ANewLandUseBylawfortheCityofCalgary,Alberta

PapertothefifthinternationalconferenceoftheInternationalAcademicAssociationon
Planning,LawandPropertyRights,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofAlberta,Canada,May
2528th,2011

NelsonMedeiros,MEDes,RPP,MCIP
SeniorPlanner
DevelopmentandBuildingApprovals
P.O.Box2100,StationM
Calgary,ABCanadaT2P2M5

Summary
ProvinciallegislationthatenabledAlbertamunicipalitiestoenactzoningbylawswas
introducedinthe1929TownPlanningAct.Overtime,thepowersofmunicipalitiesinAlberta
toregulatelandusehavemorphedandevolvedandhavealsoincludedexperimentswith
developmentcontrolmodels.Withsomeexceptions,thezoningsystemtodayisconceptually
similartothemodelfirstproposedin1929.Albertaslanduseregulatoryframeworkwaslast
reviewedin1977.SincethattimeAlbertahasgrownsignificantlyandlargercities,suchas
Calgary,haveexperiencingchallengesinmanaginglanduseinalargecity.Withitsrootsinthe
protectionofprivatepropertyinterests,thezoningframeworkhasproventobedifficultwith
respecttoaddressingurbanproblemsinlargeurbanareaswhereamyriadofsocial,
environmental,economicandpoliticalmattersarelinkedtolanduse.
In2003,TheCityofCalgaryembarkedonamajorprojecttoreviewandrewriteCalgarys1980
landusebylaw.Theobjectiveoftheprojectwastoaccommodatecontemporaryplanning
theorybyprovidingatooltoimplementfinegrainedlandusepolicyinresponsetotherapid
growthinCalgarysince1980.Theresultwasalandusebylawthatpushestheboundaryof
traditionallanduseregulationinAlbertabyintroducingnewtypesofdevelopmentcontrols,
suchascontextualbuildingsetbackstandardsandmaximumusesizes,inrecognitionthat
zoningmustnowachievemorethansimpleuseclassificationifitstilltoberelevantasaland
usemanagementtool.
Calgarysexperiencewithdraftinganewlandusebylawhighlightedtherobustnessand
flexibilityofthelandusebylawenablingprovisionsinAlbertasMunicipalGovernmentAct
(MGA);however,therearelimitationsinAlbertas34yearoldplanninglegislationsincethe
frameworkfocusesprimarilyonphysicaldevelopmentandmaynotbeadequatetoconfront
currentandfuturechallengesfacedbylargercities.Suggestionsareprovidedtoinformthe
nextgenerationofAlbertaplanninglegislationsothatcitiesareenabledtoaddressmodern
1

issuessuchashousingaffordability,environmentalconservationandenergyconsumption;
thesearecentralpoliciesofCalgarysMunicipalDevelopmentPlan.Thequestionnow
becomeswhetherthelandusebylaw,astheprimaryplanningimplementationmechanism,
canaddressthenewCalgaryrealitywithoutalteringtheplanningframeworkthatenablesit.

TheoriginsoflanduseplanninginAlbertaandtheIntroductionofZoning
Albertasfirstplanningactwasadoptedin1913inresponsetorapidgrowthintheProvince,
particularlyinthetwomaincitiesofCalgaryandEdmonton.Atthetimetherewereconcerns
regardingdisorganizeddevelopment,haphazardstreetpatterns,inefficientsubdivisionsand
thefinancialstrainmunicipalitieswereundertoprovideurbanservicestothisfrenziedgrowth
(Hulchanski,1981).WhiletheProvincefocusedontryingtomanageproblemsrelatedto
subdivision,earlyattemptsatregulationbyCalgaryandEdmontonresultedinboth
municipalitiespassingbuildingbylawsin1904and1912respectively.Thegoalofthesebylaws
wastoensureminimumfireandbuildingconstructionstandardsforbuildings.Thesebylaws
alsobegantohavetheeffectofregulatingthelocationofdifferentuses,byexcludinguses
whichwerepotentialthreatstopublichealthandsafety(Hulchanski,p.5),despitethefact
thatthistypeofregulationwasnotspecificallyenabledbyprovinciallegislation.Ultimately,
theProvinceenactedtheTownPlanningAct,1913thatessentiallygavemunicipalitiesthe
abilitytopreparetownplanningschemesasawaytodirectgrowth.Anensuingrecession,
however,preventedanymunicipalityfromadoptingsuchascheme

Duetoslowgrowthafter1913,planningdidnotcomebacktothepublicagendauntilanother
periodofrapidgrowthinthelate1920s.Thistime,environmentalconservationandzoning
werethemainideasbehindtheadoptionofthe1929TownPlanningAct.Withrespecttothe
zoningenablingprovisions,the1929ActborrowedextensivelyfromtheAmericanexperience
andestablishedthefamiliarfeaturesofmodernzoning;mostofwhichstillappearinAlbertas
planninglegislation(Laux,2010,p.125).SpecificallytheActestablishedtheabilityfora
municipalcounciltodivideacityintodistrictsanddeterminewhereitwouldbelawfulor
unlawfultoerect,constructoraltercertaintypesofbuildingandbusinesses.Otherfamiliar
toolswerealsoimplementedsuchasabilitytoregulatebuildingsetbacks,design,height,bulk,
maximumdensityandprotectionofexistingnonconformingbuildingsanduses.

The1929Actdidallowforamunicipalitytoprepareanofficialtownplan(thetownplanning
scheme),butnotasinglemunicipalityadoptedone.Insteadmanymunicipalitiesadopted
zoningbylawswhichwerethemostwidelyimplementedsectionsoftheact,indicatingthat
theproblemofprotectingdifferentlandusecategoriesfromoneanotherwasthemajor
problemwithinthelanddevelopmentprocess(Hulchanski,1981,p.38).Ithasalsobeen
suggestedthattherationalrealestateindustryhadactuallydoneafairlygoodjobwithearly
developmentinCalgaryandseparationofmostincompatiblelanduseshadactuallyoccurred
duetomarketforcesalone;however,itwasthoughtthatzoningwouldbeneededeventually
toprotectthelandmarketfromitself(Hulchanski).Whilezoningseeminglytrespasseson
perceivedprivatepropertyrights,itcanalsobeviewedasanalogoustoaninsurancepolicy
sinceithadtheeffectofprotectingprivatepropertyvaluesthroughexclusionarymeans
(Stach,1987).

Thefactthatmanymunicipalitiesadoptedzoningbylawswithoutanyguidinggeneralplanis
evidenceofhowzoning,asaplanningtool,hasevolvedsince1929.Today,plannersview
zoningasaplanningimplementationmechanism.Inthepastitwouldseemthattheprimary
considerationwastoseparateincompatiblelandusesthatperhapsdidnotrelyheavilyon
futureplanningaspirations.Whetheronpurposeorbyaccident,theseparationof
incompatiblelanduseshadtheeffectofprotectingprivatepropertyvalues,whichishow
zoningissometimesthoughtasprotectionistinsteadofasaplanninginstrument(Stach,
1987).

Sincetheadoptionofitsfirstplanningactin1913,Albertahassubstantiallyrewrittenits
planningactfourtimesintheyears1929,1950,1963and1977(Gordon&Hulchanski,1985).
AreviewofthelegislationsuggeststhatasmunicipalitiesinAlbertagrew,thescopeofwhata
zoningbylawcouldregulateincreasedovertime.Forexample,theabilitytoregulateparking
inthe1950swasinresponsetochangesinlandusepatternsandrisingratesofautomobile
use.Thissuggeststhatthelegislaturewasresponsivetotheneedsofmunicipalitiesin
ensuringtheycouldprovideeffectiveregulationcommensuratewithchangesintechnology
andsociety.Despitethis,zoninginAlbertacontinuestobecentrallyfocusedonphysical
planningmattersandtraditionalEuclideanuseclassification.

WhatisaLandUseBylaw
Thelandusebylawisaplanningtoolwiththepurposeofregulatingdevelopmentinamanner
thatisspecificallyenabledbytheprovisionscontainedinPart17oftheMunicipalGovernment
Act(MGA).Thebylawreliesheavilyonguidingplanstoinformit,whichinclude:
IntermunicipalDevelopmentPlans;MunicipalDevelopmentPlans;AreaStructurePlans;and
AreaRedevelopmentPlans.Thelandusebylawisalsoexpectedtobeconsistentwithany
regionalplansthatareadministeredbytheProvince.Thelandusebylawisnottheonly
mechanismtoimplementpolicy,theMGAalsoprovidesfortheimpositionofdevelopment
leviesforfinancingmunicipalinfrastructure(bothnewdevelopmentandredevelopment),
allocationoflandforschools,recreationandparksandothermeasuresasoutlinedintheAct

TheMGArequiresthateverymunicipalityadoptalandusebylaw(MGA,s.639)andthatthe
LUBmayprohibitorregulateandcontroltheuseanddevelopmentoflandandbuildingsina
municipality(s.640).TheMGAprovidesforallofthecustomaryprovisionsonewouldfindin
azoningenablingstatute;includingthefamiliarconceptofpermittedanddiscretionary
(conditional)usesoflandorbuildingsandtheabilitytoprescribedevelopmentstandardssuch
asbuildingsetbacks,yardrequirements,landscaping,buildingheightetcAsystemof
developmentpermitsisrequiredandacouncilisobligatedtoappointadevelopment
authoritytomanagethedaytodayadministrationofthelandusebylaw,includingmaking
decisionsondevelopmentpermits.

ThetermlandusebylawisusedinplaceofzoningduetotheuniquehistoryAlbertahas
withbothzoninganddevelopmentcontrolmodels.ThetermhasitsoriginsinthePlanning
Act,1977whichintroducedtheconceptofahybridregulatorysysteminwhichbothzoning
anddevelopmentcontrolwerepermittedinasinglebylawthroughtheuseofconventional
zoningdistrictsanddirectcontrol(DC)districts.

TheMGAauthorizesacounciltodesignateanareaofthemunicipalityasaDCdistrict
providedthecouncilhasadoptedamunicipaldevelopmentplan.TheDCdistrictformspartof
thelandusebylawbutisessentiallydevelopmentcontrolthroughacustomizedregulation
thatpermitsdevelopmenttoberegulatedinanymannercouncilconsidersnecessary
(s.641(2)).Thescopeofregulationiscompletelyatthediscretionofcouncil,butpresumablyis
boundbythescopeofdevelopmentregulationfoundinSection640oftheMGA.Thistypeof
regulationcanbesimilartoPlannedUnitDevelopmentintheUnitedStates,butintheoryit
canbemuchmoreflexibleandusedinavarietyofwaystoregulatedevelopment.

Manyjurisdictionsthatundertakezoningoftenplaceadministrativelimitsonzoningvariances
andhaveformalprocessesforrequestingvariances.InAlberta,theMGAtheoretically
providesnolimitonhowmuchdiscretionadevelopmentauthoritycouldexercisetovarythe
requirementsofthelandusebylaw.Thetestforthisvarianceisspecifiedinsection640(6)and
isbasedonwhethertheproposeddevelopmentwouldinterferewiththeamenitiesofthe
neighbourhoodoraffecttheuse,enjoymentorvalueofneighbouringparcelsofland.Further,
thedevelopmentauthorityisnotpermittedtovaryuse;thatis,thebylawcannotbevaried
allowforauseinadistrictthatisnotlistedapermittedordiscretionaryuseintheapplicable
district.InCalgary,thedevelopmentauthorityhashistoricallyenjoyedbroaddiscretionwith
respecttovaryingthestandardsinthelandusebylawwithveryfewlimits.Thisdiscretion
allowsforvariancepowertobehandledadministrativelyandefficientlyinsteadofhavingto
refermatterstoaboardofadjustmentorvariancecommitteethatarecommoninother
jurisdictions.Thisflexibilityanddegreeofdiscretionisoneofthemostpositiveaspectsofland
useregulationinAlberta.

Decisionsmadebythedevelopmentauthoritymaybeappealedtoalocalsubdivisionand
developmentappealboard(SDAB).ThepowersandresponsibilityoftheSDABisenabled
specificallyintheMGA.GenerallytheSDABisalsopermittedtovarytherequirementsofa
landusebylawsubjecttothesametestasthedevelopmentauthority.TheSDABdoesnot
havejurisdictiontohearanytypeofappealforapermittedusethatmeetsallofthe
requirementsofthelandusebylawarenotsubjecttoappeal.

TheCityofCalgarysLandUseBylawReviewProject
In2002,TheCityofCalgaryembarkedonamajorcorporateinitiativetoreviewandrewriteits
landusebylaw.TheCitysLandUseBylaw2P80(LUB2P80),ineffectsince1980,hadgrown
increasinglyinadequatetorespondtonewdevelopmenttrendsandchangesinCityCouncil
policy.Also,between1980and2002Calgaryspopulationhadgrownfromapproximately
560,000toover900,000(Kimber,2002),resultinginacitywithmorediverseneedsanda
populationthatwasmoresophisticatedandincreasinglydiverse.

DuetotheinabilityofLUB2P80tomanagethecomplexnatureoftheplanningproblems
Calgaryfaced,therewasaneverincreasinguseofdirectcontroldistrictstoaccommodate
customizationoftheconventionaldistrictsfoundinLUB2P80.Intheperiodbetween1996
and2000,CityCouncilapproved454directcontroldistrictredesignationsversus191
conventionaldistrictredesignations(Kimber,2002).

Thegoalsofthelandusebylawreviewprojectwereto:createtheabilitytoimplement
existingapprovedCouncilpolicy;providetoolstoimplementsoundplanningandsmart
growthprinciples;reflectcurrentdevelopmenttrends;anticipatefuturetrendsorbewell
positionedtoaccommodatechange;andtopromoteconsistentandequitabledecision
makingtofosterbetterrelationshipswithstakeholders(Kimber,2002).

TheroleofCalgaryslandusebylawinTheCityofCalgarysplanningframeworkiswell
understoodbythevariousstakeholdersinCalgarysplanningprocess.Despitethelackofclear
legislativeprovisionsintheMGAregardingtherelationshipbetweenthelandusebylawand
otherstatutoryplans,Calgaryslandusebylaw(pastandpresent)hasbeenformulatedasan
implementationtoolforthevariouspolicyplansandotherinstrumentsthatarepartofthe
planningprocess.Thelandusebylawregulatestheuseoflandatadetailedlevel.Itisnota
planinandofitself,butratheritisameansofcarryingoutaplan(Kimber,2002).Sinceplans
changeovertime,thelandusebylawalsoneedstochange.Throughoutthelandusebylaw
reviewprojectTheCitycommunicateditwouldbecommittedtoensuringthatthelanduse
bylawwasalivingdocumentandthatitwouldmorphandevolveastheCitygrewandnew
planningpolicywasadopted.CalgarysnewLandUseBylaw1P2007(LUB1P2007)was
approvedonJuly23,2007andcameintoforceonJune1,2008.

InnovationsinLandUseBylaw1P2007
Oneofthemajorundertakingsofthereviewprojectwastryingtodeterminewhichplanning
policiescouldbetranslatedintoobjectivestandardstobeincludedinalandusebylaw.Many
planningpoliciesareaspirationalinnatureandnotmeanttoguideindividualdevelopment
applications;whilesomepolicyisgeneral(oftenintentionally)andmeanttobeapplied
throughtheapplicationofdiscretionfordevelopmentapplications.

Asignificantchallengeforthelandusebylawteamwastomovebeyondsimpleuse
classificationasthemainfocusofthelandusebylaw.Newplanningtheoriessuchasform
basedcode,newurbanismandSmartGrowthstartedtoinfluencevariouspolicyplansandthe
visionfornewandredevelopingcommunities.Additionally,atthetimetheprojectwas
occurringCalgarywasexperiencingtremendousreinvestmentandredevelopmentinitsinner
cityareasresultinginplanningpolicythatwasmuchmorecomplexinthatdifferenttypesof
planninginterventionswerebeingcalledforthatwerewellbeyondthetraditionalzoning
goalsofseparatingincompatibleuses;infactcontemporaryplanninghasbecomemore
concernedwithmakingplaces.Thelandusebylawteamrespondedtothesechallengesand
someexamplesofsomeoftheinnovativeaspectsofLUB1P2007areprovidedbelow.

ContextualStandards
Theintroductionofcontextualstandardsinthebylawrecognizesthatthereisaninherent
differencebetweennewdevelopmentandredevelopment,andthatonestandardshouldnot
beusedforbothcircumstances.Themaincontextualstandardsinclude:

DividingtheCityintoaDevelopedandDevelopingAreaandcreatingdistrictstoguide
residentialdevelopmentuniquetothoseareas.

Introducedtheconceptofacontextualbuildingsetbackandbuildingheighttomanage
lowdensityresidentialredevelopmentintheinnercitycontexttoensurethatnew
developmentwassensitivetoadjacentdevelopment(Figure1).
Specifiedmaximumbuildingsetbacksandparkingarearestrictionsinsomecommercial
districtstoensurethatstorefrontcommercialareascontinuedtomaintainaconvivial
atmosphereforpedestrians.
Figure1ContextualFrontSetbackIllustration

BuildingHeight,DensityandFloorAreaRatioModifiers
Theuseofdevelopmentmodifierscombatstheonesizefitsallmentalityofzoningby
providingamechanisminwhichstandardlandusedistrictscouldbeusedinamannerthat
wouldallowthefinegrainedapplicationofdistrictsonthegroundwithvaryingintensities
specifieddirectlyonthelandusedistrictmaps.Forexample,theCommercialCorridor1
District(CCOR1)usesmodifierstoexpressfloorarearatioandheight.Intheexampleshown
inFigure2below,thesameCCOR1districthasbeenappliedtoseveralparcelsofland,with
varyingdevelopmentstandardsspecifiedbytheuseofthelettersfandh,illustrating
maximumfloorarearatioandmaximumbuildingheightrespectively.Allowingthese
standardstobedynamicandsetstrategicallyduringarezoningexerciseensuresthattheland
usebylawcanbetterachievethegoalsofaguidingplan.

Figure2ExampleofDistrictModifiers


MotorVehicleParking
Oftenzoningbylawsarecriticizedforexcessiveparkingrequirementsthateitherstifle
redevelopmentorresultinadevelopmentthatisnotcontextuallyappropriate(e.g.a
suburbanstyleshoppingplazainapedestrianfriendlyurbancorridor).Parkingrequirements
andassociatedtrafficimpactsaresomeofthetopconcernsdevelopmentplannershearabout
whenevaluatingdevelopmentapplications.LUB1P2007addressesparkinginthefollowing
ways:
Reductionsinparkingwhenadevelopmentisclosetoalightrailtransitstationor
frequentbusservicerecognizesthatparkingdemandforadevelopmentislikely
affectedbysometypesoftransitservice.
Tieredparkingrequirementsformultiresidentialusesthecloseradevelopmentistothe
innercity,thelessparkingisrequiredduetobettertransitservice.
Sharedparkingrequirementsforthemostcommoncommercialusesinshoppingcentres.
Requirementthatdevelopmentsprovidingexcessiveparkingmustlocatethosein
undergroundorstructuredparkingattempttolimitamountsofsurfaceparking.
Parkingmaximumsformultiresidentialdevelopmentwhenthesiteislocatedclosetoa
lightrailtransitstation.
Largeparkingareasrequirelandscapingtoensurepedestrianconnectionsand
permeability
Noparkingrequirementforgroundfloorretailandrestaurantusesinolderstorefront
commerciallocationsrecognizesthatoffsiteparkingisoftennotpossibleintheseareas,
butthattheseareascontinuetothriveandexistingornewredevelopmentshouldnot
providesurfaceparkingthatisoutofcharacterwiththearea.
CommercialUseScale/Intensity
OneofthemajorflawsofEuclideanzoningisthatitoftendoesnotrecognizethatthescaleof
theuseisoftenmoreimportantthanthespecificuseitself(Elliott,2008).Thiswassomething
thattheLUBteamunderstoodfromexperiencewithLUB2P80.Inordertobetterimplement
planningpolicy,theconceptofuseareawascreated(Figure3).Essentiallytheusearea
restrictionsensurethatthescaleofanactivityisinkeepingwiththeintendedpurposeofthe
commercialdistrictwithrespecttowhetheritserveslocal,communityorregionalneeds.For
example,intheCCOR1districtinLUB1P2007,mostuseslocatedonthegroundfloorare
limitedinsizetoensurethattheuseoperatesatanappropriatescalefortheareaitislocated
in.Useareaismeasuredbasedontheentireinteriorspacethatabusinessoccupies.Asfaras
theLUBteamwasawaretheconceptofuseareawasthefirstofitskindtobeusedinAlberta.

Figure3UseAreaConcept

VerticalUseRegulations
Whileregulatingusesonaverticalplaneisusuallypartofformbasedcodesitisanew
conceptforCalgary.Variousplanningpoliciessuggestthatthetypesofuseslocatedatthe
streetlevelshouldcreateactiveedgesandgenerallysupportahighqualitypedestrian
environment.Forexample,usessuchasofficestendnottocreateinterestforpedestrians
andmaynotpositivelycontributetostreetscapeactivity.Inthosedistrictsinwhichthe
activityatthestreetlevelisimportantLUB1P2007prohibitscertainusesfromlocatingonthe
groundfloor.Thisisanotherelementthatisinfluencedbyformbasedcodes.
MinimumDensities
InmostofthemultiresidentialdistrictsthatoccurintheDevelopingArea,aminimumdensity
isrequiredfornewdevelopment.Traditionally,densityhasalwaysbeenexpressedasa
maximumvalue;whichisconsistentwiththephilosophicoriginsofzoningasanexclusionary
andprotectionisttool(Stach,1987).Therequirementforaminimumdwellingunitdensityin
theDevelopingAreaensuresthattheservicinginfrastructure(e.g.roads,wastewater,schools,
protectiveservicesetc)plannedarecommensurategiventheexpectedpopulationofthe
newarea.Inadditiontoregulatingminimumdensities,LUB1P2007doesnotallowforlow
intensitydevelopmentsuchassingleorsemidetacheddwellingsinmultiresidentialdistricts
intheDevelopingArea.
CottageHousingDistrict
TheResidentialCottageHousingdistrictisanewdistrictthatisintendedtobeusedineither
theDevelopingorDevelopedAreasoftheCity.Thisdistrictwouldallowforcottagehousing
clustersconsistingofsingledetached,semidetachedandtriplexeswithacommoncourtyard
amenityarea(Figure4).Inkeepingwiththeideathatlandusebylawshouldbeusedto
implementplanningpolicy,thedistrictwasdevelopedasamarketalternativetotraditional
multiresidentialdevelopmentandisdesignedtoincreasehousingchoiceandaffordability
centralpoliciesofCalgarysMunicipalDevelopmentPlan.Theregulationisdesignedtoachieve
8

higherdensitythanconventionalinfilldevelopmentinamannerthatissensitiveinalow
densityresidentialcontext.Itcanalsobeusedasabufferbetweenlowdensityhousingand
otherformsofmultiunithousing.Todate,thedistricthasnotbeenassignedtoanyareaof
theCityandinteresthasgenerallybeenlow.Thelandusebylawteamiscurrentlydrafting
refinementstothedistrict,withtheassistanceofthebuildingindustry,inthehopesthat
reviseddevelopmentstandardswillgenerateinterestindevelopingthistypeofhousing.

Figure4ConceptualCottageHousingDevelopment

UnderstandingAlbertasLandUseBylawEnablingProvisionsLimitationsand
FrameworkfortheFuture
Theexperienceofwritinganewlandusebylawwasilluminatingformanyoftheplannersand
lawyersthatworkedontheproject.Generally,theworkwasextremelychallengingsince
thereweresomanycompetinginterestsandcomplexplanningpolicytoconsiderduringthe
draftingofthebylaw.Theprocessprovidedanawarenessofjusthowrobustthelanduse
bylaw(zoning)enablingprovisionsintheMGAaresincecontemporaryphysicalplanning
theoriescouldbeeasilyaccommodatedinalandusebylawdespitethattheycallfordifferent
typesofplanninginterventionthatwerenotlikelycontemplatedbythelegislaturein1929
whenzoningwasintroducedtoAlbertaor1977whentheprovincialplanningframeworkwas
lastreviewed.Manyoftheideasthelandusebylawteamhadwereeasilyimplementedand
mostoftheconstraintstheteamfacedwereculturalandnotlegislativesincesomeofthe
ideasweretooprogressiveandhadverylittlebuyinfromaffectedstakeholders.
TechnicalLimitationsoftheLandUseBylawEnablingProvisionsintheMGA
ThereareanumberoflimitationsofthelandusebylawenablingprovisionsintheMGAthat
areworthnoting:
9

PermittedUseConditionsthereisalackofclarityregardingthetypesofconditionsthat
canbeplacedonpermitteduses.Thishasresultedinanoverrelianceondiscretionaryuse
classificationssincethescopeforconditionsismuchbroader.Laux(2010)suggeststhat
thetypeofconditionsplacedonpermittedusedevelopmentpermitsshouldbekepttoa
minimumandnotconferexcessivediscretiontothedevelopmentauthority.Thishas
resulted,forthemostpart,inonlyminordevelopmentsbeingclassifiedaspermitteduses
inLUB1P2007.Thisresultsinlesscertaintyandpredictability,whichisanexpectationthat
landownershavecometoexpectfromzoninglegislation.Therehasbeentremendous
pressureinCalgarytomovetomoreobjectivedesignstandardssothatmore
developmentcanbeclassifiedasapermitteduse.

InflexibleUseInterpretationTheuseoflandorbuildingsisanintegralpartoftheland
usebylawregulatoryscheme.Thedevelopmentauthorityorthesubdivisionand
developmentappealboardcannotvaryuseaspartofitsdecisionmakingability;only
Councilcanvaryitthroughtextualchangestothebylaw.Priortothe1977PlanningAct,
previouslegislationallowedforsimilaruseclausesthatallowedadevelopmentauthority
todetermineifaproposedusewassimilartoauselistedinthedistrict.Thisallowedfora
degreeofflexibilityforadevelopmentauthority.Theabsenceofthisspecificauthority
presumablymeansthisabilityisnolongercontemplatedbytheMGA,atleastinabroad
way,sincesomelandusebylawsinAlbertastillincludesometypeofsimilaruseprovisions
foractivitiessuchashomebasedbusinesses(Laux,2010),includingCalgarysLUB1P2007.
CalgaryexperiencedthisdifficultyimmediatelyafterLUB1P2007cameintoeffectsince
someoftheusedefinitionsweretoopreciseandinadvertentlyexcludedanumberof
businessesandactivities.Theonlyremedywasatextualchangetothelandusebylaw.

NonconformitiesTheMGA,andallplanninglegislationdatingbackto1929,providesfor
theprotectionofnonconformingusesandbuildings.Despitesomeupdatingtothe
terminologyanddraftingstyles,todaytheseprovisionsaresubstantiallysimilartowhat
existedin1929.Thepremiseofnonconformingbuildingsandusesisthateventuallythey
willgoawayuponredevelopmentoranotherusewilloccupyaspacethatpreviously
occupiedbyausenolongerallowedinthedistrict.Elliott(2008)providesanexcellent
accountofwhytheseassumptionsmaynotbevalid.Theprovisionsthatprotectand
prohibitnonconformingbuildingsandusesfromexpandingorstructurallyalteringa
buildingareprovidedinsection643oftheMGA,andcannotbevariedbyamunicipality.
Whilethisensuresbasicstatutoryprotectionsforpropertyownersitactuallyplacesa
burdenonmunicipalitiesthatmayactuallywanttoenhancetheseprotectionsbyallowing
forevenmoreopportunitytorebuildorexpandthanwhatiscontemplatedintheMGA.
Calgaryhasoftenbeenconfrontedwithsituationswhereausewasmadenon
conforming,manytimesunintentionally,causingaburdentoapropertyownerthatcould
bealleviatedthoughadministrativediscretioninsteadofaformalrezoningapplication.

ApplicationTimelinesWhenanapplicationforadevelopmentpermitismade,theMGA
providesthatthepermitisdeemedtoberefusedifthedecisionofadevelopment
authorityisnotmadewithin40daysafterreceiptoftheapplicationunlesstheapplicant
hasenteredintotimeextensionagreement(s.684).Theeffectofthisprovisionisto
ensurethatanapplicantreceivesatimelydecisionfortheapplication,andifnot,theyare
10

entitledtofileanappealtotheSDABfortheirapplicationasadeemedrefusal.Certainly
itisunderstoodwhytheprovisionappearedinplanninglegislationin1977.Thetimeliness
ofdevelopmentandsubdivisiondecisionswasamajorconsiderationwhenthePlanning
Act,1977wasbeingdrafted(Laux,2010).Philosophicallytheprovisionitselfisnot
objectionable,butitrarelyreflectsrealityofdevelopmentapprovalsinalargecity.The
scopeofadevelopmentpermitcanvarywidelyfromsimplesinglefamilyresidencesto
approvalofa50storeycommercialofficetower.Further,thedevelopmentmaytrigger
compliancewithothermunicipalrequirementsthatmaydelayadecisionforthe
developmentpermit.InCalgary,veryfewsignificantdevelopmentswouldmeetthe40
dayrequirementintheMGA.
ManagingLandUseInaLargeCityTheNeedforNewTools
DespitethestrengthoftheMGAwithrespecttoenablingphysicalplanningregulation,Alberta
hasgrowntremendouslysincethelasttimetheplanningframeworkwasreviewedin1977.
UsingCalgaryasanexample,Figure5illustratesthegrowthofCalgaryduringthesame
periodsinwhichtheProvinceenactedsubstantivechangestoplanninglegislation.Since1977,
Calgaryspopulationmorethandoubledwhencomparedto2010.
The1977PlanningActdidnotproposesignificantchangestothebasicnatureofstatutory
planning(Gordon&Hulchanski,1985,p.27)inAlberta.Sincethen,notmuchhaschanged
withrespecttostatutoryplanningsolargecitiesstillfindthemselvesusing1977toolsto
manage2011urbanplanningissueswhichofteninvolvecomplexfunctional
interdependencies,conflictingvaluesandculturalclashesamongstakeholders(Stromberg,
2001,p.61).

Figure5PopulationChangeVersusEnactmentofPlanningLegislation

11

CalgarysPlanningAspirationsTheMunicipalDevelopmentPlan2009
CalgarysmostrecentMDPbetterrecognizestheimplicationsofthewaywegrowwith
respecttosocial,environmentalandeconomicmattersandhowtheseareintertwinedwith
physicalplanning.Theplansuggeststhatmunicipalcapitalinvestmentandinfrastructure
shouldplacethehighestpriorityonsupportingintensificationofdevelopedareasofCalgary
andnotgreenfieldareas(MDP,2009,p.57).Thisrepresentsquiteashiftinthewaythat
Calgaryhasgrowninthepast.
ThegoalspromotedintheMDPrequireanewwaytoconceptualizethewayweregulateland
use,sinceplanninginAlbertahistoricallywaslegitimizedasawaytorationalizelocal
expenditure[and]coordinatemunicipalphysicalinfrastructuremainlyinsuburbanareas,to
preventwastefuldevelopmentpatternsandinefficientuseofmunicipalservices(Gordon&
Hulchanski,1985,p.4).Theexistingplanningframeworkhasbeenwarytoimposerestrictions
onprivatepropertyrightsandinsteadhasfocusedonenablinglandusecontrolssothatthe
developmentofmunicipalinfrastructureaccommodatedprivatelanddevelopment;whichin
thepastwasthecentralconcernofmunicipalities(Gordon&Hulchanski,1985).
TheMDPprovidesasnapshotoftheissuesfacingCalgarytoday.Theseissuesoftengobeyond
thetraditionalmethodsofmanagingphysicaldevelopment.TheMDPalsoincludessignificant
policysuchas:addressingsegregationinhousingmarketsincludingaffordablehousing;
environmentalstrategiesconcerningtheuseofgreeninfrastructure;encouragingthe
developmentecoindustrialnetworks;reducingenergyconsumptionintheCity;andproviding
targetsforemploymentanddensityintensitythresholdstobetteraddressthelocationofjobs
relativetohousing.InmanywaystheMDPhasplacedaspotlighton[q]uestionsthatbefore
couldbeseenasexternalitiesorassecondaryeffectsofplanning(Stromberg,2001,p.61),
andrecognizestheyarenowmattersofcentralconcerns.Thesemattersarechallengingto
addresswithplanningimplementationtools,suchasalandusebylaw,thatareaproductofa
provincialplanningframeworkthatwasnotconceivedtomanagetheexternalitiesofphysical
planninginterventions.
ThoughtsforanewPlanningFramework
Theregulatorytoolsavailableformunicipalitiestoimplementprogressiveurbanplanning
policiesarelimitedsincedevelopmentislargelyundertakeninanadhocfashionmotivated
typicallybyprivatepropertyinterests.Thisrealitysuggeststhatmoredirectinterventionmay
beneededtoaddresssomeofthemodernplanningoutcomesdesiredbylargercities,suchas
thoseillustratedinCalgarysMDP.Hulchanski(1981)suggeststhathistoricallytherehasbeen
alargegapbetweenwhatplannersandadvocatesofplanningrecommendandwhatis
actuallyimplemented(p.46).ThishaslargelybeentheresultofAlbertasplanning
frameworktryingtomaintainmuchoftheurbandevelopmentprocessintheprivatesector
(Hulchanski).ThereisnoindicationthattheProvinceisactivelypursuingchangestothe
existingplanningframework;however,itissuggestedthatthetimehasnowcomefora
reviewsinceAlbertaisaverydifferentplacetodaythanin1977.
12

Anyreviewoftheexistingprovincialplanningframeworkshouldconsiderthefollowing:
1. Isomnibusplanninglegislationthatappliesequallytomunicipalities(bothruraland
urban)stillappropriategiventhedifferencesinthescopeoftheplanningissuesthey
encounter?Acustomizedcharterthatprovidesfordifferentpowersandauthorityfor
largercitiesmaybeabettermechanism.

2. Providingtheabilityformunicipalitiestoemployinclusionaryzoningtechniquesthat
requireaffordablehousinginexchangeforincreasesindensity.TheCityofCalgaryhas
notpursuedmandatoryinclusionaryzoningsincetheprevailinglegalopinionisthatit
needstobeexpresslyenabledintheMGA.

3. Specificallyallowinglandusebylawstoregulatebuildingdesignandgreenbuilding
standardstoreduceenergyconsumptionatthebuildingscale.Itisbelievedthatthe
landusebylawcannotregulatetheenvironmentalperformanceofbuildingssincethis
treadsintobuildingconstructiontechniqueswhichfallsundertheAlbertaBuilding
Codeandcannotberegulatedbymunicipalities(SafetyCodesAct,s.66(1)).

4. Reconcileplanningobjectiveswithotherprovinciallegislationthatmayundermineit.
Forexample,housingaffordabilityreliesextensivelyonhavingadequatesuppliesof
rentalhousing.TheAlbertaCondominiumPropertyAct,2000mandatesthata
municipalitycannotrefuseacondominiumconversionpermitforabuildingthatwas
constructedafter1966.ThishasresultedinCalgaryexperiencingadeclineofrental
housingunitsatatimewhenverylittlerentalhousinghasbeenaddedtothemarket.

5. Othermoreradicalideasfordiscussionwouldbe:
Potentialtoexploregrowthboundariestomanageurbangrowthand
environmentalprotection.
Toexplorethepossibilityofallowingcollaborativeformsofdecisionmaking
withcommunitiesandapplicantsandreducesomeofadversarythatispartof
thecurrentregulatorysystem.

Conclusions
Theideasforplanningandcitybuildingareconstantlyevolvingandthetimehascomeforus
torethinktheplanningframeworkinAlberta.Sinceitsinceptionin1913,planninglegislation
inAlbertahasfocusedprimarilyonaccommodatingphysicalgrowthandhasnotreally
addressedthesocialimplicationsofgrowththatoccursinlargecities.Laux(2010)comments
thattheenablingprovisionsintheMGAthatallowamunicipalitytoenactalanduse(zoning)
bylawtodayareconceptuallysimilartowhatwasproposedinthe1929PlanningAct.
Calgaryslandusebylawintroducednewandinnovativetoolstomanagegrowthand
development.LUB1P2007providesevidencethatazoningbylawcanactuallybeusedasa
planningtool,andnotsolelyforexclusionarypurposes.Italsoillustrateshowsophisticated

13

zoninganduseclassificationhavebecomesincezoningwasintroducedinthe1929Planning
Act.
Theexperienceofdraftinganewlandusebylawhighlightedthestrengths,aswellassomeof
thelimitationsofAlbertascurrentplanninglegislationduetothechallengesandplanning
aspirationsoflargercities;therefore,itissuggestedthatinordertoconfronttheserealties
theplanninglegislationneedstobereviewedtoconsiderexpandingthescopeofthecurrent
frameworktoaddress,amongotherthings,contemporaryurbanissuessuchashousing
affordability,environmentalconservationandenergyconsumption.
TheobjectivesoflanduseplanninginAlbertalargelystillremaintherationalizationofland
marketforcestoaccommodategrowth(GordonandHulchanski,1985,p.23).These
objectivesmakeitextremelydifficulttobalancethelongtermpublicinterestwiththerights
ofindividualpropertyownersthatmaybeoperatingintheshortterm.Giventhese
objectives,thelimitationsoflandusebylawsaslongrangeplanningtoolsisevidentsince,
historically,zoningwasneverconceivedtobalancethisdiverserangeofprivateandpublic
interests.
Ithasbeennearly35yearssinceAlbertasplanninglegislationwascomprehensivelyreviewed.
Since1977,planningmattersinCalgaryhavebecomemorecomplexandquestionshavebeen
raisedastotheeffectivenessofthecurrentframework.Infact,evenwhenthe1977Planning
Actwasenacteditwascriticizedforitsfailuretoprovidedirection,toencourageoreven
requireinnovationinavarietyofseriousurbanproblems(Elder,1979,p.434).
Citiesarecomplexentities,everyplanningsolutioneverimplementedisconsequential;
decisionsthatweremadeyearsagowillleavetracesonacitythatcannotbeundone(Rittel&
Webber,1973).Thesedecisionsfromthepastmakeitmoredifficulttoachievethegoalsof
today.Inthisrespect,aswellasforculturalreasons,theideaofzoningwillexistinCalgary
andmanyotherNorthAmericancitiesforyearstocomeandthispaperisnotadvocatingfor
itsabolition.Albertasplanningframeworkwilllikelynevercompletelydeviatefromthe
currentmodelsinceithasbecomepoliticallyandculturallyingrainedinthecitizenryandthe
planningprofession.ItishopedthattheframersofAlbertasnextplanninglegislationwill
considerthecomplexityofplanningandmanaginglanduseinlargercitiesandrespond
appropriatelywithanewframeworkthatallowsmunicipalitiestobetterachievetheir
planningaspirations.

14

References

CondominiumPropertyAct,R.S.A.2000,c.22.
Elder,P.S.(1979).TheNewAlbertaPlanningAct,1977.AlbertaLawReview,17(3),433466.
Elliott,D.(2008).ABetterWaytoZone:TenPrinciplestoCreateMoreLivableCities.
Washington,DC:IslandPress.
Gordon,M.,&Hulchanski,J.D.(1985).TheEvolutionoftheLandUsePlanningProcessin
Alberta19451984(ResearchPaperNo.156).Toronto:CentreforUrbanandCommunity
Studies,UniversityofToronto.
Hulchanski,J.D.(1985).TheEvolutionoftheLandUsePlanningProcessinAlberta19451984
(ResearchPaperNo.119).Toronto:CentreforUrbanandCommunityStudies,Universityof
Toronto.
Kimber,L.(2002).LandUseBylawReview(OE200248).PlanningandTransportationReportto
theS.P.ConOperationsandEnvironment.Calgary,AB:CityofCalgary,OfficeoftheCityClerk.
Laux,F.A.,1971.TheZoningGameAlbertaStyle.AlbertaLawReview,9,268309.
Laux,F.A.,1972.TheZoningGameAlbertaStyle,PartII:DevelopmentControl.AlbertaLaw
Review,10,137.
Laux,F.A.(2010).PlanningLawandPracticeinAlberta.Edmonton,AB:Juriliber
MunicipalGovernmentAct,S.A.1995.c.24
MunicipalGovernmentAct,R.S.A.2000.c.M26.
PlanningAct,S.A.1963,c.43.
PlanningAct,S.A.1977,c.89.
Rittel,H.W.J.,&Webber,M.M.(1973).DilemmasinaGeneralTheoryofPlanning.Policy
Sciences,4,155169.
Stach,P.B.(1987).ZoningToPlanortoProtect.JournalofPlanningLiterature,2,472481.
TheCityofCalgary.(2009).MunicipalDevelopmentPlan.Calgary:Author.

TownPlanningAct,S.A.1913,c.13.
TownPlanningAct,S.A.1929,c.49
TownPlanningAct,S.A.1950,c.71.
15