November 4th Special Council Meeting

Welcome back to another update from Eyes on Council. I’m sorry that I’m a bit late this week, it was a busy week and I wanted to give the special council meeting the time it deserves. There was only one item on the agenda that involved housing issues in Burnaby, but it was a big one.

November 4^th had first and second reading of the R1 zoning district for small scale multi-unit housing. This was the amended version from the previous meetings in October, and it was clear that the discussions in October had not been fully resolved by council.

As you may remember from the October 28^th meeting, the R1 zoning district was amended to make some changes in line with what Councillors had been hearing in the community relating to the size of buildings, and especially how much of the lot could be used for construction if fewer housing units were being constructed on the lot. I’ll give a brief summary of what was decided in those past council meetings.

For Rowhouses or other townhouses, the maximum lot area was 280 square meters, and there could be up to 3 units on each lot. In total, 55% of the lot area could be used for building construction, and no more than 70% of the lot could be covered in impervious surfaces. Rowhouse height was limited to 3 storeys, including the basement and a height of 10m for sloped roofs and 9.5m for flat roofs. Rowhouses also had a 3m setback for their street yard, 1.5m for the lane yard, 3m for the interior rear yard and 1.2m for interior side yards for end unit lots. Rowhouses also required a 6m setback between the front and rear principal buildings, and 2.4 m between all other buildings.

For other small scale multiunit housing, sizes differed depending on how many units were being built on the lot. There were some things that were the same for all small scale multiunit housing lots. The real principal building was limited to a height of 7.5m for sloping roofs and 7m for flat roofs, they could only be 2 storeys in height including the basement, and the accessory buildings could only be 1 storey in height. Small scale multiunit housing also had a 4m from yard and 3m flanking street yard requirement, 1.5m lane yard, 3m interior rear yard and 1.2m interior side yard setbacks, as well as a 2.4m setback between front principal buildings and also between rear principal buildings. Small scale multiunit housing also required a 6m setback between the front and rear principal buildings, and 2.4m between all other buildings.

The differences between lots was substantial, based on how many units were being built. If the lot only has one or two housing units on it, then lots smaller than 567 square meters were allowed to build on 30% of their lot, with up to 60% of the lot covered in impervious surfaces. Lots larger than 567 square meters could only build on 25% of the lot. In addition, rear principal buildings could only be 33.3% of the maximum lot coverage for all buildings, so in a lot smaller than 567 square meters, a rear principal building could only cover 10% of the lot. Front principal buildings had the same height restriction as rowhouses, but only 2.5 storeys instead of 3 storeys.

For lots with 3-4 units, there was a minimum lot size of 281 square meters for lots with 4 units on it. Buildings could cover up to 40% of the lot, and impervious surfaces could cover 60% of the total lot size. The front principal buildings were allowed to be larger at 3 storeys, including the basement. Even with the additional 0.5 storey increase, the building height was still limited to 10m on a sloping roof or 9.5m on a flat roof.

Lots with 5 or 6 units were limited to frequent transit network areas only, and had a minimum lot size of 281 square meters. In this case, because of the additional units the buildable area was increased to 45%, with up to 70% of the lot being covered in impervious surfaces. Homes on these lots could also be 3 storeys and 10m in height, except for flat roofs at 9.5m.

This is all that was agreed to by council in previous meetings, and the bylaw written to that effect was brought up for consideration at Council on November 4^th.

This council meeting attempted to amend the buildable area on lot sizes again. The amendment would permit up to 40% of the lot to be developed for lots under 375 square meters, 30% for lots between 375 and 567 square meters, and 25% for lots greater than 567 square meters. This would only apply to lots that were building 1 or 2 housing units on the lot, otherwise the previous limits would apply. According to Councillor Tetrault, the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that larger buildings were not being built when the purpose of R1 zoning is to obtain higher housing density, especially around transit areas. There were concerns put forward by citizens that large homes would be built on the lots that were out of place within the community and too significantly change the character of the neighbourhood. There was also a discussion at previous council meetings about how building larger homes on the lot would defeat the purpose of affordability, as those larger homes would be priced higher than smaller multiple smaller homes on the same lot.

Before voting could begin on the Tetrault amendment, Councillor Dhaliwal attempted to put forward a sub-amendment that would have combined the first two parts of the Tetrault amendment, and allowed for 40% buildable area for all lots less than 567 square meters. Councillor Dhaliwal argued that having 40% buildable area would resolve discrepancies between double lots which are subdivided, and would incentivize subdivision to create more housing lots and housing units. After a discussion with the Parliamentarian, the Tetrault amendment was divided into three separate components, and the Dhaliwal sub-amendment was ruled out of order. Part 1 of the Tetrault amendment permitting construction on 40% of lots up to 375 square meters was then passed.

Councillor Dhaliwal then proposed a sub-amendment to part 2 of the Tetrault amendment increasing the buildable area for lots 375-567 square meters up to 40%, from the amendment’s 30%. Councillor Wang noted that increasing the buildable area for these medium sized lots would allow for more variability in building size and shape for properties on the lot, and that this was also a reduction from the provincial legislation. Councillor Gu expressed concern that increasing the buildable area would incentivize the construction of mega mansions instead of 1500-1800 square foot homes that would be more affordable to local residents. Councillor Calendino responded by saying that developers will build the missing middle housing that is being considered if they’re given the opportunity to do so. He also pointed out that the optimal size for missing middle housing is going to depend on the size of the family, and that a larger buildable area on the lot will allow for variability of building sizes to meet those different family needs. Councillor Lee also suggested that this will create more interesting housing designs, and also that it will allow for more multigenerational housing on the same lot, where extended families could have separate units on the same lot of land. Councillor Dhaliwal also noted that under the proposed changes, if people were rezoned under the old system and moved to the R1 system, they could not build the same size house that already existed on the lot. Dhaliwal also noted that the new system included floor space that wasn’t included in the previous system such as hallways and garages, and that means properties would be smaller than expected. The Dhaliwal sub-amendment passed, and part 2 of the amended Tetrault amendment also passed.

A third sub-amendment was proposed by Councillor Dhaliwal, changing the third part of the Tetrault amendment. The sub-amendment would changed the amendment to be 30% of the lot be buildable for lots larger than 567 square meters, instead of the 25% proposed by the Tetrault amendment. Tetrault noted that the difference is drastic and that information had already been canvassed at previous meetings. Tetrault noted that 25% of these lots would still allow for a 5000 square foot home to be created, and very few people need that kind of housing. Councillor Lee noted that 30% still allows for a subermajority of green space on the lot, and gives builders more choice on how to build and develop the land. The Dhaliwal sub-amendment passed, and the final amendment was written that homes smaller than 567 square meters would allow for 40% of the lot to be built, while lots larger than 567 square meters would allow up to 30% of the lot to be built and developed.

Council then went into a closed session. The next meeting will be November 25^th, and I’ll have another post up by the beginning of December.