|
CITY OF VANCOUVER
|
-1.gif)
MEMORANDUM March 8, 2004
TO: |
Mayor and Councillors (at Public Hearing) |
CC: |
Judy Rogers, City Manager
|
FROM: |
Cameron Gray, Director, Housing Centre |
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing on Secondary Suites |
The following information is provided in response to questions raised during the Public Hearing on the evening of March 1, 2004.
Suites in Duplexes
Two speakers raised the issue of allowing suites in duplexes in RT zones, thus creating four-plexes. RT zones allow additional units in existing buildings, however, there are density limits contained in the zoning or the accompanying guidelines. The density limits are intended to establish a reasonable level of development and minimize the impact on neighbouring properties, for matters such as parking on residential streets, overlook and privacy, noise, etc. Many existing buildings in RT areas provide no on-site parking.
For example, one of the speakers owns a duplex in RT-8 (staff also note that the property is the subject of City-initiated court action). That zoning allows what is called a multiple conversion dwelling, where additional units may be added, but the zoning places a specific upper limit on the number of units, in this case 74 units per hectare. On a 50-foot wide lot a duplex plus two suites would be possible. The speaker's duplex occupies a 25 ft. wide lot. In this instance 74 units per acre equals 2 units.
Regulations in RT zones were developed through local area planning processes. Staff believe that reviews of duplex zoning might best occur through a Community Visioning program where housing density can be considered in the broader context of neighbourhood livability and services. While secondary suites have been considered in the visioning to date, and there is general support for their legalization, visioning has yet to take place in the RT neighbourhoods.
Owner Occupancy
During the 1970s the City of Vancouver established an owner occupancy requirement for suites permitted in RS-1A areas. The regulation was difficult to administer and posed problems when an owner took an extended holiday or a temporary relocation for business reasons, resulting in the need to close the suite. After experience with the owner occupancy provision the rezoning was amended to remove this requirement. Staff have sympathy with the concerns of nearby residents where a house with a suite or multiple suites is not maintained. The recommended action is to address the few owners who do not manage their properties adequately, through enforcement of the Standards of Maintenance and License By-laws, not by a blanket restriction that will only serve to discourage legalization.
Limiting Suite Size
Staff are recommending overall simplification of the rules and procedures. Deriving a suitable size for a secondary suite would be difficult. The City may wish to encourage larger suites for families. Limiting the size of the suite will not address the concerns of those who spoke about `monster' houses, as the same floor area would be allowed, and just the suite size will be affected. Often the basement area serves as a self-limiting factor as owners utilize just the basement for the suite.
Parking Provision
New construction single family dwellings would be required to install the second parking space as part of the process to legalize a suite. While this provision is not part of the proposed zoning by-law changes, it will be specifically outlined as a Council policy, as will sprinklers and non-stratification.
Internal Access
The existence of an internal connection provides greater flexibility for the future use of a house which may shift, depending on the needs of the occupants, between a single family and two household dwelling. While not usually considered necessary for emergency egress, continued retention of such access may be of use during emergency situations such as a fire.
Staff suggest some flexibility for existing houses (those built prior to enactment of the new zoning) where the internal access has been removed. While staff would prefer to see the stairs re-instated, there is a cost involved. Therefore, Council if it wishes could have a policy of not requiring re-installation of a staircase in an existing house. The Chief Building Official (CBO) is concerned that loss of the internal connection could lead to disconnection of smoke alarms following false alarms. The CBO would propose some compensatory measures in this case.
Grace Period on Fees
The proposal to collect license, development and building permit fees is based on cost recovery. Council could ask staff to report back on a grace period as part of a public awareness program aimed at having owners come forward to legalize their suites.
Utility Fees
Staff have reviewed several studies of the costs of servicing a secondary suite.
Fees for a suite amount to $155 a year, compared to $419 for a single family dwelling, established by Engineering Services on a cost recovery basis.
Sewer $139 (sfd) $ 49 (suite)
Water $264 (sfd) $ 94 (suite)
Recycling $ 16 (sfd) $ 12 (suite)
$419 (sfd) $155 (suite)
Licensing Fee
The business license establishes a clear link between the owner and the operation of the suite. Maintaining the requirement for a business license allows the City to use its show cause process to enforce its by-laws in the event the secondary suite poses a nuisance to neighbours through mismanagement. All rental housing requires a business license fee for this reason.
Scheduling
Pertaining to the yellow memo, Legal Services has indicated that proceeding with debate and decision on the RS-1 and RS-5 areas on March 9 is the preferred course of action, followed by a clearly separate Public Hearing process on March 25 for the areas omitted in the display ad. The alternative where Council reserves its debate and decision on both Public Hearings to the regular Council meeting of April 6 and concludes on all areas at that time presents potential legal issues.
If you have any questions, please call Rob Whitlock at 604-873-7432, or myself.
Cameron Gray
Phone: 604-873-7207
/cg/rww
secondary suites Mar 8.doc