5227 Lane Street – CMHC rentals to market rentals

First on the agenda was a staff report recommending changes to some of the rental units at the 5227 Lane Street complex. Prior to January 27^th, the project was meant to be a mixed-use development with 160 residences. 90 would be market strata for sale on the market, and 70 would be rental units owned by the developer. Of the 70 rental units, 35 were originally meant to be offered at the CMHC median market rates, and the other 35 would be listed on the market. The staff report recommends changing the 35 CMHC units into market rate units, meaning there wouldn’t be any below market rental units in the project.

A softer sales market appears to be the issue with the development. The developer has stated that with the economy the way it currently is, the financial viability of the project would be challenged if the CMHC units were allowed to continue. The developer also indicated that converting all rentals into market value should be sufficient to obtain financing to construct the project, assuming no other deterioration of the local market or any other unforeseen expenses. The report was received without any discussion.

Many readers will know that I’ve always been a proponent of having additional non-market housing options throughout the city and province as a means of helping address affordability problems, especially here in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It’s disappointing to see that this development has to lose those non-market rental units in order to remain financially viable. With that being said, it’s also important to ensure that we are continuing to add to the local housing supply and research still shows that mixed use developments have better health and safety outcomes for all members of the community. Mostly though, this is a statement of where developer finances are at with the downturn in the housing market over the last couple of years. It doesn’t look like there’s going to be much of a change in prices in the near future, but hopefully in the medium term more can be done to decrease the costs associated with producing housing so that more non-market units can be brought online.

Bylaw #14791 – 1030 Sperling Avenue First and Second Reading

First and Second Reading were given to a bylaw amendment allowing for the construction of 35 residential units with an underground parking lot. The units would be comprised of ground level units with stacked townhouses on top.

I know this area really well, and I’m surprised that the lot is going to be used for so many units. I’ll have to do a drive past the street to see how far east the lot goes, but this is a significant difference in density compared to the rest of the neighbourhood. The complex is on a major bus route and within walking distance to the R5 on Hastings, so it does present good connections to other neighbourhoods and doesn’t necessarily require a car to live there. I will be interested to see what kind of mix between market and non-market housing is suggested for the project.

Bylaw #14590 – Bevan Townhomes final approval

Final approval was given to a bylaw amendment in South Burnaby for the construction of 183 rental townhouses. Mosaic is serving as the developer of the project, but the land was previously owned by the City of Burnaby as a city-owned non-market housing site. The site will include 92 CMHC median market value townhomes and 91 market value townhomes. The project will be comprised of two and three-bedroom townhomes.

This project is interesting to me because it’s an opportunity to observe how city-owned non-market housing sites will be developed. For this project, the City created the final design for the project and went through the approvals process with the developer. That’s a bit of a different process from the Burnaby Housing Authority, which is slated to be a major user of city-owned non-market housing sites.

It is good that the project has been given final approval, as Third Reading occurred in 2023 and the project is finally able to begin.

The next scheduled Burnaby City Council meeting is Tuesday, February 10^th.

Despite being a relatively short meeting, the January 13 meeting was dominated by housing issues, so let’s get started.

Complex care petition re: 5389 Imperial Street

BC Housing and the provincial government proposed placing a supportive and complex care housing facility in Burnaby, at 5389 Imperial Street. There’s been a lot of public concern about the complex and this will be the second time that it’s come up before council, and the second time that there is significant public concern and backlash to the project. Opponents have flooded the council chambers to voice their opposition, and have included a petition with thousands of signatures opposing the proposal.

Mayor Hurley proposed a motion that BC Housing present a comprehensive public engagement plan to council before any consideration of rezoning or lease of the property. Mayor Hurley noted that the city gets a significant number of complaints about homeless people in public spaces, and that the courts have been very clear that the city cannot move unhoused people from these public spaces unless the city has a place where they can be sheltered. The mayor notes that this is the responsibility of senior governments, and that the 5389 Imperial project is a project of BC Housing and the provincial government. It is therefore their job to liaise with the community in a meaningful way to reassure the community that they can successfully manage these supportive housing buildings. This motion is carried, and the initial petitions will be sent to BC Housing as requested by Councillor Wang.

Councillor Lee had two separate motions regarding the housing facility. The first was a declaration of procedural deficiency, arguing that BC Housing and the provincial government had not done a good enough job reaching out to the community to address the concerns of local residents. Councillor Lee’s motion notes that engagement by BC Housing was limited to a small geographic area immediately surrounding the proposed facility, even though the project will have an effect on a much larger part of the community, and that those who are potentially affected should have an opportunity to speak to the project. Specifically, Councillor Lee’s motion requires BC Housing to conduct engagement with residents within five kilometers of the proposed project. The motion also requires the city to remind senior governments of the expected level of engagement for public projects within Burnaby.

The motion was tabled by council, citing the mayor’s previous motion that effectively covers much of what was in Councillor Lee’s motion to council.

The second motion was to suspend further municipal action regarding the proposed care facility due to inconsistencies between public statements made by municipal elected officials and the directions that council staff were given. Councillor Lee noted that council had provided authorization to proceed with negotiations, but that subsequent to that, the mayor indicated that city staff had been directed not to communicate with BC Housing regarding the proposal until community engagement had taken place. Councillor Lee’s motion also notes inconsistencies and incomplete information about the process has led to a reduction in public trust regarding the proposed supportive housing complex.

Councillor Lee’s motion requires council to acknowledge the inconsistency between what was voted on and what was publicly stated, declare there was procedural unfairness in the site selection process, formally cease negotiations with BC Housing on the proposed site, create criteria for future project selection processes and clarify how previous council motions were interpreted by city staff. The motion was not seconded, and therefore not debated by council.

I’m going to preface my comments about this by saying that I’m a strong supporter of community integrated housing, and that includes housing for people with complex health needs. There’s been endless commentary in Metro Vancouver and Burnaby specifically about unhoused people and how to support them, going back at least a decade when comments made by the previous mayor caused a furor in the community. Mayor Hurley correctly points out that the city is limited in what they can do to support the unhoused population or remove them from public spaces if there aren’t any shelters or housing for them.

This housing complex from BC Housing is an attempt to at least start addressing the problem. It’s recognizing that there are legal requirements in place and it’s attempting to address a societal problem in a humane manner, and it’s been completely taken apart in social media and other online commentary about what’s being proposed at the complex. Mayor Hurley’s motion to require a comprehensive public engagement plan from BC Housing is a good and welcome step, but at this point its completely irrelevant. The public’s imagination has been hard-wired to assume the absolute worst about this project, and there’s no consultation process that’s going to convince people screaming about keeping drug houses out of their neighbourhood that’s going to convince local residents to support this project, or even to dampen their outright hostility to the project. I would imagine with council voting to demand a consultation process, this project will get buried in opposition and quietly get withdrawn. This is ultimately to the detriment of the city, and I hope that at some point in the future once the outrage over this facility dies down, another attempt is made that includes far more comprehensive public outreach and a media strategy to ensure that this kind of supportive housing can be built in Burnaby.  

Non-residential zoning districts

Burnaby City Council, as part of the changes to the official community plan and the OCP 2050 plan, has been working to create numerous new zoning categories that better accomplish what city council is trying to accomplish with their growth plan. Previously in 2025, city council was able to complete the process of defining what the residential zones will look like and what their individual purposes will be. This bylaw amendment is meant to clarify and create the new non-residential zones for commercial, industrial, parkland, agricultural and institutional zones. These will include definitions of what the land can be used for as both its primary purpose and any allowable secondary purposes that the land can be used for.

Councillor Tetrault noted that there were improvements made to where self-storage can be situated, in particular noting that it wasn’t the best use of land space for transit oriented development and that it’s not an ideal use of ground floor space in industrial areas. Councillor Tetrault also asked how primary and secondary use would be differentiated and what that would look like. He suggested that the designations would allow for much more mixed use of zoned districts, and that the goal would be to create more complete communities, even through industrial areas. Staff supported that this was in line with what they were looking to do, and that this would also allow businesses to expand and create complementary secondary uses that may not have been originally intended through the original zoning that would expand the scope of services offered by any individual business.

Councillor Tetrault also asked if there were any ability through the bylaw amendments to require or prevent certain uses at ground level for these new zoning developments. The concern was that, especially in new developments, ground level use was being bought up by businesses that could better be used on the second floor of a development. Staff indicated that there are such restrictions, though less of that in these non-residential zoning bylaw amendments.

Councillor Dhaliwal asked about the industrial bylaw and how different uses are being proposed, and how parking trucks and storage is zoned and whether there will be a differentiation between light and heavy industry. His concern was whether there would be a provision for industrial zoning require truck parking and storage of heavy equipment for tradepeople who are working in Burnaby. Staff noted that there were multiple zones that were amalgamated into the single industrial district, but that there were sub-districts that could be used for heavy industrial types of uses that require specific considerations or conditions of use for approval, or separation from other things. Staff also noted that the bylaw rewrite was to give as much flexibility as needed for the industrial zones to work as industrial zones, and not to be redeveloped into other residential or commercial zones. There would be more flexibility for commercial fleet parking in the industrial zone. The intent of the new district is to be less prescriptive and more flexible about which trades can park and use those zones. Staff noted there’s nothing in the proposed bylaw that would prevent an applicant from being able to provide parking that they would need for their industrial application.

Councillor Dhaliwal followed up by asking if there’s been any outreach to industry about what their needs are, especially as the OCP is meant to project out for the next 25 years. Staff indicated that there have been some interactions with individual business owners to be aware of what their needs are. Staff also suggested that fleet parking and other storage could be an acceptable secondary use of the property, as long as it directly aligns with the primary use of the property and industrial zone.

Councillor Gu asked about primary and secondary use definitions, and that sometimes those definitions have clear delineation of square footage use or other direct measurements, and asked how the city would regulate primary versus secondary use when those direct measurements are not available or appropriate. Staff said there’s no real floor area usage number and that it’s meant to provide more flexibility. Staff also suggested that in the future there may be a need to provide thresholds but right now there’s no need to have arbitrary requirements, and that the secondary use is something that has to be related to the primary use in some way, and that it could not exist on its own on the property.

Councillor Gu noted that there’s a scarcity of industrial land, and that this lack of firm commitment of what is primary and secondary use can have a negative impact on the use of industrial land. In particular, concerns about how some other forms of land usage could increase the price of land and make it difficult to use the land for its intended purpose. Councillor Gu suggested that a solution would be to add an overlay that you meet the institution or industrial zoning first, before achieving market rentals or other secondary uses of the land, or to have clearer descriptions of what primary and secondary use of the zoned land would be. Councillor Gu also noted that the proposed regulations would not be enough to protect A1 agricultural land and more regulation needed around building residential in this area.

Councillor Lee asked about the Agricultural Land Reserve and how minimum permitted lot size within ALR would be 220,000 square meters and that outside the ALR would be 5,000 square meters. Councillor Lee asked if this was a provincial requirement. Staff indicated that the Agricultural Land Commission gives final approval for any subdivisions within the ALR, and that staff chose the lot size in question to protect existing agricultural land from subdivision except for the largest lots. Councillor Lee then asked if there would be any grandfathering of lots, and staff indicated that they would be allowed to develop within the existing bylaws. Staff indicated that the subdivision regulation would only apply to the largest properties.

Councillor Lee then asked about school sites and potential school sites. He wanted to know what would happen if someone had a townhouse development and then it was overlaid with a school designation what would happen. Staff indicated that the OCP would still permit the residential use, but if you want to use it for institutional purposes it would have to be for a school, meaning that residential could still be built. Staff indicated the school would have to acquire the land and go through rezoning before building the school, and that potential rezoning strategies would be brought back to council later in the year.

Councillor Calendino asked about building residential on agricultural land and how in other cities we see very large residential structures being built with associated secondary buildings, and whether the Burnaby bylaw limits the size of residential buildings that can be built in agricultural plots. Staff indicated that under existing bylaw, they can permit up to 500 square meters in floor area, no lot coverage conditions or restraints other than being 2.5 storeys in height. That 500 square meter aligns with provincial ALR regulations. New bylaw keeps 500 square meter value, but it applies to all single family residential and the accessory buildings, meaning each building will be smaller. The new bylaw also set value of 250 square meter footprint, or about 2700 square feet for the single-family dwelling and the accessory building. Staff stated it would be a total of about 5300 square feet of buildable area, which is smaller than other nearby municipalities.

Councillor Calendino also asked about mixed use industrial properites, noting that Metro Vancouver wouldn’t be opposed to seeing light industrial with residential on top within transit-oriented development areas. Staff indicated that employment districts would be permitted but not necessarily industrial, and ground level must be principal employment use. A portion of the rental units would also have to meet the affordability levels of inclusionary housing bylaws. Councillor Calendino asked to clarify that within the 200-meter radius of skytrains whether there would be any heavy industry zoning, or if it would just be employment zoning and staff indicated that was correct, though there are some heavy industrial uses in the city.

Councillor Gu asked about recycling and waste processing facility criteria and how they must be on publicly owned or operated lands. Staff indicated that they didn’t want to see a privately operated facility that may have less review, and to support municipal oriented waste disposal facilities. Bylaws would still allow for smaller scale recycling but larger scale sites would not be allowed under the proposed bylaws. Councillor Gu asked what the implications would be if there were to be subsidies for private facilities that were on publicly owned and operated lands and how those lands could be taken advantage of by those operators. Councillor Gu also indicated that the siting of the land may be more important than the ownership of the land.

Councillor Dhaliwal commented on employment and industrial zoning setbacks, and how they have been reduced to a one-third of what they used to be under the previous bylaws. Councillor Dhaliwal noted that there’s no current restriction on how much of the lot can be built on, and had concerns about whether it is appropriate to not necessarily space for landscaping or a tree canopy on the lot. Councillor Dhaliwal asked if there were any discussions about what impacts there would be about losing some of this green space. Staff indicated that there were consultations about how industrial and employment sites were used. Most of the zones went through a comprehensive development process that allows the city more of a say in how those setbacks are used. For individual zoning most of those setbacks are already paved, but city will have an opportunity to say how the setbacks are suitably landscaped through other parts of the bylaw and regulations. Staff noted that the tree bylaw coming out of the urban forestry strategy that will also impact development, and development permit guidelines will further impact development.

Councillor Dhaliwal noted that the OCP talked about having adequate space for tree canopy and other green spaces on lots, but this bylaw proposal is the first time seeing what the setbacks are for these zones, and asked when the public would see those setbacks if there’s no public consultation. Councillor Dhaliwal wanted to see a reasonable explanation for why the lowest standard of setback was being used as the standard, and that the city should be prepared to receive zoning applications that will cover as much of the buildable land as possible, except for the required setbacks because there’s no maximum coverage of the lot within the bylaw. Councillor Dhaliwal wanted to see a process that did not rely on CD zoning or staff discretion. Staff indicated that the proposed industrial district setbacks align with heavy industry setbacks, and that the major changes are for the employment districts. Staff also indicated they will be bringing in an interim measure focused on residential districts, but that pervious surface requirements come from the next phase of the zoning bylaw rewrite process. Those supplemental regulations will be what will determine how much of the lot can be impermeable construction.

Councillor Lee also noted that setbacks could be an issue if there’s no public hearing. A public hearing could be an opportunity to hear back from stakeholders, and wanted to know if there was a possibility of more input so that bylaws and regulations could be less of a concern for industry.

Councillor Dhaliwal spoke to the recommendations regarding the report and the need for a public hearing. The staff recommendation was that there not be a public hearing regarding these changes to the bylaws, as they are consistent with the OCP 2050 plan which has already gone through public hearings and consultations. Councillor Dhaliwal noted that this is the first time that anyone has seen the bylaws and how they would change the way zoning is done, and asked how the public would be able to see this information and comment on it if not through a public hearing. Staff responded that they had consulted broadly about the needs of industry in Burnaby, and heard from them again at the mayor’s task force. Staff then translated that into what became the OCP and that this is the first time anyone has seen specific setback requirements, but that it’s not alien to most of the development under the current industrial districts. Staff also noted that other issues related on biodiversity and greenspace can be addressed through other phases of the zoning bylaw rewrite, and that it doesn’t have to be regulated through the setback regulations suggested by these new bylaw changes. Staff suggested that they had heard from industrial users and what their needs are, and that these changes are not significant enough to warrant a public hearing and that there wouldn’t be interest from industry or the wider community.

Mayor Hurley asked for a motion to refer the report back to committee to get more information from staff, in part because this was the first time this information was being brought forward to council. The motion was approved and staff will report back with additional information at a later council meeting.

There’s a lot to unpack in all of this, but I thought this was forty minutes of Council doing a really good job of trying to wrap their heads around what’s going to be really significant changes in the zoning process in Burnaby. Amalgamating previous zones into these five remaining non-residential zones is going to require a lot of finesse to ensure that currently acceptable land usage is given continuity in the new zones, or that a grandfathering system is adequately put into place to ensure there aren’t massive disruptions in current economic activity in the city.

I’m very interested in how determinations of primary and secondary use are determined for a zoning district, and think that this needs to be quantified in some way. My initial thought is that the secondary use should almost appear as at a future date as an amendment to the original rezoning application that a lot might go through, in order to obtain that secondary use designation, but I do think that something has to be done to ensure there’s an orderly process for how primary and secondary uses are determined. I’m also not entirely sure that housing is going to end up being one of those commonly determined secondary uses. I know that there’s a lot of thought being put into the idea of creating complete communities and there is something to that, but I have a hard time believing that people are going to choose to build homes in active industrial lands.

There was a lot of discussion about different setbacks and how to use the rezoning process to control for landscaping and other greenspace, and I think my biggest concern is from staff stating that they’re going come back later in the year with additional changes to the zoning bylaws that will be a more exact tool that council can use to try and ensure adequate greenspace and permeability on each lot. We saw in 2025 that each time an amendment came forward for small scale multi-unit housing that it prompted a public hearing and a significant amount of public pressure; it seems foolish to invite the same kind of process when staff and council could wait and create a comprehensive set of bylaw amendments that could be dealt with all at once, instead of piecemeal and subject to several different public hearing processes.

Buller Avenue rezoning application

A rezoning application came through the planning and development committee for an eight storey rental tower along Buller Avenue and Beresford Street. The proposal is for 183 market rental units to be constructed in a transit oriented development area. The plan was originally proposed under the previous zoning bylaw and has been resubmitted under the new residential zoning bylaws passed by council in 2025. Of note for the development is that it proposes only 0.29 parking spaces per dwelling unit, but includes a significant number of subsidies including $1000 per dwelling unit to subsidize purchases of two-zone transit passes, $500 per unit in car-share credits and a communications strategy for non-private vehicle transportation options. The application was approved for first and second reading at a future council meeting.

I’m excited about this project. As with other developments, there will likely be a component of below-market rental units that are eventually added to the project, and I love the idea of subsidizing transit options that aren’t a parking spot for private use in the building.

That’s all for this council meeting, and I’m really sorry it took so long to get this post out. The next council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 27^th so I’ll try to have that one out by the end of January.

Welcome to Prime on the Plaza — a bright, quiet SW corner home offering one of the most spacious and efficient 2 bed/2 bath layouts, with bedrooms thoughtfully placed on opposite sides for maximum privacy. Enjoy A/C (always a bonus), 9' ceilings, hardwood floors, custom roller blinds, and excellent in-suite storage. The kitchen features soft-close oak cabinetry paired with a modern European appliance package. Both bathrooms feel spa-inspired, one with a frameless glass shower, another is a deep soaker tub, marble tile, and contemporary fixtures. Amenities include a full gym, yoga studio, sauna, steam room, study rooms + more. Steps to Surrey Central SkyTrain, Library, and Central City Mall. 2-5-10 Warranty are still in play. Open House: Sat Dec 6, 1-3pm / Sun Dec 7, 2-4pm

In the previous hearing about the zoning bylaw, members of the public were simply commenting on the proposed bylaw itself. This week’s meeting was about the proposed changes to the bylaws, and this meeting had more people attend than the previous meeting. City staff announced that there were over 150 different submissions on the topic of the hearing, and that there were four separate petitions with 1066, 256, 196 and 221 signatures respectively.

Speakers at the public hearing mainly fell into three different groups; those who opposed the amendment because they opposed small scale multi-unit housing in general, those who opposed the amendment because it reduced the buildable area on each lot, and those who were broadly supportive of the amendment lowering the amount of buildable space on the property. By far, the most numerous were those who opposed the amendment, and between them there were more of those who did not want any density as opposed to those who wanted more density. With that being said, there was a much more concerted effort by people who wanted increased density to show up and present, either in person or zoom or through the public submission process.

Overall opponents of the SSMUH process are generally opposed for two reasons. The first is process based, where opponents feel that the bylaw was brought it too quickly and there wasn’t enough time for residents to have their say about the bylaw. Tied into those concerns is the fact that Burnaby had an extensive housing consultation period after the 2022 municipal election, and the city had already been going through the process of updating its official community plan when provincial legislation required upzoning for SSMUH throughout the city. Substantive concerns revolved around concerns about changing neighbourhood character, reductions in privacy from having increased density in single family neighbourhoods, and a concern that the buildings being constructed are not aesthetically in line with the rest of the neighbourhood. The aesthetic concerns also include concerns about height and setback differentials between the new buildings and those that were constructed under the previous zoning bylaws.

An unfortunate thing to note was that many of those who came to the meeting were opposed to the original zoning bylaw and demanded reductions in density in order to meet their needs. Now that council has done so by reducing the buildable area and reducing height restrictions, many of those same people came back to council to say that they were not satisfied with the changes and demanded even further reductions in density and buildable area. Specific concerns were that duplexes would be considered too much density, and that a proposed two storey laneway house was considered a monster house in the speaker’s single family neighbourhood. While I have no doubt that many of the opponents of SSMUH are sincere in their concerns, it is also becoming clear that several opponents simply oppose any density at all.

Opponents who wanted to revert to the original bylaw commonly stated that it was unfair that rezoning applications were made under the original height and lot restriction requirements, and that those were now no longer available to the development proponents. Many indicated that their developments would not be financially viable if the amendments were adopted, and that doing so would inevitably reduce the amount of newly constructed homes that would be created under the zoning bylaw. Others noted that the original limitations would allow for increased density, which should have the effect of decreasing home prices over time as supply and demand rebalance themselves. Many of those who supported the amendment noted that it was a compromise between the original bylaw and the demands to not do any increased density anywhere.

The public hearing finished after just under five and a half hours, with council likely to vote on the amendment sometime in the near future.

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.

First up were the revised recommendations from the October 14^th regarding R1 zoning for small scale multi-unit housing. There were some significant changes to the original zoning proposal while still maintaining the concept of having multiple units of housing on a single lot. First off, in response to overwhelming public sentiment there were changes in the heights of buildings allowed on these lots. The overall height for the main building on the lot has been reduced to 10 meters total on a sloped roof, or 9.5 meters for a flat roof structure. For the rear building on the lot, the height is reduced to 7.5 meters on a sloped roof and 7 meters on a flat roof. These measurements are from the lower of the front or rear elevation of the property.

R1 zoning is meant to allow as many as six different housing units to be built on a single lot, but doesn’t require it as part of the rezoning. Changes were also made to the amount of allowable sizes of properties if the owner and developer choose to only build one or two units on the lot. For lots that are greater than 567 square meters, if only one or two units are built then they can only cover 25% of the lot space, have a max height of 2.5 storeys and a maximum 60% coverage for the impervious surface area, which would include things like the garage, driveway and any other compacted soil. For lot sizes under 567 square meters, an amendment was passed to reduce the lot coverage to 30%, again with 2.5 storey max and this time with only 40% maximum impervious surface area. For those smaller lot sizes where three or four units are being built, lot coverage increases to 40%, a height restriction of 3 storeys and a significant increase to 60% coverage for the maximum impervious surface area.

The zoning bylaw also impacts smaller lots. For those lots that are larger than 281 square meters and have the five or six units contemplated in the provincial legislation and municipal bylaw, up to 45% of the lot may be used for housing, with a maximum height of 3 storeys and up to 70% of the lot being impervious surfaces. Finally, row houses on lots smaller than 280 square meters may have up to three units on them may cover up to 55% of the lot in housing, again at 3 storeys and a 70% maximum impervious surface area. The last change from the original bylaw was to have a minimum yard size of four meters for small scale multi-unit housing, and three meters for row houses.

Council had a significant discussion about this bylaw, and as noted it was amended from allowing 40% usable lot size to 30% for lots under 567 square meters that only had one or two housing units on the lot. The main area of discussion was whether the switch from forty percent to thirty percent would allow for the increase in housing density envisioned by provincial and municipal legislators, and also what would ensure that large buildings that dominate the neighbourhood were not built. It was noted that the reduction in buildable land would only impact those lots that chose to build only one or two units and were not actively increasing density on their lots. Some of the councillors were clear that reducing the amount of buildable land was specifically done to ensure that units would be smaller and increase overall attainability for families. This led to a discussion about whether the smaller units would be appropriate for families, and whether the variety of missing middle housing could be created that would still be large enough to support multiple residents in each dwelling. Staff also indicated that the new system being proposed would be more transparent for developers and the local community about what would be allowed on the property.  

The mayor’s bylaw amendment to the R1 small scale multi-unit housing zoning district from the previous October 14 meeting was referred to staff for more consideration and to report on some of the legal implications the city might be responsible for if it passed. The amendment would have increased the amount of parking on each R1 lot to 1.0 parking spots per unit, and no more than four units of housing per parcel of land that is smaller than 623 square meters. Councillors noted that the proposed amendment had not been extensively tested by staff to determine whether triplexes and quadplexes could still be viable under the bylaw, and staff indicated that there could be some potential conflicts about whether required yard sizes and distances between buildings on the lots could be respected under the proposed change.

Several councillors suggested that these changes would be inconsistent with the provincial enabling legislation and that could leave the city open to legal challenges in the future. With that in mind, the council voted to refer the amendment to staff to report on what legal ramifications could unfold if the bylaw amendment passes.

A proposed zoning bylaw amendment regarding community benefit rates and capital cost rates for R6 through R8 zones was considered. R6-R8 zoning is medium to high density housing. R6 zoning refers to midrise residential up to 20 storeys in height, with additional bonus density subject to discretionary approval of council. R7 refers to high rise residential towers of up to 30 storeys, with a legislated bonus of up to 10 more storeys in height. R8 is high rise residential up to 40 storeys, again with a potential bonus lift of 10 more storeys embedded in the bylaw. The proposed bylaw sets out rates for community benefit and capital cost payments the developer must pay to the city to obtain the bonus, in line with provincial legislation moving towards amenity cost charges and development cost charges as means of funding housing in the province, instead of ad hoc density bonuses negotiated at the time of each rezoning application. Community Benefit Rates are higher for market properties versus non-market housing, and Capital Cost Rates are dependent upon what kind of community amenity is being constructed with the funds. The rates were also dependent upon which of the four development quadrants of the city the development was constructed in. Council approved the motion to have the city solicitor develop bylaw amendments for presentation to council based on the proposed rates.

Council also approved a process for determining the appropriate development fees a development would pay to the city if it were to abandon its current process and re-apply under the new R1-R9 zoning system. Currently, there are several projects under consideration that applied under the old zoning structure the city developed. This former process included processes for determining the density bonus developers would receive, and the developer payments that would be accrued to obtain those density bonuses. Those were typically negotiated individually with each development proposal. Council envisions that many developments may wish to withdraw from that previous structure and reapply for development under the new zoning bylaws, and council prepared a process to ensure fairness for developers. The recommended process notes that when R rezoning is given final approval and adoption, the city will release applicants from all prior obligations under the previous zoning structure. City staff would also discharge existing obligations on title, and instead register new covenants on the title based on the new rezoning system.

The process would also determine what to do with payments already made by the developers. Interest payments would not be returned if the developer was doing a deferred payment structure, but if the developer had already fully paid their previous density bonus charges, the principal amount would be returned to the developer. The city would then issue development cost charge and amenity cost charges upon issuing the new building permits. Any previously paid development cost charges and amenity cost charges would be held as a credit against the new fees and reduce the final amount due from the developers.

Up next in the council meeting were a series of rezoning applications brought forward by the Planning and Development Committee for consideration by council. The first up for consideration was the development at Newcome and 10^th avenue for multiple family residential purpose-built rental properties. This was approved to be forwarded to the next council meeting for first and second reading and is the first project put forward by the Burnaby Housing Authority. This project would be cost-neutral to taxpayers, as the Housing Authority would be paid through the city’s previous community benefit bonus account. The project includes 204 units, with a mix of studio through to 3-bedroom units. The project is meant to reduce overall housing costs due to the Burnaby Housing Authority’s mandate to have a significant non-market housing component, where non-market housing could be as low as 50% of neighbourhood market rates.

The second rezoning application to be forwarded to the next council meeting was phase 1A of the Burnaby Lake Village project in the Bainbridge Urban Village at 6800 Lougheed Highway. This is the first phase of a multi-phase planned development project in a transit oriented development district. The buildings forwarded under this rezoning application would be zoned under the new R6 designation allowing for buildings up to 20 storeys in height. The three buildings envisioned will have 729 units, with a minimum of 20% of those units constructed as adaptable under the adaptable housing policy and BC building code.

A mixed-use development at 4269 Hastings was also forwarded for first and second reading by council. The six storey mixed use building is one of the smaller ones being considered, with only 37 residential units being considered. As with the Lougheed Highway location, a minimum of 20% of the units will be adaptable as per the adaptable housing policy and the BC building code. Interesting to note that the building will have a lack of parking, only five parking spots are available for residents at the current time, with six available for the commercial component of the building.

A mid-rise rental apartment building in the Metrotown area was the last proposal that was forwarded to the next council meeting. The development, at 5889 Barker Avenue, was brought in under the previous floor area ratio building density system that the city is moving away from. The project includes 396 units. 290 of those units will be market sale units, 48 are replacement-non-market rental units to replace rental units that will be lost during the construction process, and a further 48 market rental units. Just like the previous few developments, at least 20% of the units will have to be adaptable under the adaptable housing policy and BC building code.

There was a rezoning application that was defeated and not sent to the next council meeting for consideration. There was a proposal put forward to build a purpose-built multiple family rental development on Rathburn drive near Simon Fraser University, and its proposed purpose would be for student accommodation. The council noted that there’s no formal application put forward as part of the application and that this was simply a request to determine whether there would be city staff support in principle for development in the chosen neighbourhood.

Council noted that there are environmental concerns in the area and that city staff have not completed survey work of fire hazards in the location, and that making any decisions about developments in that area should be halted until the staff work is complete. Staff also were concerned that the developer was not working with the university when the goal was to produce student housing. There were also additional concerns that even with the proposal being for student housing, there were no guarantees that the developer would charge rates similar to what the university itself would offer, and that instead the developer would charge market rates above what students would be able to afford. Council’s concerns about the environmental issues of the site and the fact that the development would significantly increase the population of the area led them to not move forward with the application at this time.

Finally, council approved housing agreements for properties at 5938 Olive Avenue and 6073 Wilson Avenue. These agreements stipulates how many non-market units and the kinds of units that must be designated as non-market, and further defines who would be eligible for discounted rental rates at the properties.

The council  schedule this month is a bit different than October, so blog posts may be sporadic and not on my usual schedule. We have a special council meeting November 4^th and a planning and development committee meeting November 5^th, and then a public hearing November 24^th and council meeting November 25^th. I’ll be writing about each of those as I can, as the next couple weeks will be busy for me as well.

Looking forward to the next ones, keeping you all up to date on what’s happening as your Eyes on Council.

Council started things off with a series of delegations, and interestingly all three had something to talk about that could impact housing issues in the short to medium term in Burnaby.

The first delegation was the Society to End Homelessness, and they came to talk about their 2025 Homeless Count that they did with support from the city and other non-profit groups in the city. The Society talked about how they’ve noticed an increase in homeless needs year over year, and that this suggests there will be increasing need for homeless support services and other forms of shelter going forward. The Society also cautioned that while they did count fewer homeless people than last year, but that doesn’t include any information gathered from schools or youth centres that was provided in previous years. They also cautioned that their count likely captures less than half the total homeless population in Burnaby.

The Heights Merchants’ Association and Heights Residents’ Association had the next two presentations. Both came to speak about the Bus Rapid Transit route that will be going through North Burnaby to get to Metrotown, and both indicated a strong preference for route two, going south along Boundary Road to Lougheed Highway. The Merchants Association argued that only a small fraction of shoppers to their district used public transit, and that there was already sufficient bus availability through the region that a BRT wasn’t needed. The Residents pointed out that option 1 for the route would block the annual Hats Off Day Parade from occurring, which is a major event in the neighbourhood and significant economic benefit for the local community.

From there we moved onto administrative reports to be voted on, accepted and approved. First on this was a proposed zoning bylaw for small scale multi unit housing properties. That motion was amended to maximize the height of new buildings to 3 storeys, including a basement, a max height of ten metres, and a max height of rear buildings on the lot of 2 storeys. The amendment also stated that for property lots larger than 748 square meters, if you have fewer than 3 housing units on the lot then the buildable area is reduced to 25% of the total lot space, and a height of 2.5 storeys. For lots smaller than 748 square meters, if you only build one unit on the lot them you can only build on 30% of the total land, again at 2.5 storeys. This was meant to ensure that people weren’t buying large lots and then building a single large house instead of actively increasing density. The amended motion will return to council soon as a bylaw to be approved and put into force. There was also a proposed amendment for the next council meeting that ensures setbacks are no less than neighbours on either side, a minimum of 1 parking spot per housing unit and no more than 4 units on a lot less than 623 meters square.

Staff presented a report about the Burnaby Shelter and Supportive Housing Strategy. The main points here were that there was a consistent 100% occupancy in supportive housing since opening and that winter shelters are turning people away on a daily basis. Staff indicate that the city needs an additional 22,724 housing units by 2026 to address chronic housing issues, and that 1072 units need to be built to address extreme core housing needs for low-income citizens.

There was an amendment to the five-year financial plan that was meant to address funding given or promised to the Burnaby Housing Authority. This was an expected change in the financial plan and was required because the original five-year plan did not include the promised funding to the Authority.

The Planning and Development Committee also brought forward a report about the proposed amendment of the Amazing Brentwood master plan. Council felt that the density of the development was too high, considering what the city was getting back in terms of the number of affordable housing units provided by the developer. It was also noted that the density was higher than if previous density allocation models had been used, and that previous bylaws would have gotten 20% of units to be considered affordable, as opposed to the 10% the project was committed to providing. There was also a discussion of development funding, with Council noting that this project wasn’t required to pay density bonuses to the city until their developments reached forty storeys in height. There was also a discussion about the switch to developers providing amenity cost charges and development cost charges instead of the previous density bonus system, and how that was meant to avoid site by site negotiations with developers and instead create a more uniform approach to funding amenities and infrastructure.

An update on the federal government housing accelerator fund was discussed, with city staff noting that Burnaby has been awarded 43.4 million from the fund, in 4 annual installments that occur until 2027. Later funding is contingent on delivery of 11,340 housing units, which is lower than the city’s expected need of 22,724 units. Staff report that the city is about 1100 units above their current target, and that 76% of all accelerator funding is going into capital projects.

The end of the council meeting was a series of votes on different motions. The previously discussed bylaw amendment to the five-year fiscal plan was given first, second and third reading and now waits for a vote on final adoption. The Burnaby 2050 Official Community Plan was also given third reading after a contentious public hearing last week.

Third reading and final adoption of a bylaw for inclusionary housing was adopted. This bylaw defines inclusionary rental units as those provided by the developer as part of their housing agreements with the city, and which have to be offered to eligible families at below market rates. The inclusionary rental rate for those units is an amount not greater than the median rental rate for a similar unit in that neighbourhood, and eligible families are those whose rent, if they obtained the unit, would be 20-30% of their gross household income. The bylaw also requires that developers replace any rental unit demolished to create the development with a new rental unit, and that unit must be rented out to the original tenant at the tenant’s previous rent. The bylaw also states how much inclusionary housing is required in each quadrant of the city; 10% of all units must be inclusionary in developments in Southwest and Northwest Burnaby, while only 5% of units are required to be inclusionary in Northeast and Southeast Burnaby. This will apply to all R5-R8 zoning, and the bylaw also states that if a developer provides excess inclusionary units in one development, that capacity can be used off-site in other developments in the same quadrant.

Finally, final approval was given to create two new financial accounts. In line with the move to amenity cost charges and development cost charges, the city has created a Burnaby Community Benefit Bonus Amenities Reserve Fund and a Burnaby Community Benefit Bonus Housing Reserve fund. Both of these were required by the changes in the Local Government Act, and make more clear where funding is being allocated in order to finance infrastructure and development amenity construction.

That’s it for this week’s council meeting. The next scheduled council meeting is Tuesday, October 28^th, so I’ll have an update in November.

Hello everyone, and welcome to the inaugural post for Eyes on Council, a Burnaby REALTOR®’s view towards what’s happening at city council and how it effects the local housing market. This will normally be a twice-monthly blog posting the same week as council meetings, with occasional bonus posts if something happens that’s worth having a look and its impact on the local housing market.

Today happens to be one of those days! This past Monday we had a public hearing for the Official Community Plan update, which is a bylaw amendment replacing the 1998 Official Community Plan for Burnaby with the updated Burnaby 2050 plan. An official community plan is a legal document required for municipalities under provisions of the provincial Local Government Act. The official community plan, or OCP, is the document that outlines the long-term vision of the community. It is meant to be a high-level document that outlines the plans for development in a municipality, and addresses long-term planning goals including placement for commercial and employment locations, appropriate location and density for housing, and provision of community amenities. Any work done, or any bylaws approved by the municipality must be in line with accomplishing the goals of the OCP.

It's an important document, and municipalities do refresh their OCPs on a regular basis based on changing conditions in the city and what the new goals of the city are going to be. As you can expect, this is a very long process, with Burnaby starting its process in 2022 after the 1998 plan called for a revision in 2021. As you might expect, changes to the OCP can be very emotional for the local residents, and municipalities do take the time to make sure they consult as widely as possible. However, Burnaby’s process was interrupted by a change in provincial legislation, namely Bill 44 and Bill 47, the Housing Statutes (residential development) Amendment Act of 2023 and the BC Construction Industry Payment Act of 2023. These pieces of legislation significantly altered the framework for zoning and residential density in British Columbia, and these changes were to be implemented by the municipalities.

The timing of the provincial legislation required Burnaby to significantly alter its OCP plan to become in line with provincial guidelines. In particular, Bill 44 allows for small-scale multi-unit housing on lots currently zoned for single family developments, and applies to all municipalities with a population greater than 5000. Because many of those areas are currently zoned for single family development, this has required the city to blanket rezone neighbourhoods to allow for multi-family development. Bill 47 also creates transit-oriented areas where even greater density is permitted. The goal of both pieces of legislation was to increase the amount of housing supply with a hope of increasing affordability by creating additional competition for buyers, driving down prices to ensure a sale.

Lost in all the noise is that while municipalities are required to bring zoning bylaws into force that allow for the increased density, there are no provisions forcing the redevelopment of property into multi-family unit dwellings. What the legislation does is permit additional development, but it doesn’t force it and it is up to individual lot owners to decide whether they wish to redevelop to higher density. Of course, there are tax incentives for doing so since property taxes are assessed based on highest and best use of the land, and that’s changed from being a detached home to being a multiplex situation on the property. But again, there is no legal requirement to demand higher density, only a series of incentives that promote higher density.

All of which brings us to the meeting this past Monday for Burnaby’s OCP. It is important to note at this point that the provincial enabling legislation has received royal assent, and that municipalities were required to bring their bylaws into compliance in 2024. Effectively, this means that the rezoning has already started in those single-family housing neighbourhoods, and the OCP amendment is a matter of bringing the OCP into compliance and to start planning for what that increase in residential density will look like throughout the city, and how to plan the necessary infrastructure to handle the increase in population and utilities usage.

A significant majority of the speakers were opposed to the changes to the OCP. The vast majority feel that they were not properly consulted about the scale of the changes and what it could mean for their neighbourhoods or even their own properties. Many of those in opposition who did live in detached single family homes expressed concerns about what would happen to their privacy if increased density was brought into their neighbourhoods, and that there would be negative changes to the character of the neighbourhood such as increased crime, more traffic and reduced safety for the members of the community. Other community members expressed concerns for what will happen to parking access in their neighbourhoods if there’s a significant increase in density without a corresponding increase in parking availability, and that the city ratepayers will be forced to pay for the necessary infrastructure upgrades the potential increase in density will require. Finally, with respect to the concerns of having small scale walk-up apartment units in these single-family development neighbourhoods, there were concerns that the size of the apartment buildings would be inappropriately large for the neighbourhood, and that they do not aesthetically fit the rest of the neighbourhood.

The remaining quarter of speakers were broadly supportive of the changes in the official community plan, but also had some changes that they would want to include in order to make the bylaw more broadly acceptable. Several noted that land remains one of the biggest development costs for housing construction, and that allowing a single lot to include multiple units can allow for the housing units themselves to be smaller and more affordable. Most of those in favour noted that Burnaby’s population is going to keep increasing, and that the density being suggested allows for a balance between preserving the character of the neighbourhood and ensuring that there are enough potential homes for people to live in. There was also an acknowledgement that the push to create more affordable housing cannot come at the expense of damaging the property values of existing homeowners who may require that equity in the future, and that many of these small-scale units are the only affordable options for young families.

Let me preface my commentary by saying that I am broadly in favour of the changes to the OCP. I think that increased density and creating those missing middle homes and more effectively using property lots to create a wider variety of homes is a good thing. I strongly support increased density near transit, and I appreciate that the city is, by and large, not picking and choosing who is affected by the bylaw changes. I can also accept that many of the criticisms of both the process and the policy itself are valid, and that there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue.

With respect to issues around process and how the OCP has been rolled out, I’m sympathetic to those in opposition but also don’t really know where the city could have gone. The city did start its process three years ago, and that was done in good faith. It is wholly outside the power and purview of the municipal government to stall, interrupt or block provincial legislation, so when the provincial laws were brought into force the city had no choice but to amend its policies to be in line with provincial law. The unfortunate effect of that was to throw away a lot of the work that was originally done for the OCP, rendering all of those consultations and public outreach moot. For people who have concerns about how much of an opportunity they were given to talk about these new changes that were caused by provincial legislation, it’s unfortunate, but the city is stuck and the fact that public hearings aren’t continuing does not mean there’s no option to let council know your thoughts.

The policy concerns are worth addressing, and quite a few of them are worth addressing and could be changed by the city without causing too much of an issue within the larger OCP. Many of the speakers talked about how the change from having one home on a lot to as many as six homes on a lot will significantly increase the number of vehicles used by the lot, and that there’s not enough parking allocated for those homes. Right now, the OCP allocates 0.5 parking spots per unit for these new multi-family zoned lots. Potentially, that means six homes will have a total of 3 parking spots allocated to it. For areas that do not have reliable public transit access, this can be prohibitive and prevent lower income families from being able to live in homes that were meant for them to purchase. Many of the speakers suggested increasing the allocation to 1.0 parking spots per unit, which would be more in line with how many families live their lives and still works to ensure that residential roads are not overwhelmed with parking issues.

I want to talk about height restrictions in the new OCP, and why they were such a common topic of complaint at the public hearing. Many of the presentations talked about how, thanks to the provincial legislation, there would be provisions allowing walk-up apartment buildings of up to four storeys that could be built. These were presented in terms such as “monstrous” and “monster homes”, suggesting that these properties would be disproportionately oversized compared to other housing in the area. Again, this is according to the opponents of the OCP that a forty-foot height restriction is too lenient for builders and takes away too much sunlight for other properties. I grew up in a single-family development neighbourhood in the Montecito area. In fact, I lived in a fourplex unit which meant that the building itself was two storeys. Down the road from me was one of these small-scale apartment buildings. It’s a walk-up, and I had to walk by it all the time to get to the bus. Was it bigger than the other houses in the area? Yeah, it was. Was it some monstrous eyesore that blotted out the sun? Not really. It was four or five storeys, and to my knowledge no one ever had a problem with it being there in the thirty years I lived in that neighbourhood. One of the speakers at the hearing mentioned another property that’s currently under construction on the same street. It’s also going to be a four or five storey building. Again, yes, it’s larger than its neighbours, but it hardly blocks out the sun on all sides and it certainly isn’t dramatically oversized compared to other properties in the area. It’s a logical use of land space to increase density, nothing more and nothing less.

As a local resident, I’m aware of how people feel about their neighbourhoods changing and the possibility that Burnaby will change as its population increases. However, Burnaby’s population is going to continue to increase, and the OCP is an opportunity to try and deal with that growth in a way that is smart, and attempts to plan out the necessary infrastructure and housing density needed to keep up with regional growth. The lack of public consultation on the changes made by provincial legislation was unfortunate, but these changes are necessary and will eventually be found to have limited effects on the character of local neighbourhoods while also providing a significant influx of new affordable homes.

Your Home Feels Too Large

If you find yourself constantly cleaning and maintaining rooms that you don't use or don't need, it may be time to downsize. A large home can be great for entertaining or accommodating a growing family, but it can also be overwhelming to maintain as you get older. Downsizing can help you simplify your life and free up time and energy to focus on other things.

Your Children Have Moved Out

As children grow up and move out of the house, the need for a large family home decreases. If you have empty rooms that are rarely used, downsizing can be a great option. This can provide you with a more manageable home that better suits your current lifestyle.

Your Home Requires Too Much Maintenance

A large home can be a lot of work to maintain. As we get older, tasks such as yard work, cleaning gutters, and painting can become more challenging. Downsizing to a smaller, low-maintenance home can save you time, money, and energy.

Financial Considerations

Downsizing can also be a smart financial move. By selling a larger home and moving into a smaller one, you can potentially reduce your mortgage payments, lower your utility bills, and save on maintenance costs. This can provide you with more financial freedom and security in retirement.

Health Concerns

As we age, health concerns can become more of a factor in our housing decisions. A large home with multiple levels may no longer be practical if you have mobility issues or other health concerns. Downsizing to a smaller, more accessible home can improve your quality of life and make day-to-day tasks easier.

There are several signs that it may be time to downsize. If your home feels too large, your children have moved out, or your home requires too much maintenance, financial considerations, or health concerns, downsizing can be a smart move. It can simplify your life, save you money, and improve your quality of life. If you're considering downsizing, it's important to work with a real estate professional who can help you find a home that meets your needs and budget.

Lender fees

Lender fees are one of the most significant closing costs you'll encounter. These fees may include the loan origination fee, underwriting fee, and appraisal fee. The total amount of these fees can vary, but you can generally expect to pay between 1% and 5% of the total loan amount.

Title and settlement fees

Title and settlement fees are another significant closing cost. These fees cover the cost of the title search, title insurance, and settlement services. The cost of these fees can vary depending on the location of the home and the complexity of the transaction. On average, you can expect to pay between $2,000 and $5,000 in title and settlement fees.

Prepaid expenses

Prepaid expenses are another category of closing costs that you'll encounter. These expenses may include prepaid property taxes, homeowner's insurance, and prepaid interest. The amount of these expenses can vary depending on the specifics of the transaction, but you can generally expect to pay between 0.5% and 1% of the total loan amount.

Home inspection and appraisal fees

When buying a home, it's important to have a home inspection and appraisal done to ensure that the home is in good condition and that you're paying a fair price. The cost of these services can vary depending on the location of the home and the scope of the inspection. On average, you can expect to pay between $300 and $500 for a home inspection and between $300 and $500 for an appraisal.

Other fees

In addition to the fees mentioned above, there may be other fees associated with the transaction. These fees can include recording fees, courier fees, and attorney fees. The amount of these fees can vary depending on the specifics of the transaction.

Closing costs can be a significant expense when buying a home. While the exact amount of these costs can vary depending on the location of the home and the specifics of the transaction, it's important to be aware of these costs upfront so that you can budget accordingly. By understanding the closing costs associated with buying a home, you can be better prepared for the expenses that come with homeownership.