EFCL disappointed to see the ammendments fail
On December 12, 2007, City Council passed a new Zoning Bylaw to significantly change the development rules for secondary suites in single family homes and in detached garages. This bylaw is one of several changes expected to the way Edmonton plans and regulates land use in order to increase opportunities for lower cost affordable housing. EFCL and community leagues have been calling for changes of that nature for more than 4 years.
Intended solely for rentals, the new Bylaw allows single family homes at corner locations, near commercial and apartment sites and along service roads to be converted by adding a second self-contained dwelling (eg. secondary suite) in the basement or second storey. Alternatively, the detached garage of a single family home at those same locations may be converted by adding a second storey for the second self-contained dwelling. Even though the new Zoning Bylaw affects only a select number of low density residential Zones, it applies to every neighbourhood in the City except for 8 easterly communities.
EFCL, acting on direction from community leagues and a survey of community league leaders, actively supported the relaxing of rules to enable homeowners to add to our city’s supply of affordable housing. However, EFCL was disappointed in having been left out of the consultation process and was equally disappointed that a number of improvements supported by community leagues to address major shortcomings were not accepted.
Local concerns set aside – fundamental changes in store for neighbourhoods
The Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues, representing all of Edmonton’s 150 community leagues, attended City Council’s December 12 Public Hearing to oppose the new Zoning Bylaw. In doing so, EFCL did not oppose secondary suites, but merely the extreme changes proposed for how they will happen. In fact, based on a few recommended improvements, EFCL strongly supported the bylaw.
The recommended improvements were:
A few Councillors understood and agreed with some improvements, but overall City Council did not accept any of them and passed the new Zoning Bylaw unchanged.
Communities support secondary suites – but are excluded from consultation
It is worth remembering that community leagues are far ahead of the City in promoting secondary suites as one way to get more affordable housing. In 2003, two years before the City even started thinking about this, community leagues had already agreed that secondary suites should be allowed as discretionary uses in every single family home in every neighbourhood. It was therefore unfortunate when community leagues were the only stakeholder group excluded from consultations when the City looked at the idea in 2005.
That explains why it was so difficult for EFCL to have to oppose this bylaw.
But an adversarial position was the only option left considering that community leagues were both disappointed and concerned with how the bylaw was written and presented –
-
disappointed that the City has not gone far enough to spread the opportunities more widely and equitably; and
-
concerned that the City was proposing unnecessarily extreme changes to this particular kind of housing.
To be sure EFCL accurately represented community leagues, the president of every community league and a sample of civics/planning committee chairs from those leagues were surveyed before the Public Hearing. The result showed EFCL’s decision to ask for improvements to the new Zoning Bylaw was strongly supported.
Community Leagues’ Disappointments and Concerns
The new Zoning Bylaw failed to meet community leagues’ expectations in two ways.
-
First, it did not ensure the opportunity for owners of single family homes to add secondary suites is available equitably and fairly within all neighbourhoods, or equitably and fairly among all neighbourhoods.
-
Secondly, it introduced major changes to the way secondary suites will be permitted and to the land use affects they will have on adjacent properties. Some changes may have profound implications for neighbourhood character and community stability.
Inequitable distribution - The new Zoning Bylaw continues to limit the opportunity to selective locations only – at corners, and along service roads, and near commercial or apartment buildings. In addition it will have greater implications for older mature neighbourhoods than for suburban ones, and it exempts eight neighbourhoods entirely.
94% of the community league leaders who responded to EFCL’s survey agreed that neighbourhoods should be treated equitably and none should have preferential treatment.
Instead of making the opportunity universal right from the start, City staff proposed a two-step approach – first, make some fairly radical rule changes but for limited areas only, and second, study how those new changes are working over 12 to 18 months to correct any unforeseen problems discovered in that period before extending opportunities to other locations. While a piecemeal approach is neither necessary nor helpful (communities already want the rules relaxed on where secondary suites can be located), there is merit to delaying universal application because of the many unrelated and unexpected changes made to the process and nature of secondary suites development. Communities were never clearly told that the secondary suites they know and understand today are not the ones they will get with the new Zoning Bylaw.
However, with the exception of Councillor Anderson, City Council did not accept that cautious approach and gave staff only 8 months to prepare a report on the extension.
Unrelated and unexpected changes – The new Zoning Bylaw contained several changes to secondary suites from the way they have been defined and treated up until now. Those changes substantially alter the rights and options of affected neighbours and the communities that will host secondary suites in future. They involve giving permitted status to secondary suite conversions and increasing the allowable intensity of the physical development, making them potentially less compatible.
Permitted Status – more potential for local conflict – With the new Zoning Bylaw, secondary suites in certain places are now Permitted (as-of-right) and are no longer subject to a reasoned decision-making process. They must be allowed despite any problem that might arise, and the City can no longer impose conditions on the suite to ensure a good fit with its neighbours, or stop it if a good fit is not possible.
The new Zoning Bylaw removes the right of City staff to consider how appropriate the secondary suite might be in its setting, and removes their ability to require the owner to make changes to resolve any problems that might arise. It also removes the right of neighbours to be told the suite is being built and removes their right to raise and talk about any potential worries beforehand. Removing those normally standard safeguards greatly heightens the chance of pitting neighbour against neighbour, with no process to resolve it.
In light of that change, EFCL made two recommendations for improvement.
First, EFCL recommended that secondary suites be allowed, not as-of-right, but as the result of trained City staff reviewing the possible implications and affects on other parts of the neighbourhood and preserving the rights of people affected by it to be involved. That is a status called discretionary in Edmonton’s Zoning regulation.
Second, EFCL recommended that the owner of the property with a secondary suite or garage suite must reside there. In EFCL’s opinion, having the owner live in the same place gives significantly greater assurance of good property maintenance and neighbourliness. It also allows for direct neighbour-to-neighbour conversation and problem solving should a disagreement ever arise, unlike the hardship of finding and then negotiating with an absentee landlord. Finally, one of the major benefits of secondary suites is that they allow people who otherwise would not be able to afford home ownership to earn some offsetting income, like young families and senior citizens. This ensures affordable housing for both renters and for owners, and lessens the potential for speculation and absentee investments in single family homes solely to convert them to two rental units without any checks and balances. Community planners agree that home ownership is a positive factor in community stability.
EFCL refuted arguments by City staff that making ownership a condition of a use of land is not allowed in law. There is nothing in the MGA that prohibits a city from making tenure a condition of acceptance for a particular land use. In fact, the MGA is silent on that matter – it neither says it is allowed nor does it say it is prohibited. EFCL cited examples where a multitude of British Columbia municipalities make owner residency a condition and research by CMHC indicates BC’s laws are similarly ambiguous on that matter. Further, the new Zoning Bylaw itself already sets the precedent of regulation by tenure, since it says that even though secondary and garage suites are completely suitable land uses, they must be occupied by renters – they cannot be owned by their residents in any way, not even as a condominium.
-
68% of community league leaders responding to the survey supported EFCL’s recommendation that owner residency be a condition for adding a secondary suite or garage suite to a single detached home.
-
While no Council members supported the recommendation outright, 5 Councillors did agree that further study would be worthwhile; 8 disagreed.
Increased Development Intensity – A number of changes contained in the new Zoning Bylaw increase the dissimilarity between single family homes and single family homes with secondary suites. That is directly contrary to the argument that secondary suites are fully compatible in a low density neighbourhood because they are difficult to distinguish. One such change is that the site density for single family homes with secondary suites can now be double that of adjacent single detached homes. The new Zoning Bylaw allows single family homes with suites to have a density equal to that of 4 storey stacked rowhousing, which is more than 30% greater than what is allowed even for town houses.
This increased density is expected to impact older mature neighbourhoods more than suburban neighbourhoods, since the there is a greater supply of small lots in older areas. Even though small lots are allowed in suburban communities, they are generally larger in response to market demands.
Other changes may have affects as well. Garages in back yards, presently limited to 12' in height, may go as high as 20' if a suite is added. The implication for older neighbourhoods is that the potential to block sunlight access to neighbouring back yards is more likely. Assured access to back yard sunlight was one of the driving principles of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay; a principle now jeopardized by the new development rules.
In response to those changes, EFCL recommended the new Zoning Bylaw be improved by leaving the density for homes with secondary suites unchanged (roughly the same as the density for row housing). That means homes with secondary suites would be treated the same as homes with garage suites, since in fact they both produce the same impacts on their neighbours.
Assurance of active participation – A final request to City Council was in response to the lack of meaningful consultation and involvement, especially as community leagues are fully supportive of the overriding goal for secondary suites as affordable housing.
Community leagues, at the forefront of the secondary suite initiative, were not invited to participate in the design and writing of the new rules. Research shows conclusively that successful public acceptance of enhanced secondary suite opportunities in other cities is directly related to the level of involvement of all the stakeholders that are or will be affected, and especially the communities that will be called upon to welcome those new units and populations. Community leagues could have contributed to a much better and more balanced set of zoning rules.
For that reason, EFCL asked City Council for assurance that community leagues will be invited to actively participate in future studies around secondary suites.
Table - Voting results – three related motions:
|
Member of Council
|
AMEND BYLAW to keep some Zones for “discretionary” versus “permitted” status for secondary suites
|
Research the possibility of requiring the landowner of a secondary or garage suite to also live on-site
|
Research the incidence of secondary suites being used for unregulated care delivery
|
|
S Mandel
|
Mayor
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
K Leibovici
|
Ward 1
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
L Sloan
|
Ward 1
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
R Hayter
|
Ward 2
|
√
|
√
|
x
|
|
K Krushell
|
Ward 2
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
E Gibbons
|
Ward 3
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
T Caterina
|
Ward 3
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
J Batty
|
Ward 4
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
B Henderson
|
Ward 4
|
x
|
√
|
√
|
|
B Anderson
|
Ward 5
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
D Iveson
|
Ward 5
|
x
|
x
|
√
|
|
D Thiele
|
Ward 6
|
x
|
x
|
√
|
|
A Sohi
|
Ward 6
|
x
|
√
|
√
|
|
|
|
LOST
|
LOST
|
LOST
|
|
|
|
3 to 10
|
5 to 8
|
6 to 7
|
------------------------
Report prepared 2007 12 21 by Brian J Kropf, ACP MCIP, EFCL Community Planning Advisor