Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a modified version of a paper delivered at a Conference on the methodology of planning and development held at Trois-Rivières on May 19-20, 1977. Much of municipal control of urban development in Canada today is carried out through the regulatory process. Master plans, zoning, subdivision control and building by-laws are the mainstays of this system. In recent years, the legislatures of most Canadian provinces have incorporated in their respective Planning Acts certain mechanisms designed to improve the municipal regulatory response to the challenge of urban change. These mechanisms often appear to be needlessly complicated, whereas they are in fact designed to circumvent certain difficulties which are inherent in the classical regulatory system. The main objectives which these new mechanisms seek to attain are greater flexibility in the decision-making process, better phasing of development and increased public participation at all levels of planning and decision-making. This article concentrates on the law of the province of Québec, but reference is frequently made to the legislation of other Canadian jurisdictions in order to indicate which avenues might be followed in Québec in order to reform the law governing municipal planning by-laws. After a brief introduction, the second Part of this article is devoted to canvassing the principal legal rules governing municipal planning bylaws: first, with respect to by-laws in general; second, with respect to the extent of the limited powers delegated to municipalities; third, with respect to the adoption and amendment procedure for planning by-laws. The third Part is devoted to a comparative analysis of certain legal mechanisms some of which have become commonplace in other Canadian provinces but which remain largely untried in Quebec. These include minor variances, conditional uses, bonus zoning, site plan by-laws, contract zoning and development control. All of these techniques tend to favour greater flexibility in the administration of land-use planning. Other devices are more useful in seeking to achieve phased development. These include holding by-laws and the requirement that land be serviced before a building permit will issue (the latter technique has been in use in Quebec for many years and is authorized to a limited extent by statute). The article concludes by pointing out that some of the mechanisms canvassed would be of considerable use to town planners in Quebec and should be recognized by statute, preferably in the forthcoming Planning Bill which the present government has promised to introduce in the near future. Town planners should be wary of using them without such legislative sanction, however, because the Canadian courts, with limited exceptions such as in the case of holding by-laws, have struck down attempts by municipalities to step outside the limited statutory authority vested in them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".