LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL  
Citation:  
Ouellet v Vulcan County, 2022 ABLPRT 917  
Date:  
File No.  
2022-06-27  
S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
Municipality: Vulcan County  
In the matter of an appeal from a decision of the Vulcan County Subdivision Authority (SA) respecting  
the proposed subdivision of SE ¼ 24-19-25 W4M (subject land) under Part 17 of the Municipal  
Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 (Act).  
BETWEEN:  
M. Ouellet  
Appellant  
- and -  
Vulcan County (Subdivision Authority)  
Respondent Authority  
BEFORE:  
L. Yakimchuk, Presiding Officer  
G. Buchanan, Member  
N. Tywoniuk, Member  
(Panel)  
K. Lau, Case Manager  
DECISION  
APPEARANCES  
See Appendix A  
This is an appeal to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT or Tribunal). The hearing was held via  
videoconference, on May 3, 2022, after notifying interested parties. Additional submissions were  
accepted until May 11, 2022.  
Page 1  
File No. S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
OVERVIEW  
[1]  
This appeal is about a condition of subdivision imposed by the SA that requires cash in lieu of  
municipal reserve land (MR). The Appellant believes the amount required is excessive and unjustified  
under the circumstances, while the SA argued the cash in lieu was calculated in accordance with its usual  
practice and is authorized by the Act.  
[2]  
The LPRT agrees the Act allows municipalities to take cash in lieu of MR, and sees no reason to  
change the rate requested. However, a question did arise as to whether a ravine on the subject land should  
be classified as Environmental Reserve (ER) or Environmental Reserve Easement (ERE) - in which case  
the lands so dedicated would not be subject to the requirement.  
[3]  
The LPRT found the ravine is not physically developable and contains significant environmental  
features that require protection. As such, it fits the description for either ER or ERE. In this case, ERE is  
the most appropriate option as it aligns with County policies and leaves title in the hands of the  
landowner.  
REASONS APPEAL HEARD BY LPRT INSTEAD OF SDAB  
[4]  
Section 678(2) of the Act directs subdivision appeals to the LPRT when the subject land is in the  
Green Area or within prescribed distances of features of interest to Provincial authorities, including a  
highway, body of water, sewage treatment, waste management facility, or historical site. The distances  
are found in s. 22 of the Subdivision and Development Regulation, Alta Reg 43/2002 (Regulation).  
Subdivision appeals also go to the LPRT when the land is the subject of a licence, permit, approval or  
other authorization from various Provincial authorities.  
[5]  
In this case, the following circumstances apply to the subject land:  
Body of Water  
A tributary of West Arrowwood Creek is on the south  
easterly portion of the subject land.  
Historical Resource  
The subject land is directly south of a quarter section  
identified as having a Historic Resource Value of  
HRV5.  
PROPOSAL  
[6]  
To subdivide a 13.91 ha. (34.38 ac.) parcel from a previously subdivided quarter section to be  
used for agricultural purposes.  
Page 2  
File No. S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
Figure 1  
BACKGROUND  
[7]  
The land to be subdivided is part of a previously subdivided quarter section in Vulcan County  
(County). It is approximately 10.4 km (6.5 miles) south of the Hamlet of Mossleigh and consists of 56.26  
ha (139.02 ac) of predominantly cultivated land. Range Road 250 forms the east boundary of the subject  
lands, which are districted Rural General – RG in the County’s Land Use Bylaw (LUB).  
[8]  
A “first parcel out” in the southwest corner of the quarter section contains a farmstead as shown  
on Figure 1. The farmstead accesses Range Road 250 via a private driveway, which runs northeast  
through the subject lands from the northeast corner of the farmstead to Range Road 250, about 300 m  
from the subject lands’ north boundary. The private driveway is within an easement right of way.  
[9]  
The proposed parcel is about 13.91 ha (34.38 ac) and includes all the subject lands south of the  
south boundary of the right of way. The remnant parcel is approximately 42.35 ha (104.64 ac).  
[10]  
The right of way runs roughly along the north top-of-slope of a prominent ravine that contains an  
intermittent watercourse that drains southwesterly towards the farmstead and on into West Arrowwood  
Creek. The eastern edge of a pond within the drainage course touches the proposed subdivision,  
depending on water levels. The cultivated area within the proposed parcel extends to the top of south  
slope of the ravine, and is approximately 7.3 ha (18 ac), which leaves about 6.5 ha (16 ac) within the  
ravine. Access to the proposed parcel would be from Range Road 250.  
Page 3  
File No. S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
[11]  
The SA approved the application with the following conditions:  
1. The 10% Municipal Reserve requirement, pursuant to Sections 666 and 667 of the Municipal  
Government Act, be provided as money in place of land on the subdivision area, being 34.38  
acres at the market value of $2,500 per acre with the actual acreage and amount to be paid to  
Vulcan County being determined at the final stage, for Municipal Reserve Purposes.  
2. That, pursuant to Section 654(1)(d) of the Municipal Government Act, all outstanding property  
taxes shall be paid to the Vulcan County.  
3. That the applicant or owner shall enter into a road approach agreement with Vulcan County.  
4. That the applicant provide confirmation, to the satisfaction of the Subdivision Authority, that the  
parcel will support a private sewage disposal system that complies with the Alberta Private  
Sewage Systems Standard of Practice.  
[12]  
The Appellant filed an appeal of Condition 1 to the LPRT, claiming that the requested cash-in-  
lieu for reserves owing was unfair and excessive, and offered to pay half of the amount proposed by  
Vulcan County.  
Post Hearing Submissions  
[13]  
The LPRT requested additional submissions after the hearing: the SA was to identify the land that  
would qualify as ERE; the Appellant was to respond and explain their position as to whether it would be  
appropriate to take ER, ERE, or cash-in lieu of MR over the entire proposed parcel.  
ISSUES  
[14]  
The LPRT must consider requirements under the Act, Regulation, the South Saskatchewan  
Regional Plan under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, the Provincial Land Use Policies (LUP), the Land  
Use Bylaw (LUB), and any statutory plans (see ss. 680(2) & 618.3 of the Act). Against this general  
regulatory backdrop, the parties focused on the following particular issues:  
1. Should Environmental Reserve (ER) or Environmental Reserve Easement (ERE) be required as a  
condition of subdivision?  
2. Should municipal reserves (MR) in the form of cash-in-lieu be taken on the full proposed parcel?  
SUMMARY OF THE SA’S POSITION  
[15]  
The proposed parcel is consistent with the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan and complies with  
both the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and LUB. It is also suitable for the purpose for which the  
subdivision is intended – agriculture - pursuant to s. 7 of the Regulation.  
[16]  
The proposed parcel meets the criteria for “Cut-Off or Fragmented Agricultural Parcels” in s.  
11.7 of the Rural General District in the LUB given the presence of the ravine. Setbacks will be required  
from the ravine for any future development, in accordance with Schedule 4 of the LUB. Further, the  
proposed parcel appears to contain a buildable site, should a residential use be proposed in the future.  
[17]  
The ravine area is uncultivated and fits the description of Environmental Reserve (ER) under the  
Act; it is approximately 6.5 ha (16 ac), leaving approximately 7.3 ha (18 ac) of cultivated lands.  
Page 4  
File No. S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
[18]  
MR is applicable to this proposed subdivision as per s. 663 of the Act, because the parcel is less  
than 16.0 ha (40 ac) and the quarter was previously subdivided. Pursuant to ss. 666 and 667 of the Act, it  
is recommended that cash-in-lieu of land be required to satisfy the 10% MR requirement.  
[19]  
It is not the County’s practice to take ER, because title to ER land passes to the County along  
with the responsibility for maintenance and potential liability.  
[20]  
The County has on occasion taken ERE adjacent to water bodies. ERE is preferred by the County  
versus an ER because the lands stay with the owner, with an agreement between the County and owner  
registered on the owner’s title. A survey to delineate the ERE would be required at the owner’s expense,  
and the agreement would include a provision that the lands remain in their natural state.  
[21]  
The County uses a standard rate of $2,500 per acre for MR calculations. In this case, the  
approximate amount due would be: 34.38 acres * 10% * $2,500/per acre = $8,595, subject to the actual  
area to be confirmed by survey. Using the $2,500 per acre over the entire area is reasonable given that the  
value of the cultivated lands is higher than that, and the value of the ravine lands is lower.  
[22]  
Servicing improvements are not proposed at this time, given the agricultural nature of the  
proposed subdivision. However, the SA does require testing to confirm the viability for private water and  
sewer servicing, knowing that the parcel could be used to support a dwelling/yard site in the future.  
Post Hearing Submissions  
[23]  
If the LPRT decides that the ravine should be protected to preserve its natural features, the SA  
would prefer an ERE because the land ownership would remain with the Appellant as would the  
maintenance and liability.  
[24]  
A fence line along the southerly extent of the ravine area is positioned at the crest of the  
slope in the steep easterly area and on the more gradual slope in the westerly area (see orange perforated  
line on Figure 2 below, showing the approximate location of the fence). The area bounded by the fence  
line north to the subdivision boundary would be a logical ERE area to preserve the natural features and to  
prevent pollution of the bed and shore of the seasonal water course. This area contains approximately 13  
acres.  
Page 5  
File No. S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
Figure 2  
[25]  
If acceptable to the LPRT, the SA recommended the conditions of subdivision regarding Reserves  
be revised as follows:  
1. The 10% Municipal Reserve requirement, pursuant to Sections 666 and 667 of the  
Municipal Government Act, be provided as money in place of land on the subdivision  
area, being 34.38 acres (less any lands dedicated as Environmental Reserve) at the  
market value of $2,500 per acre with the actual acreage and amount to be paid to  
Vulcan County being determined at the final stage, for Municipal Reserve Purposes.  
2. That Environmental Reserve (ER) be dedicated, pursuant to Section 664 of the  
Municipal Government Act, for the ravine area containing ±13 acres. The ER is to be  
dedicated in the form of an ER easement, along with a corresponding agreement. The  
final orientation and extent of the ERE area are subject to field verification, by plan of  
survey, to the satisfaction of the Vulcan County Subdivision Authority.  
SUMMARY OF APPELLANT’S POSITION  
[26]  
The requested amount for cash-in-lieu for reserves owing seems unfair and excessive, but the  
Appellant had offered half that amount to Vulcan County to satisfy the subdivision condition.  
[27]  
The proposed parcel could have been extended north of the Easement Right-of-Way to create a  
16.0 ha (40 ac) parcel, which would not have triggered the need for reserves (as per s 663 of the Act), but  
the larger parcel would have left an isolated sliver of land. The south boundary Easement Right-of-Way is  
a more rational north boundary for the proposed subdivision.  
Page 6  
File No. S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
[28]  
The ravine has some steep slopes, rock outcrops, badger holes, and has tall grass at the bottom.  
The pond at the west end of the proposed parcel virtually dries up in some years, and the ravine is  
undevelopable.  
Post Hearing Submissions  
[29]  
Based on the Post Hearing Submissions submitted by the SA, the Appellant’s preference is to  
have reserve in the form of cash-in lieu be taken on the entire proposed parcel.  
FINDINGS  
1. ERE is to be required as a condition of subdivision.  
2. MR in the form of cash-in-lieu is to be taken on the proposed parcel less the lands dedicated as  
ERE.  
DECISION  
[30]  
The appeal is allowed, in part, and the decision of conditional approval of the SA is varied as  
follows:  
1. The 10% Municipal Reserve requirement, pursuant to Sections 666 and 667 of the Municipal  
Government Act, be provided as money in place of land on the subdivision area, being 34.38 acres  
(less any lands dedicated as Environmental Reserve) at the market value of $2,500 per acre with  
the actual acreage and amount to be paid to Vulcan County being determined at the final stage, for  
Municipal Reserve purposes.  
2. That pursuant to Section 664(2) of the Municipal Government Act, the ravine area containing ±13  
acres shall be dedicated as Environmental Reserve Easement (ERE), along with a corresponding  
agreement. The final orientation and extent of the ERE area are subject to field verification, by plan  
of survey, to the satisfaction of the Vulcan County Subdivision Authority.  
3. That, pursuant to Section 654(1)(d) of the Municipal Government Act, all outstanding property  
taxes shall be paid to the Vulcan County.  
4. That the applicant or owner shall enter into a road approach agreement with Vulcan County.  
5. That the applicant shall provide confirmation, to the satisfaction of the Subdivision Authority, that  
the parcel will support a private sewage disposal system that complies with the Alberta Private  
Sewage Systems Standard of Practice.  
Notes on conditions:  
a) That a legal description for the proposed parcel shall be approved by the Surveys Branch, Land  
Titles Office, Calgary.  
b) The applicant/owner is advised that other municipal, provincial or federal government or agency  
approvals may be required as they relate to the subdivision and the applicant/owner is responsible  
for verifying and obtaining any other approval, permit, authorization, consent or license that may  
be required to subdivide, develop and/or service the affected land (this may include but is not  
limited to Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Transportation, and the Department of  
Fisheries and Oceans.)  
Page 7  
File No. S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
[31]  
FURTHER, the Appellant shall provide documentation to Vulcan County to demonstrate  
that the above noted conditions have been met, prior to the endorsement pursuant to sections 657  
and 682 of the Act.  
[32]  
AND FURTHER, this decision is valid for a period of one year from the date of this Order.  
Under section 657(4) of the Act, if the plan of subdivision or other instrument is not submitted to  
the subdivision authority within the time prescribed by section 657(1) or any longer period  
authorized by council, the subdivision approval is void.  
REASONS  
Environmental Reserve Easement  
[33]  
The SA and Appellant provided sufficient evidence to classify the ravine as ER or ERE. The SA  
described the ravine area as undevelopable and fitting the description of ER under the Act. The Appellant  
agreed the ravine is undevelopable, given the steep slopes. Indeed, the ravine contains a tributary of West  
Arrowwood Creek, and is flanked by steep slopes and rock outcrops, making it a significant topographical  
feature and potential wildlife habitat. Although there is no formal wildlife report in evidence, the ravine  
clearly supports a range of wildlife, including badgers.  
[34]  
With regard to the natural environment, the LPRT notes that Alberta Land Use Policies, Section  
5.0 (1.) states:  
Municipalities are encouraged to identify, in consultation with Alberta Environment  
Protection, significant ravines, valleys, stream corridors, lake shores, wetlands and any  
other unique landscape area, and to establish land use patterns in the vicinity of these  
features, having regard to their value to the municipality and to the Province.  
This provision displays an overall intent to prioritize preservation of significant features like the ravine  
and watercourse.  
[35]  
The subject lands are also within the boundary of the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan. Under  
Section 8.26, Community Development – Water and Watersheds, Municipalities are expected to:  
Identify and consider, based on available information including information from the  
Government of Alberta, the values of significant water resources and other water  
features, such as ravines, valleys, riparian lands, stream corridors, lakeshores, wetlands  
and unique environmentally significant landscapes, within their boundaries.  
This provision further reinforces the need to protect the ravine using the appropriate land use, which is  
either ER or ERE.  
[36]  
One of Vulcan County’s MDP objectives for the Environment and Natural Resources section is:  
To protect natural and unique features, river valleys and floodplains from  
inappropriate development.  
Further, Policy 7.1 of the Vulcan County MDP states:  
The County shall endeavour to protect environmentally significant areas (as per the  
report, “Environmentally Significant Areas in the Oldman River Region” completed for  
Page 8  
File No. S22/VULC/CO-007  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0917  
Vulcan County in 1988) and other significant natural areas and resources from  
inappropriate development.  
[37]  
Collectively, these provisions and policies reinforce the need to designate the ravine as ER or  
ERE to protect its environmentally sensitive nature. The LPRT understands the Appellant would prefer  
not to dedicate any land as ER or ERE and that the Appellant has been a good steward of the Ravine and  
its natural state. However, ownership will inevitably change over the long term; since dedication as ER  
and ERE runs with the land, they offer permanent protection.  
[38]  
With respect to the choice between ER or ERE, the LPRT notes ERE leaves title in the hands of  
the Appellant, and as such may be considered less intrusive. Like ER, ERE will also reduce the cash in  
lieu required, since the requirement will not apply to the dedicated lands. The LPRT also respects the  
County’s preference to reduce maintenance obligations and potential liability associated with ER. With all  
of these considerations in mind, the LPRT finds it appropriate to require designation of the ravine land as  
ERE.  
[39]  
The SA requested that the Appellant be required to retain a surveyor to delineate the ERE, and to  
enter an agreement to keep the lands in their natural state. In the LPRT’s view, neither of these  
requirements are onerous.  
Municipal Reserves  
[40]  
The Appellant offered to pay half of the amount required by the SA’s condition. However, the  
LPRT finds the amount required by the SA is not excessive, and the condition is authorized under s.  
666(3) of the Act, which says:  
The total amount of money that may be required to be provided under subsection (1) may  
not exceed 10% of the appraised market value, determined in accordance with section  
667, of the parcel of land less all land required to be provided as conservation reserve or  
environmental reserve or made subject to an environmental reserve easement.  
[41]  
This provision clearly authorizes the SA to require cash in lieu of MR lands. Further, the rate  
requested is in line with statutory requirements and municipal practice. In this case, the cash in lieu  
required will be reduced to the extent ERE lands are not included in the calculation.  
Other Approvals  
[42]  
The landowner/developer is responsible for obtaining all applicable permits for development and  
any other approvals or permits required by other enactments (for example, Water Act, Environmental  
Protection Act, Nuisance and General Sanitation Regulation, etc.) from the appropriate authority. The  
LPRT is neither granting nor implying any approvals other than that of the conditional subdivision  
approval. Any other approvals are beyond the scope of a subdivision appeal.  
Dated at the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta this 27th day of June 2022.  
LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL  
__________________________________________  
(SGD.) L. Yakimchuk, Member  
Page 9  
APPENDIX A  
PARTIES WHO ATTENDED, MADE SUBMISSIONS OR GAVE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING:  
NAME  
CAPACITY  
M. Ouellet  
Appellant  
R. Dyck  
A. Erickson  
A. Matlock  
SA Representative, Oldman River Regional Services Commission  
SA Representative, Vulcan County  
Observer, Development Officer - Vulcan County  
APPENDIX B  
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING:  
NO.  
1
2R  
3R  
3R  
ITEM  
Information Package, 44 pages  
Municipal Development Plan, 44 pages  
Land Use Bylaw, 294 pages  
Land Use Bylaw Maps, 55 pages  
APPENDIX C  
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE HEARING:  
NO.  
4R  
ITEM  
Potential ERE Condition, 7 pages  
5R  
Appellant Response, 1 page  
APPENDIX D  
LEGISLATION  
The Act and associated regulations contain criteria that apply to appeals of subdivision decisions. While  
the following list may not be exhaustive, some key provisions are reproduced below.  
Municipal Government Act  
Control of roads  
Section 18 of the Act indicates that Alberta Transportation has jurisdiction over highways, as such the  
Highways Development and Protection Act applies.  
18(1) Subject to this or any other Act, a municipality has the direction, control and management of all  
roads within the municipality.  
(2) Subject to this or any other Act, a municipal district also has the direction, control and management  
of roads and road diversions surveyed for the purpose of opening a road allowance as a diversion from  
the road allowance on the south or west boundary of the district although the roads or road diversions  
are outside the boundaries of the municipal district.  
(3) Nothing in this section gives a municipality the direction, control and management of mines and  
minerals.  
Purpose of this Part  
Section 617 is the main guideline from which all other provincial and municipal planning documents are  
derived. Therefore, in reviewing subdivision appeals, each and every plan must comply with the  
philosophy expressed in 617.  
617 The purpose of this Part and the regulations and bylaws under this Part is to provide means whereby  
plans and related matters may be prepared and adopted  
(a) to achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial development, use of land and patterns of  
human settlement, and  
(b) to maintain and improve the quality of the physical environment within which patterns of  
human settlement are situated in Alberta,  
without infringing on the rights of individuals for any public interest except to the extent that is necessary  
for the overall greater public interest.  
Section 618.3 and 618.4 direct that all decisions of the LPRT must be consistent with the applicable  
regional plan adopted under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act or the Land Use Policies (LUP).  
ALSA regional plans  
618.3(1) Anything done by any of the following under a provision in this Part or a regulation under this  
Part must be done in accordance with any applicable ALSA regional plan:  
(a) a municipality;  
(b) a council;  
(c) a municipal planning commission;  
(d) a subdivision authority;  
(e) a development authority;  
(f) a subdivision and development appeal board;  
(g) the Land and Property Rights Tribunal;  
(h) an entity to which authority is delegated under section 625(4).  
(2) If there is a conflict or an inconsistency between anything that is done under a provision of this Part  
or a regulation under this Part and an applicable ALSA regional plan, the ALSA regional plan prevails to  
the extent of the conflict or the inconsistency.  
Land use policies  
618.4(1) Every statutory plan, land use bylaw and action undertaken pursuant to this Part by a  
municipality, municipal planning commission, subdivision authority, development authority or  
subdivision and development appeal board or the Land and Property Rights Tribunal must be consistent  
with the land use policies established under subsection (2).  
(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may by regulation  
establish land use policies.  
Approval of application  
Upon appeal, the LPRT takes on the role of the subdivision authority. Pertinent provisions relative to  
decisions of the subdivision authority include section 654(1) and (2) of the Act. The SA (and by extension  
the LPRT) cannot approve a subdivision unless convinced that the site is suitable for the intended use, as  
per section 654(1)(a) of the Act.  
654(1) A subdivision authority must not approve an application for subdivision approval unless  
(a) the land that is proposed to be subdivided is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority,  
suitable for the purpose for which the subdivision is intended,  
(b) the proposed subdivision conforms to the provisions of any growth plan under Part 17.1, any  
statutory plan and, subject to subsection (2), any land use bylaw that affects the land proposed to  
be subdivided,  
(c) the proposed subdivision complies with this Part and Part 17.1 and the regulations under  
those Parts, and  
(d) all outstanding property taxes on the land proposed to be subdivided have been paid to the  
municipality where the land is located or arrangements satisfactory to the municipality have been  
made for their payment pursuant to Part 10.  
(1.1) Repealed 2018 c11 s13.  
(1.2) If the subdivision authority is of the opinion that there may be a conflict or inconsistency between  
statutory plans, section 638 applies in respect of the conflict or inconsistency.  
(2) A subdivision authority may approve an application for subdivision approval even though the  
proposed subdivision does not comply with the land use bylaw if, in its opinion,  
(a) the proposed subdivision would not  
(i) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or  
(ii) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels  
of land,  
and  
(b) the proposed subdivision conforms with the use prescribed for that land in the land use  
bylaw.  
(3) A subdivision authority may approve or refuse an application for subdivision approval.  
Conditions of subdivision approval  
Section 655(1) of the Act details the conditions of subdivision approval that may be imposed by the  
subdivision authority.  
655(1) A subdivision authority may impose the following conditions or any other conditions permitted to  
be imposed by the subdivision and development regulations on a subdivision approval issued by it:  
(a) any conditions to ensure that this Part, including section 618.3(1), and the statutory plans  
and land use bylaws and the regulations under this Part affecting the land proposed to be  
subdivided are complied with;  
(b) a condition that the applicant enter into an agreement with the municipality to do any or all  
of the following:  
(i) to construct or pay for the construction of a road required to give access to the  
subdivision;  
(ii) to construct or pay for the construction of  
(A) a pedestrian walkway system to serve the subdivision, or  
(B) pedestrian walkways to connect the pedestrian walkway system serving the  
subdivision with a pedestrian walkway system that serves or is proposed to serve  
an adjacent subdivision,  
or both;  
(iii) to install or pay for the installation of a public utility described in section 616(v)(i)  
to (ix) that is necessary to serve the subdivision, whether or not the public utility is, or  
will be, located on the land that is the subject of the subdivision approval;  
(iv) to construct or pay for the construction of  
(A) off-street or other parking facilities, and  
(B) loading and unloading facilities;  
(v) to pay an off-site levy or redevelopment levy imposed by bylaw;  
(vi) to give security to ensure that the terms of the agreement under this section are  
carried out.  
Subdivision registration  
Section 657 of the Act guides the registration of subdivision plans.  
657(1) An applicant for subdivision approval must submit to the subdivision authority the plan of  
subdivision or other instrument that effects the subdivision within one year from the latest of the following  
dates:  
(a) the date on which the subdivision approval is given to the application;  
(b) if there is an appeal to the subdivision and development appeal board or the Land and  
Property Rights Tribunal, the date of the decision of the appeal board or the Tribunal, as the case  
may be, or the date on which the appeal is discontinued;  
(c) if there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 688, the date on which the judgment  
of the Court is entered or the date on which the appeal is discontinued.  
…
Land dedication  
Section 661 and 662 of the Act discuss the authority for the SA to require the dedication of land at time of  
subdivision as follows:  
661 The owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision must provide, without  
compensation,  
(a) to the Crown in right of Alberta or a municipality, land for roads and public utilities,  
(a.1) subject to section 663, to the Crown in right of Alberta or a municipality, land for  
environmental reserve, and  
(b) subject to section 663, to the Crown in right of Alberta, a municipality, one or more school  
boards or a municipality and one or more school boards, land for municipal reserve, school  
reserve, municipal and school reserve, money in place of any or all of those reserves or a  
combination of reserves and money,  
as required by the subdivision authority pursuant to this Division.  
Roads, utilities, etc.  
662(1) A subdivision authority may require the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed  
subdivision to provide part of that parcel of land for the purpose of roads, public utilities or both.  
(2) The land to be provided under subsection (1) may not exceed 30% of the area of the parcel of land  
less the land taken as environmental reserve or as an environmental reserve easement.  
(3) If the owner has provided sufficient land for the purposes referred to in subsection (1) but the land is  
less than the maximum amount authorized by subsection (2), the subdivision authority may not require  
the owner to provide any more land for those purposes.  
Reserves not required  
663 A subdivision authority may not require the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a  
proposed subdivision to provide reserve land or money in place of reserve land if  
(a) one lot is to be created from a quarter section of land,  
(b) land is to be subdivided into lots of 16.0 hectares or more and is to be used only for  
agricultural purposes,  
(c) the land to be subdivided is 0.8 hectares or less, or  
(d) reserve land, environmental reserve easement or money in place of it was provided in respect  
of the land that is the subject of the proposed subdivision under this Part or the former Act.  
Environmental reserve  
664(1) Subject to section 663 and subsection (2), a subdivision authority may require the owner of a  
parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision to provide part of that parcel of land as  
environmental reserve if it consists of  
(a) a swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course,  
(b) land that is subject to flooding or is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable, or  
(c) a strip of land, not less than 6 metres in width, abutting the bed and shore of any body of  
water.  
(1.1) A subdivision authority may require land to be provided as environmental reserve only for one or  
more of the following purposes:  
(a) to preserve the natural features of land referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) where, in  
the opinion of the subdivision authority, those features should be preserved;  
(b) to prevent pollution of the land or of the bed and shore of an adjacent body of water;  
(c) to ensure public access to and beside the bed and shore of a body of water lying on or  
adjacent to the land;  
(d) to prevent development of the land where, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, the  
natural features of the land would present a significant risk of personal injury or property  
damage occurring during development or use of the land.  
(1.2) For the purposes of subsection (1.1)(b) and (c), “bed and shore” means the natural bed and shore  
as determined under the Surveys Act.  
(2) If the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of a proposed subdivision and the municipality  
agree that any or all of the land that is to be taken as environmental reserve is instead to be the subject of  
an environmental reserve easement for the protection and enhancement of the environment, an easement  
may be registered against the land in favour of the municipality at a land titles office.  
(3) The environmental reserve easement  
(a) must identify which part of the parcel of land the easement applies to,  
(b) must require that land that is subject to the easement remain in a natural state as if it were  
owned by the municipality, whether or not the municipality has an interest in land that would be  
benefitted by the easement,  
(c) runs with the land on any disposition of the land,  
(d) constitutes an interest in land in the municipality, and  
(e) may be enforced by the municipality.  
(4) An environmental reserve easement does not lapse by reason only of  
(a) non-enforcement of it,  
(b) the use of the land that is the subject of the easement for a purpose that is inconsistent with  
the purposes of the easement, or  
(c) a change in the use of land that surrounds or is adjacent to the land that is the subject of the  
easement.  
(5) When an easement is presented for registration under subsection (2), the Registrar must endorse a  
memorandum of the environmental reserve easement on any certificate of title relating to the land.  
(6) Despite section 48(4) of the Land Titles Act, an easement registered under subsection (2) may be  
removed only pursuant to section 658(3.1).  
(7) An environmental reserve easement is deemed to be a condition or covenant for the purposes of  
section 48(4) and (6) of the Land Titles Act.  
(8) Subject to subsection (7), this section applies despite section 48 of the Land Titles Act.  
(9) A caveat registered under this section prior to April 30, 1998 is deemed to be an environmental  
reserve easement registered under this section.  
Municipal and school reserves  
Section 666 of the Act describes when reserves can be taken and the form that they can be taken in.  
666(1) Subject to section 663, a subdivision authority may require the owner of a parcel of land that is  
the subject of a proposed subdivision  
(a) to provide part of that parcel of land as municipal reserve, school reserve or municipal and  
school reserve,  
(b) to provide money in place of municipal reserve, school reserve or municipal and school  
reserve, or  
(c) to provide any combination of land or money referred to in clauses (a) and (b).  
(2) The aggregate amount of land that may be required under subsection (1) may not exceed the  
percentage set out in the municipal development plan, which may not exceed 10% of the parcel of land  
less all land required to be provided as conservation reserve or environmental reserve or made subject to  
an environmental reserve easement.  
(3) The total amount of money that may be required to be provided under subsection (1) may not exceed  
10% of the appraised market value, determined in accordance with section 667, of the parcel of land less  
all land required to be provided as conservation reserve or environmental reserve or made subject to an  
environmental reserve easement.  
(3.1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of calculating the 10% under subsection (2) or (3), the  
parcel of land includes any land required to be provided under section 662.  
(4) When a combination of land and money is required to be provided, the sum of  
(a) the percentage of land required under subsection (2), and  
(b) the percentage of the appraised market value of the land required under subsection (3)  
may not exceed 10% or a lesser percentage set out in the municipal development plan.  
Appeals  
Section 678 of the Act sets out the requirements for appeal of a decision by the subdivision authority.  
678(1) The decision of a subdivision authority on an application for subdivision approval may be  
appealed  
(a) by the applicant for the approval,  
(b) by a Government department if the application is required by the subdivision and  
development regulations to be referred to that department,  
(c) by the council of the municipality in which the land to be subdivided is located if the council, a  
designated officer of the municipality or the municipal planning commission of the municipality is  
not the subdivision authority, or  
(d) by a school board with respect to  
(i) the allocation of municipal reserve and school reserve or money in place of the  
reserve,  
(ii) the location of school reserve allocated to it, or  
(iii) the amount of school reserve or money in place of the reserve.  
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) may be commenced by filing a notice of appeal within 14 days after  
receipt of the written decision of the subdivision authority or deemed refusal by the subdivision authority  
in accordance with section 681  
(a) with the Land and Property Rights Tribunal  
(i) unless otherwise provided in the regulations under section 694(1)(h.2)(i), where the  
land that is subject of the application  
(A) is within the Green Area as classified by the Minister responsible for the Public  
Lands Act,  
(B) contains, is adjacent to or is within the prescribed distance of a highway, a  
body of water, a sewage treatment or waste management facility or a historical  
site,  
(C) is the subject of a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by  
the Natural Resources Conservation Board, Energy Resources Conservation  
Board, Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board or Alberta  
Utilities Commission,  
or  
(D) is the subject of a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by  
the Minister of Environment and Parks,  
or  
(ii) in any other circumstances described in the regulations under section 694(1)(h.2)(ii),  
or  
(b) in all other cases, with the subdivision and development appeal board.  
(2.1) Despite subsection (2)(a), if the land that is the subject-matter of the appeal would have been in an  
area described in subsection (2)(a) except that the affected Government department agreed, in writing, to  
vary the distance under the subdivision and development regulations, the notice of appeal must be filed  
with the subdivision and development appeal board.  
…
Hearing and decision  
Section 680(2) of the Act requires that LPRT decisions conform to the uses of land referred to in the  
relevant land use district of the LUB. It does not require that the LPRT abide by other provisions of the  
LUB, the MDP or the Subdivision and Development Regulation, although regard must be given to them.  
680(2) In determining an appeal, the board hearing the appeal  
(a) repealed 2020 c39 s10(48);  
(a.1) must have regard to any statutory plan;  
(b) must conform with the uses of land referred to in a land use bylaw;  
(c) must be consistent with the land use policies;  
(d) must have regard to but is not bound by the subdivision and development regulations;  
(e) may confirm, revoke or vary the approval or decision or any condition imposed by the  
subdivision authority or make or substitute an approval, decision or condition of its own;  
(f) may, in addition to the other powers it has, exercise the same power as a subdivision  
authority is permitted to exercise pursuant to this Part or the regulations or bylaws under this  
Part.  
(2.1) In the case of an appeal of the deemed refusal of an application under section 653.1(8), the board  
must determine whether the documents and information that the applicant provided met the requirements  
of section 653.1(2).  
(2.2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to an appeal of the deemed refusal of an application under section  
653.1(8).  
…
Endorsement of subdivision plan  
Section 682 guides endorsement of subdivision plans after an appeal board makes a decision.  
682(1) When on an appeal the Land and Property Rights Tribunal or the subdivision and development  
appeal board approves an application for subdivision approval, the applicant must submit the plan of  
subdivision or other instrument to the subdivision authority from whom the appeal was made for  
endorsement by it.  
(2) If a subdivision authority fails or refuses to endorse a plan of subdivision or other instrument  
submitted to it pursuant to subsection (1), the member of the subdivision and development appeal board  
or Land and Property Rights Tribunal, as the case may be, that heard the appeal who is authorized to  
endorse the instrument may do so.  
Subdivision and Development Regulation - Alberta Regulation 43/2002  
Application referrals  
Section 5 of the Regulation deals with application referrals.  
5
…
(5) On an application for subdivision being determined or deemed under section 653.1 of the Act to be  
complete, the subdivision authority must send a copy to  
….  
(e) the Deputy Minister of the Minister responsible for administration of the Public Lands Act if  
the proposed parcel  
(i) is adjacent to the bed and shore of a body of water, or  
(ii) contains, either wholly or partially, the bed and shore of a body of water;  
Relevant considerations  
While the LPRT is not bound by the Subdivision and Development Regulation, it is the LPRT's practice to  
evaluate the suitability of a proposed site for the purpose intended using the criteria in section 7 as a  
guide.  
7 In making a decision as to whether to approve an application for subdivision, the subdivision authority  
must consider, with respect to the land that is the subject of the application,  
(a) its topography,  
(b) its soil characteristics,  
(c) storm water collection and disposal,  
(d) any potential for the flooding, subsidence or erosion of the land,  
(e) its accessibility to a road,  
(f) the availability and adequacy of a water supply, sewage disposal system and solid waste  
disposal,  
(g) in the case of land not serviced by a licensed water distribution and wastewater collection  
system, whether the proposed subdivision boundaries, lot sizes and building sites comply with the  
requirements of the Private Sewage Disposal Systems Regulation (AR 229/97) in respect of lot  
size and distances between property lines, buildings, water sources and private sewage disposal  
systems as identified in section 4(4)(b) and (c),  
(h) the use of land in the vicinity of the land that is the subject of the application, and  
(i) any other matters that it considers necessary to determine whether the land that is the subject  
of the application is suitable for the purpose for which the subdivision is intended.  
…
Road access  
Section 9 deals with road access requirements.  
9 Every proposed subdivision must provide to each lot to be created by it  
(a) direct access to a road, or  
(b) lawful means of access satisfactory to the subdivision authority.  
…
Distance from highway  
14 Subject to section 16, a subdivision authority shall not in a municipality other than a city approve an  
application for subdivision if the land that is the subject of the application is within 1.6 kilometres of the  
centre line of a highway right of way unless  
(a) the land is to be used for agricultural purposes on parcels that are 16 hectares or greater,  
(b) a single parcel of land is to be created from an unsubdivided quarter section to accommodate  
an existing residence and related improvements if that use complies with the land use bylaw,  
(c) an undeveloped single residential parcel is to be created from an unsubdivided quarter section  
and is located at least 300 metres from the right of way of a highway if that use complies with the  
land use bylaw,  
(d) the land is contained within an area where the municipality and the Minister of Transportation  
have a highway vicinity management agreement and the proposed use of the land is permitted  
under that agreement, or  
(e) the land is contained within an area structure plan satisfactory to the Minister of  
Transportation at the time of the application for subdivision and the proposed use of the land is  
permitted under that plan.  
Service roads  
15(1) In this section, “provide” means dedicate by caveat or by survey or construct, as required by the  
subdivision authority.  
(2) Subject to section 16, if the land that is the subject of an application for subdivision is within an area  
described in section 5(5)(d), a service road satisfactory to the Minister of Transportation must be  
provided.  
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the proposed parcel complies with section 14 and access to the  
proposed parcel of land and remnant title is to be solely by means other than a highway.  
Waiver  
16(1) The requirements of sections 14 and 15 may be varied by a subdivision authority with the written  
approval of the Minister of Transportation.  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission