Secondary Suites - Page 4

DizzyEdge · #61 Posted **Feb 14, 2011, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

Yep, but unless they adjust the rules you can walk into the CPA office with your lease and your vehicle registration showing you live on the street and get a permit. That may help a bit, but if every renter goes and gets a permit you'll be back to square one.

Have a rule of only allowing X number of passes per address, dependant on lot width?

Policy Wonk · #62 Posted **Feb 14, 2011, 8:44 PM**

Well, I guess you could do that - or you could just allow or disallow secondary suites based on a parking survey of the immediate area on a case-by-case basis.

DizzyEdge · #63 Posted **Feb 14, 2011, 9:36 PM**

One problem with the "must provide a parking space" for secondary suites is that there seems to be no concern about houses that have no on-property parking to begin with, ie a house with no on-property parking that wants to be a 2-suite house only needs one spot to be approved (Am I wrong?). If this is the case, perhaps the rule should be that if you want to put in a secondary suite, there must be 2 spots total on the lot.

A document from Coquitlam says "You must provide one extra parking space for the suite in addition to the two spaces already required for the main house on the lot."

Looks like the 2 spots is the bylaw for new construction in Coquitlam.

Lets say a current standard exists in Calgary that 2 spaces are required for a new house.
If your house is older than that standard, it's grandfathered in.
If you suite your house, it's no longer grandfathered, and you need 3 spots total, 2 for the main, 1 for the suite.

DizzyEdge · #64 Posted **Feb 15, 2011, 11:38 PM**

^^^ any thoughts on that?

MalcolmTucker · #65 Posted **Feb 15, 2011, 11:43 PM**

I would say Calgary better look into a bylaw for preventing yard conversions to parking areas if a parking requirement is put in. Some areas of Toronto have lost lawns as upzoning has happened.

Not that I am overly worried about lost lawns - just needs some process.

freeweed · #66 Posted **Feb 16, 2011, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I would say Calgary better look into a bylaw for preventing yard conversions to parking areas if a parking requirement is put in. Some areas of Toronto have lost lawns as upzoning has happened.

Not that I am overly worried about lost lawns - just needs some process.

Yeah, I've noticed a ton of that in Toronto. I'm with you though - while it looks a bit shocking at first to see zero lawn space, to be honest who cares? If you want a lawn, buy a house with one. If you want parking, buy that.

Related question - many people in the suburbs on corner lots convert part of their lawn to a trailer pad for large RV type units. Is this in any way regulated/controlled/restricted? Isn't this basically the same thing?

mersar · #67 Posted **Feb 16, 2011, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

Yeah, I've noticed a ton of that in Toronto. I'm with you though - while it looks a bit shocking at first to see zero lawn space, to be honest who cares? If you want a lawn, buy a house with one. If you want parking, buy that.

Related question - many people in the suburbs on corner lots convert part of their lawn to a trailer pad for large RV type units. Is this in any way regulated/controlled/restricted? Isn't this basically the same thing?

Not sure what the rules in the city are, but I know that Cochrane has a bylaw that essentially bans parking of RV's on a residential property between Oct 1 and Apr 1, even if its a parking pad off a back lane. And you also can't park them on the street for more then 72 hours at any time of the year (this latter part I believe the city also has a bylaw doing similar). So regulation is possible, not sure what the city has in terms of rules though.

As for converting lawn space into parking pads, I believe its pretty doable, though you do have to abide by a number of rules on setbacks and access (so putting a parking pad in your front lawn may be harder then it sounds depending on what road you live on)

LFRENCH · #68 Posted **Feb 16, 2011, 6:45 AM**

anyone going to the LPT tomorrow morning? I will hopefully be there

MalcolmTucker · #69 Posted **Feb 17, 2011, 1:14 AM**

So we have an answer from the city lawyer:

Quote:

markusoff
city lawyer: owner-occupied suite rule murky in law, nightmare in enforcement #suiteyyc

You Need A Thneed · #70 Posted **Feb 23, 2011, 11:46 PM**

Alderwoman Diane Colley-Urquhart appears to be blatently lying on twitter, saying that the crowd at the secondary suites open house last night was overwhelmingly against suites. All those in attendance, including the Mayor, seem to wholeheartedly disagree.

Apparently she hasn't read her own survey, either, considering it gives fairly overwhelming support in favour of legalized suites.

danofkent · #71 Posted **Feb 24, 2011, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

Yeah, I've noticed a ton of that in Toronto. I'm with you though - while it looks a bit shocking at first to see zero lawn space, to be honest who cares? If you want a lawn, buy a house with one. If you want parking, buy that.

Related question - many people in the suburbs on corner lots convert part of their lawn to a trailer pad for large RV type units. Is this in any way regulated/controlled/restricted? Isn't this basically the same thing?

The loss of lawn space has a knock on impact. Britain allowed development in peoples' yards in the 1980s, and reversed that position last year. Lawns provide drainage, which concrete does not. In areas of Britain where so-called "garden-grabbing" has been rampant, flooding has become a real problem.

It's true that RV parking areas are unrestricted, but a policy which encourages suites and requires associated parking will make the situation more common. Moreover, I gather that garden suites are also permitted under the proposals, and they potentially take up even more potential drainage space.

DizzyEdge · #72 Posted **Feb 24, 2011, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

Yeah, I've noticed a ton of that in Toronto. I'm with you though - while it looks a bit shocking at first to see zero lawn space, to be honest who cares? If you want a lawn, buy a house with one. If you want parking, buy that.

Related question - many people in the suburbs on corner lots convert part of their lawn to a trailer pad for large RV type units. Is this in any way regulated/controlled/restricted? Isn't this basically the same thing?

But....

WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN PLAY

MalcolmTucker · #73 Posted **Feb 26, 2011, 7:51 PM**

Thought I would share a page of the poll we had done during the 2007 municipal election on secondary suites with Ward by Ward breakdowns. The wards have around a 11% plus or minus (assuming 75,000 people per ward), whereas the entire sample has a 3.1% plus or minus.

monocle · #74 Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 3:47 PM**

Does anyone have the Cole's notes from the 12 hour Council meeting?

Any guesses on what we will end up with, regarding SS?

You Need A Thneed · #75 Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 4:01 PM**

^No city wide suites now, that will wait until December or next year, when two suite building alderman can again vote.

Suites became permitted where they were before discretionary. (removing the development permit stage, basically)

City is going to recommend building code updates to make the cost of a suite a little bit less.

Wooster · #76 Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 4:03 PM**

We'll get there.

MalcolmTucker · #77 Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 4:48 PM**

Yeah, is a big step. In the last few days I remember seeing that people had been waiting almost a year for their DPs in their R-2 zones for suites. Now all they need is DPs right? Big progress and lays an easy framework to expand it either for proximity zones or blanket rezoning.

Sometimes if you can't make a touchdown, a first down is just as important.

You Need A Thneed · #78 Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 4:51 PM**

double post

You Need A Thneed · #79 Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, is a big step. In the last few days I remember seeing that people had been waiting almost a year for their DPs in their R-2 zones for suites. Now all they need is DPs right? Big progress and lays an easy framework to expand it either for proximity zones or blanket rezoning.

Sometimes if you can't make a touchdown, a first down is just as important.

Yup, they just need BPs now. For the affected areas, it's a huge step. Getting a BP is pretty easy, and there is no question about whether it will be able to be approved. If it meets code, you can build it.

Cage · #80 Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 5:12 PM**

Overall good debate from Council on secondary suites. Some points that I liked:
- Recognition the "master plan" proposal did not adequately have a an enforcement provision for illegal secondary suites. I strongly believe that enforcement of illegal safety suites is a major point of any secondary suite discussion.
- Recognition that the mast plan did not change much in other Canadian cities. More appropriately, as Brian Pincott mention in the papers, Calgarians are not going to spend 25-50k to get the current nonconforming suites legalized.
- best line goes to Brian Pincott "If Calgary did it, it won’t destroy neighbourhoods or be a "panacea" for affordable housing" (Calgary Herald).

The study on safety code changes for the province's consideration will be very interesting. I suspect the changes will be quite minor and not affect the overall cost of building a safe secondary suite.

Keating's and Mar's opinion in December will be great for debate purposes. Convention wisdom is that Ketting and Mar will side with the pro-secondary suite everywhere crowd. However I suspect at least one of the Alderman to take the opinion that they were able to jump through the cities regulations with little fuss, therefore rules for safety code should stay in their entirety and present system would only require minor adjustments (e.g. I did it so anybody can do it).

So overall it looks like late 2012 or early 2013 is the dates when Secondary Suite changes could take effect. My timeline is based on assumptions the studies are complete by November/December 2011 and council starts to provide direction on revised bylaws in first half 2012 for a late 2012 implementation. Considering civic politics timeline is longer than average, this takes the City to about early 2013. That said if Council hinges the Secondary Suites changes to provincial safety code changes, it could be 2014 or 2015 before Secondary Suites come into effect. Nenshi's relection campaign will probably get some cost savings for not having to invent another Better Idea #1, just use the previous materials and talking points.