White Rock council is in a quandary about small scale multi-unit housing, and members don’t mind admitting it.
At the May 27 meeting council had little choice but to endorse a series of steps to reshape the city’s zoning bylaw to conform with Bill 44 – the provincial government’s edict that municipalities provide such housing as part of its Homes for People Action Plan.
But Mayor Megan Knight and several councillors were frank to say they are fearful about how such mandatory changes will be received by the public.
“We have to do this – we’re mandated to do this,” Knight said, adding she anticipates public perception that “council is changing everything.”
“I think that’s what the public doesn’t understand,” she said.
Like other municipalities, White Rock has been given until June 30 to implement such zoning changes as part of a sweeping plan to impose small scale multi-unit housing (SSMUH) zoning in areas formerly restricted in the manner of residential use and density.
Of particular note is that such development, under the provincial edict, would be able to proceed without public hearings, and while the city has some small latitude to determine the nature of the development, it cannot create restrictions that go against the overall intent of the legislation.
“The one that’s really going to hit hard in White Rock is no public hearing,” Knight predicted.
READ ALSO: White Rock council sounds alarm about provincial legislation
Council heard comprehensive reports from planning and development services director Anne Berry and city-retained consultant Patrick Oystryk of MODUS Planning, Design and Engagement, which spelled out what is required of the city and how city staff plan to effect it.
The timeline set by staff – and endorsed by council – would provide for third and final readings of the revised city zoning bylaw on June 24.
White Rock zones heretofore limited to detached single-family dwellings or single-family dwellings with one other internal (secondary suite) or external dwelling – or duplexes with the same restrictions – will now be subject to SSMUH zoning that permits between three and six units per property.
In such zones, properties up to 280 metres square must allow up to three units; properties over 280 metres square must allow up to four units.
In keeping with provincial aims to provide densest housing near transit routes, in properties in these zones over 281 metres square – and within 400 metres of a prescribed bus stop – up to six units must be permitted.
For these densest zones, the city is not allowed to specify parking requirements for such development.
Berry explained in her written report to council that “municipalities are not permitted to require residential parking minimums – including visitor parking minimums – for the first six housing units in SSMUHs located within 400 m of a prescribed bus stop.”
Of 4,363 parcels of land in the city, Berry noted, 3,852 – approximately 88 per cent of the city’s landbase – are impacted by SSMUH requirements.
The remaining exempt land parcels are those already specified as RM (Multi-Family), CR (MixedUse), or P (Institutional) zones, as well as property-specific Comprehensive Development (CD) zones, she said.
Also exempt are parcels of land larger than 4,050 metres square, or larger properties for which this would be the minimum subdividable lot size.
Large areas of the hillside in the western and eastern sections of White Rock, as well as extensive areas along Marine Drive, will also be affected by the new zoning.
Comment from Oystryk and Berry in response to questions noted that, while residents of the densest zones might well use more transit, and the city had options to create on-street parking options, the bottom line is that the provincial directions are mandatory.
While Knight thanked Berry, Oystryk and staff for their hard work in trying to effect the provincial edict with the least impact on the city, she wondered aloud how elements of the plan would work.
“How are we going to get six units on the hillside on those 33-foot lots, or 30-foot lots, and no parking?” she said.
“I don’t see it happening. Is everybody going to get on transit? What is the province thinking in that sense?”
Coun David Chesney said he agreed with the mayor’s assessment.
“When this gets out into the community, and people realize that the single-family lot next door to them could very soon house six units with no off-street parking, this community is going to go wild.”
Coun. Michele Partridge said that her experience of living in a SSMUH-like development at Thrift and Finlay suggests that such housing, including “mother-in-law suites” and coach houses can actually be a community-builder.
“I’m not afraid of it. …People should embrace it. This is the road we’re on right now. Don’t look at the bad side, look at the positive side,” she said.
“I know there can be positives, (but) overall I’m very skeptical of this,” Coun. Christopher Trevelyan said, noting he considers moves to prevent the public from speaking on the issue “undemocratic.”
“It’s a one-size-fits-all solution for the entire Lower Mainland and our province – we’re going to try to do our best to make it fit for White Rock, listen to residents where we can, and try and make the best legislation we can within the limits of the law,” he added.
