's concerns are largely inapplicable. The City of Edmonton is concerned; however, that there is no provision for land dedicated to the school authority to be transferred to the City when no longer required by the local school authority, and seriously disagrees with the provisions of the Act which would permit school authorities to obtain reserve in industrial areas. The former situation could result in school authorities selling reserve land and a community subsequently being deficient in reserves for recreational purposes. The rationale of the latter provision is not clearly established and Edmonton would submit that it is difficult to appreciate circumstances where local school authorities could efficiently utilize substantial reserves in industrial areas.

RECOMMENDATION:

97.

The City of Edmonton CANNOT SUPPORT the proposed provisions of Section 96 in Bill-15, however, it is suggested that amendments to ensure that the school board will be required to give exact reasons for the sale of any reserve land, a provision for the inclusion and operation of a reserve fund to document when funds from the sale of reserves are to be utilized, and the ELIMINATION of the provision of reserve land to the school authorities in any industrial subdivision; be included to ensure that Section 96 is more acceptable and rational from a planning and land development perspective.

This Section deals with the allowable uses for environmental reserve and municipal reserves. Unfortunately, from the perspective of the City of Edmonton, the provisions of Bill-15 may allow that environmental reserve could be used for any normal municipal reserve purpose. This is somewhat inconsistent with the reasons for the environmental reserve being established in the first instance. Therefore it is submitted that any use of environmental reserve by the school authorities should be prohibited.

The City of Edmonton is also concerned that there is no clause limiting the purposes which a local school authority may use reserve to which they hold title.

-15-

The City of Edmonton and the City of Calgary would suggest that Section 97 be REWORDED as follows:

RECOMMENDATION:

"97.1 A council may leave environmental reserve in its natural state or use it for the purposes referred to in Subsection 2(a), (b), (d), and (e).

2

A council or school authority may use municipal reserve to which they hold title for all or any of the following purposes, (a) a public park, or (b) a public recreation area, or (c) school purposes, or (d) to separate areas of land that are used for different purposes, or (e) utility facilities, provided there is no reasonable alternate site(s) and providing such utilities do not interfere with or prejudice the proper use of the reserve land."

NEW SECTION The Cities of Edmonton and Calgary would suggest that a NEW SECTION be included which deals with the disposition of the reserve in that it is felt that Section 128 of the Municipal Government Act, as amended by Section 153 of the proposed new Planning Act, is insufficient for the prescribed purposes. The Cities of Edmonton and Calgary would therefore recommend that a new section along the lines of Section 26(2) of the current Act be included. A suggested outline of the proposed new section is included below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a NEW SECTION providing for the disposition of reserves be ADDED as follows:

"I

2

If it appears to a municipality that a reserve will not be required for any of the purposes provided in Section 97, the council may indicate its intention to apply to the board for an order disposing of the reserve.

Notice of council's intention to dispose of reserve shall be

- 16-

(a) mailed by registered mail to the owners of the land abutting or adjoining the reserve parcel, and (b) published in two issues of a newspaper circulating in the municipality stating the time and place at which the council proposes to hold a public hearing on the matter.

3

The council shall hold a public hearing at the time and place stated and, at the public hearing, shall hear (a) any person who is the registered or assessed owner of the land abutting or adjoining Lhe reserve parcel, (b) any local groups of residents or property owners, (c) the director of a regional planning commission where a reserve parcel is situated in a regional planning area, or (d) a representative of a municipal planning commission.

4

When applying to the board for an order disposing of a reserve, the council shall submit to the board a statutory declaration of the municipal secretary deposing as to (a) the holding of the public hearing, (b) the persons by whom representations were made, the nature of the representations and the manner in which the representations were dealt with by the council, and (c) the resolution passed by council in deciding the matter, which resolution shall specify whether the reserve parcel will be disposed of by sale, lease or in exchange for another parcel of similar value.

- 17 -

5

The board may authorize the sale or lease of the reserve, or its exchange for another parcel of similar value in such manner and on such terms as the board may specify."

The City of Edmonton also concurs in the suggestion advanced by the City of Calgary that the uses suggested for reserves may be too restrictive in that they do not allow such reserve land to be used by the approving authority for the construction and operation of utility lines or facilities, It is understood that in the case of environmental reserve, the utilization of such reserve for the location of utility lines or other facilities would only proceed if no other suitable alternate site could be located.

NEW SECTION The City of Edmonton observes that Section 95 provides that up to 5% of additional reserve calculated against the net developable acreage may be required in those areas where certain stipulated housing or population densities are exceeded. The stipulated purpose in Bill-15 is to provide for municipal or school reserve.

However, Section 97.2 stipulates the purposes for which such municipal reserve shall be used but it does not include "publicly assisted housing" programs. Edmonton is concerned that this omission may make it difficult for the City to continue to provide sites for public housing on an efficient and equitable basis as required.

Further, the Province is advised that Edmonton City Council has adopted a policy to provide sites for such housing, and consequently feel that specific provisions should be made to ensure that publicly assisted housing programs proceed unimpeded.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a NEW SECTION be ADDED as suggested below: "Additional lands may be required to be provided to the local authority for public housing purposes at under market value at cost or fixed price as determined by the local council not to exceed 5% of the net developable land area."

PART 5 DIVISION 6.

REPLOTTING SCHEMES 106-118. The most significant aspect of the proposed Planning Act dealing with replot is the deletion of area replots which are presently allowed under the following section of the current Planning Act. 32.4

Notwith6tanding Subection4 (1) and (2), i4 the nepeotting o heiiie. i4 being con6ented to in wtiting by at Zea4t 90% o4 the tegizteked ownenz othek than the

-18-

municipaeity o all. pakeetz a44ected by the zcheme (a)

the new pakcetz may be diztkibuted among the owneAz o4 exizting pakcetz az neakey az iz teazonab.ey pozzibte on the bazz o4 akea 40 that each ownet iz aZtotted a new pecked_ with an akea having the zame natio to the tote_ akea a4 at2 the new pakcetz exchwUng tezekvez az the akea o4 hiz exizting panca haz to the totat akea o4 ate exiting pakcetz, and

(b)

appkaizaez may not be made o4 any pakcetz othek than the exizting pakcaz owned by and the new pakcetz to be azzigned to the owneltz who have not conzented to the kepeotting zcheme.

Under the proposed Act, only value replots will be allowed. The City of Edmonton's previous experience with value replots finds them unworkable because of the extra cost of appraisals, negotiations, and the lengthy time normally required to successfully negotiate a value replot. The value replot has the added dimension of determining and negotiating land values-to which the owner must agree--as well as all the numerous other matters common to all replot procedures which experience demonstrates are frequently very difficult to resolve as it is.

The City has successfully completed literally hundreds of replots by the area method some of which have involved up to 200 owners. This method is clearly workable. In fact, only one area replot undertaken by the City of Edmonton has been appealed to the Public Utilities Board in the last seven years. However, it should be pointed out that this dispute only involved compensation for an existing use--the allocation by area was not in dispute.

The City of Edmonton's record in successfully implementing area replots to the satisfaction of all land owners clearly demonstrates that they have been handled in an equitible manner.

In Edmonton--which has the most extensive experience with replot procedures of any local authority in the Province--it has been shown that the area method of replot is readily understood and accepted by the vast majority of land owners. This appears to derive from the thesis that land areas are less subject to interpretation whereas values before and after replot are subjective in nature.

With reference to Section 3 Edmonton assumes that the date of the appraisals is "as at the date of endorsement". In any event there is an inherent weakness in this procedure. The appraiser must try to appraise at present day market values parcels that are not yet in existence and possibly not marketable for many months. However, allocations are made on these estimated values and should, for example, commercial land increase in value, disproportionately relative to say, single-family dwelling lots, recipients of commercial land would receive unfair gains with respect to the remaining owners. It must be realized that many months may elapse between the valuation of land and the registration of the plan. Consequently the value replot method would likely, in Edmonton's estimation, result in increased incidence of appeal and the general dissatisfaction of all parties concerned.

-19-

Other factors illustrate Edmonton's serious concern about the provisions of Sections 106-118. The City of Edmonton has found the area method of replotting the only effective tool for plan implementation in many circumstances. Edmonton's history of land development is considerably different than that of Calgary and other Alberta municipalities due to the great number of small parcels with fragmented ownership now contained within the City's boundaries as a result of a long history of piecemeal annexation involving numerous country residential estates and fragmented small parcel subdivisions.

Based on Edmonton's extensive experience with replot proceedings, the City strongly urges that the replot by area method be retained. In the absence of effective replot procedures it is likely that vast areas of land in Edmonton may remain undeveloped for years where multiple ownership is involved or conversely development may proceed without the benefit of a comprehensive plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the intent of Section 32.4 of the present Planning Act which allows area replots to be undertaken, be RETAINED and incorporated in the provisions of Bill-15."

General Comments - Sections 106 to 118 106.

A substantial amount of extra work is anticipated under this section with the requirement of Notice of Intention to be served upon registered owners, thereby, ADDING COST IN THE PREPARATION OF REPLOTTING SCHEMES. (Please see comments Section 65.2(e).)

107.

Under this section, a certified copy of the Authorizing Resolution must be filed at the Land Titles Office for endorsement on the titles. This again will ADD SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE COST OF REPLOT PROCEDURES.

110.

This Section provides a method of submitting the replotting scheme to the various owners and describes the information required to be submitted to each owner. Based on Edmonton's experiences, the costs in this connection will be substantial both in the preparation and negotiation stages.

Subsection 110.(g) states the cost of preparing a replotting scheme, if any, will be each registered owner of land in the scheme, and the council.

This section is NOT CLEAR as to whether the costs are to be shared in proportion to land owned or whether the cost is to be shared equally between the City and the registered owners.

112.

Section 112 outlines the requirements when the local authority approaches the owners with the proposed replotting scheme.

Edmonton submits that Sections (a), (b), and (c), ARE UNWORKABLE AS PROPOSED, as Section (c) requires that the Council advise the owner of a date, time and place at which a Public Hearing will be

- 20-

held to consider approval. These dates are unknown until such time as all consents have been received from the owners or alternately, the City decides to proceed with non-consenting owners.

Subsection (b) requires the City to advise the owner of his rights of consenting or withholding consent. It is assumed but not stated that the consequence in the event consent is withheld would be that the City could proceed with the replotting scheme and the owners would then have the right to apply for compensation to the Land Compensation Board.

113.

This section allows the municipality to proceed with the adoption of a replotting scheme when consent has been obtained in writing by 60% or more of the registered owners of the original parcels in the replotting scheme, having 60% or more of the market value of all the parcels appraised under Section 109. Edmonton submits that it is quite unlikely that replotting schemes would be considered for approval with 40% of the owners being non-consenting.

114.

As indicated above (Section 65.2(e) and Section 106) according to the provisions of Bill-15, local authorities will be required to spend substantial amount of additional resources to effect notification procedures as prescribed, with corresponding additional costs related to specific planning activities, such as in this case, replot.

NEW SECTION Provision should be made in Bill-15 to cover those instances where 100% of all property owners affected fully agree to a replotting scheme for their holdings. Under such circumstances, an abbreviated replotting procedure which waives the requirement for two public hearings in addition to the requirement for land appraisals could be affected, with substantial cost savings and benefits to all parties concerned.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following new Section be ADDED after Section 113 and prior to "Replot Compensation".

"1 Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in this Act, if the replotting scheme has been consented to in writing by all the registered owners of all the parcels affected by the scheme the replotting scheme may be approved and adopted by a resolution passed by a majority vote of the members of council present, provided all of the owners of all the parcels have agreed to the method of distribution of property after the replot has been approved.

- 21-

2

116.

There shall be no requirement for hearings under the provisions of Subsection 1."

It appears inconsistent to provide that registered owners share in the cost of preparing any replotting scheme, but according to the provisions of Section 120, the municipality would assume full responsibility for the payment of replot compensation to the owner of each replot adversely affected, with such compensation to be determined by the Land Compensation Board. In a great number of instances, in the absence of any procedure to allow the municipality to recover the replot compensation, it is anticipated that council would have to refuse replotting schemes as the best interests of the municipality would not allow such an expenditure from general revenue. Such costs could not be charged back to all owners on a frontage charge basis. It is unreasonable to expect the City at-large to accept the costs of any compensation within the replotting scheme for the benefit of the participating owners.

RECOMMENDATION:

Accordingly, it is recommended that Subsection 1 of Section 116.1 be AMENDED as follows:

"116.1 The compensation fixed by the Land Compensation Board shall be deemed to be a part of any included in the cost of a replotting scheme."

REPLOT COMPENSATION 119.

The provision which allows a period of one year in which any affected party may claim for compensation under a replotting scheme to be lodged with the Land Compensation Board causes difficulty for the City of Edmonton, in that it is proposed in an earlier section of this brief, that the amount of replot compensation be distributed among affected property owners as is the current situation. Accordingly, it is imperative that the amount of compensation be accurately determined as early as possible after the date of registration of the plan of subdivision relating to the replot scheme, so that any additional cost incurred will be related to the final sale price of the lot or lots created by the replotting scheme.

RECOMMENDATION:

121.2

That the word "one year" in the second line of Section 119.1 be REPLACED by "three months".

The City of Edmonton would request clarification of the provisions of Section 121, and in particular 121.2. As presently structured Bill-15 does not describe any procedure for the appeal on appraised market value for properties considered under the proposed replot procedures. It is assumed that this is an oversight, but the significance of providing a clear description of appeal procedures on a dispute relating to replot appraisal cannot be underestimated or understated.

- 22 -

PART 6, DIVISION 1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BYLAWS 122.

The City of Edmonton is of the opinion that the logistics of the requirement to notify each registered owner of land that is subject to the proposed bylaw adopting, amending or repealing an area structure plan or an area redevelopment plan, makes such a requirement impractical and of questionable feasibility. Further, the requirement of such notification appears redundant in that both area structure and area redevelopment plans must be prepared and amended in conformity with the provisions of the land use bylaw. Accordingly, a more expedient and less cumbersome procedure would be to require that this subsection apply only to amendment of land use bylaws initiated by a municipality to bring them into accordance with proposed area structure or area redevelopment plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City of Edmonton proposes that Section 122.2 be AMENDED as follows:

"122.2 Where a council initiates the redesignation of land under a land use bylaw, a council shall give notice to each owner of land that is the subject of the proposed bylaw amending the land use bylaw and summarize its effect."

As indicated in Section 79.3 and at other points in this report, the City of Edmonton draws to the attention of the Provincial Government the unnecessary hardship which will be imposed upon local planning authorities and the inefficiency and diseconomies which may result if mandatory notification of "registered" owners is required. Accordingly, in this and several other instances, where the term "registered owners" is used, it is suggested that the term "owner" be substituted. Procedures for notification and identification of the owner of a specific parcel or property should be left to the discretion of the municipality to utilize the most efficient and economic resources available to achieve this assignment.

PART 6, DIVISION 2

SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS 132.

Section 132 of the proposed Act, which confers the LieutenantGovernor-in-Council with the power to establish any area in Alberta as a "Special Planning Area", is of particular concern to the City of Edmonton in that provision is made to allow the Provincial Government to control by regulation all matters pertaining to the prohibition, regulation, or control of the use of land, its development for occupation, expropriation, or

- 23-

exemption. The effect of the provisions of Section 132 is to remove planning jurisdiction from the local authority as would normally be provided by the provisions of a regional plan, statutory plan, land use bylaw, or otherwise, and as a consequence, appears to negate several other sound provisions of the proposed Act. RECOMMENDATION:

That this section be AMENDED to ensure that more effective consultation between the municipality or local authority affected and the Provincial Government occurs on matters where the powers conferred to the LieutenantGovernor-in-Council are anticipated to be utilized.

"132.1(a) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in consultation with the municipal authority that would otherwise have jurisdiction in the area, may by regulation establish an area of Alberta as a special planning area. (b) Upon the establishment of a special planning area, the Lieutenant-Governorin-Council shall provide to the municipality affected written reasons for the establishment thereof.

132.(5)

Where a special planning area has been established, the Lieutenant-Governor-inCouncil shall annually review the necessity and effect of the regulations, prohibitions and controls exercised pursuant to this Section with the municipal authority that would otherwise have jurisdiction in the area."

PART 6, DIVISION 4 PENALTIES AND OFFENCES 136.

At the time of the preparation of this brief, extensive joint discussions were undertaken by the Cities of Edmonton and Calgary.

Of particular concern to both municipalities was the requirement for more adequate provisions to facilitate the enforcement of offences and penalties where the provisions of the land use bylaw are not complied with. The following suggestions and comments, which are also contained in the City of Calgary's review are presented for the consideration of the Provincial Government.

Whete the municipatity oAzoomibt.e iot eqotcement, the Zand 1.1.4e bgaw adopted pauuant to the Act wt. the Regutatiom

-24-

muzt aezo be compeied with. Thekeiote, "the and use byeaw" 4houtd be added to the Zegi.sta,tion which must be comptied with in Section 136, Subsection (a).

It is abso suggested that the Aequikement oi a minimum 4ine is exttemely impottant in this situation due to the 4ac-t that Ptovinciat CoUht4 tend to minimize the imporLtance o4 Rearming LegisZation and ByZaws. The maximum 6ine immateltiae i6 the COUAt'S ate aLeowed to impoze any 4ine up to that maximum. Quite zeitiouA inpLactionis have been neceiving $10 ot $20 4ina. To avoid this ptobtem, it is suggested that theke be a minimum 4ine o4 $200 and a continuing o44ence which coued net the 04.6endet a maximum oi $100 pet day.

To strtearweine the priocedune 4on bAinging the accused be6ote the coutt, it is suggested that a sotem .04 "ticketing" Pt the Zaying oi the compeaint and the issuing o4 a summons be instituted similari to that used iot highway tru44ic oi4ences uncle& the Summaty Conviction Act. This powert wowed have tv be ce.ea/bey given in the Rearming Act similarL to Section 6 o4 the Summaty Convictions Act, Chapter/. 355, R.S.A. 1970.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 136.1 be REWORDED as follows:

"136.1 A person who (a) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act, the regulations or a land use bylaw, or (b) contravenes . .

•

•

is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $5000 and, in addition, to a fine of not more than $100 for every day the offence continues and in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months".

NEW SECTION(S) RECOMMENDATION:

That the following NEW SECTIONS be ADDED:

"136.2 For a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, the Regulations or a Land Use Bylaw, a complaint may be laid and a summons issued by means of a ticket in accordance with this section, instead of the procedure set out in the Criminal Code for laying and for issuing a summons.

- 25 -

136.3 The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations (a) prescribing the form of the ticket, (b) defining any word or expression used in the regulations, (c) authorizing the use on a ticket of any word, figure or expression, or any combination thereof to designate an offence under this Act, the regulation or a land use bylaw, (d) designating the "officer" or any person appointed by the council who may issue a ticket for the purpose of enforcing this Act, the regulations or a land use bylaw, and (e) respecting any matter that the LieutenantGovernor-in-Council deems necessary for the use of the ticket."

NEW SECTION Bill-15 does not presently contain a provision which states that, it is an offense under the Act to contravene an order given under Section 76, and consequently it is recommended that the municipality have the option to use this mode of enforcement.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a NEW SECTION be ADDED 136.(d) as follows:

"136.(d) contravenes or fails to comply with any other made under Section 76 of this Act."

PART 6, DIVISION 8

NEW DIVISION In many instances the City of Edmonton has experienced circumstances where the public is not adequately advised or aware (particularly at time of purchase or sale of properties) of restrictions or covenants pertaining to the permitted use or redevelopment of properties. This circumstance, although not universal or widespread could be effectively minimized through the careful discretionary application of caveats to the title of land affected by special regulatory or land use control provisions.

RECOMMENDATION:

That with the best interests of the public in mind a SPECIAL DIVISION--PART 6, DIVISION 8--be ADDED to Bill-15 describing those circumstances

- 26-

and procedures under which a planning approving authority may file and maintain a caveat with the Registrar of Land Titles pertaining to a specific parcel (or parcels) of land affected by special or extraordinary provisions, regulations, or control procedures, as follows: "157. Where a planning approving authority has the power under the Act to impose certain requirements or limitations as a condition of issuing or authorizing a development permit or authorizing the subdivision of land, the municipality may file and maintain a caveat with the Registrar of Land Titles Office relating to the title of the land affected, setting out and requiring the observance of those requirements of limitations and notwithstanding any other Act or law; (a) the caveat shall be deemed to be a valid restrictive covenant for the benefit of the municipality running with or annexed to the land affected, irrespective of whether for any other reason the restrictive covenant would not run with or be annexed to the land, (b) the caveat shall be endorsed by the Registrar on every subsequent Certificate or Certificates of Title to the land, (c) the caveat shall only be discharged with the written consent of the municipality, (d) the requirements or limitations shall be also enforceable by the municipality in accordance with Section 76 as if the requirements or limitations, where part of a development permit of subdivision approval, as the case may be. (e) the requirement of bonding or another form of surety to ensure compliance with the provisions of a development permit and occupancy permit or for other reason that, in the opinion of the planning approving authority, may be necessary."

- 27 -

PART 7 TRANSITIONAL, CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS AND COMMENCEMENT 144.3

The provisions of Section 144.3 are of serious concern to Edmonton and would detrimentally affect the continued effective performance of existing procedures and practices within the City related to the practice of deferred reserve caveats. The discharge of existing caveats would have the effect as is permitted by Section 144.3, of the City losing extensive reserves to which it is rightfully entitled. As the City of Calgary pointed out in their submission "deferred reserve caveats are an extremely useful device which should be retained for use at the discretion of the subdivision approving authority". The City of Edmonton concurs with this observation and would experience serious hardship if the proposed provisions are enacted. Accordingly, it is suggested that the provisions of 144.3 should be deleted.

Such deletion is in conformity with recommendations presented earlier in this brief, particularly those applying to Section 93 which suggested that provision for the deferral of reserves should be reinstated as is the practice in the current Act. RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 144.3 be deleted in its entirety.

RECOMMENDATION:

During the final stage of the preparation of this review Mr. Justice A.M. Dechene of the provincial court ruled that Alberta municipalities lack the required enabling legislation to charge fees upon appeal to a development appeal board. The City of Edmonton Law Department advises that the provisions of Bill-15, if accepted, would result in the necessary legislation to permit Alberta municipalities to charge appeal fees. The City of Edmonton, however, would recommend that in view of the fact that imposition of an appeal fee may represent different levels of financial hardship to non-landowners relative to landowners that PROVISIONS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED in Bill-15 to enable local councils to determine or establish differential appeal fee systems applying to non-landowners and landowners. Further, Edmonton would suggest that enabling legislation should be provided to permit local planning approving authorities to establish procedures for the refund of appeal fees upon successful appeal according to specific circumstances and criteria at the discretion of the local planning authority.

NEW SECTION

SECTION II

Suggested Changes Related to Definition, Procedure and Organization

- 28 -

BILL-15 -THE PLANNING ACT, 1977

DEFINITIONS During the review of Bill-15, The Planning Act, 1977, the City of Edmonton noted several points where the provision, expansion, or amendment of "definitions" in Section 1 of the Bill might facilitate efficient and accurate interpretation of the Legislation. Accordingly, numerous suggestions of addition or amendment to the definitions provided in Bill-15 are outlined below. In a few instances cross-references to other relevant sections are provided in parentheses following the City of Edmonton's recommendations.

1.1

1.1

Owing principally to current practices in the planning field concerning "redevelopment" it would be more appropriate and lead to less confusion to retitle the "area redevelopment plan" as "area improvement plans". This suggestion follows on the City of Edmonton's interpretation that the basic intent of the area redevelopment plan is to foster a general improvement or upgrading of existing facilities and land uses rather than to encourage renewal.

RECOMMENDATION:

That references to the term "area redevelopment plan" be DELETED from Bill-15, and that the term "area improvement plan" be SUBSTITUTED in all instances.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a definition of an "area structure plan" be ADDED to maintain consistency in the Act and to avoid misinterpretation. A suggested definition is provided below.

"1.1 'Area Structure plan' means a plan adopted by a Council as an area structure plan pursuant to provisions of this Act." 1.6

The City of Edmonton has experienced some difficulty with the removal of overburden in areas of new development. To alleviate this difficulty, it is suggested that Section 1.6 be amended to include a definition of soil stripping.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 1.6 be AMENDED to include the following Clause: "(b) soil stripping or the removal of the productive layer at the land surface from a site."

1.10

The definition of "environmental reserve" should be EXPANDED to provide information concerning the purpose of environmental reserves.

- 29 -

1.27(i)

The definition of a public roadway should be EXPANDED to include "walkways" and "bikeways".

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 127(i) should be EXPANDED to read: "In a city, town, new town or summer village, a local road, service road, street, avenue, lane, walkway or bikeway intended for public use, or . . ."

1.38

The City of Edmonton would suggest in both Section 45 and in the Definitions Section of Bill-15 that regional plans be considered as "statutory plans".

RECOMMENDATION:

That a regional plan be considered a "statutory plan" and that the definition in Section 1.38 be AMENDED to read as follows (Section 45):

"1.38 'statutory plan' means a general municipal plan, a regional plan, an areas structure plan referred to in Section 60 and an area redevelopment plan or any one or more of them."

The City of Edmonton would like to suggest that a number of additional definitions be ADDED as follows: RECOMMENDATION:

That a definition of "municipal services" be ADDED which states:

"1.43 'municipal services' means all or any of the works that may be undertaken as a local improvement pursuant to the Municipal Taxation Act which provides services directly or indirectly to the land being developed."

RECOMMENDATION:

That a definition of an "off-site levy" be ADDED as suggested below (Section 71).

"1.44 'off-site levy' means a levy imposed to provide for (i) expansion of water supply system, pumphouses, treatment and storage facilities. (ii)sewage collection systems, lift stations, treatment and disposal facilities. (iii)storm sewer collection and drainage facilities. (iv)public roadways and sidewalks and curbs

-30-

(v) construction inspection services, or land in connection with all or any of them."

RECOMMENDATION:

That a definition of clustered or "grouped housing" development be ADDED (Section 73.3):

"1.45 'grouped housing development' means a housing development where two or more buildings, each containing one or more dwelling units, are located on a single site or parcel."

RECOMMENDATION:

That a definition of the term "planning approving authority" be ADDED:

"1.46 'planning approving authority' means the person(s) or authority empowered to approve a subdivision or to implement land use controls subject to the provisions of this Act." RECOMMENDATION:

That definitions of the terms "public participation", "public input", and "public review", BE PROVIDED in Bill-15.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a definition of the term "net developable area" BE PROVIDED in Bill-15.

- 31-

PART 1, DIVISION 1-2

APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION 3. (c)

The City of Edmonton has frequently expressed concern relating to the manner of development and, in particular, the division of land through the construction of pipeline or other utility rights-of-way. Edmonton's experience has on occasion indicated that the division of land by pipeline rights-of-way can limit the opportunities for the orderly, efficient and economic development of land, particularly land designated for future residential development. Further, in recent times the City has been notified by several interests of problems related to the development of wells and batteries or pipelines within the City's current boundaries. Exclusion of the division of land for the purposes of pipeline right-of-way development from the Act and the Subdivision and Transfer Regulation has serious consequences to the City of Edmonton in terms of planning for the economic and efficient development of future subdivisions.

RECOMMENDATION:

(a) 3.

That Subsections 3(b) and (c) be DELETED.

At the present time, public roadways are exempted from the provisions of the Planning Act. The City of Edmonton is concerned that inclusion of public roadways in subdivision(s) within the provisions of the Act and the Regulation may cause difficulty in the subdivision planning process and subdivision development procedures, particularly in the event of a subdivision being cancelled.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Subsection 3(a) be AMENDED to read as follows:

"3.(a) A highway and a public roadway or. .

4.

The City of Edmonton is concerned that the current provisions of Section 4 relating to compensation may permit the presentation of a claim in the instances where such claim arises at law from causes of action such as expropriation or injurious affection.

As pointed out in the City of Calgary's submission, there may be instances where the law may be such that the right to a claim exists independently of the provisions of Bill-15, and the existing draft provision, therefore, does not adequately ensure that the likelihood of such claims is negated.

RECOMMENDATION:

"4.

The City of Edmonton concurs in the REVISED WORDING proposed by the City of Calgary, namely: Except as expressly provided in this Act, no person shall have any right to compensation for any act done pursuant to this Act or the Regulations, or by the effect of any regional plan, statutory plan, replotting scheme or land use bylaw."

-32-

8.

Section 8 of the Planning Act relating to the provision of population figures should be amended to ensure that municipalities required to present population estimates or figures may do so at minimum expense or duplication of effort. Specifically, it does not seem warranted that the provisions of the Alberta Property Tax Reduction Act should be strictly applied for matters pertaining to Bill-15. It is the City of Edmonton's conclusion that it should be sufficient for municipalities to submit or base matters pertaining to Bill-15 on the latest available population figures determined by that municipality under the provisions of the Alberta Property Tax Reduction Act. RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Section 8 be AMENDED to read as follows:

"8. Where the population of a municipality has to be ascertained for any purpose under this Act or the regulations, it shall be deemed to be the most recent population figure determined by the municipality pursuant to Section 28 of The Alberta Property Tax Reduction Act." 9.

The City of Edmonton is concerned that the provisions for the Alberta Planning Fund contained in Bill-15 provide no maximum to the funds which any municipality would be required to contribute.

The provisions of Section 9 also permit the Minister by regulation to determine the financial contribution of each municipality in a relatively independent and autonomous way. It has been the City of Edmonton's experience that the larger municipalities, namely, Calgary and Edmonton, both of which maintain substantial and costly planning operations, at present, contribute disproportionately to the Alberta Planning Fund, especially when the quality of planning service made available to rural municipalities through the present contributory structure is considered.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is suggested that Section 9.2(a) be REWORDED as follows

"9.2(a)

11.

establish one or more rates expressed in mills not exceeding in any case the rate of one half mill, and"

The City of Edmonton concurs in the provisions of Section 11 and is of the opinion that the provisions of this section represent a substantial improvement over the provisions of the present Act. However, for purposes of clarity and to ensure effective and optimal use of the Alberta Planning Act in a manner consistent with the philosophy of improved public involvement in the planning process inherent in Bill-15, provision should be made in Section 11(2) for the use of sums from the Fund for planning related public participation programs and activities.

-33-

RECOMMENDATION:

A new clause, 11(d), should be ADDED to Section 11.2 as follows:

"11.2(d) enabling planning related public participation programs and activities to be carried out."

DIVISION 1, PART 2

ALBERTA PLANNING BOARD 12-19

Sections 12 through 19 of Bill-15 establish the Alberta Planning Board and outline the provisions for the establishment of the Board, its composition, membership and duties. A review by the City of Edmonton of the provisions of these Sections, however, reveals some concern that the composition should be more specifically identified. In particular, the City of Edmonton would be concerned that the number of members to be appointed should be clearly specified, and further, that the eligibility or ineligibility of various individuals (as an example Provincial civil servants), should be indicated.

Additionally, Edmonton concurs with the statement contained in Calgary's submission relating to the fact that the provisions of Sections 12 through 19 establish the Board as purely an appeal agency. Edmonton's experience would appear to indicate that there is a requirement for the Provincial Planning Board to take greater responsibility to initiate or coordinate planning actions of the various municipalities and regional planning commissions, as well as the Province, to ensure that all parties are acting in a manner consistent with Alberta Provincial strategies for the long range development of the Province. The Alberta Planning Board should have a major responsibility to ensure that regional plans are prepared within the context of a consistent framework and guidelines. The Alberta Planning Board should also be in a position to provide information to Alberta municipalities concerning Provincial development strategies which may affect municipal long range or immediate planning actions.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City of Edmonton concurs with the Calgary statement that provisions similar to those included in the 1973 document "Towards a New Planning Act for Alberta", which gave the Board significant planning responsibilities at the Provincial level; specifically those which required the Board to consolidate and disseminate provincial planning policies and strategies as a framework for both regional and municipal planning; be INCLUDED in Bill15.

-34-

PART 2, DIVISION 2

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS 24.2

The City of Edmonton is concerned that the provisions of Section 24.2 are unnecessary given the provisions of 24.1(b), and further, that the inclusion of 24.2 may result in an increased delegation of commission responsibility to committees of the commission.

Experiences of the City of Edmonton demonstrate that in many instances, owing principally to the limited representation of participating member municipalities on commission committees, decisions of commission committees may, on occasion, be rendered without the significant benefit of full and adequate discussion by all participating municipalities only obtained at meetings of the Commission as a whole.

RECOMMENDATION:

25.3(c)

That Section 24.2 be DELETED.

Based on past experience in the Edmonton Area, the City submits that given the responsibility of the regional planning commissions to ensure coordination of planning matters between municipalities within the region under the commission's jurisdication, the planning director of a regional planning commission should, at his discretion, be able to make presentation on matters, particularly those matters respecting annexation involving other municipalities or inter-municipal jurisdiction. Section 25.3(c), therefore, should be amended to permit regional planning commission directors to, at their own discretion, make such submissions.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 25.3(c) be AMENDED as follows: "A regional planning commission may (c) At the discretion •of the regional planning commission or upon request by the minister the council, or the Local Authorities Board may, (i) submit suggestions with respect to any proposed annexation, and (ii)attend any hearing of the local authorities board and speak to any matter before it."

PART 2, DIVISION 3

MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS 28.2

As in the City of Calgary, the City of Edmonton draws a clear distinction between the procedures of issuing versus approving a development pelmit. Applications for development are regularly

- 35-

approved subject to certain specified conditions imposed by the development officer. In most instances, it may be required that the conditions be fulfilled prior to the actual issuance of the permit. Once these conditions have been satisfied, the developer may proceed to the building permit stage. Discussions between the City of Calgary and the City of Edmonton have led to the conclusion that Bill-15 suggests that the municipal planning commission will in actuality issue a permit when it rules favourably on an application. It is the City of Edmonton's position that this will result in delays and inconvenience both to the developer and the commission which may prove cumbersome, time-consuming and inefficient. • RECOMMENDATION:

The City of Edmonton and the City of Calgary jointly propose that Section 28.2 be REWORDED to read as follows:

"28.2 A council may, by by-law delegate with or without conditions, to a municipal planning commission appointed by it, the power to approve or to issue development permits, or both."

28.3

The City of Edmonton suggests that clarification between the provisions of 28.3 and Section 65(c) is required, since it appears in the instance of 28.3 that jurisdiction to issue development permits may be provided to either the municipal planning commission or the development officer, whereas Section 65(c) would appear to exclude the opportunity to have both the municipal planning commission and the development officer(s) designated with such jurisdiction.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Section 28.3 and Section 65(c) be carefully reviewed to ensure consistency in the designation of jurisdiction to the municipal planning commission and development officer with respect to the approval and issuance of development permits.

The City of Edmonton refers the Provincial Government to the suggested provisions included under the comments on Section 65(c) contained in this report."

PART 2, DIVISION 4

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD NEW SECTION The City of Edmonton submits that a council may wish to establish provision to allow the refund of appeal fees upon successful appeal under certain circumstances, such as successful appeal by non-profit organizations, community leagues, etc.

-36-

RECOMMENDATION:

That a new section 34.(d) be ADDED as follows:

"34.(d) provide for the refund of appeal fees upon successful appeal under special circumstances according to provisions established by the council at the time of enactment or by amendment of development appeal board bylaw.

PART 2, DIVISION 5

GENERAL 40.

The existing work load currently experienced by the City of Edmonton Development Appeal Board and the Municipal Planning Commission would appear to indicate that it is highly impractical to suggest that "an order, decision, approval notice or other thing made, given or issued by the Municipal Planning Commission or the Development Appeal Board" be signed by the chairman or a member elected to act on behalf of the Chairman. It is submitted that the present practice of having the chairman endorse the municipal planning commission minutes once ratified provides the necessary direction to the authorized officer of the approving authority to then sign the various orders, decisions and directives in a manner consistent with the intention stated by the commission or the board. Both cities have employed this procedure for many years and no serious difficulties have been encountered to the Cities' knowledge. There is, as the Provincial Government well appreciates, some concern that approval procedures and processes within the municipality should be as efficient and quick as possible. The suggestions contained in Section 40(1) would inevitably result in a reduced efficiency of the approval process and delays inconveniencing individuals concerned.

RECOMMENDATION: "40.1

That Section 40 be REWORDED as follows: An order, decision, approval, notice or other thing made, given or issued by (a) the Board, or (b) a Regional Planning Commission, or (c) a Municipal Planning Commission, or (d) a Development Appeal Board, may be signed on its behalf by its Chairman, a Vice-Chairman or member elected to act as Chairman, or other authorized officer of the approving authority.

-37-

2

An order, decision, approval, notice, or other thing, purporting to be signed by the chairman, a vice-chairman, or member elected to act as chairman, or other authorized officer of the approving authority on behalf of an authority referred to in Subsection (1), shall be admitted in evidence as prima facie proof (a) of the order, decision, approval, notice or other thing, and (b) that the person signing it was authorized to do so, without proof of the appointment of the person signing as a member of the authority concerned or his appointment, election or designation as chairman or vice-chairman or authorized officer of the approving authority, as the case may be, or of his signature."

41.

In many instances it is necessary for representatives of the City of Edmonton not specifically employed by the municipality, but acting on behalf of the municipality, either through the provision of consulting services or at the designation of council, the municipal planning commission, or other boards or agencies of the municipality to enter property for the purposes of conducting the City's business. Section 41 should be amended accordingly to provide for the circumstances described above.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 41.1(d) be AMENDED to read as follows:

"41.1(d) An employee of a council or regional planning commission or an individual or agency authorized by the council or commission to do so."

PART 3, DIVISION 1 REGIONAL PLANS 44.

To ensure consistency in the preparation of regional plans it would be desirable to expand the definition provided in Section 44.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 44 be REWORDED as follows:

"44 A regional plan shall (a) provide for the present and future land use and development of the planning

- 38-

region and amongst other things shall take into account such policies and other matters as the Minister may from time to time prescribe, and (b) contain such other matters as the regional planning commission considers necessary."

45.

Please see comment on "statutory plan" in the "Definitions" section of this brief."

45.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 45 be AMENDED as follows:

"45.1 To permit public participation during the preparation and review of a regional plan.

45.1 A regional planning commission shall, during the preparation or review of the regional plan, provide full and adequate opportunity to the board, the council of municipalities situated in the planning region, and those local authorities and persons affected by it of making suggestions and representations with respect to the plan.

49.

The City of Edmonton is concerned that there appears to be some inconsistency in the procedures for approval and adoption of a regional plan. In particular, the relationship between the board and the minister with respect to approval of a regional plan is not clarified. The circumstances under which a regional plan is referred back to the board or the regional planning commission by the minister with suggestions for changes would appear to imply that the minister harbours ultimate approval authority of any regional plan. If such is the case, then Section 49.2(b) should be amended.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 49.2(h) be AMENDED to read as follows to ensure consistency with the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of Bill 15.

"49.2(h)

recommend approval and send the plan to the Minister with or without recommendation."

NEW SECTION No provision has been made for those circumstances which may arise when a regional planning commission disagrees with changes suggested by the board or minister upon referral back to the commission.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a new section 50.1(c) be ADDED to clarify actions which must be initiated in the event that a regional planning commission disagrees with suggested changes or changes to a proposed regional plan referred back to the commission by the board or the minister.

-39-

"50.1(c) If it disagrees with the changes suggested or other changes and thereby fails to accept the proposed regional plan in accordance with the provisions of section 48 the decision of minister shall be binding on the commission."

51.

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 51 should be AMENDED to ensure that regional plans are continually reviewed, monitored and maintained in cognizance of changing situations or developments within the regional context. Accordingly, Section 51.4 should be renumbered, 5, and a new subsection, 4, be included as follows:

51.4 A regional planning commission having adopted a regional plan and that plan having been ratified by the minister shall (a) monitor its implementation; and (b) review it at regular intervals. Such a review shall occur not less than once every five years or at more regular intervals as determined by the commission after adoption of a regional plan.

AMENDMENTS TO A REGIONAL PLAN AND APPEALS The current Planning Act provides the opportunity for municipalities to refer matters of an inter-municipal nature or concern to the regional planning commission for review and consideration. It is suggested that provision for this procedure should be included in Bill-15.

NEW SECTION RECOMMENDATION:

A new section, similar to Section 93 of the present Act, should be included as follows:

"1

2

Where the council of a municipality is of the opinion that an action taken by another council under this Act has or may have a detrimental effect within the boundaries of the first municipality, it may refer the matter to the commission whether or not the action is one that comes within the purview of a regional plan.

The commission shall decide any matter referred to it under Subsection (1) and the decision is binding subject to the right of either council to appeal to the board."

-40-

52.

RECOMMENDATION:

52.3(h)

It is suggested that Section 52.3(b) be amended to ensure that there is no inconsistency in interpretation of the provision of that section. As it presently stands, there may be some confusion in terms of eligibility to vote for a regional plan amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City of Edmonton suggests that the term "a local authority" used in Section 52.1 be substituted by the term "council" to provide consistency with other statements in the provisions of Bill 15. The City of Edmonton does not consider it appropriate that school authorities, district board of directors of an irrigation district, or members of the board of trustees of a drainage district should be permitted to initiate amendments to the regional plan.

The following AMENDMENT is suggested.

"52.3(h) At least two thirds of the persons entitled to vote and who were present and voted on the amendment, voted in favour of the amendment."

53.

The City of Edmonton submits that a "deemed refusal period" should be provided in the provisions of Section 53. Such a provision is essential to ensure that appeal procedures on amendments to a regional plan are expedited. The specified period is required to ensure full opportunity for the applicant to present an amendment to the Alberta Planning Board within a reasonable period of time.

RECOMMENDATION:

The AMENDMENT as proposed by the City of Calgary, which reads as follows, is acceptable to the City of Edmonton.

"53.1(a) An application for approval of an amendment shall be deemed to be refused if, within 60 days of (i) the date of an application pursuant to Section 52.1, (ii)the date of a motion pursuant to Section 52.2, in its completed and final form, a decision has not been issued."

53.2

To ensure consistency with the other recommendations presented by the City of Edmonton concerning the eligibility of "local authorities" to appeal amendments to a regional plan, it is suggested that Section 53.1 be amended.

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 53.2 be AMENDED to read as follows:

-41-

"53.2 An appeal under this section shall be in writing stating the reasons for the appeal and a copy thereof shall be served on other councils affected by the appeal."

56.1

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 56.1 be AMENDED to ensure consistency with the provisions of other parts of Bill-15 to read as follows:

"56.1 Upon the recotuuiendation of a regional planning commission and with the concurrence of the Alberta Planning Board, the Minister may repeal a regional plan."

PART 3, DIVISION 2

GENERAL MUNICIPAL PLANS 59.

Edmonton and Calgary are currently in the process of preparing revised general municipal plans. The experience of both Cities to date, in the preparation of municipal plans, indicates that it would be desirable for Section 59 of the Act to provide clear direction as to the content of the plans. Further, Section 59 implies that the general municipal plan is to describe "the manner in which future development will be carried out" and also "the times in which development should be completed". The Cities of Edmonton and Calgary jointly submit that this is an unrealistic requirement in that the time frame of development frequently depends upon exogenous factors beyond the control of the City, particularly economic and policy decisions, at the Provincial, National and International levels. The City of Edmonton submits that the provisions of the existing Section 95 of the present Act are generally suitable, and provide a reasonable guide for the preparation of general municipal plans.

The provisions of Subsection (b) may also pose difficulty for the Cities of Edmonton and Calgary, since it appears impractical to require that areas suitable for area structure or area redevelopment plans be identified in the preparation of a general municipal plan. It is likely that the requirements for area structure plans and area development plans will be largely determined at the outset of the study program, however, detailed requirements and provisions of the area structure and area redevelopment plans would tend to evolve will be gradually amended and expanded as the general municipal plan is prepared. The implication of Section 59.(b) is that individuals charged with responsibility of preparing a general municipal plan could be faced with a continual process of amendment and revision during the process of the general plan preparation.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Section 59 be REWORDED to contain the following provisions:

-42-

1159 .

A general municipal plan shall (a) be prepared on the basis of surveys and studies of land use, population growth, the economic base of the municipality, its transportation and communication needs, public services, social services, and other such factors as are relevant to the preparation of the general plan (b) include (i) a map showing the division of all or part of the land that is to be included in the general plan into areas of general land use classes that the council considers necessary for the purpose of the general plan (ii) proposals related to the division of public roadways, services, public buildings, schools, parks and recreation areas and the reservation of land for these and other public and community purposes (iii) a schedule setting out the sequence in which the specified areas of land may be developed or redeveloped, and in which the public services and facilities referred to in Subsection (ii) should be provided in specified areas, and (iv) proposals for a period of not less than five years relating to the financing and programming of public development projects and capital works to be undertaken by the municipality and may include such proposals or other public authorities having jurisdiction within the area included in the general plan. (c) contain such other matters as the council considers necessary."

57.

RECOMMENDATION:

Given the special circumstances of the Hamlet of Sherwood Park with a population of over 25,000 persons, it is suggested that particular reference should be made in Section 57.1 requiring the preparation of a general municipal plan for the Hamlet of Sherwood Park.

-43-

AREA STRUCTURE PLANS 60.(1)

The City of Edmonton and the City-of Calgary suggest that Subsection 60.1 which defines the framework for an area structure plan be amended to ensure consistency with the subsequent description of the contents of an area structure plan. It is evident from the description of contents of an area structure plan that the plan is to be a framework for subdivision and development.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 60.1 be AMENDED to read:

"1

For the purpose of providing a framework for subsequent subdivision and development of an area of land in a municipality, a council may, by bylaw passed in accordance with Part 6, adopt a plan to be known as the "(name) area structure plan."

Further, the City of Edmonton would like to emphasize its support for the general intent and provisions of Section 60. The provision of bylaw status to the outline plan process currently in practice in the City of Edmonton is a significant step toward the achievement of the basic philosophy inherent of the proposed Planning Act. The City of Edmonton is, however, concerned that there be no misinterpretation of this municipality's ability to request interim planning procedures as components of area structure plans, such as the existing neighbourhood plan component of our outline plan procedure.

60.2(b)

The Cities of Edmonton and Calgary have discussed the provisions of Section 60.2, which basically outline the contents of an area structure plan. Based on these discussions it is suggested that the provisions of Section 60.2(b)(i-iii) tend to be very general, whereas (iv) tends to be very specific and possibly unnecessarily restrictive as a consequence. It is suggested that the level of detail included in point (iv) is more appropriate for the subdivision stage. Further, it is significant to note that this section fails to reference the need to identify reserve requirements and reserve locations. Current practice in both cities through, in the City of Edmonton, the Outline Plan Process, and in the City of Calgary, the Design Brief Process has been to identify reserve location and requirements at a stage similar to that proposed as part of the area structure plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Subsection 60.2(b)(iv) be deleted and the following SUBSTITUTED:

"60.2(b)(iv) the location of principal transportation facilities and necessary improvements required to serve the area and identify generally the internal circulation system and utility layouts, and

-44-

(v) identify general reserve requirements for municipal and school purposes and identify areas which should be the subject of subsequent dedication as environmental reserve, and (vi)the effect of the development of the area structure plan on the infrastructure of existing and future communities;" AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLANS NEW SECTION RECOMMENDATION:

To ensure that provisions and purposes of both area redevelopment plans and redevelopment area designation are clearly understood it is suggested that the following clause 61.(a)(iii) be ADDED:

"61.(a)(iii) providing a plan to guide change in an area in order to protect the welfare of the community at large and to assure adequate consideration is given to the effects of special land use proposals on the area."

62.

It is the City of Edmonton's position that the requirement for a redevelopment levy imposed on a plan specific basis may seriously reduce the relative attractiveness of redevelopment areas for prospective developers. In essence, the imposition of specific redevelopment levies for redevelopment plan areas could ultimately affect the final price of development undertaken in the specific areas, and ultimately costs attributable to the imposition of the redevelopment levy could be reflected in the final purchase or rental price of units within the redevelopment plan area. Further, it is suggested that the provisions of the redevelopment levy as specified in Section 70, and particularly, as specified in the suggested amendments proposed by the City of Edmonton and the City of Calgary, would result in a more equitable method both of handling the imposition of redevelopment levies and of utilizing monies collected.

RECOMMENDATION:

63.b

That this section be DELETED (see comments on Section 70).

Experiences in the City of Edmonton and the City of Calgary with the Neighbourhood Improvement (NIP) and Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programs (RRAP) have demonstrated that area redevelopment can be actively encouraged through initiatives provided to the private sector. Under such circumstances, area redevelopment tends to proceed on an incremental basis rather than on an area wide basis. It is suggested that to ensure that area redevelopment plans are properly prepared and effective, statements as to the objectives, manner of implementation and an assessment of existing and future land use implications must be provided.

-45 -

RECOMMENDATION:

The following REVISED WORDING is proposed:

"63 An area redevelopment plan, may (b) describe (i) the objectives of the plan and how they are to be achieved, (ii)the existing and proposed land uses, (iii)the proposed public roadways, transportation plan and public utilities, (iv)the areas to be conserved, rehabilitated and redeveloped, (v) the provision of park, recreation and school facilities and the manner in which they are to be provided, (vi)the manner in which development will affect the residents and the land and building thereon, (vii)the proposals for temporary or pelmanent relocation of persons disturbed by the development if any, and (viii)the manner in which the public is to be involved in the review and assessment of future plans affecting the redevelopment area.

63.(c)

Consistent with the recommenda tion provided later in Section 70, 63.(c) should be reworded to allow flexibility in the application and distribution of redevelopment levy funds.

RECOMMENDATION: "63.(c) Where monies in a reserve fund are identified as having originated from the area redevelopment plan area, state the one or more purposes for which it is intended to utilize these monies."

NEW SECTION Reference is made to Sections 114, 117 and 118 of the present Act pertaining to the purposes of development schemes. It is suggested that to ensure area redevelopment plans are more directly related

-46 -

to the implementation of proposals, particularly those proposals of a nature which would normally be handled under a development scheme by the present Act, more specific provisions pertaining to area redevelopment plans be incorporated into Section 63 or a new section thereof.

RECOMMENDATION:

That PROVISIONS along the lines of Sections 114, 117 and 118 of the present Act pertaining to development schemes BE INCORPORATED following Section 63 as follows:

"63.2 An area redevelopment plan bylaw may (a) provide for the acquisition, assembly, consolidation, subdivision and sale or lease by the municipality of such land and buildings as are necessary to implement the area redevelopment plan. (b) reserve land for future acquisition as the site or location of any public roadway, service or building or for a school, park or other open space and make such agreements with the owners of the land as will permit its acquisition and use for those purposes. (c) specify the manner in which any particular area of land is to be used, subdivided, or developed, and regulate or prohibit the construction of buildings that would interfere with the carrying out of the plan, (d) make available any land for agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses at any particular time.

3 (a) In an area subject to an area redevelopment plan bylaw a Council may acquire by expropriation or otherwise any land or buildings, the acquisition of which is essential to the carrying out of the plan, together with lands, (i) that are the remnants of parcels, portions of which are necessary for carrying out the plan, or (ii)that may be injuriously affected by the plan;

-47-

(i) establish the office of one or more development officers and such officers or the municipal planning commission or both may receive, consider and decide on applications for development permits; (ii)provide for the manner in which development officers are to be appointed."

65.2(f)

The existing six-month limit required by the present Act should be retained to avoid continued reapplication upon refusal of an appeal.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that a Subsection (f) be ADDED as follows:

"65.2(f)

65.3

provide that, where an application for a development permit is refused, another application for a permit on the same parcel of land and for the same or similar use of land may not be made by the same or any other applicant until at least six (6) months after the date of the refusal."

The City of Edmonton concurs with the provisions contained in the recommendations made by the City of Calgary. These revisions were discussed at a joint meeting between the two Cities. The recommendation which follows is a result of these discussions.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following Sections be AMENDED OR ADDED to rectify the above deficiencies: The lighting of land, signs and buildings or other things; 10. The screening of storage or any building or other thing; 14. The development of buildings (i) on land subject to flooding or subsidence or that is low-lying, marshy or unstable, or (ii)on land adjacent to or within a specified distance of the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of water, or

- 48-

(b) where land is acquired for the purpose of an area redevelopment plan, the owner of the land has the same right to compensation, therefore, as he would if the land were acquired for public purposes by the municipality under the Expropriation Act. (c) a Council may dispose of any lands acquired for the purpose of the development scheme without the approval of the proprietary electors, subject to any building or other restrictions that may be set out in the plan.

4

An expense incurred by a Council in acquiring lands or taking any other action for the purpose of an area redevelopment plan shall be met as part of the plan and the proceeds of any sale or other disposition of the lands so acquired shall be applied against the cost of the plan.

PART 4, DIVISION 1

LAND USE BYLAW 65.

As a general suggestion to avoid confusion or unnecessary restriction in the application of the provisions of Bill-15, it is suggested that the term "planning approving authority" be substituted wherever the term "subdivision approving authority" (except as required in Part 5) appears. To avoid unnecessary delay or inconvenience in the issuance of development permits of a routine nature, it is desirable that the development officer at his discretion may approve routine matters without reference or referral to the municipal planning commission. An amendment to affect this proposal was suggested under Section 28.3. If, however, the proposed amendment outlined in Section 28.3 is not accepted, Section 65.2(c) should be amended to provide this discretionary authority.

RECOMMENDATION:

If the amendment proposed for Section 28.3 is accepted, the existing Section 65.2(c) is acceptable. If not, the following AMENDMENT is proposed:

"65.2(c) unless a municipal planning commission is authorized to issue development permits in place of a development officer pursuant to Section 28, Subsection (2):

-49 -

(iii)on land adjacent to or within a specified distance from the top of an escarpment, having consideration for the stability of the escarpment and the height of the building proposed, or (iv)subject to regulations made under Section 132, within a specific area around an airport; 15. the density and distribution of population, intensity of use, or building coverage permitted on any site in any or each of the designated land use districts; 20. the manner of placement, construction, height, size and character of signs and advertising devices or their prohibition; and 27. the establishment of a setback to ensure that development will take place at a prescribed distance from those streets which council has determined will be widened at some future date.

65.4

The City of Edmonton suggests that Section 65.4 be reworded and expanded to provide clearer direction to the development officer on circumstances where relaxation of the provisions of the land use bylaw are warranted.

RECOMMENDATION: "65.4 A land use bylaw may authorize the planning approving authority to approve an application for development permit, notwithstanding that the proposed development does not comply with the land use bylaw where (a) site constraints or other matters prevent complete compliance with the bylaw, and (b) the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the approving authority, (i) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or (ii)materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties, and

-50-

(c) the proposed development is not in conflict with present or future land uses as established in accordance with a statutory plan."

67.1

As a matter of clarification, Section 67.1 should be amended to ensure consistency with Section 65.2(b) which provides for both permitted uses and discretionary uses in respect to each district.

Section 67.1 should, therefore, be amended to include the option of both conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 67.1 should be reworded as follows: 67.1

Except for a district designated as a direct control district, upon the establishment of districts under a land use bylaw, the council shall prescribe in the bylaw (a) those one or more uses of land or buildings that are permitted in each district, with or without conditions, or (b) those one or more uses of land or buildings that may be permitted in each district at the discretion of the planning approving authority, with or without conditions, or both."

67.3

Provision should be made for the discretion of the development officer or the planning commission to issue development permits for discretionary uses in direct control districts.

RECOMMENDATION: "67.3 Where a person applies for a development permit in respect of a development that may, at the discretion of the planning approving authority, be permitted pursuant to Subsection (1) Clause (b), or is discretionary in a direct control district, the planning approving authority may issue a development permit."

68.

The City of Edmonton is concerned that the provisions of Section 68.2 be amended to ensure that in instances where an outline plan has been approved by council, but is not registered for a year or more after reclassification of designated lands takes place, the Council is not required to purchase lands which would otherwise be provided through the dedication of reserves at the time of registration.

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 68.2 should be reworded as follows:

-51-

"68.2

Notwithstanding Subsection 1, (a) where the Crown in right of Canada, the Crown in right of Alberta or another local authority acquires or commences proceedings to acquire the land referred to in Subsection 1, the council is not required to acquire the land, or (b) where the land referred to in Subsection (1) has been so designated in accordance with and in order to implement a proposed plan of subdivision which will, upon subsequent registration, dedicate the subject lands in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the council is not required to acquire the land."

71.

Edmonton does not at the present time use off-site levies.

However, given the provisions of the new Act, the City of Edmonton may be in the position in the future of applying off-site levies, rather than obtaining additional services or funds through the City's development agreement process as is current practice. For these reasons, the City of Edmonton concurs with Calgary's proposal and the comments contained therein. It should be pointed out, however, that at the present time, the City of Edmonton, unlike the City of Calgary is in the practice of requiring development permits for all single family development and single family houses. The City of Edmonton concurs with the proposed wording presented by the City of Calgary.

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 71 be deleted and the following SUBSTITUTED.

"71.1

A Council may, by bylaw (a) provide for the imposition of an off-site levy on undeveloped land that is to be developed for residential, commercial, industrial or other purposes, and (b) authorize the entering into of agreements with the owners or purchasers of that land for the provision of municipal services, including public transportation facilities, to the land and for the payment of the off-site levy imposed on that land.

- 52 -

73.3

2.

The agreement shall contain the terms and conditions of development and shall provide the details of the off-site cost levy.

3.

The municipality shall provide to the owner or purchaser a notice of the offsite cost levy prior to the enteringinto of any agreement.

4.

An off-site levy imposed under this Act may be imposed only once in respect of the development and only before a Development Permit is issued thereof.

The City of Edmonton is concerned that the specific provisions of Section 73.3(a) may exclude group or clustered housing developments. Accordingly, it is suggested that an amendment to cover these types of developments be included.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following Clause be ADDED to Section 73.3: "73.3(h)

76.

is part of a clustered or grouped housing development."

Both the City of Edmonton and the City of Calgary have been concerned for some time about the increase in the rate of illegal developments occuring within the cities, and the limited ability of the various municipal authorities to deal with these matters effectively. Both Cities agree that the effectiveness of the municipality to deal with these matters would be greatly increased if the municipality were able to caveat property to which a notice had been served of illegal development. Accordingly, an amendment to Section 76 is proposed permitting municipalities to register caveats giving notice of the contravention through the Registrar of Land Titles.

RECOMMENDATION:

"76.1 change: "development officer" in lines 1 and 6 to "'planning approving authority".

76.2 Where a notice has been served under subsection (1), the municipality may file and maintain a caveat giving notice of the contravention with the Registrar of a Land Titles Office against the title of the land affected".

77(1)

The City of Edmonton supports the provisions of 77(1) and (2).

However, it is suggested that a revision to Section 77 (1) would ensure that the municipality is more adequately protected from liability.

- 53 -

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following be substituted for "as is necessary to carry out the order" in the 5th line. "as it deems necessary to carry out the order".

78.1

For the purposes of clarity and to avoid any misinterpretation of Section 78.1 it is suggested that this section should be AMENDED to include not only commencement of developments but also the continuance of any development. The City of Calgary and the City of Edmonton jointly concur in this recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION:

78.2

"78.1 Except as otherwise provided in a land use bylaw or the land use regulations, no person shall commence or continue any development unless he has been issued a development permit in respect thereof."

For the purposes of clarity, the City of Edmonton suggests that Section 78.2 be AMENDED to read as follows: "78.2 An application for a development permit shall, at the option of the applicant be deemed to be refused when the decision of the planning approving authority is not made within 40 days of receipt of the application in its complete and final form at the written recognition of both parties."

79.1

For the purposes of clarity and to avoid misinterpretation, it is suggested that the notice of appeal be served on the secretary of the development appeal board. Further, it is suggested that any person wishing to appeal to the development appeal board secretary must do so within 14 days of the date of mailing, posting or advertising the appeal notice. Such a requirement should ensure that any confusion in the procedures for appeal or notification are minimized. It is also suggested by reference to Section 55, Subsection (e) that the individual's rights to appeal be clarified.

RECOMMENDATION:

"79.1 A person referred to in Section 65, Subsection (e) or a person referred to in Section 78, Subsection (3) may appeal to a development appeal board by serving a written notice of the appeal on the secretary of the development appeal board within 14 days after notice of the decision is mailed or posted on the site of the proposed development or published in a newspaper circulating in the area, pursuant to the procedure described in Section 65, Subsection (e)."

- 54-

79.3

The City of Edmonton would find it difficult to operate within the provisions of the 5 day notice period allowed in Bill-15.

The existing situation and requirement of the current Act of 7 days, while restrictive in itself, is considered the absolute minimum for an efficient operation of the development appeal board. Furthermore, the City would be concerned that the public's best interest might not be served if municipalities choose to strictly apply the minimum requirements for notification in Section 79.3 RECOMMENDATION:

To ensure that the intent of a minimum public notification period provision is properly reflected in the ACT, Section 79.3 should be AMENDED as follows:

"79.3 the Development Appeal Board shall ensure that notice of the hearing is mailed at least five days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and statutory holidays, prior to the date of the hearing to . . ."

80.1

It is suggested that it would be preferable to include provisions for the development officer to designate someone acting on his behalf or member of the staff or other technical person to make presentation to the development appeal board.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following provision be ADDED to Section 80.1.

"80.1 At the hearing referred to in Section 79, the development appeal board shall hear (b) the development officer or a member of the planning commission from whose order, decision or Development Permit the appeal is made, who may, at his discretion, assign a member of his staff to be heard in his stead or make a written submission to the development appeal board . .

80.3(b)

The provisions of Section 80(3)(b) should be consistent with the provisions and amendments suggested for Section 65--a limitation on the time effectiveness of a development appeal board order should be specified.

80.3(c)

Edmonton takes exception to the inclusion of the statement, that the development appeal board "may exercise the same power as Council". The inclusion of such a provision may result in an undesirable situation in which the development appeal board could greatly expand its power, possibly permitting the board to amend the land use bylaw.

- 55-

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 80.3(c) be AMENDED.

"80.3(c)

may exercise the same power as a planning approving authority is permitted to exercise pursuant to this Act or the land use bylaw or land use regulations, save for the power to amend or repeal the same."

PART 5, DIVISION 2

APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 84.

Section 84 should be amended to permit the subdivision planning authority to obtain such documentation as is considered necessary to expedite the approval process and subdivision plan review.

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 84 should be REWORDED as follows:

"84. In accordance with the Regulations, an applicant for subdivision approval shall submit with his application a proposed plan of subdivision or other instrument describing the subdivision, together with any supporting documentation that may be required by the subdivision approving authority."

85.3

Provision should be included in Section 85.3 to provide the subdivision approving authority to allow conditions to be attached to subdivision approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

86.

"85.3 A subdivision apprbving authority may approve, approve with conditions, or refuse an application for subdivision approval".

Consistent with the recommendations and comments extended by the City of Edmonton on Sections 71 and 85.3, it is suggested that the provisions of Section 86 proposed in Bill-15 are overly restrictive in that no provision has been allowed for the charging of off-site levies, the provision of municipal services, or special considerations such as fencing, buffering, planting, landscaping, transit shelters, special access restrictions, area amenities, development density restrictions, etc., normally considered at the time of a development agreement. To expedite the land development process and minimize redundancy or duplication of effort in the negotiation of agreements, it is suggested that Section 86 be written as suggested below, in conformity with the comments suggested in Sections 71 and 85.3 earlier in this brief.

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 86 should be REWRITTEN as follows:

- 56 -

"86.1 A council may, by bylaw (a) provide for the imposition of site levy on undeveloped land be developed for residential, industrial or other purposes,

an offthat is to commercial, and

(b) authorize the entering into of agreements with the owners or purchasers of that land for the provision of municipal services to the land and for the payment of the off-site levy imposed on that land.

87.3

2

The agreement shall contain the terms and conditions of development and shall provide the details of the off-site levy.

3

The municipality shall provide to the owner or purchaser a notice of the off-site levy prior to the entering-into of any agreement."

The provisions of Section 87.3(c) and (e) appear to be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 99 of the proposed Act, which specifies that such persons have no right of appeal to the Alberta Planning Board. Further, the Cities of Edmonton and Calgary have discussed the provisions of Subsection (d) and it has been determined that in the majority of instances it is highly unlikely that the local school authorities will have direct concerns at the time of subdivision application or approval, other than those instances where an appreciable increase in population or density might be recommended and supported.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Sections 87.3(c) and (d) be DELETED, and That Section 87.3(d) be REWORDED to read as follows:

"87.3(d)

the one or more school authorities which, in the opinion of the subdivision approving authority, may be materially affected."

PART 5, DIVISION 3

LAND PROVIDED TO CROWN MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND MONEY IN PLACE OF CERTAIN RESERVE LAND RESERVE LAND 91.

This section states when reserves will not be taken. In the past, this has caused problems, and unless amended, will continue

-57-

to cause problems. Specifically, where a number of parcels, each containing less than two acres all under one ownership are going to form part of a replot where there would normally be a reserve requirement, dedication of reserve can be avoided under the provisions of the proposed Act. The City of Edmonton would recommend accordingly, that if the two acre parcel is part of a collection of parcels, which together will be replotted or subdivided, that reserves should be provided.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Section 91.(c) be amended to read as follows: "91.(c) the land to be subdivided is two acres or less unless it is a two acre parcel or part of a collection of parcels of land which together will be devloped, replotted or subdivided."

92.

This Section replaces the old Section 25.3 of the current Act and includes many welcome clarifications. However, the intent of the City's top-of-the-bank policy should be included. In addition, clarification of 92.(d) should be provided to ensure that the provisions apply to artificial or man-made bodies of water.

RECOMMENDATION:

That 92.(d) be AMENDED to read:

"92.(d)

. . . . any lake, river, stream, or other body of water, natural or man-made for the purpose of . . .

IT

NEW SECTION

That a NEW SECTION 92.(e) be ADDED. "92.(e)

a strip of land, not less than sixty feet in width, abutting and above the top edge of an escarpment must be provided by the developer for: (i) the purposes of protecting the natural ecology of the escarpment, and (ii)providing public access along the top of the escarpment.

REGISTRATION OF SUBDIVISIONS INSTRUMENT 98.

This Section establishes the basic procedures for subdivision approval and has the effect of extending the subdivision approval period from the current period of one year to two years. Provision is also made to extend the period of subdivision approval upon the authorization of the Alberta Planning Board. It is anticipated

- 58-

that the extension of subdivision approval over a two year period could increase the difficulty of monitoring subdivision implementation. In the interest of effective planning review and implementation procedures some discretion should be granted to the subdivision approving authority to determine whether an extension beyond the normal one year period allowed by the present Act should be permitted, or whether changing circumstances necessitate resubmission of the application.

RECOMMENDATION:

Sections 98.1 and 4 should be REWORDED as follows:

"98.1 Within one year of the date on which an application for subdivision approval is approved or such longer period as may be authorized by the subdivision approving authority, the applicant shall submit to the subdivision approving authority (a) a plan of subdivision, or (b) any other Instrument together with a statutory declaration that all the conditions attached to the subdivision approval have been met or an undertaking that they will be met.

98.4 If the plan of subdivision or other instrument is not submitted to the subdivision approving authority within the time prescribed by Subsection (1) or such longer period as may be authorized by the subdivision approving authority, the subdivision approval is void."

-59-

PART 5 DIVISION 4

SUBDIVISION APPEALS 103.2

Edmonton is concerned with the provisions of Section 103.2 in that it is felt that in instances where the City has an ownership interest in streets and roads where no roadway plan has been filed and which as a consequence the City of Edmonton possesses no title, provision must made to obtain the municipalities' consent prior to cancellation of the subdivision plan as is the case for other registered owners.

RECOMMENDATION:

Subsection 2 be REPLACED with the following:

103.2 The Board may only make an order under Subsection 1 with the consent of: (a) the registered owners of land in the plan of subdivision, and (b) every person shown on the title to the land as having an estate or interest in it, and (c) the subdivision approving authority in whose jurisdiction the land in the plan of subdivision lies.

PART 5, DIVISION 6

REPLOT COMPENSATION 119.

The provision which allows a period of one year in which any affected party may claim for compensation under a replotting scheme to be lodged with the Land Compensation Board causes difficulty for the City of Edmonton, in that it is proposed in an earlier section of this brief, that the amount of replot compensation be distributed amongst affected property owners as is the current situation. Accordingly, it is imperative that the amount of compensation be accurately determined as early as possible after the date of registration of the plan of subdivision relating to the replot scheme, so that any additional cost incurred will be related to the final sale price of the lot or lots created by the replotting scheme.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the word "one year" in the second line of Section 119(1) be REPLACED by "three months".