Manitoba Local Government

Strengthening Manitoba's Capital Region
General Principles and Policy Directions

— A Public Discussion Paper —

2. Principles and Policy Directions

The following principles and policy directions represent options being considered by the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) for recommendation to the Province. They can form a framework for the provincial government to develop more detailed policies for the Capital Region.

Policies adopted by the provincial government should promote the sustainable use of land and resources and ensure a healthy, equitable growth pattern in the Capital Region. They are also expected to reflect better coordination and a more regional and complementary approach to planning and development in the Capital Region. If adopted by the Province, policies reflecting these principles and directions would serve as a standard for provincial and local authorities, developers, the public and other stakeholders in the review of municipal and planning district development plans and amendments to those plans.

Many of the principles and recommended policy directions in this paper are unique to Manitoba's Capital Region and would not necessarily be transferable to other areas of the Province - especially those with significantly less development pressure.

Governments in the region should, as much as is practical, cooperate and act in unison so as to assist in benefiting the region as a whole.

The RPAC believes that the over-riding goal of the Capital Region initiative is to assist in achieving a healthy, safe and prosperous region; that Winnipeg, as the dominant municipality in the region, should remain strong and vibrant.

Most of the development in the region occurs because of the very existence of Winnipeg. A healthy and prosperous Winnipeg will mean a healthy and prosperous region. Large urban centres such as Winnipeg provide a significant and important array of services and opportunities for residents and businesses of the Capital Region. Winnipeg should not be diminished by the actions, or indeed, the inaction of governments in the region.

At the same time, within reason, the legitimate sustainable growth aspirations of the other municipalities in the region should be supported, and in fact, such development can contribute to a stronger Winnipeg.

2.1    General Guiding Principles for the Capital Region

The RPAC believes the following ten principles could form the basis for effective decision-making and future land use policies for the Capital Region, recognizing that these principles are somewhat general, that there is room for interpretation over their application, that some may conflict and that they will need to be balanced in practice.

2.1.1 Municipal Role in Planning
2.1.2 No New Level of Government
2.1.3 Regional Planning is a Provincial Role
2.1.4 Regional Planning Based On Clear Principles and Law
2.1.5 Public Consultation and Co-operation
2.1.6 Provincial Role in Planning
2.1.7 Sustainable Development & Enhanced Public Input
2.1.8 Timely Planning Decisions
2.1.9 Province to Encourage Co-operation
2.1.10 Information Sharing, Dialogue & Shared Vision

GENERAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE CAPITAL REGION

WHAT DO YOU THINK? WOULD THE TEN ABOVE-NOTED PRINCIPLES ADEQUATELY GUIDE POLICY IN THE REGION? ARE THEY TOO GENERAL? ARE THERE ANY FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES MISSING?

2.1.1  Municipal Role in Planning

Municipalities should continue to have primary responsibility for day-to-day land use planning and decision-making for their local communities, within provincially approved parameters and the regional context.

2.1.2  No New Level of Government

A positive economic climate in the Capital Region can be achieved without the creation of another level of government. The problems in the Capital Region are not of such a magnitude as to require major restructuring of governments or the establishment of major new institutions to deal with them - and there appears to be little support for such action among most local governments or the provincial government.

2.1.3  Regional Planning is a Provincial Role

Municipal councils are elected to represent their local communities; it is not their direct responsibility, nor are they expected to address concerns outside their jurisdictions. Therefore, in the absence of a regional authority, the government of Manitoba is the only level of government that has a clear mandate to address regional issues. Given that the Capital Region represents over 60% of the Province's population and economy, it is appropriate that the provincial government, representing all Manitobans, pay continuing attention to development in the region and provide leadership to enable the region to realize opportunities and to deal effectively with its challenges.

2.1.4   Regional Planning Based On Clear Principles and Law

Any necessary policy direction and control of the development processes in the Capital Region should be based upon broad public interests that are clearly expressed in provincial law, land use policies and regulations. This legal framework must be flexible enough to accommodate the diversity among the municipalities in the Capital Region. Provincial policies and actions should be based upon clearly stated principles and criteria, and they should be open and consistent.

2.1.5  Public Consultation and Co-operation

Within the context of law, planning processes in the Capital Region should be open, accessible, participatory, inclusive, responsive and collaborative. In particular, thorough public consultation should be fundamental in any planning exercise. Consultation with stakeholders and appropriate Aboriginal communities is also to be encouraged.

2.1.6 Provincial Role in Planning

The role of the provincial government in planning and development processes should include the following:

a) to provide policy leadership and support to enable the region to realize opportunities for sustainable economic growth and healthy communities;

b) to ensure better integration and coordination of municipal land use planning decisions with related activities such as water management, transportation, environmental protection, public health and safety, etc.;

c) to deal with 'spillover' effects where municipal land use decisions have impacts that affect neighbouring municipalities, the region or the Province as a whole;

d) to help resolve inter-municipal disputes where these pose a barrier to development or an effective policy response to problems arising from growth and change;

e) to ensure some measure of consistency, predictability and fairness in municipal decision-making over time and across jurisdictions, particularly with respect to the rights of minorities;

f) to strengthen local democracy by providing organizational capacity and information resources to support municipal decision-making;

g) to ensure regionally and provincially significant resources are wisely used and protected where necessary, including the use of the land base, soils and minerals, flora and fauna, water and air; and

h) to ensure the most economical, effective and safe use of local and provincial infrastructure and services through planned growth.

2.1.7  Sustainable Development & Enhanced Public Input

Sustainable development must be promoted. An improved overall land use planning process that balances social, environmental and economic considerations should take place to ensure that the land base, other resources and the environment are protected for future generations.

2.1.8 Timely Planning Decisions

The planning process at all levels should be efficient and expeditious to avoid undue costs and delays that lead to the loss of benefits for local communities, the region and the Province. Provincial government concerns and directions should be expressed as early in the planning process as possible.

2.1.9 Province to Encourage Co-operation

The provincial government should consider new incentives and remove any existing disincentives, to promote voluntary inter-municipal collaboration and co-operation within the Capital Region.

2.1.10 Information Sharing, Dialogue & Shared Vision

The provincial government should provide policy leadership by creating forums and opportunities for sharing information and conducting meaningful dialogue. It should undertake the systematic collection of common data. The provincial government should also promote the emergence of a shared vision for the Capital Region that can provide a sense of unity and direction for all stakeholders, including citizens, governments, business, and voluntary and non-government organizations.

2.2    Promoting Intergovernmental Co-operation

The RPAC has heard from a number of rural municipalities that one of their primary regional concerns is their relationship with the City of Winnipeg. The City, on the other hand, expressed concerns related to development issues on its fringe. Missed opportunities for sharing of services as well as poor communications among neighbouring municipalities were cited as examples.

There are at least four main types of intergovernmental interaction that take place within the Capital Region between:

a) two or more municipalities outside the City of Winnipeg;

b) the City of Winnipeg and one or more municipalities in the Capital Region;

c) the municipal governments in the region and the provincial government often through the department of Manitoba Local Government but also involving other government departments and agencies; and

d) the City of Winnipeg and the provincial government based on Winnipeg's dominant presence in the region and its operation under The City of Winnipeg Act, a separate provincial statute from that of other municipal governments.

The frequency, scope, content and importance of these four areas of intergovernmental interaction vary significantly.

In all four areas, there are numerous examples of successful consultation and collaboration on a voluntary functional basis. There are also examples of disputes and a lack of co-operation where governments fail to work together constructively in ways that would benefit their citizens and the region.

These patterns of interaction reflect the reality of interdependence among governments within the Capital Region. Governments are free to act within their own jurisdictions, but their actions (or inactions) can have impacts on others.

One of the aims of the planning process for the region should be to provide a framework for development that will reflect both the independence and interdependence of governments. It must seek to limit conflict, and resolve disagreements in the most constructive manner possible.

A strong working relationship between the City of Winnipeg and its neighbours is important. Capital Region municipalities should act in unison to attract business opportunities from outside the Province and should not compete excessively or inappropriately for economic advantages. Leadership by the provincial government could help to improve inter-governmental relationships in order to further foster a sense of 'region' and to better ensure that development anywhere in the region benefits all in the region.

RPAC IS CONSIDERING PROPOSING THAT THE FOLLOWING GENERAL POLICY DIRECTIONS BE USED BY THE PROVINCE IN THE FORMULATION OF ITS POLICY PLAN FOR THE CAPITAL REGION:

2.2.1 Talking To Each Other

a) Communications among Capital Region municipalities should be strengthened. In particular, better mechanisms for improving communications between the City of Winnipeg and adjacent municipalities should be found both at the political and administrative levels.

b) Improvements should be made to communications structures. RPAC is giving some consideration to recommending that a small Capital Region Secretariat (of perhaps two to four people) should be established with the financial support of the provincial government. It would work closely with the municipalities of the Capital Region and would assist in research and coordinating responses and solutions to cross-jurisdictional issues in the region.

c) The provincial government should support a research and information database, possibly including a GIS for the Capital Region. The Capital Region Web Site is a good start and could be enhanced.

d) The provincial government could lead in determining the Capital Region's 'vital signs' by benchmarking key indicators so that it can be determined whether the economic, social and physical health of the region is improving over time.

2.2.1 Talking To Each Other
2.2.2 Sharing Of Services
2.2.3 Identifying And Seizing Economic Opportunities
2.2.4 Inter-Municipal Tax-Sharing

2.2.1 Talking To Each Other

a) Communications among Capital Region municipalities should be strengthened. In particular, better mechanisms for improving communications between the City of Winnipeg and adjacent municipalities should be found both at the political and administrative levels.

b) Improvements should be made to communications structures. RPAC is giving some consideration to recommending that a small Capital Region Secretariat (of perhaps two to four people) should be established with the financial support of the provincial government. It would work closely with the municipalities of the Capital Region and would assist in research and coordinating responses and solutions to cross-jurisdictional issues in the region.

c) The provincial government should support a research and information database, possibly including a GIS for the Capital Region. The Capital Region Web Site is a good start and could be enhanced.

d) The provincial government could lead in determining the Capital Region's 'vital signs' by benchmarking key indicators so that it can be determined whether the economic, social and physical health of the region is improving over time.

2.2.2 Sharing Of Services

a) In order to reduce costs and increase efficiencies, sharing of services among municipalities should be encouraged where it is practical and financially advantageous. Services which should be considered for sharing across municipal boundaries are: fire, police and other emergency services, recreational facilities, sewer and water, waste management, road maintenance, and others.

b) In order to promote service partnerships, the provincial government should consider providing technical, professional, organizational and financial incentives.

c) Municipalities using the services of another municipality would be expected to pay a reasonable amount to adequately cover the costs of the service.

d) The inter-municipal sharing of services should not lead to an increase in urban sprawl or the premature extension of piped services.

2.2.3 Identifying And Seizing Economic Opportunities

a) Where practical and reasonable, Capital Region municipalities could adopt similar development 'rules' and policies, not only to make processes less confusing for the public and developers, but to reduce inter-municipal bidding competitions for businesses.

b) Currently the City of Winnipeg has different governing legislation than the other municipalities in Manitoba. A review of provincial statutes and related regulations could promote the harmonization and consistency of the provincial approach to planning within the Capital Region, while still recognizing the diversity among municipalities.

c) Governments, businesses and organizations in the Capital Region should be encouraged to think and act in a regional manner.

d) Capital Region municipalities should investigate the feasibility of presenting a unified regional approach to economic development and tourism, so that the region can promote itself in a cohesive fashion as a place to locate or visit.

e) The provincial government should consider assisting in coordinating this regional economic development initiative.

2.2.4 Inter-Municipal Tax-Sharing

a) Some form of inter-municipal tax-sharing may be appropriate for the Capital Region. The provincial government should continue to investigate inter-municipal tax-sharing models.

b) If an appropriate tax-sharing model is developed, it could be considered for adoption by municipalities in the Capital Region. Any such model should take into account the costs and benefits to all municipalities and the region as a whole.

PROMOTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION

WHAT DO YOU THINK? WOULD THE ABOVE-NOTED POLICY DIRECTIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUES? ARE THERE OTHER RELATED POLICY DIRECTIONS THAT COULD BE ADDED? DO YOU KNOW OF OTHER APPROPRIATE REGIONAL CO-OPERATION MODELS THAT HAVE WORKED WELL? CAN YOU SUGGEST OTHER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES? WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON TAX-SHARING?

2.3    Water

Wise use of water resources is critical. This was highlighted in the last couple of years by the tragic events in Walkerton, Ontario and North Battleford, Saskatchewan. But drinking water quality issues also affect communities and individual residences in Manitoba. In fact, there are several areas in Manitoba's Capital Region which are, or have recently been, on 'boil water orders, which means their drinking water has deteriorated to the point of posing a health risk.

The recent report of the Drinking Water Advisory Committee implied that maintaining water quality should be a principal consideration in any discussions of land use planning. There are also concerns about the continued reliance on private wells and septic fields in the region.

Flooding is a common and naturally occurring phenomenon in a large part of the Capital Region. It should be remembered that the Red River Valley was once a large array of marshes, sloughs and shallow waterways, often obscured by tall waving grass. Settlers and governments set out to drain the land to improve its productivity for crops. But a number of significant floods over the years serve to continuously remind us that we still live in a major flood plain.

All three levels of government have spent enormous amounts of time, money and resources on flood protection works and flood compensation over the years. Regional land use policies adopted by the provincial government should address flood protection through appropriate development restrictions in order to minimize human safety risks and property damage. In addition, surface drainage, bank erosion and public access to waterways are also major issues requiring attention in the regional policy plan.

In general, the waterways of the Capital Region provide water for drinking, recreation, commerce and industry, agriculture, habitat for wildlife, aquatic animals and plant life, commercial and recreational fishing, among other things. These waterways and wetlands are of significant importance to the residents of the Capital Region and beyond.

RPAC IS CONSIDERING PROPOSING THAT THE FOLLOWING GENERAL POLICY DIRECTIONS BE USED BY THE PROVINCE IN THE FORMULATION OF ITS POLICY PLAN FOR THE CAPITAL REGION:

2.3.1 Water Quality and Quantity
2.3.2 Surface Drainage
2.3.3 Shorelands
2.3.4 Flooding

2.3.1 Water Quality and Quantity

a) Development should take place in an environmentally sound manner.

b) Land uses that may lead to the pollution of groundwater should not be permitted.

c) Development should not lead to the depletion of the groundwater resource. Nor should uses which draw from surface waterways overtax those resources.

d) The provincial government should take appropriate measures to ensure that the fresh/salt groudwater boundary is stabilized.

e) The provincial government should strengthen its septic field and well regulations and inspection so as to better protect water from pollution.

f) The provincial government should ensure that an adequate in-stream flow in the Assiniboine River is maintained.

g) The provincial government should diligently enforce laws and regulations intended to protect water quality and quantity.

2.3.2 Surface Drainage

a) New development should not have a negative impact on existing surface water drainage systems.

b) Land uses that may lead to surface water pollution should not be permitted.

c) Overland flooding can be a problem in some areas of the Capital Region. While governments can often assist in rectifying this problem by improving drainage, care should be taken so as not to unnecessarily increase downstream flooding or to unnecessarily harm natural flora and fauna or harm useful biological processes.

d) The practice of using existing and creating new marshes and natural low areas for assisting in drainage could be encouraged where appropriate. Marshes can be effective in helping to:

• store surface water for possible later use;
• recharge groundwater aquifers;
• cleanse water by reducing sediments, absorbing nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), and absorbing pesticides, coliforms and other pathogens;
• provide habitat for wildlife and aquatic species; and
• reduce flooding and erosion.

e) The RPAC heard from numerous municipalities about the poor condition of provincial drains in the region and the lengthy time it takes to obtain a license to work on local drains. The provincial government should attempt to rectify these problems.

2.3.3 Shorelands

a) Development or activities that would accelerate shoreland erosion or contribute to bank instability along creeks, rivers and lakes should not be permitted.

b) Development should generally not occur on lands subject to bank instability or shoreland erosion.

c) Natural tree and vegetative cover should be maintained along shorelines to assist in reducing erosion and maintaining bank stability. Planting of native species and other compatible vegetation which will assist in reducing erosion and maintaining bank stability should be encouraged.

d) Public access to shorelands of major water bodies should be maintained and enhanced.

e) The flat landscape of the prairie is relieved by the vegetation corridors following its waterways. The provincial government could lead an initiative to co-ordinate the establishment of a linked system of parks, green spaces, scenic drives, pathways, etc., along the Red and Assiniboine Rivers and other water ways in the region. This series of linked greenways would not only enhance wildlife, but would also provide better recreational opportunities for residents and visitors, provide increased business and employment opportunities and provide additional flood and erosion protection. This could be an enhancement of the existing 'Red River Greenway Partnership Initiative'.

f) The establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers should be encouraged. Riparian buffers are the vegetation zones (mostly trees and bush) along waterways and wetlands. These are beneficial because in many ways they perform the same function as marshes do in cleansing water, reducing flooding and erosion, reducing silt, providing habitat and ecological corridors, etc. (see list in Section 2.3.2 d).

2.3.4 Flooding

There are several types and levels of flooding that can occur in the Capital Region. The focus here is mainly on river flooding in contrast to overland flooding arising from drainage problems (see Section 2.3.2 c).

a) Land subject to serious flooding and which is not flood protected, should be left in its natural state or developed only for low intensity uses such as crop production, grazing, forestry, wildlife habitat or used for open space recreational purposes.

b) Some lands subject to less serious flooding may be developed if mitigative flood protection measures are provided.

c) All structures constructed in flood areas should be designed and constructed to be functional under flood conditions.

WATER:

WHAT DO YOU THINK? WOULD THE ABOVE NOTED POLICY DIRECTIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUES? ARE THERE OTHER RELATED POLICY DIRECTIONS THAT COULD BE ADDED?

2.4 Where We Live

The City of Winnipeg is the core of the Capital Region. Winnipeg contains over 60% of Manitoba's population and about 87% of the Capital Region's population. Winnipeg has experienced slow growth over the last decade or more, while a number of other municipalities in the Capital Region have experienced faster growth and tax base increases.

For Winnipeg, the issue of slow growth has been compounded by the need to maintain old infrastructure and by the decline of some housing stock, particularly in the inner city. A similar situation exists for the City of Selkirk. It would be unfair however, to assume that development outside of Winnipeg's limits has been the principal cause of the City's slow growth.

The issue of Winnipeg's inner city decline is complex and controversial. Most cities in North America have suffered similarly to greater or lesser degree. The current evidence and understanding of the regional growth process suggests that the decline has been accelerated more by residential and commercial development within the city's own boundaries than anything that has occurred in the surrounding Capital Region municipalities.

This is not to suggest that development outside of the City has no impact on Winnipeg. One of the concerns that has been raised is that many of the 500 or so houses that are built outside the City in the Capital Region every year are 'high end' homes. That is, most of these new homes are above average in price. This has therefore been viewed by some as a significant loss in potential tax revenue to the City.

Many types of development outside of Winnipeg can be both desirable and non-controversial. However, the type and location of development activity is crucial. Improved planning processes and decision-making by governments are needed to encourage more efficient use of the region's existing land, resources and infrastructure.

Some of the issues associated with development in the Capital Region have occurred because planning authorities (municipalities, planning districts and the provincial government) have not always considered development in the larger regional context. Many issues are inter-municipal in nature (aquifer protection, transportation, drainage, environment, resources, etc.), and often development in one municipality impacts on another. With this in mind, it is the RPAC's view that it makes the most sense to review land development with a regional perspective in mind. A combination of provincial government leadership and local co-operation is needed to effectively address this broad range of issues.

Municipalities are facing increasing challenges in funding infrastructure renewal, highlighting the urgent need to make enhanced land use decisions which will minimize extending the servicing base. Urban centres in particular have pointed to the growing infrastructure deficit and the need for more strategic action on the part of all governments to address this issue.

Rural municipalities (other than their existing urban centres) are by their definition intended to be 'rural' in character. Rural municipalities should primarily be focused on resource development (in the Capital Region this is primarily agriculture) and/or generally maintaining a natural, open, rural environment. Within reason, rural municipalities, planning districts and the provincial government should endeavour to maintain this rural character. Urban centres, on the other hand, are primarily intended to maintain a compact, highly serviced urban form, including high to medium density residential development, commercial, industrial and recreational development. Can either an urban centre or a rural area be 'all things to all people'? Probably not. Therefore, there are certain types of uses that may be best located in a rural setting and others best located in an urban setting.

The City of Winnipeg should remain the dominant community in the Capital Region to ensure a healthy, attractive, vibrant region, and provide opportunities for the other municipalities to share the region's population and economic growth.

2.4.1 Overall Development in the Region

a) Due to its economic and social importance, Manitoba's capital city, Winnipeg, should be recognized as the primary core and the dominant municipality in the Region. To this end, the significant proportion of urban residential, institutional, commercial, industrial and intensive recreational development which occurs in the Capital Region should continue to be located in the City of Winnipeg.

b) Regionally significant infrastructure and land uses should be protected from incompatible uses. Such regionally significant infrastructure and land uses would include:

c) All developments should be planned to occur in an orderly and efficient manner and should take into account the short and long-range cost of providing public services and infrastructure. To this end, development should normally follow infrastructure, not the other way around.

d) Availability of development sites should bear a reasonable relationship to the market demand. Municipal and regional supply and demand should be considered.

e) Developers of commercial and residential sites should be required to pay for all of the costs directly associated with the development. The public should not have to cover any service or infrastructure costs associated with such development. Exceptions to developers covering all costs might be in cases where incentives for infill or upgrading in older neighbourhoods is thought necessary.

f) Transportation planning and development in the Capital Region should take place in a more coordinated fashion, and in particular, there should be much better coordination between the City of Winnipeg and Manitoba Transportation.

g) Municipal, planning district and provincial government planning authorities should emphasize pedestrian and bicycle access in their planning.

h) Municipal, planning district and provincial government authorities should encourage, where practical, the retention and rehabilitation of heritage and older building stock. New incentive programs, tax incentives, mixed use zoning, the removal of disincentives, and other measures could be taken to encourage the rehabilitation of older neighbourhoods and buildings.

i) Better consultation, co-operation and co-ordination between Aboriginal communities and the municipal, planning district and provincial government authorities should occur.

j) Municipal, planning district and provincial government authorities should encourage designs in planning which are energy efficient and those which can assist in lessening the potential negative impacts on climate change.

k) When a large area is designated for residential, commercial or industrial use, the adoption of more detailed secondary or sector plans could be encouraged.

l) New development and construction should take into account accessibility and universal design principles (for the disabled).

2.4.2 Development in Rural Areas

a) Most new residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and recreational growth (see list under Section 2.4.3 a) should be directed to existing urban centres within the Capital Region.

b) In order to assist in keeping their rural nature, rural areas should not compete for all forms of development with the urban centres in the Capital Region. Rural areas have traditionally been and should remain primarily focused on resource-related uses. The types of uses appropriate to rural areas (in addition to those exceptions listed in Section 2.4.3 a. v), should be limited to the following:

c) Large lot or rural residential development should be recognized as a legitimate form of development. Such developments should be intended to cater to a 'rural lifestyle' and as such, lots within them should not be so small as to lose their rural characteristics or to compete with urban-sized lots in urban centres. They should also, by their quantity, proximity to each other, or size, not lead to the evolution of new urban centres in the Capital Region.

d) In order to avoid the evolution of new urban centres, commercial/retail services, institutional services or major indoor recreational facilities should generally not be located in, or be a part of, large lot or rural residential developments. Residents of such rural residential developments should obtain such services from nearby urban centres.

e) Large lot or rural residential development should complement nearby urban centres. Such development should generally not occur within the fringe of an urban centre so that an urban centre's orderly growth is not impeded.

f) So as not to be wasteful of the land resource nor lead to premature servicing costs, the potential number of rural residential lots available should bear a reasonable relationship to demand. The provincial government should consider the municipal and regional supply and demand for large lots in the Capital Region as a whole.

g) Large lot residential developments not intended for piped, common sewer service should be planned so that each lot is large enough to accommodate an environmentally-safe, individual, on-site sewage disposal system. At the same time, such developments should not be wasteful of the land resource.

h) Large lot residential developments proposing any additional accesses (driveways) on to a provincial highway should be prohibited.

i) New developments should not impede the primary function of highways to move traffic safely and efficiently.

j) Major intensive livestock operations (ILOs) should be prohibited from locating close to:

Any existing major ILO that is located close to an urban centre or a residential area should be prohibited from expanding. At the same time, existing major ILOs, which are not close to such areas, should be protected from encroachment by residential development or other incompatible uses, unless suitable mitigative measures are first taken.

k) Development should be directed away from prime agricultural lands to lower class lands where reasonable. Where small-scale subdivisions are permitted, they should be in existing treed areas or should be infill or remnant parcel situations.

2.4.3 Urban Development

a) Most new residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and recreational growth should be directed to existing urban centres within the Capital Region. Therefore, the following urban-like uses should be directed to urban centres:

• are intended primarily to serve the travelling public,
• are intended primarily to serve the farm community, and
• may cause significant nuisances or hazards in urban settings.

b) The provincial government could 'designate' the urban centres in the Capital Region. Most growth in the region could be directed to these designated urban centres.

c) Future growth within urban centres could be clearly delineated in development plans with clear limits to urban expansion so as to assist in reducing sprawl.

d) Due to the enormous public investment in the infrastructure of existing urban centres, new urban centres should be discouraged from forming or evolving in the Capital Region.

e) Developments that would significantly detract from or weaken downtowns should be discouraged due to the significant public infrastructure investment already in place, as well as the social and historical significance of these downtowns.

f) In urban centres outside of Winnipeg, most commercial facilities, public offices, institutional facilities, intensive indoor recreational facilities and like uses, should be directed to the downtowns of those centres.

g) In order to help revitalize the downtowns of Winnipeg and Selkirk, residential development should be encouraged to locate in and near their downtowns. In association with this recommended policy direction, governments could be encouraged to adopt live-near-your-work, mixed use, downtown-first and liveable-communities policies.

h) As a part of live-near-your-work or liveable-communities policies, new residential developments in Winnipeg could include commercial and compatible light industrial development to encourage the development of mixed use or livable-communities neighbourhoods.

i) The City of Winnipeg has a number of significant 'mainstreet' areas in neighbourhoods with a variety of existing shops and services. These should be further encouraged to develop so as to enhance the 'mixed use' or liveable-communities concept in Winnipeg.

j) Governments should continue to implement programs with the intent of further encouraging developers to re-develop and build new residential and commercial development in Winnipeg's inner city and the older areas of Selkirk.

k) The priority for development in urban centres should take place in the following order:

l) New growth should be compact, and should be directed to areas where expansion of piped and other public services and infrastructure are minimized. New development should be encouraged to avoid 'leap frogging' over open or undeveloped 'greenfield' areas.

m) The renewal and revitalization of the inner city of Winnipeg should be a priority. New land uses viewed by the City of Winnipeg and the provincial government, as leading to the further deterioration of the inner city should be discouraged.

n) New developments in the City of Winnipeg such as major industrial, commercial or residential development should occur in areas accessible to existing transit routes.

o) The potential number of urban residential lots should be required to bear a reasonable relationship to demand. The municipal and regional supply and demand of urban residential lots in the Capital Region as a whole could be taken into account.

p) In order to protect the public infrastructure investment of existing commercial areas, the establishment of additional major commercial areas in the City of Winnipeg and other urban centres should be discouraged.

q) Urban centres should promote compact development within their boundaries. To this end, unserviced large lot or rural residential development should not be located within the boundaries of urban centres.

WHERE WE LIVE

WHAT DO YOU THINK? WOULD THE ABOVE NOTED POLICY DIRECTIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUES? ARE THERE OTHER RELATED POLICY DIRECTIONS WHICH COULD BE ADDED? WOULD ANY OF THESE POLICIES HELP TO IMPROVE WHERE WE LIVE?

2.5 Agriculture

Agriculture is a major industry in the Capital Region. Most of the Capital Region is prime agricultural land and is therefore suitable for most types of crop production. In addition, the agricultural sector is an important part of the economies of all municipalities in the Capital Region, including Winnipeg. Therefore, the conservation of agricultural land and activities is very important.

The continued fragmentation of agricultural land and conversion of land from agricultural uses poses an increasing problem for the farm community. Not only is there a loss of agricultural land, but there is the so-called 'shadow effect' of residential development. Residents demand protection from odour, noise and dust, leading to further restrictions on farmers who use the adjacent lands.

RPAC IS CONSIDERING PROPOSING THAT THE FOLLOWING GENERAL POLICY DIRECTIONS BE USED BY THE PROVINCE IN THE FORMULATION OF ITS POLICY PLAN FOR THE CAPITAL REGION:

A number of related policy directions have already been stated in previous sections. The following should also be considered:

a) Agriculture should remain an important part of the Capital Region. It should be encouraged and, where reasonable, be protected from encroachment by incompatible uses.

b) New programs and policies could be developed to protect agricultural land and farm operations.

c) Residential and other forms of development should be compact, should not be in proximity to livestock operations, and should not contribute to the unnecessary or premature use of prime agricultural land.

d) When it is considered appropriate to develop on prime agricultural land, such uses should not be wasteful of land.

e) The provincial government already has in place a successful program of assessing lands being farmed at agricultural rates (despite their higher value if near urban centres or if designated for development purposes) so that taxes can remain relatively low. The provincial government could also examine the feasibility of establishing incentive programs to further assist farmers in an attempt to take the economic pressure off of them to subdivide.

AGRICULTURE

WHAT DO YOU THINK? WOULD THE ABOVE NOTED POLICY DIRECTIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUES? ARE THERE OTHER RELATED POLICY DIRECTIONS WHICH COULD BE ADDED? SHOULD WE PRESERVE AGRICULTURE IN THE CAPITAL REGION?

2.6 Are the Capital Region's Boundaries Appropriate?

As currently defined, the Capital Region includes 16 municipalities (see Map C1 in Appendix C). However, the provincial government has asked the RPAC to provide advice as to whether the boundaries are appropriate.

The original Capital Region boundaries were determined in 1989, on the basis of including all municipalities which bordered on Winnipeg, plus the three municipalities north of East St. Paul and West St. Paul because it was known there was significant development activity in these areas. Stonewall and Selkirk were later added.

However, it is also known that Winnipeg's commutershed includes a number of other areas beyond the current Capital Region boundaries (see Map C2 in Appendix C). For example, the RMs of Brokenhead (which is already surrounded on three sides by the Capital Region), Ste. Anne, Hanover, De Salaberry, Morris and even La Broquerie; the Towns of Beausejour, Niverville, Ste. Anne and Teulon (which is also surrounded by the Capital Region's Rockwood); and the City of Steinbach. (Interestingly, it is estimated that the City of Steinbach has more commuters coming to it from Winnipeg, than going to Winnipeg.).

The Capital Region boundaries could approximately follow the Winnipeg commutershed.

Another consideration would be to use, as COSDI recommended, basin or watershed boundaries (see Map C2). The advantage to this is that it would be a more natural boundary rather than using 'artificial' administrative lines. However, since development planning involves significant legal issues, there could be problems if the municipal boundaries are not followed.

It may be possible to combine the watershed boundary and the commutershed boundary while adjusting for municipal boundaries.

Other boundary considerations could be to use the original Winnipeg Region Study (1971-75) boundaries (see Map C2), which included all or parts of 30 municipalities.

The RPAC will be examining this issue further prior to making a recommendation to the provincial government and welcomes your input on this matter.

CAPITAL REGION BOUNDARIES

WHAT DO YOU THINK? ARE THE CURRENT CAPITAL REGION BOUNDARIES APPROPRIATE? SHOULD THEY MORE CLOSELY FOLLOW THE KNOWN COMMUTERSHED (SEE MAP C2 IN APPENDIX C)? OR SHOULD IT INCLUDE SOME OTHER AREA?

For more information contact capitalregion@gov.mb.ca

Table of Contents