Zoning is a municipal land use control adopted to protect the public health, safety, general welfare and to provide the economic, social and aesthetic advantages resulting from the orderly planned use of available land» The concept of zoning has changed from a simple restriction to certain uses of land, to a key technique in the implementation of municipal planning policy. Logically the progress of a municipal plan would depend on how strictly its zoning by-law and other regulations are enforced; however, in some instances the strict enforcement of these regulations may cause undue or unnecessary hardship to the owner of a property. Just as the Chancellor's Courts arose in England in order to provide individual justice in cases where the harsh and universal mandates of the common law caused obvious hardship, the Zoning Board of Appeal has been created in order to provide flexibility in the administration of the zoning by-law, where its strict enforcement would cause undue or unnecessary hardship. Zoning enabling legislation provides some standards which are intended to guide a Zoning Board of Appeal in its operation; however the statutory standards specified under the enabling legislation for determination of "undue or unnecessary hardship" and the directions for issuance of the "Notice of Hearing" are vague. The enabling legislation does not indicate the details to be included in the "Notice of Hearing" or the details of information required in a "Notice of Appeal". In addition to the deficiencies of the legislation there generally exists an inadequate relationship between a Zoning Board of Appeal and its respective municipal planning department. The members of the Board are not supplied with adequate information about the zoning and planning objectives of the municipality. They do not feel concerned about such information and tend to confine themselves to the zoning by-law and to make decisions without full understand of the planning context; as such, their decisions tend to be inconsistent with the zoning and planning objectives of the municipality. The hypothesis is advanced that "a positive statement of zoning objectives and planning principles together with a uniform set of procedures to be followed by the Zoning Board of Appeal is necessary for effective implementation of municipal planning policy". Following a review of the traditional and contemporary concepts of zoning and planning, a Case Study is conducted to explore reasons for inconsistencies in the decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeal. For the Case Study three Zoning Boards of Appeal in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area of British Columbia are selected. The conclusions drawn from the Case Study together with observations based on a review of the contemporary experience provide evidence that members of the Zoning Boards of Appeal are not provided with a positive statement of zoning objectives and planning principles. Because of ambiguities in the enabling legislation and lack of definition of standards and format, every Zoning Board of Appeal tends to follow inconsistent procedure in its operation. It is also observed that the members of the Zoning Boards of Appeal are not appraised of the potential impact of their decisions, a situation which can work both ways, that is, it may help in the implementation of municipal planning policy or alternatively it may cause obstructions by granting incompatible relaxations. Investigation of the hypothesis has provided a needed focus in reviewing the position of the Zoning Board of Appeal in the implementation of municipal planning policy. It is concluded that the hypothesis appears to be a reasonable and practical solution for making the Zoning Board of Appeal an effective tool in the implementation of municipal planning policy. Certain feasible legislative and administrative improvements are recommended and a method of implementation of these recommendations at the provincial and municipal levels of government is suggested. / Applied Science, Faculty of / Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of / Graduate

The changes to the British Columbia Municipal Act repealing land use contracts in 1978 by Bill 42, and the subsequent amendments leading up to Bill 62 in 1985 and Bill 30 in 1987 have been both dramatic and comprehensive in their effect on land development and the approval process. Since the repealing of land use contracts and in spite of the new amendments, B.C. planning legislation has been increasingly criticized among developers, planners, and local governments for the lack of development agreement provisions and adequate flexibility in the municipal approval process. This thesis investigates the possibility of reintroducing land use contracts as a development agreement control in the context of current planning practices. A literature review of the evolution of municipal planning control in B.C. is conducted to provide background information for a theoretical and practical evaluation of the current system of controls in comparison to the former system of land use contracts. The theoretical evaluation is based on measuring both systems against normative criteria, whereas the practical evaluation is comprised of a local government/development industry survey and several case studies. The following conclusions are made in this research: - Land use contracts were introduced in response to a growing need among local governments for some legitimate legislative means of entering into development agreements with developers to require developers to assist in providing the municipal services associated with their development. - Local government support for the land use contract was based on the ability to regulate design, ensure regulation performance, and to enter into off-site servicing and amenity agreements. - The development industry was initially supportive of land use contracts because they offered unlimited flexibility during negotiations and the certainty of a legal contract immune to future zoning changes. Developers eventually withdrew their support for land use contracts complaining of large scale downzoning, lengthy approval delays and excessive impost fees. Many of these allegations are dispelled in this research, but the real weakness of the land use contract was that it was difficult to amend and could be used extensively to replace zoning, effectively "fettering" future council's planning powers. - In the absence of the land use contract, many municipal governments are continuing with a land use contract practice, but without a legislative or in some instances legal basis. - The theoretical analysis, survey and case studies determine that the current planning legislation is adequate for the most part. There is a need however, for a land use contract mechanism to accommodate mixed use, comprehensive or complicated developments. This type of control was determined to be superior in accommodating these types of projects to the current approach of using a variety of planning mechanisms. Generally there is support among local governments and the development industry in B.C. for new land use contract legislation as long as it is more clearly defined to avoid the mistakes of its use in the 1970's. On the basis of this analysis, the study recommends that land use contract reintroduced but in a much more controlled and limited way. / Applied Science, Faculty of / Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of / Graduate

In the 1980s, very large houses began to replace smaller homes in older single-family zones in Canada's major cities. Protests by residents resulted in more restrictive single - family zoning schedules. In Vancouver, however, houses built as large as zoning permitted had appeared in the late 1960s. This case study traces Vancouver's single- family land use from 1900 to 1990. The intent of Vancouver's original single- family zoning (1930) was to create a suburban landscape. To appeal to European immigrants of the 1950sand Asian immigrants of the 1970s, Vancouver's east-side builders developed a distinctive large house easily converted to include one or more illegal suites. By encouraging this design, zoning amendments in 1974 destroyed the sub-urban pattern intended by the original zoning. In response to affluent Asian immigrants of the 1980s, westside builders constructed larger, more elaborate homes. The city reacted to complaints about the size and design of these houses by amending its schedule in the 1980s to legalize suites, to reduce the bulkiness of new construction and to re-establish the suburban pattern. Local residents do not like the new homes, and many neither need nor can afford them. The research indicates that Asian buyers are outbidding locals for these homes, and locals are dispersing to peripheral areas where homes are more affordable and styles support their cultural traditions. The research suggests that the more compact land use pattern of the 1900s may be more appropriate than land use patterns that have resulted from the city’s original and amended single-family schedule. The research concludes that Vancouver addressed symptoms of the problem but not its cause: a zoning practice that continues to exclude the less affluent from single-family zones. Vancouver needs to espouse a more inclusionary zoning schedule that adopts the compact land use and mixed tenures typical before zoning and preserves the traditions of local residents. Other-wise, the zoning changes may preserve single- family areas for affluent immigrants as the Vancouver market aligns itself with the global market.

In the 1980s, very large houses began to replace smaller homes in older single-family zones in Canada's major cities. Protests by residents resulted in more restrictive single - family zoning schedules. In Vancouver, however, houses built as large as zoning permitted had appeared in the late 1960s. This case study traces Vancouver's single- family land use from 1900 to 1990. The intent of Vancouver's original single- family zoning (1930) was to create a suburban landscape. To appeal to European immigrants of the 1950sand Asian immigrants of the 1970s, Vancouver's east-side builders developed a distinctive large house easily converted to include one or more illegal suites. By encouraging this design, zoning amendments in 1974 destroyed the sub-urban pattern intended by the original zoning. In response to affluent Asian immigrants of the 1980s, westside builders constructed larger, more elaborate homes. The city reacted to complaints about the size and design of these houses by amending its schedule in the 1980s to legalize suites, to reduce the bulkiness of new construction and to re-establish the suburban pattern. Local residents do not like the new homes, and many neither need nor can afford them. The research indicates that Asian buyers are outbidding locals for these homes, and locals are dispersing to peripheral areas where homes are more affordable and styles support their cultural traditions. The research suggests that the more compact land use pattern of the 1900s may be more appropriate than land use patterns that have resulted from the city’s original and amended single-family schedule. The research concludes that Vancouver addressed symptoms of the problem but not its cause: a zoning practice that continues to exclude the less affluent from single-family zones. Vancouver needs to espouse a more inclusionary zoning schedule that adopts the compact land use and mixed tenures typical before zoning and preserves the traditions of local residents. Other-wise, the zoning changes may preserve single- family areas for affluent immigrants as the Vancouver market aligns itself with the global market. / Applied Science, Faculty of / Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of / Graduate