TOWNSHIP OF ESQUIMALT STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2024 Report No. DEV-24-019
TO: Committee of the Whole
FROM: James Davison, Manager of Development Services
SUBJECT: Small Scale Multi Unit Housing Primer and Questions for Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That Committee of the Whole recommend to Council that Staff prepare Zoning Bylaw amendments to accommodate the Provincial Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) legislation as required of all BC municipalities by the Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023 (Bill 44).
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Provincial government passed The Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023 on November 29, 2023 (Appendix A). It amends the provincial Local Government Act (LGA) and with it, local governments are expected to permit more small-scale, multi-unit housing in land use zones that are otherwise restricted to single-family dwellings or duplexes (referred to as Restricted Zones in the new legislation). The legislation applies to most municipalities and regional districts in the province. Staff has included the Provincial Policy Manual & Site Standards document (included as Appendix B) which effectively ‘summarizes’ (the document is 99 pages long) the legislation for local government stakeholders and aids with drafting new zoning regulations.
The Township of Esquimalt, along with all other municipalities in the province, will be required to amend its Zoning Bylaw to accommodate the increased density required of the Restricted Zones by June 30, 2024. Official Community Plan amendments are not required until the end of 2025.
Part 4 of the Provincial Policy Manual & Site Standards document contains recommendations for zoning bylaw amendments to density, siting, and parking regulations for each category of zone, depending on lot size and proximity to ‘frequent transit’, to accommodate the legislation. The recommendations in the manual are quite liberal; local governments must set their own regulations for their needs while not unreasonably restricting the use or density of use required under SSMUH. A large unknown is the shelf-ready designs the province has promised, but not yet delivered, which may require similar standards to those recommended.
With this report staff wishes to summarize the issue for Committee and ascertain Committee’s initial level of comfort with regulations around density, siting, transit frequency classification, and parking for the proposed zone categories such that staff can draft appropriate amendments to the Zoning Bylaw.
A follow-up, interim report in April or May 2024 will be made to provide the Committee with more detailed proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw and 3D illustrations for both stand-alone illustration of site standards and examples of massing in Esquimalt’s context.
BACKGROUND:
As per the Provincial Policy Manual:
Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) refers to a range of buildings and dwelling unit configurations that can provide more affordable and attainable housing for middle income families. Examples of SSMUH include, but are not limited to:
• secondary suites in single-family dwellings;
• detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs), like garden suites or laneway homes;
• duplexes (side-by-side or up/down);
• triplexes and house-plexes; and
• townhomes.
In the context of Esquimalt, the restricted SSMUH lots are those zoned for either single family or two family/duplex uses and which are under 4,050m2 in size. This includes RS (single family) zones, RD (duplex) zones, and any CD zone which only permits single family or duplex housing forms. Lots in zones which currently permit Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADU) are also considered restricted. A map of these properties is attached as Appendix C.
The SSMUH legislation identifies three lot conditions relevant to Esquimalt (now or in the future) and the associated minimum number of units to be permitted on each:
• Minimum of three units permitted on each parcel of land 280m2 or less (hereafter referred to as a ‘Small SSMUH Lot’).
• Minimum of four units permitted on each parcel of land greater than 280m2 (hereafter referred to as a ‘Large SSMUH Lot’).
• Minimum of six units permitted on each parcel of land greater than 280m2 and is wholly or partly within 400m of a prescribed bus stop (hereafter referred to as a ‘Transit SSMUH Lot’).
Within the SSMUH legislation there is a strict definition of what constitutes ‘frequent transit’, that being an average stop time of not more than 15 minutes throughout the week. Currently none of the routes through Esquimalt qualify as such; however, as service levels increase in the region it is possible that routes 14, 15 and 26 could be considered by Council as ‘frequent transit’ and that Transit SSMUH Lots could be identified along the corridors these routes follow (Esquimalt Rd, Craigflower Rd, Admirals Rd, and Tillicum Rd). Staff feels that the consistency of this approach would be beneficial for future planning and would encourage increased levels of service along these corridors. Staff has prepared 200m and 400m buffer scenarios for Transit SSMUH Lots within Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively.
Site Standards
Much of what staff will have to consider when drafting SSMUH zoning relates to site standards: setbacks, lot coverage, floor area (per unit and total per lot), density (FAR), building height, maximum building number, parking, siting exemptions, floor area exemptions, distances between buildings, accessory building siting, and other issues.
The Province has included recommended site standard packages for drafting zones, based on lot size and proximity to frequent transit. They are included in Part 4 of the manual in Appendix B, and staff has included a breakdown and comparison to existing ‘restricted site’ regulations in Appendix F. Mapping showing where these standards would apply are in Appendices G, H and I. Local governments may amend these site standards as necessary. They are expected to adhere closely to the province’s future shelf-ready designs, which is a significant consideration in enabling efficient and cost-effective designs for applicants. These designs have not yet been released, however, and there is no expected date for that. As a result, it is currently impossible to set regulations which will permit them.
Recommended site Standards B and C apply to Esquimalt directly; they apply to sites under 1,215m2 and between 1,215m2 and 4,050m2, respectively. Site Standards D applies to frequent transit routes; if Council decides to name frequent transit routes at either a 200m or 400m buffer, then the Site Standards D would be recommended for those lots.
Chronology:
• March 12, 2024 - Committee of the Whole Introduction
• April or May, 2024 - Update Report from Staff
• June 30, 2024 - Zoning Amendment Bylaw must be adopted
• December 31, 2025 - OCP Amendment Bylaw must be adopted
ANALYSIS:
Staff requires Committee’s input on several issues to inform the drafting of the zoning amendment bylaw. These are itemized here:
1. Does the Committee wish to recommend including a maximum FAR for these zones?
Issues to consider:
a. The province recommends against this for reasons of flexibility in terms of providing units on properties in concert with other site restrictions (parking, site coverage, setbacks, etc).
b. Using a maximum floor area per unit regulation, maximum height regulation, and maximum lot coverage regulation can effectively restrict density on the site without the need for a density cap.
c. An FAR cap can provide an additional level of comfort for Council which cannot be varied (unlike height, floor area and lot coverage). A rezoning would be required to exceed the maximum FAR on a lot.
2. Does the Committee wish to include a maximum floor area per unit?
Issues to consider:
a. A maximum floor area per unit can restrict the creation of very large units on large lots and/or where only one or two units are to be built on a lot.
b. Maximum floor area can be varied (up to the maximum FAR for the zone) at Council’s discretion should an applicant wish to create a larger unit for a reason which is acceptable to Council.
3. Does the Committee wish to recommend more restrictive site standards (see Appendix F) than that recommended by the Province?
Issues to consider:
a. The Province’s recommended site standards are fairly liberal, but are likely aligned fairly closely to the pending shelf-ready designs which the Province will make available to all British Columbians should they wish to streamline an application process for a SSMUH housing project.
b. It appears that some of the site standards are meant for lots with rear lanes, of which there are very few in the Township. As such, amendments should probably be considered.
c. More pointed discussion exists within Appendix F.
d. The Township will need to provide rationale to the Province when it does not follow the standards in the Policy Manual.
4. Does the Committee wish to recommend placing restrictions on housing typology or number of principal buildings per lot?
Issues to consider:
a. Two principal buildings per lot is the maximum the Township typically sees in duplex/townhouse zones. A duplex with a duplex DADU (or ‘DADUplex’) in the rear, or two townhouse buildings, should accommodate most applications.
b. A variance can be requested if more than two principal buildings are required.
c. Staff expects that the majority of SSMUH projects will be in a single family or duplex typology with suites and/or DADU, one building with apartments or stacked townhouses, or townhouses or row houses in one or two buildings.
5. Does the Committee wish to recommend implementing the recommended height of 11m for principal buildings?
Issues to consider:
a. Height is a very sensitive issue for neighbourhoods.
b. 11m is suggested by the Province to encompass all topographies and height calculation methods; it is possible that Esquimalt can achieve the required units on most lots with less.
c. Staff is producing massing models for illustration and can make a more detailed recommendation after refining height calculations, housing typologies and other issues.
6. Does the Committee wish to recommend refining the grade and height calculation within the Zoning Bylaw in the SSMUH zoning amendment?
Issues to consider:
a. In staff's opinion the method for height calculations needs updating to account for establishing and measuring from natural grade, finished grade, average grade and the method by which average grade is calculated.
b. Having a better, more consistent method for calculating grade will assist staff, applicants and the public in establishing expectations for heights of buildings in the Township.
c. This had been planned in the larger omnibus Zoning Bylaw but would be beneficial to include in this amendment as height will be a significant issue in the SSMUH implementation.
7. Does the Committee wish to consider recommending designating the Esquimalt Road, Craigflower Road, Admirals Road, and Tillicum Road corridors as ‘frequent transit’?
Issues to consider:
a. The frequency of stops being no less than an average of 15 minutes for all days of the week is the current prescribed ‘frequent transit’ metric by which land use is established in the SSMUH legislation.
b. Currently there are no SSMUH-compliant bus stops within the Township.
c. Bus service can change, and, as a result, land use policy can be inconsistent and unpredictable.
d. The 2011 Transit Future Plan identifies the following as potentially meeting the frequency thresholds in the future:
• Esquimalt Road (from Lyall/Moresby to the City of Victoria boundary)
• Lampson Street (from Esquimalt Road to Transfer Street)
• Tillicum Road (from Transfer Street to District of Saanich boundary)
• Craigflower Road (from View Royal boundary to City of Victoria boundary)
• Admirals Road (from Esquimalt Road to Songhees First Nation boundary)
e. Staff suggests that the Committee consider proactively assigning frequent transit route status to some or all the staff-identified corridors of Esquimalt Road, Craigflower Road, Admirals Road, and Tillicum Road to provide more consistency for future land use planning in the Township.
8. If the Committee wishes to consider recommending assigning ‘frequent transit’ status to the corridors mentioned in the previous question, and therefore permitting a minimum of 6 units per lot, should 200m be considered as a buffer (as in Appendix D) or would the Committee want to see a 400m buffer (as in Appendix E) as the Province recommends?
Issues to consider:
a. 400m would match the frequent transit definition within the proposed Parking Bylaw.
9. If the Committee wishes to implement frequent transit zoning which does not yet meet the SSMUH minimum requirements, does the Committee wish to see minimum parking standards beyond the zero space maximum which the Province is requiring for these lots?
a. The Committee could recommend aligning the parking requirements more closely with the proposed Parking Bylaw, with the understanding that in the future there may not be the ability to require parking should transit service be upgraded along these routes.
10. Does the Committee wish to recommend the exclusion of basement floor areas in Floor Area/Floor Area Ratio calculations in these zones?
Issues to consider:
a. Excluding basement floor areas from calculations could provide more floor area and livability in zones where the average unit may not be very large.
b. Encouraging floor area in basements can increase living space while not impacting the massing of buildings above-grade.
11. Does Committee wish to recommend the inclusion of daycare uses in some or all of these zones?
Issues to consider:
a. The Part 20 ‘Certain laws not to apply’ section of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act permits a daycare for 8 or less persons in a single family house regardless of other zoning restrictions within a zoning bylaw.
b. Single family zoning is effectively disappearing, and while single family houses will continue to exist Council may consider establishing daycare uses in the new zones to compensate for what will be a slow erosion of the supply of single family housing.
OPTIONS:
Committee should receive for information and provide feedback as it sees fit.
COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Housing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no significant financial impact as a result of the report.
COMMUNICATIONS/ENGAGEMENT:
There will be a requirement to advertise a zoning amendment as per the Local Government Act and the Township’s Development Applications Procedures and Fees Bylaw. A public hearing is prohibited.
TIMELINES & NEXT STEPS:
• March 12, 2024 - Committee of the Whole Introduction
• April or May, 2024 - Update Report from Staff
• June 30, 2024 - Zoning Amendment Bylaw must be adopted
• December 31, 2025 - OCP Amendment Bylaw must be adopted
REPORT REVIEWED BY:
1. Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
2. Ian Irvine, Director of Finance, Reviewed
3. Deb Hopkins, Director of Corporate Services, Reviewed
4. Dan Horan, Chief Administrative Officer, Concurrence
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A Bill 44 - Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act
Appendix B Provincial Policy Manual & Site Standards
Appendix C Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing Overview Map
Appendix D SSMUH 200m Transit Buffer Scenario Map
Appendix E SSMUH 400m Transit Buffer Scenario Map
Appendix F Site Standards Package B, C and D analysis
Appendix G Site Standards Package B and C Map
Appendix H Site Standards Package D 200m Option Map
Appendix I Site Standards Package D 400m Option Map
Appendix J SCMUH Staff Presentation