ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ

If you have owned or stayed at a cabin or lake house anywhere in the province, chances are you’ve visited one of ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ most unique municipalities, the summer village. Due to their small and impermanent populations, these communities face unique land use and planning challenges. Join professional planner, Craig Thomas, to learn more about planning challenges in summer villages.

For more information check out these resources:

• Municipal Boundary Battles

Transcript

Host: Hello and welcome back to the Land Use podcast. My name is Aysha Wu, and today we'll be discussing land use challenges in ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ's summer villages.

Before we start, I would like to respectfully acknowledge that the ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ is located on Treaty 6 territory and respects the histories, languages and cultures of First Nations, Métis Inuit and all first peoples of Canada, whose presence continues to enrich our vibrant community.

Within ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ there is a unique type of municipality known as a summer village. These communities are characterized by small, often seasonal, populations and face a number of unique planning and land use challenges as a result.

Here, with me today to discuss his research “” is Craig Thomas. Welcome, Craig. Could you please introduce yourself and tell us about what you do?

Craig: Sure. My name is Craig Thomas. I am a professional planner. I work mostly in municipal planning, probably for about 30 years or so. So right now I'm the director of planning and development for the City of Fort Saskatchewan. I also do some things on the side like consulting and do a little bit of teaching as well.

Host: Great. Thank you. Could you give us a more in depth explanation of what a summer village is?

Craig: Yeah. So summer villages are kind of a very interesting creation of the province. It happened in about 1950 when people from Edmonton and Calgary wanted to get away for the weekend and these communities kind of started developing around lake shores. So it's a type of municipality that is characterized by a small, permanent population. The municipal government act doesn't have a specific definition so it's really, you know, the province can create a status of a particular municipality. And so summer villages were really created to provide a governance model around these small communities around lake shores.

Interestingly enough, in 1995, when the municipal government that act was updated and incorporated aspects of the Planning Act into it, it actually basically said that you're not allowed to form a summer village. So the ones that existed at that time were allowed to continue to exist, but a community could not be formed into a summer village. So there had, since that time, there's been some summer villages that have been absorbed into the county or maybe even turned into a village itself. But yeah, generally they're about populations of up to about 300 people, and that's a mix of permanent and seasonal residents.

Host: Interesting. So we basically have a very set or declining number of summer villages.

Craig: Yeah. So we're not going to see any more, but we'll probably see fewer and fewer overtime because they do, certainly, have some challenges associated with them.

Host: And what are some of the unique challenges that summer villages face?

Craig: Yeah. So summer villages, really, they're incorporated municipalities with similar governance structures and service delivery expectations as other municipalities, you know, such as cities or towns. But if you can imagine a municipality and say there's, you know, maybe 100 residents or maybe even 100 parcels of land, and each of those lots contribute, say, $1 thousand to the tax base, to the summer villages.

So that's about $100 thousand in tax revenue to cover the bulk of services. So these communities, they still need to have a council, they need to have a chief administrative officer, they need to have bylaw enforcement, snow removal, insurance and everything that goes along with running a municipality. So in short, summer villages generally lack the economy of scale to provide a full range of municipal services just due to their small permanent population and seasonal nature.

So they've done quite well and they've adapted overtime. As an example, one administrative unit would serve several summer villages. As an example, like, say around the Edmonton area, there's, you know, maybe around 14 summer villages that have one administrative office that kind of looks after their day-to-day activities. But it is still very challenging for them and that was kind of the center of my paper, is that this does not include things like planning. So it's created a gap there. And while you know this has been problematic since the disbandment of regional planning commissions, which happened in 1995, the problem has become continuously worse.

So these are very small populations. So you're drawing councils from this population, so they might not have, you know, the level of sophistication needed to make good decisions. So with no dedicated planning function that overseas summer villages, and not just summer villages, but also other small communities as well, there can be problems. So, you know, these are a type of communities that are developed along lake shores, so there's issues associated with lake shore and ecological degradation, water quality. So when you're dealing with things like subdivisions and those sorts of things, like typically, what you'd want to see is a piece of reserve land between the parcel of land and the lake to provide that protection. Often that's not happening. Sometimes, you know, the parcel of land would get cleared of all its trees. So then it creates other issues kind of associated with that environmental impact.

The land use bylaws are out of date. A lot of cases, these land use bylaws are 30 years old. So you know, over time they would need to just adapt to resident preferences, to planning consideration just to have good planning, but also at the same time the province will mandate certain changes have to happen. And these are just not getting done so not only are the land use bylaws significantly out of date, but they lack the provisions to provide good oversight and good governance as well. And these are provisions and regulations that protect residences and give them a certain degree of rights as well.

I think some of the other challenges are just related to, you know, not the best decision making when it comes to planning decisions. So there isn't going to be a planner that's in council chambers that's giving advice and justifying certain recommendations that are being made. So a lot of times decisions that are being made are kind of based on what the counselors know and you know, if there's only a population of about, say 70 or 80 or 100 people, you know there's going to be, you know, there's not going to be that impartiality, there's there's going to be certain biases. And when you kind of have that dichotomy between seasonal residents and permanent residents, often those decisions really kind of favor a certain group of people. What's really interesting is you have these tiny populations and you have this governance structure that have, by and large, the same type of powers and service delivery that a large city would have. So it's interesting.

Host: And from the sounds of it, not necessarily the qualifications or expertise needed to oversee a lot of that.

Craig: Yeah and I mean that's, you have to work with what you have and you know it's just it is one of those consequences. So having that sort of oversight that would go with something like a regional planning commission or some sort of regulatory planning scheme that could be incorporated into that governance structure, I think or that administrative structure would be beneficial. So previously it was regional planning commissions, they could have maybe even agreements or contracts with, say, the county itself, but again, that would cost some degree of money to provide that.

Host: Since we're on the topic. Already. Did you want to talk about the regional planning commissions and what their role was? 

Craig: Yeah. So it's interesting because I think ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ is probably the only province in Canada that doesn't have some sort of regional planning scheme anymore. Of course, you know with the Edmonton Metro Region Board and the Calgary Regional Board, that's changed recently. So Edmonton and Calgary had that regional structure up till fairly recently, but you know really since 1995, there hasn't been a comprehensive regional planning scheme in ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ and that has created I think issues for a lot of more remote rural communities, as well as smaller communities. 

So just a little bit of the history of regional planning commissions in ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ, they were created in the 1950s to provide professional planning support and regional coordination, particularly in smaller communities that were lacking that internal expertise. They did help regulate things like urban fringe growth and offered fair, consistent approach to development planning. You can imagine, you know, especially in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, there was a considerable amount of growth and there was a lot of development pressures. That was kind of a time when really ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ was kind of coming into its own and seeing huge population increases so they were really trying to get a handle on regulating that growth as much as possible. They were disbanded in 1995 under ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ’s shift to local autonomy and more of a market based planning. So the thinking there was that maybe these small communities can figure it out and they could hire planning consultants. But you know I think to do that you kind of have to understand and appreciate the value of what planning can provide. 

So really since then, small municipalities and remote communities have struggled with things like, you know, lack of expert advice, increased reliance on non professional or politically influenced decision making, inconsistent enforcement of bylaws and planning decisions, and increased susceptibility to things like rights intrusions and planning inequalities. And, you know, these are the things that I think small communities would grapple with, the large communities are even grappling with it, as their land use bylaws and planning documents evolve but it just doesn't exist in these small communities. And I mean, these are very small communities. So you're not seeing a lot of development happening. But if you take all the summer villages and put them together, it's about 5 or 6 thousand people, which is a small community. And then you add in some of the, you know, the villages and small towns and some of those rural communities as well that are facing those same challenges, it's a significant sector of the ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ population.

Host: Yeah, definitely. And somewhat similarly to the 50s where we had significant growth in the province, we're facing a somewhat similar situation with population growth right now. So do you think there's any chance that planning commissions could be reestablished?

Craig: I would, I would hope so, you know, because I think it is very important. Like I mentioned, ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ is probably the only province that doesn't have some sort of regional planning scheme. Even in the United States, when property rights and that urban rural interface is much more pronounced, they've always had a system of regional planning, particularly because they would have a county that would encompass the cities and towns. But so if you lived in a city, you also lived in the county, so there was two governance structures. But there's always been some regional planning scheme in place.

So there would have to be something because it's not just about planning, but it's about, you know, just good coordination of services and making sure that everybody's on the same page. And a good example of that would be how B.C. deals with their transit. A place like Victoria or Vancouver, there's a cluster of many different municipalities that they have one transit authority that kind of oversees everything as opposed to say, 15 or 16 transit authorities. It just makes it more efficient and it's very equitable as well.

So in our situation, like in the Edmonton region, we've got many municipalities that, many of which provide their own transit services and transit authorities and it's not necessarily the best regional service when you have to switch between different authorities. We're working it out, it's being worked out, but you know it, it could be done a lot better here. And having that, I think political will and that willingness to do it I think is critical to getting it done.

Host: Yeah, in helping to deal with some of those roadblocks. When the commissions were first established, was that done by the province or the municipalities?

Craig: It was done by the province. So they saw the need to have some sort of regional planning system or scheme in place to deal with some of these issues, to make sure that there was good coordinated planning and development that was happening. Because there are externalities that come with things like fringe development, so that was really a way to kind of get a handle on it and to make sure that things were coordinated. So there still is the ability to do that now because I mean municipalities that share a border are now going to be required throughout the province to have inter municipal development plants that deal with things, but those are just, typically, between two municipalities. You could do it potentially between three, but they all have to be sharing a border with each other.

Host: Okay.

Craig: So it becomes a little bit more complicated.

Host: Oh, okay. So in the case of somewhere like Edmonton or Calgary that now has established a board, was that done by the municipalities then?

Craig: Yeah. So when regional planning commissions were disbanded in 1995, it was interesting because kind of leading up to 1995, there wasn't a lot of growth that was happening. Then the Municipal Government Act was updated, regional planning commissions were disbanded and then we started seeing a lot of growth. So we started seeing a lot of those problems that kind of prompted regional planning commissions in the first place. 

So at that time, I think it was the Stelmach government that was kind of looking at ways to bring some sort of regional planning mechanism back. But I think there was a lot of options that were looked at then they kind of settled on kind of the regional planning board structure, which was a little bit different than the more structured regional planning commissions. And it was the mandate of the Edmonton Metro Region Board was more comprehensive than just, say, a regional planning commission because it was dealing with things like economic development and transportation and planning, but also the GIS and sharing all sorts of services. So not just about planning, but everything else as well.

Host: Right, So what might be preventing these smaller communities? From establishing a commission or a board. 

Craig: It could happen, it would be informal, but there would need to be that coordination that would have to happen. So I mean, the easiest thing to do would be to talk to the county in which these summer villages are located within to see if there could be some sort of coordination. It's always difficult to do that because then it would be thought, okay, we've got, you've got county staff and planners that are kind of looking after the interests of a summer village. So that's always been a bit of an issue because the thought has been that this larger regional oversight isn't really giving due consideration to the interests of the summer village. There would have to be some sort of representation. And again, you're dealing with a very small council and a very small administration. So it gets pretty clunky pretty fast. 

Host: Okay. Pivoting just a little here, but what are some of the unique property rights challenges that summer villages might run into?

Craig: Property rights is, I think, is always interesting. Planners at some point in their career will always hear residents say, well, it's my land, I have the right to do whatever I want. And I mean, there is a fundamental principle that one has the right to do things on their land, provided it does not interfere with somebody else's right to do the same. And that's why planning legislation is kind of centered around the idea that landowners have a basket of rights or a bundle of rights. And what that means is that while they're entitled to use and enjoy their property, those rights are not absolute and must be exercised in a way that respects the rights of others and aligns with the broader public interest. It's established through land use plans and planning policy. So because of their nature and because of the lack of professional planning oversight, land use regulations have not evolved. 

So I talked before about, you know, the land use bylaws and they haven't been updated since, you know, the 1990s. And so they've missed some critical things. And the example that, the case that I referenced in my article is the land use bylaw was written in 1999 and since then, there have been several legal cases and research that deal with things like exclusionary zoning practices and just good sound planning principles. And so what's common in summer villages are regulations that prohibit mobile homes, and they also would set a minimum floor area for dwelling sizes. And so the case that I referenced in my article is that dwellings must have a minimum floor area of 800 square feet. So if I want to live in a particular community, I should have the right to do that, and that community should be able to accommodate for the fact that I cannot afford, or maybe that I don't even want to build a house with a minimum floor area of 800 square feet. And keep in mind that summer villages were established as seasonal communities, so people wanted to go there on the weekends and have a cabin and enjoy the lake and kind of being away from the city. So they didn't necessarily want to have a big house. 

So if you go back to that fundamental common law principle that one has the right to use their property, provided that they don't interfere with somebody else's right to do the same. The question would be how would a house that has, say, a floor area of 6 or 7 hundred square feet kind of interfere with somebody's right to use and enjoy their property? Which is kind of ironic because, you know, usually the impact of development is how big, how large you know, is it blocking sunlight? Is it kind of taking away from my view? And a lot of things that are legitimate or not but. But you know, that doesn't really pose an issue when it comes to, you know, a land use implication. 

I live in Edmonton and I live in a neighborhood that has houses that are maybe 3 to 4 or 5 thousand square feet. There's also houses that are probably 7 or 8 hundred square feet and it makes the neighborhood interesting. You know, you've got a mix of people, you have a mix of perspectives and it makes the neighborhood richer and and better. And that's really what having regulations that allow for a mix of development or enable the mix of development to happen is good. 

And so when you have exclusionary zoning regulations. You're not having that mix of housing types that mix of demographics that you know. So it takes away from enhancing the social fabric, I think, of the community as well. Especially for small communities like summer villages where, you know, they are very tight knit and I think it's good to have, you know, a diversity of people.

Host: Yeah, for sure. I don't know if you have an answer for this, but I'm just curious, with populations increasing across the province, do you think that populations will increase in the summer villages as well?

Craig: I think historically it's been very interesting. If you look at small villages or summer villages or hamlets, they're very, very resilient communities. There's very few examples of where you would have a small community where, whether it's through a natural disaster or some sort of an event, where the people don't come back. So I don't think that they're necessarily going to increase. I don't think they're necessarily going to decrease significantly, but they're probably going to stay about the same. 

Yeah, it's interesting. Like, if you think of a place like Josephburg, ºÚÁϲ»´òìÈ for example, it's never added new lots, but it's never you know it's never really decreased in population. It's a small farming community, it's incredibly tight knit, it has very strong social capital. And they basically are incredibly resilient little communities.

Host: That's really interesting. So what would you say are some of the main takeaways from your research?

Craig: I think there's a few points. I think it really kind of highlights that the absence of regional planning commissions has created a planning vacuum in small municipalities which really exacerbate the inequalities and subjective decision making that does happen. In my article I kind of look at the one case, but when I was involved in that process, you know I was talking to other planning professionals that kind of deal in more rural communities as well talking to some people in the legal community and they've all kind of agreed that this is kind of the wild west and it is problematic, especially when it comes to decision making. 

Everybody would have a right to appeal a decision and that's kind of an administrative law principle that, you know, anyone should have a right to challenge the decisions of the government makes. In summer villages, these subdivision and development appeal boards are drawn from people in the community. And so it's not necessarily really a fair process if you don't agree with the council and then you appeal, and then you've got people that have those same biases that are really adjudicating your appeal. So one of my recommendations in my paper would be is maybe that is something where the province could say that, okay, well, those appeals should be adjudicated by the Land and Property Rights Tribunal, which is separate from the SDB, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, but they have essentially the same role. and so the Land and Property Rights Tribunal is kind of used in certain circumstances and this, to me, would be a good circumstance to make sure that people have that right to a fair hearing. 

The other one would be is, you know, summer villages do lack that economy of scale to provide for professional planning oversight. So when there were regional planning commissions that did exist, even though they were established, they were always there for small communities that needed that when they needed it. So any summer village or any small community, they might have one or two planning applications every couple of years, but at least there is that professional planning oversight to provide that professional review and make sure that it is good decision making that's happening. 

So I guess the other thing would be, is when it comes to decision making, is it neutral? Is it fair? Is there professionalism that goes into, kind of, the background and the thinking behind those decisions? And I don't think that's consistently happening, at least not from what I saw. I think there is some exclusionary zoning practices that are happening. It's not necessarily illegal or against the law, but I think there has been, through case law, that there's been a willingness to challenge zoning regulations that infringe on rights or fail to serve legitimate planning purposes. So even though that these are maybe still slightly above board, at least for now, they're not necessarily the best decisions in light of, you know, making equitable, fair decisions for the overall interest of the community itself. 

And I think the governance model in summer villages is prone to political interference, which undermines transparency and fairness in land use decisions. And that's almost to be expected just because of the very small populations that councils are being drawn from. And you can't really expect them to have that level of sophistication nor understanding of what goes into these municipal decisions, let alone planning decisions.

Host: Yeah, that makes sense. It really sounds like these smaller communities could maybe benefit from more involvement from the government.

Craig: I would think so, and I think you know, just with this government that's in place, I think there's more of a push for kind of more of a market approach. But I do think there is the opportunity to maybe be a little bit creative as well. Maybe it isn't necessarily a regional planning commission, but maybe it would be something that there is better coordination, maybe, with the county for example that could provide at least planning support in those cases.

Again, you have to kind of keep in mind that summer villages are a municipality and they have most of the same powers and expectation of services that a large city like Edmonton or Calgary would have, which is crazy to think about in a lot of ways, because let's say you have a population of 100 people or even 50 people and three councillors is 8 or 10 per cent of that population. So there's issues that are going to be associated with that. 

Host: Yeah, definitely. Do you think that summer villages get a little bit overlooked in conversations about municipal issues?

Craig: Absolutely. I mean, it's hard not to because they just exist and not a lot really happens there, but. Things do happen, they're just not very often, and those decisions are huge because it has implications on. Not only individual property rights, but also things like water quality and these lakes and ecological integrity, and lots of different things, so that lack of capacity that exists in the decision making process is a problem.

Host: So just kind of to wrap up here, is there anything else that you wanted to mention that we didn't get to?  Any concluding thoughts or suggestions for areas of future research?

Craig: Yeah, I think there's definitely some further research that could happen. I think I just kind of touched on the issue and I really kind of cited one example in one case as I went through the process. Like I said I talked to a lot of different people that have done some work, whether it's a lawyer that's showing up at an SDAB and, you know, the response I always got was kind of the same and they always kind of shook their head and said, yeah, something really ought to be done.

So, you know, summer villages are small, and they often do, I think, get overlooked. But you know, overtime these decisions, if they continue to be bad it's going to create issues going forward and we're definitely seeing it right now. There's a lot of communities where the water levels in these lakes are dropping, the water quality is very poor, they're not doing things that they're required to do simply because their land use bylaws and their planning policy has not been updated. And there's just, I think, a lack of not only oversight from a planning perspective, but I think there should be some government oversight to make sure that these things are happening. There is that void there for sure.

Host: And it sounds like repercussions spreading past the summer villages.

Craig:  Absolutely for sure, summer villages are just one example and I think they're more of an easier example because they are so small. But you know you could have a larger village of say 5 or 6 or 1 thousand people that are grappling with the same issues as well.

Host: Well we’ll wrap up there then. Thank you so much for joining me, Craig.

Craig: All right. Thanks.

Host: That's it for today's episode. If you'd like to know more about land use challenges in summer villages, is linked in the description below. If you enjoyed the episode, you can leave us a like or a comment. Also, feel free to follow us on , , or LinkedIn. You can also sign up for our newsletter on our website: uab.ca/ALI to stay up to date with all of our research, podcasts, blogs and more. Thank you for listening to the Land Use Podcast.