Scary Calgary changes to Secondary Suite approvals

[Sundancefisher]

So thinking of response back to the city. Things to consider.

1. There must be adequate parking for residents on the street.
2. Only one unit can be made...not two or three or four etc.
3. Home owner MUST be living there...so that rental properties can't be split into multifamily units.
4. Exterior construction must not be needed such as excavation, new doors or windows.
5. Must not currently have suites on either side. Congestion issue.
6. Does not include increasing home or garage height to accommodate rental unit

Need clarification as to is there any street notification and approval/rejection process after zoning change?

Am thinking of other issues. Can anyone come up with more things to be addressed?

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So thinking of response back to the city. Things to consider.

[...]
3. Home owner MUST be living there...so that rental properties can't be split into multifamily units.
[...]

How do you enforce that if it only happens at permit time? They can never sell the house after that?

Here's a thought, let people build what ever they want in their own homes (still requires permits and inspections) and if they want to rent a suite, make them apply for an annual licence.

ARG

[CaberTosser]

Some of those wish list items do not seem like they would go anywhere to me. The no new windows or doors part? Even if something like that would be written in as a cause to reject, the solution would be to do them prior to the development application. Excavation for an additional door or egress window could easily be argued as a safety improvement, and battling against a safety improvement would be a real challenge (unless one was talking firearm noise suppressors! )You don’t need a development permit to increase a window size or to add a door, just a building permit. The pre-emptive bypass there is obvious.

The part about not getting two secondary suites approved for adjacent lots: Who gets to decide which owner wins if two neighbors have competing applications? Not fair to property owners: one rule applies to everyone fairly and without prejudice, or the rule does not apply at all. My immediate neighbor might be keen on building at the same time as I do to try to save costs, the other neighbor one lot over on my other side did express interest but no timeline for his wanting to do it. We are not considered a ‘starter’ neighbourhood but still people have interest in the concept; some of these garage coach houses might not be rentals at all, just man-caves, guest suites or similar.

I thought it would be neat to build a masonry or concrete wall at the property line and have my and my neighbors garages attached to in order to pick up some square footage for both of us without any more intrusion into our yards. We are closer to public transit than yourself, the bus stop is only 220’ away, as is a designated bike lane and the LRT is about 12 blocks past the bus stop. These transportation options could be brought up at a development application, but claiming it as a man-cave build would mean that no increase in parking capacity should be warranted as no additional residents would result.

I’ll agree with the ‘homeowners must live there’ part as I think it motivates better maintenance of the property but as ARG pointed out, what happens after a sale of the property?

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

I like the changes, and as secondary suites are generally supplemental income for the owner/occupant most would still be occupied by the property owners, hence property upkeep would remain and places will not degenerate into rental ghettoes. City Hall has been exercising excessive control on peoples private property so far as I'm concerned, its about time they started easing off with the totalitarianism.

The worry of people in more expensive neighborhoods is misplaced because neighborhoods such as theirs are not the target of slum lords. No self-disrespecting slum lord would want to buy a place in Pump Hill simply to turn it into 3 rental suites to let out to part time barista's.

I aim to have one of those laneway suites above our garage when I build soon, the sky will not fall and my neighbors are on board. In fact, two have asked me about projected costs and might be interested in doing likewise.

x1

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Some of those wish list items do not seem like they would go anywhere to me. The no new windows or doors part? Even if something like that would be written in as a cause to reject, the solution would be to do them prior to the development application. Excavation for an additional door or egress window could easily be argued as a safety improvement, and battling against a safety improvement would be a real challenge (unless one was talking firearm noise suppressors! )You don’t need a development permit to increase a window size or to add a door, just a building permit. The pre-emptive bypass there is obvious.

The part about not getting two secondary suites approved for adjacent lots: Who gets to decide which owner wins if two neighbors have competing applications? Not fair to property owners: one rule applies to everyone fairly and without prejudice, or the rule does not apply at all. My immediate neighbor might be keen on building at the same time as I do to try to save costs, the other neighbor one lot over on my other side did express interest but no timeline for his wanting to do it. We are not considered a ‘starter’ neighbourhood but still people have interest in the concept; some of these garage coach houses might not be rentals at all, just man-caves, guest suites or similar.

I thought it would be neat to build a masonry or concrete wall at the property line and have my and my neighbors garages attached to in order to pick up some square footage for both of us without any more intrusion into our yards. We are closer to public transit than yourself, the bus stop is only 220’ away, as is a designated bike lane and the LRT is about 12 blocks past the bus stop. These transportation options could be brought up at a development application, but claiming it as a man-cave build would mean that no increase in parking capacity should be warranted as no additional residents would result.

I’ll agree with the ‘homeowners must live there’ part as I think it motivates better maintenance of the property but as ARG pointed out, what happens after a sale of the property?

I am thinking along the lines of some reno shows on TV where they dig in a new basement entrance separate from the rest of the house. That would be expensive and would require plumbing a drain at the bottom of the stairs...however there likely many different levels of reno for basements. Minimal and significant.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I am thinking along the lines of some reno shows on TV where they dig in a new basement entrance separate from the rest of the house. That would be expensive and would require plumbing a drain at the bottom of the stairs...however there likely many different levels of reno for basements. Minimal and significant.

My sister recently divorced and bought a place already like that in Prestwick, her adult daughter occupies the legal basement suite. I think that basement entrance was in there from the get-go, it does have a floor drain at the bottom.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Not as it reads. It is purely an application process so for tracking purposes to ensure construction and renovations are done to code.

There is no Development Permit required.
**************************************************
Development permit

A development permit (DP) is an application submitted to The City for a project that either does not meet the Land Use Bylaw rules or requires a DP as directed by The City’s development approval authority. The authority exercises discretion on its decision to require (or not require) a DP. When making its determination, the authority considers the impact to neighboring properties or to the community.

This process allows The City to make sure your project will fit in with the community and gives the public a chance to provide feedback

Examples: building your raised deck up to the property line or adding a rooftop deck on your garage.
************************************************** *******
Land Use Bylaw rules are being changed such that any neighbor just needs to fill out the application and get building.

You could be surrounded by rentals without a say within a year. Doesn't sound bad if you want the rental income however if you bought into a neighborhood that didn't have that zoning before...now you will.

Scary.

Fill out the response.

It isn’t a blanket change to the land use, it simply allows secondary suites as discretionary use in the listed zones. Since the land use isn’t being changed and it’s only discretionary use, a DP is still needed. If the owner gets the land use changed, then it’s a permitted use and no DP is needed.

So under the new way, if you are allowed a secondary suite as a discretionary use, you need to file for a development permit. This is circulated to neighbours for comments and the decision can be appealed.

If you want to bypass the DP, you need to get a land use change. This requires circulation/comments/council hearing. Then, if approved, you can build your secondary suite with no DP

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I am thinking along the lines of some reno shows on TV where they dig in a new basement entrance separate from the rest of the house. That would be expensive and would require plumbing a drain at the bottom of the stairs...however there likely many different levels of reno for basements. Minimal and significant.

But why do you care? If there is a permit and inspection who cares how 'significant' the reno is? The neighbours across our back fence are in the process of doing a full two store addition to their house... dug and poured new foundation, ripped the roof off the garage, built new floors and walls, new roof for garage and addition. Fairly major reno; I say 'go for it'.

ARG

[RBI]

Another direction re the secondary suites issue , that I have to question , is that the city basically doesn't care what you do with it beyond the building codes part .

They have no instruction/ information etc about becoming/being a landlord .

Obviously , from the provincial level there is the Landlord and Tenant Act , and certainly, there are rules there , but they too have some gray areas .

What I generally hear from everybody , is the conversation about the money making end of things , and yes , that, of course, it the primary point of SS , but few seem to spend much time thinking about that fact that they will be sharing a part of their home with somebody(s) .

For the last 25 years or so , I have been in charge of three 4-plexes that our family owns.

In all those years I have spoken to a lot of different potential tenants, of all kinds , and have basically fine-tuned the process of choosing tenants.


Then a number of years ago , I rented out a 2 bedroom suite in my own house/basement . ( lasted about 6 years )

Ok , that was a whole different ballgame .

As picky as I am about the quality of tenant that I put in the rental suites , and feel good that I have tenants that care , it's still kind of an " Out of site , out of mind " thing .

But when you're sharing your own home with someone , you see and hear the comings and goings etc .

I think that , especially in light of the new approval , the city ( or province )
should put out a booklet on generally what expectations a new landlord should have and understand, and tips etc on finding a tenant etc.
General guidelines .

to be continued ...

[igorot]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Can a single family home have two basement suites?

No, they should not. I have seen this in Vancouver single detach homes with 2 basement suite. It is kinda where I come from It is all about greed.