What could be the purpose of accessory buildings? Could they, for example, be used to provide affordable rental housing? Where would they fit on Bowen Island and how should they be regulated? Those are a few of the questions the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) looked at after it was charged by council to review regulations within the land use bylaw that relate to accessory buildings. At the June 14 council meeting, Drew Rose, chair of the APC, presented the commission's report.
Rose said that council had not defined the purpose for allowing accessory buildings but the commission looked at various options such as longer term and overnight rentals, affordable rental housing, housing for extended family and housing for caretakers and caregivers.
"The commission suggests that, in general, this form of housing will not likely lead to affordable rental housing given today's construction and servicing costs. The long-term payment of a mortgage by way of rent would be 20 years or more," Rose said, adding that it may be that some home-owners would still be prepared to undertake such construction.
"The second question we looked at is where [accessory buildings] could be located," Rose said, explaining that while small accessory buildings for residential use could occur throughout the island, there are some inherent limitations. "For example, affordable housing in Snug Cove is desirable but the small lot size would suggest that this housing form is not appropriate for Snug Cove," Rose said. "On the other hand, in more remote areas not served by transit, these small houses may not be suitable for affordable housing." He added that the resulting form of housing would not add sufficient volume to encourage a pedestrian-oriented village for the cove.
In terms of parameters, the APC suggested that the accessory building size should be limited to 94 square metres and that the height should not exceed two storeys or 6.5 metres. The siting requirements should be the same as for the principal dwelling as defined by the land use bylaw. The APC also noted that provisions should be made to ensure that the accessory dwelling parcel cannot be subdivided.
The APC recommended that "the municipality be mindful of not allowing the use of residential accessory buildings as a stepping stone to future subdivision of the property by requiring a covenant against subdivision when an accessory building is dedicated for residential use."
"Generally, we felt that a lot size of one acre would accommodate a single family dwelling and a small accessory building," Rose said, adding that a property has to comfortably accommodate an accessory building without negatively affecting neighbouring properties, such as causing a disruption to neighbourhood amenities. The property also has to provide adequate space for an enlarged or a secondary septic field.
Mayor Jack Adelaar wanted to know why the commission felt it necessary to limit accessory buildings to properties of one acre and larger.
"All existing setbacks are required for accessory buildings," Rose said, adding that smaller properties can't easily accommodate a second building.
He also suggested that the municipality create a new zone where accessory buildings would be permitted and define covenants that prohibit subdivision.
"If the zoning bylaw allows the lot to be subdivided, why would you prevent that?" councillor Alison Morse wanted to know.
Adelaar spoke against "making rules and regulations that are not required."
Councillor Wolfgang Duntz said that by creating an accessory building, property owners would essentially lose the right to subdivide. "A property of one acre in size is massive by urban standards," Duntz said, adding that he believes excluding Snug Cove goes against common sense. "Any enlightened planner would suggest to densify where it is already dense," he said. "Your recommendations don't include Snug Cove but instead the boondocks where the kids couldn't get to school."
Councillor Andrew Stone said that by limiting accessory buildings to lots over one acre in size (that currently cost around $600,000 to $700,000), the legislation would favour people who are "well-heeled."
Rose said that the size of one acre was already a substantial decrease from previous recommendations. "We were not given any preamble on who the user group might be, whether it's rental housing overseen by the owner or if the sole objective would be to provide for continuity in the family," he said. "If the intention is to keep the continuity of the property intact, the goal would be to develop it as one parcel with two homes and not two homes on two parcels."
Councillor Tim Rhodes noted that creating zoning would not be required of the only limitation is the lot size. The APC's report was referred to municipal staff.
