|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wednesday, February 04, 2009 |
|
Controversial Secondary Suites Bylaw is Passed
By Bev @ 4:24 PM :: 4367 Views ::
13 Comments ::  :: Planning Matters - Civic Affairs, City of Edmonton News
|
 |
On February 2nd, Edmonton City Council passed Bylaw 15036 which relaxes rules governing secondary suites, and allows garage and garden suites. Secondary suites (basement or above ground) will now be a permitted use in every house. Previously, secondary suites were restricted to specific locations. Now the City “may exercise discretion” and allow Garage Suites and stand- alone Garden Suites on corner lots, lots fronting onto a service road, or backing onto a lane adjacent to an arterial road, or lots adjacent to multiple unit housing or a park. Community Leagues and adjacent residents will not be notified of applications for secondary suites, but they will be notified of Garage and Garden Suites.
City Council considered EFCL’s recommendations, presented at the Public Hearings in November and January, to make secondary suites a discretionary use in owner-occupied buildings, and review the rules around parking, along with the height of garage suites. City Council debated the issues, but in the end they chose relaxed rules for development of “affordable rental suites”.
However, Council did understand EFCL’s preference for secondary suites in owner-occupied houses. A motion was passed asking City Administration to report on the option of tying the Cornerstone Grant Funding, for suite construction, to owner-occupied sites.
Council also made a motion requiring City Administration to report back to City Council in 2010 with a report on the number of permits issued, the increase in the number of affordable units, and concerns as a result of Bylaw 10536.
EFCL believes that the concerns of its members should also be reported to City Council in 2010. EFCL encourages Community League members to monitor the development of secondary, garden and garage suites over the next year. |
|
|
|
|
| Comments |
 By
Alla Ternikova @
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:43 PM
|
|
I think that secondary suites permits got a really bad reputation for no reason. I do not think that after the new rules will be implemented, EVERY house on the block will get a secondary suit. People understand well that to have a renter is a huge responsibility. On other hand, our city has one of the least density of the population per square foot of private housing. Facing the population growth and upcoming recession, it is a good idea to give people a choice of making an extra income and easing the affordable housing shortage. It is a myth that EVERY secondary suite renter is going to be a drank and a troublemaker. How about the growing population of students, young professionals who do not want to be tight with a homeowner responsibilities, elderly people who will appreciate low rent and a "family" surrounding? It is very easy to find negatives in everything. Let's look into positives of this programs. As with any issue, any upcoming wrinkles can be smoothed up with common sense and good neighborhood spirit.
|
|
|
|
By
Dave @
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:59 PM
|
This is the EFCL making much ado about nothing.
We have a massive issue with the lack of low income housing, and this is one very positive way in addressing those concerns. It's not like everyone and their dog will now open up a secondary suite...
|
|
|
|
By
Kim @
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:39 PM
|
|
I also think that the EFCL is making too much of an issue with this. I think this is a step in the right direction, there is a lack of housing and low income housing. Plus this will open the doors for people with Illegal suites to bring them up to code without worrying about being told to evict. I think this is a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
By
Rob McDonald, Strathcona @
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:48 PM
|
|
I'm pleased with this Zoning Bylaw amendment. The agents on the Fifth Floor can't be depended on to wield their boss' discretion properly. Therefore, it's best that every homeowner has the right to develop a Secondary Suite. Waiving the need for notice to the adjacent property owners is a good thing too. Renters and owner alike ought to have the right to walk up the sidewalk to their home, without the neighbours knowing their tenancy status. Getting a permit for a suite means that the construction must comply with the safety requirements of the Alberta Building Code. Not every crappy basement suite will automatically become legitimate. Cheating will continue, of course, but now we finally have an alternative.
|
|
|
|
By
ross @
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:28 PM
|
|
All I have to say is the can of worms is now open these aldermen will not be around to ever close it.
|
|
|
|
By
Inskip Spencer @
Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:47 AM
|
|
It appears to me that most Edmontonians are not keen on having strangers or for that matter onyone live in their homes as renters. It only a few of us whjo for various and assorted reasons have opted for this opportunity. I applaud the city for showing compassion on families or seniors who can do with the extra income; and and also those who need affordable or family oriented living accommodation.
|
|
|
|
By
Chris @
Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:25 AM
|
|
I don't believe the secondary suites are the issue, rather the garage and garden suites. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
By
Paul Cachia @
Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:59 PM
|
|
I would like to know where all the money is coming from to give grants to a maximum of 24K to homeowners to develop secondary suites. I am not in favour of the grants at all. It's taxpayers money being provided to support income supplements for homeowners who choose to develop suites.
|
|
|
|
By
denise palmer @
Thursday, February 05, 2009 6:40 PM
|
|
Some city areas have very low density, and they probably will stay that way. The more dense inner-city areas, like Garneau and Oliver already have large populations and there has been no limit set on how dense they can grow. Without some sort of limit Edmonton may well be encouraging the formation of crime-ridden rental-only ghettos that have been so problematic in other cities.
|
|
|
|
By
Alla Ternikova @
Friday, February 06, 2009 4:14 PM
|
There is a need to iron out details:
1.How many suits one can build?Nobody wants 20 people crammed int o 3 bedroom house. Right?
2.How many people will be allowed to occupy each room?How many people will be allowed to share one bathroom?Those are health concerns.
3.Garden suits and garage suites should not be permitted because of overall neighborhood design.Nobody would want to see their neighborhood looks like a camp ground or a tent city.
4.What about parking?Now every neighborhood is full with cars parked outside garages, while the garages are full with junk. Should that be illegal? What is going to happened when two, three families in one household will be in need to find places for their cars?
4.Are we going to have periodic audits of those suites?Who will be responsible for making sure that no health or social problems are piling up in the neighborhood?
I bet that there are much more concerns will arise with this new approach. I am very confident that it is a very good initiative and it will help many involved sides.I think it would help to listen to proposals and ideas from professionals and general public on how to make it work in the best way and help to avoid problems in the future. The easiest way is to continue to say "It's all bad, it's all bad" with out providing any alternative ideas on how to remedy the challenge. How about for every criticism one should provide an alternative solution?
|
|
|
|
By
Yvette Cioran @
Saturday, February 07, 2009 12:24 PM
|
|
I love the idea of building a garden suite. I have a double lot with a wonderful garden and a little studio suite with garden doors would be a beautiful enhancement to my living situation. Our house is small and we are a family of six. It is a bit cramped when the in-laws come and I know that they would love to stay in garden suite. It would be a wonderful oasis that my teenage girls could use as they mature into students. I'm so happy this came about.
|
|
|
|
By
G. Faurschou @
Monday, February 09, 2009 11:59 PM
|
Unfortunately, many don't understand the details of this issue. The community leagues SUPPORTED the right for owners of houses to develop and build suites and rent them out. What they opposed was the right for companies that have no connection to the community to buy up as many houses as they can and operate them as commercial properties. In Vancouver this is big business and most tenants are managed through intermediary rental companies. Of course, anyone can set themselves as such a company to buy and rent houses and build suites, but usually the bigger companies can use the economics of scale to outbid for houses and to convert them to suites cheaply on mass. The objection of the community leagues was that these landlords have no investment in the social or volunteer life of communities and will not contribute to the fostering of neighbourhood relationships. The fear is that by focusing only on the maximum profit they can make, they will not be reciprocal neighbours, they will not look out for the well being of schools, children and seniors. In Vancouver my experience is that tenants were not thrilled with how these companies dealt with them and moved to condos as soon as they could afford it. The other issue is that only middle to low income neighbourhoods will be affected by this as more expensive neighbourhoods will have taxes and costs that are unattractive to such companies. Also anyone who thinks neighbourhood relationships are unimportant should read Jane Jacobs famous book: The Death and Life of American Cities. As she has said one of the most important aspects of safe and community oriented neighbourhoods is knowing your neighbours and trying to develop various kinds of reciprocity with them over time. This is especially important for the happiness and safety of children but also for seniors who may have no family nearby. For individuals who prefer to keep to themselves, the city is full of anonymous housing opportunities. For those who prefer to live in a community that functions like a village, the opportunity is rare, and the bonds that take time to develop are fragile. No wonder so many people feel lonely in the big city. For a contemporary take on this see the book Bowling Alone by Robert Bellah. It is too bad that so many crucial decisions of social policy are based on so little information. Maybe one day every "property" will be a rental as in many parts of London because the cost of owning anything became so high. And why not, somebody somewhere is making a lot of money by treating housing purely as a commodity and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
|
|
|
|
By
Tester @
Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:05 PM
|
|
Thank you Bev & Peter for getting up to speed in such a short time and finding a few points that really needed attention. We will have to keep an eye on the outcomes
|
|
|
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here
|
|
| Tips
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|