Property Rights

[coppertop]

kpb, I agree with a lot of your reasoning. I have been a member of a Subdivision and Developement Appeal Board and also a Municipal Planning Commission.

The MPC has the ability to grant a variance to the rules in many cases, as do provincial boards such as the NRCB.

I will give you an instance of where that variance recently was utilized to assist a property owner. The application was for a 5 acre subdivided parcel out a a quarter of land with a little draw running through it. The draw never had water running in it in the last 30 years, but the development officer had requessted a 100 meter environmental reserve all along the draw both on the subdivided parcel and the remaining 155 acres of the quarter.

One member of the planning commission lived a mile from the property in question and challenged the development officer to provide a reason for the request, the land owner was adamant that the ER was not necessary because there had never been water in the draw area during the years he had owned the quarter. The RULES ( Provincial ) said an environmental reserve should be added to the title in environmentally sensitive areas which makes sense. The development officr advised the MPC that they should make the ER a condition of subdivision but was over ruled. There was no need for the ER, it would have sterilized a lot of the farmable land on the 155 acres etc.
The farmer was very pleased with the decision by the MPC to grant a variance to the rules, as was the proposed owner of the 5 acre parcel.

Had the one member of the MPC not been aware of the property in question, and understood the area and spoke up to convince her colleagues the ER would likely been a condidtion of the subdivision. Now the MPC member has served as a county councillor in the past, and has lived in the area for years, she knows the rules and understands the ability to grant a variance....was she trying to wield her power, or doing the right thing ???

Unfortunately much of the planning and development decisions were downloaded to municipalities in the early 90's. There used to be Regional Planning Commissions where the decisions on planning were not made at the local level. Developers, private citizens and municipalities alike lobbied to do away with those commissions and allow each municipality to develop their own statuatory documents for planning. Certainly there is a lack of consistency as councils change, some are pro developemt, some are pro agriculture and some are afraid to make a decision because of the flak they will get from the public.

But, until there is a change on land use planning across the province local councils and planning commissions are the ones charged with making the decisions. If councillors aren't doing their job, it is up to the voters to make changes at election time. As for newcomers being afraid to take on an incumbent, that is hogwash. If the majority of citizens in any electoral division are fed up with their councillor they will elect someone else. In the 2004 election in our county the Reeve and the majority of council were turfed because of self serving decisions they made the term prior. In fact an old boy that had served for 12 years on council and had retired six years prior ran against the Reeve and beat hime three votes to one. Is he the most effective Reeve in the province, no, but he is an honest, decent person who has brought some resemblance of stability back to our county and that is what he was elected to do.

[kpb]

coppertop I want to pursue this just a little longer with you although this thread is very long already.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about running against incumbents--I think some good people just do not run because the councillor has been there forever but...

But in the case of municipal planning, I think it is more than just a case of councils changing and thereby changing attitudes, etc. Within each council's terms there are repeated inconsistencies that leave the residents wondering what are the real criteria for subdivision approval. More important, when land use issues are seen to be inconsistently decided and not based upon written law, the suspicion is that they are decided based upon outside influences. And the overall trustworthyness and capability of the council is questioned by the electorate.

You gave me an example of why the MPC would overrule a written requirement and result in a good decision. But there are many other examples of what I am talking about--subdivisions on river flats allowed sometimes and not others, first subdivision out allowed for some people but not others, a recent commercial development allowed on the banks of the Red Deer River, full quarters split sometimes but not others.

When the planners are ignored and the rules are only applied in some cases, it leaves the door wide open for abuse. I think that the province should have more control of planning and some general rules could be laid down that will always be applied--for example, no development of any kind on the flood plain of any river (how we have paid in many counties for allowing development there).

There are other general rules that could be applied. I recognize that each county has its own needs and many rules will have to be unique to that particular county. But there are many other general rules that could be laid down by the province and that therefore would be known and acknowledged by all residents. Also, particular county rules should be established by the county councils and then, for goodness sake, followed by the MPC. In every case. Without exception.

Yes that might mean your fellow has a rule about a ditch that is harsh and maybe unfair. But for every tough ruling like that ---which after all is not that unfair anyways given the amount of land involved--there are dozens of cases where mysterious rule-bending decisions were made that leave the residents puzzled as to what the rules really are and what they mean anyways.

Frankly, I am a lot more comfortable with the provincial government making most of the rules on land use and development than I am with local council members who only seem to obey their own rules when they want to.

kpb

[coppertop]

I agree that there needs to be provincial legislation regarding land use. There are provincial Land Use Policies but they have absolutely no teeth. I have advocated for years that there is a need for an over arching provincial plan, that looks at the Province from the 40,000 foot level. It needs to enshrine environmental issues, areas of historical significanc etc. In our municipality there are two areas where huge multi parcel subdivisions were allowed, one in a swamp and another in the flood plain of a large creek. These were approved back in the days of the old Regional Planning Commissions and have come back to haunt the previous and past councils of our county.

Certainly we have seen in our own county unfairness and inconsistency, not only on the MPC but the SDAB as well over the years. Some new council members just do not want to say no to anyone regardless of whether or not their application is consistent with current Land Use Planning documents.

I could show you horror stories of development in my own community, they should have never been approved and now they are causing all sorts of problems for existing large livestock operations.

kpb, I hope when the Province does take their draft Land Use Policy Framework out for public consultation, you and many other Albertans will provide input and suggestions. This policy will ultimately affect every single Albertan, and you can bet that land developers, special interest groups etc. will have thier say, so it is important that average every day Albertans do to.

[kpb]

I agree with everything you said in your last post and look forward to a provincial land use policy from "40,000 feet" which is a superb way of putting it. I will provide input to my MLA when that takes place.

kpb

[coppertop]

At this point in time there has not been a process decided upon for the public consultation. It may take the form of written submissions, or there may be an MLA committee going around the province meeting with various groups and individuals, similar to what the Klaptstein Committee did with regard to the Confined Feeding Operations.

I have been involved in five separate forums to date on the Land Use Framework, and will certainly post information on this site when I learn what the next steps in the process will be.

[Horse]

Another Thurber report what the hell good does it do other than an income for the members on the comittie????

[coppertop]

Horse, the Land Use Policy Framework discussions have been going on for some time. Up to this point there have been at least 20 meetings with various groups plus one three day session in Red Deer in December to gather as much information as possible so the government could move forward with implementing a land use framework that is crucial in this time of unprecedented growth in Alberta.

There will likely be either a discussion paper or a series of public meetings where interested parties can make presentations. I don't know if you remember when the government rolled out the Water Act or not, but there had been numerous meetings prior to that happening, I parcitiated in several of them as a private citizen, the same goes for the consultation process leading up to the implmentation of the Agricultural Operations Practices Act.

There were two separate sets of public consultation on that legislation, and much of what various groups and individuals suggested ended up in the legislation.

The Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, and the Alberta Urban Municipalities Associatin have already prepared position papers on this land use framework, and before it ever becomes legislation every environmental group,umbrella groups for various resource industries etc., will certainly provide their input. This is a huge undertaking, and one that is long overdue. It is a cross ministry initiative with Sustainable Resource Development taking the lead.