Regulatory Options for Secondary Suites

!
The issue
In the mid-1990s, there was a
growing interest in secondary
suites in Edmonton-area
municipalities. Housing
affordability was becoming an
issue for a growing percentage of
the population, and Alberta’s new
planning legislation required all
municipal governments to provide
for a range of affordable housing
types.
Secondary suites were being
promoted as one option to
increase supply and meet
changing housing needs (allowing
seniors to provide space for
caregivers, or parents to provide
space for older children, for
example, or young homebuyers to
earn rental income to apply to
monthly expenses). In addition, a
number of illegal and potentially
unsafe suites were believed to
exist already, which should be
regulated. St. Albert and Morinville
had previously considered
encouraging secondary suites, but
discarded the idea for a number of
reasons.
"
The plan
In 1997, the City of St.
Albert and the Towns of
Devon, Gibbons and
Morinville decided to pool
resources to:
investigate the market for
secondary suites;
look at experience in
other jurisdictions;
conduct focus groups to
identify community
issues; and
Source: City of St. Albert
A typical neighbourhood in St. Albert
explore code constraints
and regulatory options.
Their primary objective was to
provide solid information for their
four Councils to use in making
informed decisions on land use
bylaws.
The project team
The project team included
representatives from each of the
four Economic Development
and/or Planning and Development
Departments; a St. Albert Building
Code Inspector; a representative
of the Greater Edmonton Home
Builders’ Association (Renovators
Council); a realtor/developer; and
a member of a local residents’
association.
The City of St. Albert agreed to
provide project coordination, while
other members provided
information and their time and
expertise. They were assisted by
consultant Jamie Brown. Code
review was performed by architect
Richard Vanderwell.
The results
The project assembled information on
the availability of affordable housing in
the four municipalities, and on existing
secondary suites. It examined the
literature and experience to determine
occupancy and ownership trends, and
identified political issues. A focus
group held in each municipality
identified local support and concerns.
These included secondary suites’
impact on affordable housing options
and on local neighbourhoods, safety
issues (particularly for illegal suites),
and fiscal implications.
The architect found serious code
obstacles to construction of
basement suites in existing single
family homes. These included
specific requirements for clear
ceiling heights, door heights, exits,
and fire separations. He concluded
that: “the application of the current
Alberta Building Code would most
likely result in more costly, rather
than more affordable construction.”
Three options for regulatory action
were assessed, with pros and cons
for each. The final report
recommended asking the Alberta
government to respond to the
concerns about secondary suites
and code obstacles. Municipal land
use changes were put on hold until
this issue was resolved, although
St. Albert did include an enabling
statement in its plan, and Devon
prepared draft documentation.
Alberta began work on alternative
code requirements for secondary
suites in 1998, but the project ran
into various constraints. However,
in 2002, draft amendments to both
the Building and Fire Codes were
issued for public comment. A
special committee of Members of
Alberta’s Legislative Assembly met
with four municipalities in 2003,
and the committee plans to meet
with another five or six
municipalities in early 2004.
Source: Background Report, Secondary Suites
(St. Albert, Devon, Gibbons and Morinville/Richard Vanderwell)
Bi-level house design with basement conversion suite
Changes to the provincial
requirements will likely be made
during the next regular code update,
in late 2005. The full impact on
housing affordability and choice
cannot be determined until these
initiatives have been completed and
municipal action has been taken.
Related reports
ACT case study: Regulatory Options
for Secondary Suites (Rowena E.
Moyes, Toronto 2001)
Background Report, Secondary Suites
– Expanding Housing Choices (City of
St. Albert and Towns of Devon,
Gibbons and Morinville/Richard
Vanderwell, 1997)
ACT case studies may be downloaded
from the ACT Web site (see sidebar),
ordered on-line from CMHC at
www.cmhc.ca or by contacting CMHC
at 1-800-668-2642. Reports may be
obtained on loan from CMHC’s
Canadian Housing Information Centre
(CHIC) at [email protected] or by
calling 1-800-668-2642 and asking for
CHIC.
#
Got a housing regulatory issue?
ACT may already have a
solution! Find out about ACT
regulatory reform projects
carried out across Canada:
www.actprogram.com
ACT
Program Administration
c/o The Federation of Canadian
Municipalities
Tel: 613-241-5221 ext. 242
Fax: 613-244-1515
E-mail: [email protected]
The United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements recognizes
ACT as a top global best
practice for improving the living
environment.
ACT is funded by CMHC.
a
ct case study
Regulatory Options for secondary suites
Building
Better Homes
and Communities
Affordability and Choice Today
AFFORDABILITY AND CHOICE TODAY
(ACT)
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
C ASE STUDY
Regulatory Options for Secondary Suites
City of St. Albert, Town of Morinville,
Town of Gibbons and Town of Devon, Alberta
Prepared for :
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Canadian Home Builders’ Association
Canadian Housing and Renewal Association
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
March 2004
Case study written by: Rowena E. Moyes
This case study was funded by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation but the views expressed are the
personal views of the authors and the Corporation accepts no responsibility for them.
ACT case studies may be downloaded from the ACT website at www.actprogram.com, ordered on-line
from CMHC at www.cmhc.ca or by contacting CMHC at 1 800 668-2642.
Foreword
The project documented in this report received a
grant under the Affordability and Choice Today
(ACT) program. ACT is a housing regulatory
reform initiative funded by Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation and delivered in partnership
with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(ACT administrator), the Canadian Home Builders'
Association and the Canadian Housing and
Renewal Association. All projects receiving an ACT
grant are documented in order to share solutions
and lessons learned with other Canadian communities.
ACT, launched in 1990, contributes to housing
affordability, choice and quality through regulatory
reform. The United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements recognized ACT in 1998 as one of the
top global best practices for improving the living
environment.
ACT promotes regulatory reform through:
• its database of solutions arising from ACT projects.
Others are encouraged to access and adapt solutions
to their circumstances (see website address below);
• grants to local governments, builders, developers,
architects, non-profit organizations and others
across Canada to help facilitate the development of
innovative solutions;
• other means of promoting regulatory solutions,
such as forums that are held from time to time to
barriers.
For more information, visit the ACT website at
www.actprogram.com
Over the years, ACT has created an impressive body
of knowledge others can use to facilitate regulatory
change in their communities. The projects range from
innovative housing forms, secondary suites and
streamlined approval procedures to NIMBY, alternative
development and renovation standards, and more.
Pursuing regulatory change and innovation in housing
options requires the participation of many stakeholders.
ACT projects stand out as prime examples of how
people at the local level can work together to develop
and implement innovative solutions. It is noteworthy
that these projects not only contribute in many ways
to sustainable development, but they have also
served to enhance working relationships between
local governments, the building industry and nonprofit organizations.
affordability
and
choice
today
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
1.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Incentive for the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Formulation of Project Objectives, Strategies and Mobilization of Resources . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Project Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Local Housing Markets and Secondary Suites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparative Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of Alberta’s Building Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Circulation and Promotion of Background Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Examination of Regulatory Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Presentation of Report and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
2.0
PROJECT RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 Information Base on Secondary Suites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Availability of Affordable Housing in the Four Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Existing Secondary Suites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Occupancy/Ownership Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Identification of Political Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impact on Single-Family Neighbourhoods, Values and Housing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fiscal Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Regulation and Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Code Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Regulatory Approaches and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Municipal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 Provincial Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
11
14
15
16
affordability
and
choice
today
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.0
DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY AND KEY PLAYERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Four Sponsoring Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of St. Albert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Town of Morinville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Town of Devon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Town of Gibbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
4.0
IMPACT ON AFFORDABILITY, CHOICE AND QUALITY IN HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Background Research Identified Specific Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Regulatory Obstacles Are Being Addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Proposed Regulatory Changes Could Improve Availability
and Safety of Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
19
19
affordability
and
choice
today
19
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Issue
The Project Team
In the mid-1990s there was a growing interest in
secondary suites in Edmonton-area municipalities.
Housing affordability was becoming an issue for a
growing percentage of the population, and Alberta’s
new planning legislation required all municipal
governments to provide for a range of affordable
housing types.
The project team consisted of representatives from
each of the four Economic Development and/or
Planning and Development Departments, plus a
St. Albert Building Code Inspector. The team also
included a representative of the Greater Edmonton
Home Builders’ Association (Renovators Council), a
realtor/developer and a member of a local residents’
association.
Secondary suites were being promoted as one option
to increase supply and meet changing housing needs
(allowing senior citizens to provide space for caregivers, or parents to provide space for older children,
for example, or young homebuyers to earn rental
income to apply to monthly expenses). In addition,
a number of illegal and potentially unsafe suites—
which should be regulated—were believed to exist
already. St. Albert and Morinville had previously
considered encouraging secondary suites, but
discarded the idea for numerous reasons.
The City of St. Albert agreed to provide project
coordination, while other members offered information
and their time and expertise. They were assisted by
consultant Jamie Brown; code review was performed
by architect Richard Vanderwell.
The Plan
In 1997, the City of St. Albert and the Towns of
Devon, Gibbons and Morinville decided to pool
resources to
•
investigate the market for secondary suites
•
look at experience in other jurisdictions
•
conduct focus groups to identify community
issues
•
explore code constraints and regulatory options
Their primary objective was to provide solid
information for their four Councils to use in making
informed decisions on land use bylaws.
affordability
and
choice
today
i
The Results
The project gathered information on the availability
of affordable housing in the four municipalities, and
on existing secondary suites. It examined the literature
and experience to determine occupancy and ownership
trends, and identified political issues. A focus group
held in each municipality identified local support
and concerns. These included secondary suites’
impact on affordable housing options and on local
neighbourhoods, safety issues (particularly for illegal
suites) and fiscal implications.
The architect found serious code obstacles to
construction of basement suites in existing singlefamily homes. These included specific requirements
for clear ceiling and door heights, exits and fire
separations. He concluded that: “the application of
the current Alberta Building Code would most likely
result in more costly, rather than more affordable
construction.”
ii
affordability
and
choice
today
Three options for regulatory action were assessed;
pros and cons were examined. The final report
recommended to ask the Alberta government to
respond to the concerns about secondary suites and
code obstacles. Municipal land use changes were put
on hold until this issue was resolved, although
St. Albert did include an enabling statement in its
plan, and Devon prepared draft documentation.
Alberta began work on alternative code requirements
for secondary suites in 1998, but the project ran into
various constraints. However, draft amendments to
both the Building and Fire Codes were issued for
public comment in 2002. A special committee of
Members of Alberta’s Legislative Assembly met with
four municipalities in 2003, and the committee
planned to meet with another five to six municipalities
in early 2004.
Changes to the provincial requirements will likely
be made during the next regular code update, in late
2005. The full impact on housing affordability and
choice cannot be determined until these initiatives
have been completed and municipal action has been
taken.
1.0
1.1
Project Description
Incentive for the Project
The City of St. Albert and the Towns of Morinville,
Gibbons and Devon are all within 20 to 30 minutes
drive of Alberta’s capital city of Edmonton. Most of
their growth has taken place since the 1960s or
1970s, primarily with mid- to high-income housing.
By the mid-1990s, in each of these communities, there
was a growing perception of interest in secondary
suites development to meet changing housing needs.
A secondary suite is a separate, independent unit
created within a single-family home, often by converting
the basement.
In addition, Alberta had updated its planning
legislation and consolidated it into a new Municipal
Government Act (1995), with a requirement that all
municipal governments review their overall municipal
development plans by the end of 1998. Section 8.0
of the province’s Land Use Policies required municipal
governments to provide adequate affordable housing,
through a wide range of housing types.
Secondary suites are generally recognized as an
economical means of providing additional affordable
rental accommodation in mature communities. The
costs are generally lower than a typical apartment or
multiple-family dwelling unit, and the income can
help young buyers carry the purchase of a first
home. Secondary suites can also fill specific family
needs: for example, accommodating elderly parents,
older children living at home, or caregivers such as
nannies or nurses. However, in any of the four
municipalities, secondary suites were not considered
a legal use in a single-family residential district.
A small number of older single-family homes were
suspected to contain illegal and possibly unsafe
secondary suites already. Other residents were
requesting information on the possibility of putting
secondary suites into their homes, usually in the
basement. Various government and industry groups
were also exploring the potential of renovating older
homes or building new “made-to-convert” housing.
St. Albert and Morinville had previously considered
changes to their respective land use bylaws to
include provisions for secondary suites, but their
Councils had abandoned the idea pending further
research.
1.2
Formulation of Project
Objectives, Strategies and
Mobilization of Resources
The City of St. Albert was a member of the Capital
Region Forum—a group with political representatives
from the various towns and cities in the Edmonton
area. During group discussions, St. Albert representatives
discovered that the Towns of Morinville, Gibbons
and Devon were also interested in gathering regulatory
information on secondary suites.
The four municipalities all had similar interests in
assessing the existing supply of illegal units, and
current and future demand. They wanted to assess
potential municipal regulatory and policy responses
to three situations:
affordability
and
choice
today
1
•
existence of current illegal suites which meet
neither the land use bylaws nor minimum life
safety standards
•
proposals for new secondary suites in existing
single family homes
•
proposals for completely new projects containing
secondary suites
They wanted to examine positive and negative
perceptions in their communities, and to look at
how other jurisdictions had dealt with similar issues.
They also wanted to look at the impact of Alberta’s
Building and Fire Codes requirements on the provision
of affordable secondary suites. It was widely believed
that, even if land use bylaws were changed to allow
secondary suites, requiring them to comply with the
building and fire codes would still make these suites
uneconomic to produce or even impossible in existing
homes. It could also result in a net loss of affordable
options if applied retroactively to existing illegal
suites.
The four municipalities decided to pool resources to
perform joint research. A project team was formed,
with representatives from each of the four Economic
Development and/or Planning and Development
Departments, plus a St. Albert Building Code Inspector.
The team also included a representative of the Greater
Edmonton Home Builders’ Association (Renovators
Council), a realtor/developer and a member of a local
residents’ association.
Figure 1. A typical neighbourhood in St. Albert
Source: City of St. Albert
2
affordability
and
choice
today
In 1997, the team applied for an ACT grant of
$10,000, which would be put towards hiring a
consultant; preparing a background report; conducting
focus group sessions in each of the four municipalities;
examining the obstacles posed by Alberta’s Building
and Fire Codes; and developing appropriate policy
and regulatory options so the respective municipal
councils could make informed decisions.
The City of St. Albert agreed to provide project
coordination, while team members offered their time
and expertise.
1.3
Project Methodology
The project team began meeting in early 1997.
They retained consultant Jamie Brown to prepare a
background report and provided staff support for
the project.
For the background report, the team identified four
immediate research needs:
•
collection of available data on current housing
markets in the four municipalities, including
availability of affordable housing, estimates of
existing illegal secondary suites, and future
demand;
•
literature review and bibliography to determine
comparative experience with secondary suites in
other jurisdictions and current thinking on the
issue;
•
focus group meetings to determine perceptions
of existing supply, future needs, concerns, obstacles
and support; and
•
review of the relevant requirements in Alberta’s
Building Code to assess the feasibility of
converting existing residential units, or building
new ones with a legal secondary suite.
Definitions
For the purpose of the study, the participating
municipalities agreed to define a secondary suite as:
a housing unit that is self-contained, but incorporated
within an existing structure that was originally
designed for a single-family home. The key critical
element is the existence of a separate kitchen.
Affordable housing was defined as: housing for an
individual or family, not exceeding 30 per cent of
household income in the case of owned property, and
25 per cent in the case of rental accommodation.
Housing cost is generally defined as gross rent or mortgage
payments plus the cost of taxes and utilities.
Local Housing Markets and Secondary Suites
Each representative was asked to provide the
consultant with available information on the housing
market in their respective municipalities; the
amount of affordable housing; and the number of
existing secondary suites. As the completeness of
this information varied, the consultant filled in
blanks where possible. Only St. Albert had fact-based
figures on the numbers of secondary suites, and
those records were several years old.
Comparative Experience
The consultant reviewed literature and studies from
other jurisdictions—especially from Ontario and
British Columbia—where the provincial governments
support the principle of secondary suites as part of
the acceptable housing mix.
affordability
and
choice
today
3
This review helped to quantify supply and demand in
several other municipalities. It included profiles of
existing tenants and providers of secondary suites,
and identified community interests, concerns, obstacles
and issues. In addition, the literature review compared
regulatory responses and provided information on
administrative costs.
Community Consultation
Each municipality arranged for one focus group
discussion to be held during August and September
of 1997. Attendees were selected by their respective
municipalities to provide a cross-section of knowledge
and interest in affordable housing and/or secondary
suites. In most cases, they included municipal officials,
members of the business community and citizens.
They were also asked to comment on typical regulations
found in other jurisdictions. These included, for
example:
•
the registered owner of the property must live
on site
•
only one secondary suite is allowed per lot
•
the suite must be located within the residence
•
maximum or minimum sizes (area) are set
•
one off-street parking space must be provided
for the suite
•
separate fees should be paid for garbage collection,
water, sewer, etc.
Attendees responded to a series of set questions
related to the study’s research goals:
Discussions at the focus group meetings, while
generally quite supportive of secondary suites,
revealed major concerns and differences of opinion.
•
Review of Alberta’s Building Code
Should support for, and the provision of, affordable
housing be a goal of the community?
•
Do you feel the community currently has an
adequate supply of affordable housing?
•
Are secondary suites a viable means of providing
affordable housing within the community?
If not, why not?
•
•
•
What effects do you think secondary suites
might have on the community?
Should secondary suites be restricted to new
homes, or should they be allowed in existing singlefamily homes under some conditions?
What regulations do you think should be
imposed on secondary suites?
4
affordability
and
choice
today
In parallel to the literature review, bibliography and
focus groups, Architect Richard Vanderwell was
contracted to review the impacts of the Alberta
Building Code requirements.
Working with the project team, Vanderwell identified
and reviewed two house designs which would be
typical candidates for conversion:
•
the wood-frame bungalow, commonly built in
the late 1960s to early 1970s
•
the bi-level (also called split level) house design,
commonly built in the later 1970s to mid-1980s
He examined how code requirements would affect
plans to build suites in these two types of older homes,
or to bring existing illegal suites into compliance, and
which requirements would present obstacles and to
what degree. He also drafted initial proposals for health
and safety guidelines for legalizing existing secondary
suites in older houses. These draft guidelines were
intended to meet the requirements of the building
code while respecting the design and construction
constraints found in typical older units. It was assumed
that only one suite would be permitted per house, and
that it would be located in the basement.
Circulation and Promotion of Background
Report
The results of the four initiatives above were included
in a background report, completed in September of
1997. This was presented to each of the municipalities.
In addition, it was given to the Alberta Capital
Region Forum (CRF) on October 16, as information.
Morinville’s mayor, Ted Code, then Chair of the
CRF, responded on November 25, 1997, saying the
report was “of great value.” The Forum supported a
regional approach to legalization of secondary
suites, Code’s letter said, although it recognized that
municipal governments may choose to pursue
individual responses to this issue. The Forum would
also support further discussions on secondary suites.
Examination of Regulatory Options
Having completed the background research, the
project team turned its attention to options for
regulation. It identified three approaches for bylaw
amendments. For each approach, the team examined
pros and cons, identified issues and listed appropriate
changes to the land use bylaw. The report was
completed in November of 1997.
During this process, the team heard that the
province was considering setting up a working group
to look at alternative requirements for secondary
suites.
Presentation of Report and Recommendations
The project team’s final report was completed in late
December of 1997. It contained summaries of the
information and reports produced to date, plus new
data on impacts of secondary suites on municipal
costs/revenues, parking/traffic and municipal services.
The report recommended that the documentation
be sent to the four Councils; that any municipal
government drafting safety guidelines use a multidisciplinary “safe housing committee;” and that the
province be asked to address changes to Alberta
legislation and regulations.
The final report was presented to the Councils of
the respective municipalities early in 1998. It was
also sent to the Capital Region Forum and to the
Alberta Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Labour.
affordability
and
choice
today
5
2.0
2.1
project results
Information Base on
Secondary Suites
Availability of Affordable Housing in the Four
Municipalities
The project team found that affordable housing
availability varied from adequate, to little or none,
among the four municipalities. A 1994 St. Albert
report, which defined “affordable” housing using a
property value of less than $100,000, had indicated
a reasonable supply, quality and range of units.
Using the same $100,000 criteria, the Town of
Morinville reported a good supply, while the Towns
of Gibbons and Devon both reported very little
affordable accommodation.
Focus group discussions came to somewhat different
conclusions. The representatives in three of the four
municipalities identified a lack of affordable housing.
Interestingly, the one group to claim there was
enough affordable housing already was also the only
one which did not include representatives of people
potentially interested in living in or providing
secondary suites.
Figure 2. Central area of Morinville
Source: Town of Morinville
6
affordability
and
choice
today
Number of Existing Secondary Suites
Only St. Albert had an actual record of basement or
secondary suites, but most of the numbers were 15
years old and probably not representative of the current
situation. Furthermore, the definition of secondary
suite used by the municipal property tax assessors
who compiled the information was unlikely to have
met the criteria agreed to for this study (especially
the requirement for a separate kitchen). The other
three municipalities did not have assessment
departments of their own, and their contracted service
providers had not tracked the existence of either
basement or secondary suites.
As a result, it was impossible to determine the exact
number of secondary suites, although illegal suites
were known to exist through word of mouth and
regular advertisements in local papers.
The background report pointed out that studies
from other jurisdictions suggest the number can be
much higher than estimated, especially in larger
urban areas. A survey from Delta, B.C., found that
six per cent of people admitted to living in secondary
suites. The St. Albert assessment department survey
had found only 75-80 secondary suites, or 0.7 per cent
of the approximately 12,000 single-family homes in
the city.
Occupancy/Ownership Trends
Literature review from other jurisdictions showed
that occupants tend to be “working poor,” although
other socio-economic and demographic factors have
an impact as well.
A study for the District of North Vancouver, for
example, showed the average annual income for a
household occupying a secondary suite was $35,000
(1991), compared to $66,068 for the municipality
as a whole. The ages of secondary suite occupants
ranged from 19 to 82, with the average being 35.
The average length of stay was two years. For the
occupants over the age of 55—20 per cent—the
average length of stay was eight years.
The choice to live in a secondary suite reflects the
existence of numerous young adults still living at
home and/or attending educational institutions,
high divorce rates, and the desire of both single parents
and seniors to live affordably in a single-family
neighbourhood environment. The North Vancouver
study said that occupants of secondary suites are
“significantly” less likely to own a car than the average
citizen.
That same study showed the average age for the
owners of homes with secondary suites was 48 years
old. Reasons for offering a secondary suite, in order
or importance, included:
•
assistance with mortgage payments
•
protection against reduced income in hard times
•
to avoid living alone
•
providing retirement income
•
providing for grown-up children or elderly relatives
•
providing a suite in exchange for maintenance of
a suite
affordability
and
choice
today
7
The focus group discussions for this project showed
similar perceptions of the reasons for developing
secondary suites. All four focus groups agreed that
secondary suites could provide an affordable
alternative, especially for younger people and families.
Because basement suites pose accessibility barriers,
there was some question as to whether they would
be a real option for senior citizens.
2.2 Identification of Political Issues
Both St. Albert and Morinville had experienced
residents’ concerns during their previous examinations
of secondary suites. Based on other jurisdictions
experience, the review of the literature and focus
group sessions, this project also identified a number
of perceptions and issues that would need to be
resolved.
Impact on Single-Family Neighbourhoods,
Values and Housing Options
Existing single-family homeowners have typically
been concerned about changes to the quality of life
and character of their single-family neighbourhoods.
As the background report for this project says, a
significant number of consumers “have had a
preference for suburban single-family neighbourhoods,
and have a clearly defined notion of the quality of
life that is associated with this type of housing
environment.” Many also argue that “the home is
typically the single largest asset of most families, and
as such, people have a right to maintain the
neighbourhood character that they have invested in,
and to object to development that may jeopardize
that vested interest.”
8
affordability
and
choice
today
The focus groups for this study expressed many of
the typical apprehensions about increased traffic and
parking problems, unsightly development, and
unfair use of municipal services and infrastructure.
The perception of secondary suites is often worse
than the reality, the background report pointed out.
The North Vancouver study showed that the
municipality had received only 40 complaints from
an estimated 1,800 to 2,200 secondary suites. As
well, in Accessory Apartments: Using Surplus Space in
Single Family Houses, Patrick Hare had noted that
only one of 186 people surveyed in New York,
Connecticut and New Jersey indicated that
increased traffic or parking identified the location of
an illegal suite.
Louise Champis was the Development Officer for
the Town of Gibbons and member of the steering
committee for this project. She has now moved to
the equivalent position at the Town of Morinville.
“We have a lot of illegal secondary suites,” she said
in June of 2002, “and we haven’t had any complaints.”
Home Builders’ Association representatives have
pointed out that subdivisions “age.” As children
grow up and leave home, many owners are left with
excess space in their home. Allowing secondary
suites would not really increase the population; it
would just replace the children who have moved on.
This “re-intensification” helps make best use of existing
services. It would also help reduce environmental
impacts of urban growth and create socially diverse
neighbourhoods.
Many focus group participants also expressed support
for effectively regulated secondary suites and other
forms of affordable housing.
During these discussions, some of the concerns
raised about secondary suites related to non-resident
owners, where both of the units would be tenantoccupied. A number of municipalities that allow
secondary suites include a requirement that they
must be owner-occupied, or even that the secondary
suites must be rented to family members; however,
the report said, there are questions whether this is
generally within municipal jurisdiction.
This study, as have those in other areas, demonstrates
that citizen support for the legalization of secondary
suites will require assurances of acceptable standards
and enforcement to satisfy concerns about health
and safety, quality of life, character and property values
in the surrounding single-family neighbourhoods.
Safety
Whether or not formally permitted, illegal suites exist
and are likely to increase in nearly every municipality.
Liability issues may arise because municipal governments
fail to deal with known illegal uses.
Owners developing suites illegally do not apply for
permits and do not have any review of how they are
providing fire protection, escape routes and similar
life safety issues.
The building code review conducted for this project
states the safety issue quite clearly: “Based on the
design and common construction assumptions
made using the two house designs, it became readily
apparent that there is a need to provide for an
increased level of life safety for residents of existing
houses containing basement suite conversions.”
Current illegal units, and those built illegally in the
future, may put residents’ lives at risk.
Fiscal Implications
The project team also looked at municipal governments’
financial implications. A review of staff and administrative
costs, and fee collection in B.C. municipalities showed
various approaches:
Surrey:
One-time rezoning application fee
Annual licensing fee
Annual service fees (80% of single family)
$
750
555
358
Delta (annual charges):
License or permit fee
Increased share of municipal taxes
Additional utility fees
100
100
300
Maple Ridge:
Initial registration
Housing Agreement
Land Title Covenant
Building/elec/plumb/gas permits
Annual fees for water/sewer/recycling
100
50
50
132
270
“Given that there are not estimated to be a large
number of secondary suites in the four participating
municipalities, it would seem likely that none of the
three Towns would likely require additional staff (for
permit processing, inspections and enforcement),”
the report says. St. Albert might require a small
amount of additional staff for these purposes.
affordability
and
choice
today
9
All four municipalities would need to consider
recovering any additional servicing costs. The project
team’s final report included a brief review of the likely
costs in a sample neighbourhood in St. Albert. The
report did not point to significant increases in
demand for services, as the number of residents in a
given house with a secondary suite may well remain
the same and, even if modestly higher, well within
the planned servicing capacity.
In February 1998, Applications Management
Consulting Ltd. of Edmonton estimated the average
net annual costs per capita of population-related
municipal services in St. Albert. The average net cost
per resident was estimated at $365. The result was
obtained by taking the operating expenditures,
minus the operating revenues and including a fixed
operating costs allocation. The average net cost of
adding one more resident, with no increase in number
of housing units, was estimated at $156.
On the other hand, property tax increases are not
expected to be considerable—well under $100 per
year. In fact, “large tax increases (would) substantially
reduce the incentive to create secondary suites and
are in fact likely to be a disincentive to legalizing an
existing or new secondary suite,” the background
report said. They would also reduce affordability,
one of the main attractions of these units.
2.3 Regulation and Jurisdiction
Regulatory requirements are another potential
disincentive to creating or legalizing secondary
suites. The background report assumed knowledge
of the jurisdictional regime. The explanation below
is provided for readers from other areas.
Municipal governments have jurisdiction over what
land can be used for and related requirements, such
as parking and setbacks. This includes whether
secondary suites are allowed, in what zones and subject
to what conditions. They regulate land use through
development plans and land use bylaws.
The province has jurisdiction over building and
construction requirements, through the Alberta
Building Code—which covers renovations involving
structural components or change of use and adding
a new unit—and the Alberta Fire Code (existing
buildings).
Municipal building officials, as the authority having
jurisdiction, can accept non-conforming construction
materials and methods as long as they provide
equivalent performance to the code requirements.
Common equivalencies are accommodated with
provincial “Standata,” which are advisories setting
out how and with what conditions these alternatives
can be accepted.
Municipal governments cannot impose or accept
standards different than those contained in Alberta’s
building code. However, if the codes are silent,
municipal governments may be able to issue their
own requirements or guidelines. In addition, they
can issue property standards bylaws, regulating safety
and upkeep of existing properties.
10
affordability
and
choice
today
2.4 Code Review
The Alberta Building Code does not include specific
regulations for secondary suites. As a result, new
projects are required to meet the same Part IX code
provisions as multiple family dwellings. (They also
have to comply with all applicable land use bylaws.
See below.)
The architect’s review prepared for this ACT project
examined which code requirements would create
obstacles to the development of a secondary suite in
the basement of two typical single-family houses: a
bungalow and a bi- level (split entry – see Figure 4).
It focused on existing home conversions, rather than
entirely new construction.
At the time this review was taking place, Alberta was
planning to introduce, in the very near future, a new
Building Code based on the 1995 National Building
Code of Canada. Therefore, Vanderwell used the
standards contained in the National Building Code
for his review.
Some of the main areas of concern included:
•
Minimum clear heights required for rooms or
spaces range from 2.1 to 2.3 m, while ceiling
heights in typical older basements range from
1.85 to 2 m or less, depending on locations of
beams and ductwork.
Figure 3. Bungalow house design with basement conversion suite
Source: Background Report, Secondary Suites – Expanding Housing Choices (St. Albert, Devon, Gibbons
and Morinville/Richard Vanderwell)
affordability
and
choice
today
11
•
•
•
Minimum door heights are set at 1,980 mm—
again a problem given low ceiling heights in older
basements.
The code requires two separate exits from a
suite, without going through another unit or
service room—something the architect says is
“the most difficult code and safety issue to
resolve” for basement apartments. It is not feasible
to satisfy this requirement in typical single-family
construction.
•
Typical basement window sizes in older singlefamily homes are smaller than the code requirements.
•
Fire separation requirements between suites for
floors (above basement ceilings), walls and doors
would require costly upgrading in most cases. It
would be difficult to seal off and provide
dampers in ductwork serving both units.
•
Sound transmission control requirements would
also require costly upgrading of wall and floor
assemblies.
Exit stairs are required to have a 900 mm clear
width, where most are actually 700 to 850 mm.
Enlarging an exit stair is not considered practical.
Figure 4. Bi-level house design with basement conversion suite
Source: Background Report, Secondary Suites – Expanding Housing Choices (St. Albert, Devon, Gibbons
and Morinville/Richard Vanderwell)
12
affordability
and
choice
today
The report concludes that, “while it is desirable for
all buildings to meet the life safety requirements . . .
it is neither practical nor economical to upgrade all
existing basement rental suites to the standards of
the Alberta Building Code … Where only one
basement suite is converted within a single-family
house, the application of the current Alberta
Building Code would most likely result in more
costly, rather than more affordable construction.”
The second part of the architect’s report was a set of
draft guidelines. These were intended as the alternative
minimum life safety requirements a municipal
government could adopt to strike an acceptable
balance between safety issues for occupants and the
high cost and impracticality of meeting the strictest
code requirements.
In late 1994 the City of Edmonton had adopted
Safe Housing Standards, setting minimum standards
for existing rented residential buildings of six stories
or less, with three or more households. The City of
Edmonton received an ACT grant to develop these
standards1. The architect for the St. Albert/Morinville/
Devon/ Gibbons project selected a number of them
as a starting point for further work by a municipal
multi-disciplinary safe standards committee. He adapted
them for buildings containing only one secondary suite.
Figure 5. Bi-level house design with main floor conversion suite
Source: Background Report, Secondary Suites – Expanding Housing Choices (St. Albert, Devon, Gibbons and
Morinville/Richard Vanderwell)
1
For more information, refer to the ACT case study Safe Housing Standards for Affordable Renovation which may be
downloaded from the ACT website at www.actprogram.com, ordered on-line from CMHC at www.cmhc.ca or by
contacting CMHC at 1 800 668-2642.
affordability
and
choice
today
13
The resulting draft guidelines were quite extensive,
including sections on fire alarms, smoke alarms, means
of egress, flame spread ratings (fire protection), doors,
exit signs, emergency lighting, compartmentation (fire
separation), fire extinguishers, electrical requirements,
building structure and health, plumbing and gas,
and heating and ventilation. The report advised that
municipal governments would have to explore the
legal ramifications before attempting to introduce
such guidelines.
2.5 Regulatory Approaches and Options
The background report examined regulatory
approaches taken in other municipalities, including
wording in land use bylaws and performance standards
or regulations. Secondary suite research shows that
“people will generally accept secondary suites if they
come with appropriate regulations and enforcement,”
the report said.
The background report looked at regulations in the
Alberta municipalities of Edmonton, Calgary,
Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Leduc,
Grande Prairie and Spruce Grove, as well as
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. It also consulted a British
Columbia review of practices in 150 municipalities
within the province. A wide range of approaches
were presented.
Some municipal governments allowed secondary
suites as a permitted use, while others were discretionary
and required specific approval. Some allowed these
suites only in selected neighbourhoods, or specific
locations such as corner lots or main streets. In
almost all of Alberta cases, suites were required to
meet both the municipal land use bylaw and the
provincial building code.
14
affordability
and
choice
today
Typical municipal bylaw requirements included:
•
additional on-site parking
•
maximum or minimum suite sizes
•
lot size requirements
•
required owner occupancy
•
licensing or registration
Some municipal governments have included a
requirement for a family relationship between occupants
of the secondary suite and the principal dwelling
unit.
More difficult is the issue of existing illegal suites.
Municipal governments may choose to strictly
enforce all regulations governing secondary suites, a
plan which may end up reducing affordable housing
and/or encouraging owners to offer their units illegally.
They may “grandfather” existing non-conforming
units. They may choose to ignore such units as long
as neighbours do not complain, the background
report says. Or they may seek more practical alternative
standards.
In its November 1997 options report, the project
team identified three separate regulatory approaches:
•
Option 1: Allow secondary suites in new housing
only, applying all Alberta building and fire code
requirements.
•
Option 2: Allow secondary suites in both new
and existing housing, again applying all code
requirements.
•
Option 3: Allow secondary suites in new housing
applying code requirements, and allow them in
existing housing applying new modified safety
guidelines to reflect older construction.
Concern was raised on the issue that applying full
code requirements to existing units would require
extensive enforcement and likely force many of
them off the market or further “underground.” On
the other hand, the Alberta municipal government
had not developed any safety guidelines specifically
for secondary suites, and legal and municipal liability
issues would require review.
Draft wording for a recommended land use bylaw
amendment covered:
In January 1998, the final report was presented to
the four respective councils. It recommended that:
1. the Alberta government be asked to address the
concerns raised in the reports, and to suggest changes
to Alberta legislation and regulations regarding secondary
suite development;
2. the final report and background documents be
submitted to the four municipal Councils for their
informed decisions on land use bylaws;
3. where a municipal government decides to allow
secondary suites in existing housing by applying
safety guidelines, a multi-disciplinary safe housing
committee be struck to develop potential standards.
•
maximum of one secondary suite per house
2.6
•
required off-street parking
•
no change in the external character of the principal
dwelling
•
minimum size of house and lot
•
maximum number of people per secondary suite
•
restrictions on other accessory uses (for example,
home business)
During the course of this project, the team became
aware that the provincial government was also looking
at some secondary suites issues. Specifically, it was
considering setting up a working group to review
code requirements. In January 1998, St. Albert’s
mayor forwarded a copy of the final report on this
ACT project to the Ministers of Municipal Affairs
and Labour, expressing the hope that the concerns
specified would be addressed. (See 2.7, below.)
•
no increase in number of pets allowed for the
building
For discussion purposes, wording was also changed
to include the owner occupancy requirement,
although the report stated such a requirement
would be virtually unenforceable.
Municipal Action
The municipalities originally expected that a new
provincial guideline would be produced within a
year. In fact, it took four years for what became a
draft amendment to the Alberta Building and Fire
Codes to be released for public comment.
affordability
and
choice
today
15
Meanwhile, in early 1998, Councils of each of the
four municipalities considered the final report of
this ACT project. Their responses were:
Gibbons
Council reviewed the Final Report on February 11,
1998, and decided to wait until the province had
completed the review of the code requirements
before considering an amendment to its Land Use
Bylaw.
Morinville
Council considered the final report on March 24,
1998, and decided that there was a good supply and
range of affordable housing options; the town would
not support legalizing of secondary suites.
Devon
Council considered the final report on February 23,
1998, and asked staff to prepare a specific Land Use
Bylaw amendment based on recommended Option
Three. Public input and demand for secondary
suites was monitored for a one-year period, with no
reported evidence of public interest. As a result,
Council accepted the final report as information
only.
St. Albert
A decision was deferred pending further public
consultation and results of the contact with the
provincial government. A questionnaire was
published in the March 25, 1998, St. Albert
Gazette, seeking public input and views on secondary
suites. Sixty questionnaires were completed and
returned. Of those, 35 (58 per cent) were in favour
(some with conditions) and 25 (42 per cent) were
opposed. Incidentally, this is less supportive than similar
16
affordability
and
choice
today
surveys in Delta and Maple Ridge B.C., where 75
per cent and 71 per cent of respondents respectively
supported well-regulated secondary suites.
St. Albert subsequently rewrote its Municipal
Development Plan. The wording adopted by Council
on May 23, 2000, included a policy stating that the
City “may facilitate the use of secondary suites and
conversions through provisions in the Land Use
Bylaw and subject to the availability of infrastructure
capacity,” once provincial guidelines are approved.
The City also established an Affordable Housing
committee, whose interim report in 2003 also called
on Council to “lobby Federal and Provincial
governments to … attend to provincial regulations
that make it easier to provide affordable housing
within the Province.”
2.7
Provincial Action
As mentioned above, on January 29, 1998, Anita
Ratchinsky, then Mayor of St. Albert, had written to
the Alberta Ministers of Municipal Affairs and
Labour on behalf of the four municipalities. She
enclosed a copy of the final report from this project,
as background for the about-to-be-established
provincial working group looking at a Standata for
secondary suites.
The letter said: “Our research indicates that it is very
difficult and costly, if not impossible in most cases, to:
a) accommodate public demand to develop new
secondary suites in older homes, and
b) legalize existing secondary suites known to be
built illegally within existing housing stock in each
municipality.
“We (the four municipalities) see the timely opportunity
at the outset of the work of the Provincial Committee
to have our concerns addressed,” it continued, “and
look forward to working with the province in its
examination of this important subject.”
This letter helped to spur the formation of the
working group. Unfortunately, the initiative did not
progress very far, due to staff cutbacks and changing
priorities. Also, it was determined that the changes
required for secondary suites could not be accomplished
through a Standata, but would require an amendment
to the code regulations themselves. This is a more
complicated process, which takes longer than a Standata.
However, in 2000, following a research study by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on
accessory suites and changes to the National Building
Code, the province restarted its deliberations. Early in
2002, amendments to both the building and fire
codes were drafted and circulated for public comment.
St. Albert was one of the responding municipalities.
In addition to technical concerns about specific proposed
requirements, the City’s director of planning and
development, Curtis Cundy, pointed out several
economic and land use issues.
First is whether proposed changes to the Land Use
bylaw “would in fact be accepted by the community
at large,” he wrote. “Based on past consultation in
our community regarding secondary suites, the
potential for increased congestion with respect to
traffic and parking, along with the perception of
devaluation of property, were a few of the concerns
expressed.”
In addition, he noted, allowing secondary suites
may add to the demand on City services, while the
increase in property taxes would be very limited.
Also, there will be a need for increased inspection,
monitoring and enforcement, particularly as regards
to bringing existing illegal suites up to code standards.
This has financial implications for municipal
governments.
Other groups have responded that any new regulations
for secondary suites should only apply to renovation
of existing houses, not for new construction.
Concerns like these spurred the Alberta government
to create a special committee of Members of the
Legislative Assembly to review the issue, and discuss
with municipal governments how they plan to
respond to the proposed code changes. Chris Tye,
Manager, Technical Services, Building and Fire
Safety in Alberta’s Department of Municipal Affairs,
said this group met with elected and staff representatives
of Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, Brooks and
Medicine Hat during 2003. They agreed in general
that municipal governments need the capability to
regulate secondary suites. The Secondary Suites
Committee planned to meet in early 2004, with
another five to six municipalities, including Calgary,
Edmonton, Canmore and Red Deer, Tye said. A
report was expected in mid-2004. It seems likely that
any changes to the provincial building and fire codes
would be combined with the next regular updating
of those regulations, scheduled for late 2005.
affordability
and
choice
today
17
3.0
3.1
description of community and ke y pl ayers
Four Sponsoring Municipalities
All four municipalities are within easy commuting
distance of Edmonton. In 1997-1998, they contained
predominantly single-family, owner-occupied houses,
with small amounts of rental accommodation, some
geared to senior citizens. All four municipalities were
part of the Capital Region Forum, an informationsharing and co-ordinating body for regional issues.
Town of Devon
Devon’s population in 1994 stood at 4,380. It was
expected to grow up to between 5,510 and 6,800 by
2011. Single-family units represented just below
79 per cent of the town’s 1,421 units in 1992—
75 per cent of which were owner-occupied. Senior
citizens represented six per cent of the population.
Town of Gibbons
City of St. Albert
The City of St. Albert is the largest of the four
municipalities involved in this review. It had a
population of almost 46,000 in 1995, and was
projected to grow up to 70,000 by 2013—an
increase of 53 per cent. In 1995, close to 77 per cent
of the housing stock consisted of single-family
detached homes, with 85 per cent occupied by
owners. No new rental units had been built since the
early 1970s. With the average household income
established at $64,500, St. Albert had the second
wealthiest residents of all Alberta cities.
Town of Morinville
Morinville’s population in 1994 was 6,255 and it
was expected to grow up to between 8,950 and
11,390 by 2011. Currently, five per cent of the
population includes senior citizens. Almost 80 per cent
of the housing stock is single-family units. Like
St. Albert and Gibbons, it expected to experience a
population growth as a result of the consolidation of
Canadian Forces Base Edmonton.
18
affordability
and
choice
today
The population of Gibbons was 2,493 in 1988, and
was expected to grow up to between 4,050 and
5,340 by 2011. Senior citizens represented five per cent
of the population. Single-family homes accounted
for 95 per cent of the town’s housing.
3.2
Industry
Established in 1954, the Greater Edmonton Home
Builders’ Association (GEHBA) represents more
than 300 member companies. These include new
home builders, renovators, land developers, trade
contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, designers,
engineers, financial institutions and allied professionals.
GEHBA members automatically become members
of the Alberta and Canadian Home Builders’
Associations. Activities range from municipal liaison
on issues such as regulation and development, to
technical research, industry and consumer education,
and organization of marketing events like New
Homes Month and Renovation Month.
4.0
4.1
Impact on affordability, choice and
quality in housing
Background Research Identified
Specific Regulatory Issues
The St. Albert-Morinville-Gibbons-Devon examination
of secondary suites produced a good information
base and a thorough review of code obstacles for two
typical house forms. It also highlighted political issues,
and the polarization of opinions which this issue can
raise in some areas.
4.2
Regulatory Obstacles Are Being
Addressed
While none of the municipalities involved have yet
changed their land use bylaws to allow secondary
suites in single-family home areas, two of them took
preparatory steps in this direction. More importantly,
this project has helped drive forward a serious
provincial review of alternative code requirements
for secondary suites. Draft regulations were circulated
for public comment in 2002. A provincial committee
is meeting with municipal representatives, to discuss
land use policy implementation plans and issues.
Any resulting changes to the provincial building and
fire codes will probably be combined with the next
regular update of those regulations, scheduled for
late 2005.
4.3
Proposed Regulatory Changes
Could Improve Availability and
Safety of Affordable Housing
The initiatives identified in 4.2 above aim at
producing practical code changes at the provincial
level and appropriate land use bylaws at the municipal
level. There are a number of concerns to overcome.
However, if successful, it should become possible for
homeowners to provide complying secondary suites
more easily.
This could help improve the supply of affordable
housing in older single-family areas, making good
use of existing infrastructure. It could also help
accommodate changing housing needs. For example,
it could allow senior persons to stay in place with
tenants providing companionship and possibly
assisting with property maintenance. It could also
allow younger people to buy a house with rental
income to help pay the mortgage during the early
years, or older children to stay at home with a
reasonable amount of independence.
Furthermore, if it succeeded in increasing the incentive
to build legally with building permits and code
review, a new approach to secondary suites would
help ensure new suites are developed legally and
existing suites could be brought into compliance.
This would provide safer conditions for both the
primary and the secondary units in existing housing,
as well as potential new conversions.
The full impact on housing affordability, quality
and choice cannot be determined until the outcome
of these ongoing resulting initiatives is complete.
affordability
and
choice
today
19