This sent from outside the District of Saanich. Use caution if message is unexpected or sender is not known to you.

(1)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Whitney Drinkwalter

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:12 AM

To: Council

Cc:

Subject: (External Email) Garden Suite - Public input for Sept 15th meeting

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

My name is Whitney Drinkwalter and I am writing in the hope of providing my input to the Mayor and

Council’s public discussion for the consideration of allowing Garden Suites in parts of Saanich. My family and

I would like to express our support for this bylaw.

I have been a resident of Saanich for almost

years and while I feel very fortunate to live in the municipality,

my husband and I have had to consider looking elsewhere for a more suitable home. My current home is in a

very friendly neighbourhood with a great location and schools nearby. The house itself however, is no longer

suitable as we are a family of six in very close quarters. My mother on the other hand, who has also lived in

Saanich for quite some time, is by herself with a home & yard that are much too large for her to care for on her

own. The option of combining our resources to build a garden suite on one of our properties (along with a small

addition to the main dwelling) would allow us to have all of our needs met as well as being able to stay in our

neighbourhood in Saanich.

I know that my family’s situation isn’t unique and have met quite a few families over the past few years who

have had to leave Saanich due to the decrease in available affordable rentals, as well as the increase in property

costs. While it’s great for a current owner to have their property value rise, unfortunately it puts home

ownership far out of reach for the average family who are then forced to look elsewhere. Garden Suites would

provide another option to allow families like mine to combine their money and resources, bringing home

ownership back within their reach, as well as to provide more rental options for potential tenants.

I feel that giving residents of Saanich the option of building a Garden Suite could also help to alleviate the

pressures some families face regarding housing for the elderly and disabled. Families could build a suite to

allow their loved ones to retain the ability to safely live separately and independently in their own home while

still having someone close by for occasional assistance.

I’m sure that the Mayor and Council are well aware of the challenges that the residents of Saanich face and I

hope they can acknowledge that change is needed. Many other cities and municipalities have already

successfully allowed for Garden Suites. Having additional options for housing in Saanich could benefit many

people in the municipality and my hopes are that Saanich will follow suit with their approval.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Whitney Drinkwalter

By M. MacDonald, Legislative Serv., District of Saanich at 10:50 am, Sep 15, 2020

General

SH

x

A/E

(2)

(3)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Sara Helmeczi

Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 5:38 PM

To: Council

Cc: Sara Helmeczi

Subject: (External Email) PROPOSED REZONING TO PERMIT GARDEN SUITES - COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Categories: Green Category

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

In theory Garden Suites seem like a nice idea however we do not believe that Saanich has enough resources to enforce its current bylaws let alone deal with the increase this will generate. We think it is extremely naïve to expect a 0.5 FTE sufficient to handle this. As your own survey says garden suites per square foot are more expensive to build, therefore it is reasonable to expect that rents will not be affordable unless multiple people share the space. Because of this it will be more desirable to use them for short term vacation rentals which we oppose.

Although vacation rentals and Garden Suites are currently against Saanich’s bylaws a five minute Google search found these:

https://www.vrbo.com/en‐ca/cottage‐rental/p152533vb

https://www.kijiji.ca/v‐apartments‐condos/victoria‐bc/brand‐new‐1‐bedroom‐garden‐suite/1522073174 https://www.kijiji.ca/v‐apartments‐condos/victoria‐bc/2‐bedroom‐1‐bathroom‐1400‐https://www.kijiji.ca/v‐ apartments‐condos/victoria‐bc/bright‐and‐private‐2‐bedroom‐garden‐suite‐to‐call‐

home/1514072315month/1519218274

https://www.airbnb.ca/rooms/26138174/photos/530104875?source_impression_id=p3_1600037704_Xrxa%2B56UhvH xVOLL

https://www.booking.com//hotel/ca/0001‐quadra.html?utm_source=aff_cj&utm_medium=partner&label=VR‐SR‐DL‐ desktop‐c200‐680d10f5‐76d6‐9436‐347b‐

85f2358a03a5&aid=1430043&selected_currency=CAD&activeTab=photosGallery

https://www.booking.com//hotel/ca/0063‐genevieve‐road.html?utm_source=aff_cj&utm_medium=partner&label=VR‐ SR‐DL‐desktop‐c200‐680d10f5‐76d6‐9436‐347b‐85f2358a03a5&aid=1430043&selected_currency=CAD

https://www.vrbo.com/4875009ha?noDates=true&unitId=5903074 https://www.vrbo.com/1588895?noDates=true&unitId=2150183

In a perfect world where homeowners believe in the social solidarity between neighbours there should be no issue that can’t be dealt with over the garden fence. Sadly though we see time and time again that developers , landlords and owners treat our neighbourhoods solely as business opportunities rather than a place to call home. In an effort to

2140-50 Garden Suites

General

SH

x

A/E

(4)

2

squeeze every drop of profit from a property they have no concern for their neighbours, as they either don’t live there, or are there for a short time, ‘flip it’ and move along.

In our neighbourhood a developer took down an old derelict 900 sq foot home and built a large 3‐4 bedroom house with a paved front yard to accommodate 7 vehicles, a two bedroom legal suite and a one bedroom garden suite with a full kitchen. They were granted building permission because they called the garden suite an office/games room. It became obvious to the neighbourhood that it would become a rental when three Hydro meters were installed so we notified Saanich Development and Planning who told us that it was speculation on our part and they had nothing to do with electrical permits.

When an ad was posted on Craigslist to rent it for $1700/month in addition to the legal secondary suite ($2000) the neighbours contacted Saanich Bylaw. We received an email confirming that a file had been opened but we don’t know what, if any, actions have been taken and what, if any, rights neighbours have. This leads us to believe Saanich is not interested in preventing problems and doesn’t have the resources to investigate so you might understand our trepidation in opening the doors to municipal‐wide Garden Suites.

Because the Mayor has already publicly stated that he supports Garden Suites it is seen as a fait accomplis and just needs a rubber stamp from council. All the documents we have read concern the actual building and placement of the suites however it’s the people issues that usually cause problems in neighbourhoods and workload for Saanich ‐ have the following questions/issues been considered:

Occupancy: Will Saanich be instituting a maximum occupancy limit per suite? In order for a Garden Suite to be

affordable up to 6 unrelated people could live there based on the new bylaw. Landlords will be much more forgiving of a higher density when people are not actually living under their own roof especially if their utilities are separate. On‐site owner ‐ While we appreciate that the bylaw says that the registered owner must occupy either the main house or the garden suite in our area we are aware of entire houses that have been carved up into multiple suites with no owner on site – how will Saanich ensure that will not happen with Garden Suites?

Parking – Documents indicate that one off street parking spot is all that is required regardless of the size of the Garden Suite. As most people have vehicles should that not be increased based on square footage or the number of bedrooms? Access by First Responders – Have allowances been made for unobstructed pathways for Fire and Ambulance services? Insurance – Will the homeowner have to provide proof of insurance on this structure? The number of other

neighbouring properties potentially affected by a fire or explosion in a Garden Suite increases considerably.

Existing Garden Suites – Will Saanich be ensuring that the myriad of existing illegal Garden Suites be brought up to the new proposed standards?

Advisory Design Panel – This seems like a logical way for dealing with Garden Suite applications as long as neighbour input is obtained. With this approach neighbours would be aware of what has been approved and keep everyone accountable.

Taxes/Zoning ‐ As we are not interested in building a Garden Suite at this time we are concerned that we will be unfairly impacted by increased property taxes. Homes with garden suites and legal secondary suites will increase their

assessments and our taxes will increase. To that end Saanich needs to consider a separate classification for income generating properties as they should no longer be classified a Single Family Dwelling – they are partly a business.

(5)

3

Use – Vacation rentals and bed and breakfast are prohibited but can a business operate from a Garden Suite? Due to the pandemic many people will be looking to set up a business in their own home. If it involves clients visiting or constant deliveries then there could be considerable impact to neighbours.

Net Gain – What is the net gain to Saanich taxpayers to institute this? If any money gained ends up being put into enforcement what is the point?

One of the reasons people move to Saanich is for a little extra breathing room and consequently our house prices reflect that. If this pandemic has shown us anything it is that our homes should be our sanctuary and we should know and care for our neighbours.

Thank you in advance for considering these points. Sara and Chris Helmeczi

(6)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Karen Kehler

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 10:32 AM

To: Council

Subject: (External Email) Garden Suite feedback

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

Re:

"ZONING BYLAW, 2003, AMENDMENT BYLAW, 2020, NO. 9647"

PROPOSED REZONING TO PERMIT GARDEN SUITES ON RS-ZONED PROPERTIES

The purpose of Bylaw 9647 is to amend the Zoning Bylaw, 2003 to recognize garden suites as a

permitted land use in certain zones, to establish garden suites as a density benefit and the

conditions that must be met to obtain it, and to establish regulations governing garden suite use

and development including regulations in relation to size, siting, occupancy, and permitted uses.

I am writing on behalf of Tiny House Advocates of Vancouver Island (THAVI). We have been

working with local councils for over three years to make it legal to live in moveable tiny homes. We

are excited that Saanich is voting on Bylaw 9647 to recognize garden suites as a permitted land

use in certain zones. We hope that moveable tiny homes will be considered as an alternative to a

foundation-based garden suite, either now or in the future. Victoria has included this as part of their

current strategic plan and hope to be working on regulations around them within the next few

months. In addition, tiny houses are included as part of the Official Community Plan for Central

Saanich and we will look forward to working with them on details of how that will be incorporated

into municipal bylaws.

In addition, Councillor John French from the District of Squamish has sponsored a resolution at the

Union of BC Municipalities convention. It is on page 148. We would encourage all councils to

support this motion as it will simplify the approval process for municipalities if the province is

involved in updating the BC Building Code. Tiny house amendments have been approved in the

International Residential Code 2018 but those amendments have not yet been adopted at either

the national or provincial level in Canada.

If you would like further information about tiny houses and how we can work together to make them

a potential way of increasing density and affordable housing, please let me know.

Yours sincerely,

Karen Kehler

Tiny House Advocates of Vancouver Island

General

SH

x

(7)

1

Megan MacDonald

From:

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 12:00 PM

To: Council

Subject: (External Email) Garden Suite input from an experienced designer.

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

Dear Mayor and Council,

I write as a designer working very often in your district I would like to add some observations, I offered some of these suggestions when asked in your early call to the industry.

I sincerely feel you have plenty of conditions laid out in bylaw and hope the District will leave it as a building permit process only and do not burden people with unnecessary development permit processes..

There are many larger properties well suited to garden suites that are also lake front or ocean front. As you can well understand no one is going to situate a garden suite between their home and the water. To ensure take up on this valuable initiative it would be wise to also include conditions into the zoning bylaw for waterfront lots that enable garden suites in the front yards of those homes... so they too can remain as just a building permit process. Of course appropriate road setbacks can be adopted but see no reason why the normal front setback isn't acceptable.

I can confidently say the more hurdles you put in the less the proper uptake will be.

I hope you can make a well rounded bylaw that will encourage residents to provide a good quality housing solution. I will follow the meeting outcome closely as I have a few clients awaiting the opportunity to build their own..

Ron McNeil

McNeil Building Designs Limited

General SH

x

A/E

(8)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Larry Layne

To: Council

Subject: (External Email) Garden Suite Bylaws

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

Item D Zoning Bylaw, 2020 Amendment Bylaw, 2020, No.9647 and Item E Official Community Plan Bylaw

2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 9648

First, as always, thank you for asking for our input.

This is a wonderful place to live and bring up a family, but population growth, to my mind, is not desirable.

Population growth comes with costs. More fresh water needs. More sewage processing. More mouths to feed.

More health care needs: doctors, nurses, dentists, mental health care. More traffic. More waste and recycling.

More noise. More artificial lighting. The

More Fresh Water and

More Food Are Big Concerns

for me.

We were aware, even before COVID-19, that we are woefully deficient in feeding our existing population.

There needs to be a balance. Freshwater and local food supply should, I think, determine, set limits for,

population growth.

As Victoria tries to transform itself into a “modern city skyline” and builds more high-rises, more skilled

tradesmen are needed. This influx of craftsmen led to a shortage of accommodations. Hopefully it's a

momentary vicious cycle. So

building

can lead to a shortage of accommodations and, in the case of UVic,

not

building

in pace with expanding enrolments has already led to accommodations being a problem. Both are, I

think, examples of poor planning.

Saanich is trying to respond to the shortage of accommodation. Now, because land is finite and demand for

shelter is growing, it only makes sense that the cost of land and housing will increase. As I said this is a

wonderful place to live and raise a family. Ironically, those children when grown are not always able to find

work or a place to live here.

To enable a family to pay the mortgage, I know many families have created a special area for renting contained

within the house, often in the basement.

Long term I try to be mindful of building on any land that could be used to grow food. For me that takes

precedence over covering land for housing. There is an exception. If the back yard is in the north of the lot and

shaded by trees and the existing house, growing food will be unsuccessful, so a “garden” suite would work,

keeping in mind more noise and parking. A gauge might be: backyard sunny-might plant a garden; backyard

shady-might consider a garden suite.

Two other considerations might be- During COVID-19, I was thankful that we had a backyard with trees and

space to help with peace of mind. Also the string of back-to-back backyards might be viewed as an effective fire

break.

General

SH

x

(9)

2

I have been really impressed by the work staff have put in on the idea of garden suites. I have attended their

very well presented open houses and responded to their surveys.

The passing of this gives a family another option to consider. Passing this does not force anyone to build. I

would vote in favour. I would like to add that building new rather than converting a space in an existing house

will use more building materials, with their added transportation costs- both negatives in slowing global climate

change.

(10)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: susan haddon

To: Mayor; Council; Clerksec

Cc: Planning

Subject: (External Email) QCHCA input re Garden Suites Attachments: QCHCA letter to Council re Garden Suites.pdf

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

Dear Mayor and Council,

Attached is QCHCA's input re garden suites on the agenda of the public hearing this Wednesday, September

16. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

Susan

General SH

x

A/E

(11)

Quadra Cedar Hill Community Association

September 11, 2020

Mayor and Council

District of Saanich

770 Vernon Avenue

Victoria, BC. V8X 2W7

RE: Agenda Item E, Proposed Amendments to create a Development Permit Area for Garden

Suites, Public Hearing September 15 2020

Dear Mayor and Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item E of your September 15 Public Hearing

agenda dealing with the creation of a DP area for garden suites.

QCHCA wrote to you in December of 2018 to say that we appreciated Saanich undertaking a

study of the potential benefits of allowing garden suites and thought that the report was a good

one. We appreciate the also raised several concerns that we feel aren’t completely dealt with

in the proposed Development Permit Area for Garden Suites being considered at the Public

Hearing. These include:

Access for fire and emergency vehicles:

The design guidelines help to address issues such as loss of permeable surface, trees, privacy,

neighbourhood look and, really importantly, the issue of parking. One issue that we didn’t see

raised was potential fire and safety concerns. In Vancouver, these types of buildings are

generally on back lanes but most homes in Saanich don’t have back lanes. Driveway access to a

garden suite for most existing homes would necessitate a wide lot. How is this issue to be

regulated?

Bylaw enforcement:

We were pleased to see the four designated purposes for a Garden Suite DPA as “to guide

protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity”, “to guide the

form and character of intensive residential development”, “to promote energy conservation”

and “to promote the reduction of greenhouse gases”. We were also pleased to see that only a

(12)

garden suite or a secondary suite will be allowed on one property and that the registered

owner of the property is required by covenant to live in either the garden suite or main

dwelling. However, we continue to have concerns about issues of illegal suites and problems

with bylaw enforcement. If regulations for houses on garden-suited properties are required to

be owner-occupied and also not used as an Airbnb or similar, Saanich must be willing to commit

to ongoing and possibly increased bylaw enforcement costs that will arise. We note in Ms

Hvozdanski’s report that, in October 2019, Council approved the following motion: “5. That

Council support the hiring of an additional half-time Bylaw Enforcement staff person v(0.5 FTE)

to increase capacity to address complaints related to illegal occupancy and compliance under

the proposed regulatory framework for garden suites, subject to Council’s consideration during

the 2020 budget process” and urge you to move forward on this.

Limits on number of vehicles on garden-suited properties

Section 5.35 states that B&B’s or short-term rentals are not allowed in the garden suite. We

feel that, if someone has a garden suite, the prohibitions for B&Bs and short-term rentals

should apply to the whole property if the reason for approving garden suites is to add to our

region’s overall housing stock. We are concerned that, if an owner chooses to live in the

garden suite and allow the main house to be rented to up to six unrelated individuals, the

neighbourhood could be faced with parking and other related issues. We suggest the bylaw

include a limit on the number of vehicles associated with a garden-suited property that

coincides with the number of off-street parking spaces provided plus the number of legal street

parking spaces allowed immediately abutting the property.

Multiple dwellings:

There is a new development in our area that has a family home with basement suite and a

garden suite. When speaking with the developer, we were told that, if the garden suite doesn’t

have an oven, it’s considered a studio. If this is true, then it's a significant loophole.

Impermeable surfaces:

We note the two guidelines in the study related to permeable surfaces, namely a) that “the

driveway and

parking space design should maximize rainwater infiltration through the use of

permeable surfaces such as unit paving blocks, permeable concrete or asphalt, or driveway

planting strips” and b) that “a minimum of 35% of the area of the front yard should be

permeable”. Despite these “guidelines”, there could be significant negative effects on

watersheds, including making creeks more flood-prone, straining municipal infrastucture and

reducing water quality. Is requiring 35% of the area of the front yard to be permeable too

minimal a requirement? Will bylaw enforcement be able to ensure these “guidelines” are

upheld?

Loss of tree canopy:

Saanich’s Urban Forest Strategy identified 36% tree canopy cover over the municipality in 2005

(including rural Saanich and land within the Urban Containment boundary), a decrease of

overall canopy cover of 12.6% in the 19 years since 1986.

One would anticipate that the canopy

cover has further decreased in the 15 years since the study. We note that “protecting and

(13)

retaining mature trees should be a major consideration during the early phases of planning for

a garden suite” and that “a garden suite, including associated parking and access areas, should

be located and designed to preserve existing trees on the subject property, as well as adjacent

properties”. We believe stronger controls on preservation of mature and protected trees are

needed given our declaration of a climate emergency and our goals with respect to growing the

urban canopy.

Impacts on infrastructure:

We believe the chances are good that there will be a fair uptake on this type of construction

and wonder how Saanich is planning for the effects of this on road, water, sewer, storm sewer

and solid waste infrastructure.

Community engagement:

QCHCA urges Council to support the approach taken by Victoria, Vancouver, West Vancouver,

North Vancouver and New Westminster and recommended by Planning. This approach – a

Delegated Development Permit (staff) that includes design review by the Advisory Design Panel.

We also believe community input on individual applications should be incorporated into the

process.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Susan Haddon

President, QCHCA

(14)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Camosun Community Association <camosunca@gmail.com>

To: Council

Subject: (External Email) "ZONING BYLAW, 2003, AMENDMENT BYLAW, 2020, NO. 9647" PROPOSED REZONING TO PERMIT GARDEN SUITES ON RS-ZONED PROPERTIES Attachments: Garden Suites PH Sept 14 20.pdf

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

Mayor and Council

Attached is the Camosun Community Association letter regarding garden suites.

Regards

Vicki Sanders

LandUse Director

General SH

x

A/E

(15)

1 www.CamosunCommunity Association.com

camosunca@gmail.com September 14, 2020

Mayor and Council District of Saanich 770 Vernon Avenue Victoria, B.C. V8X 2W7

Re: Garden Suite Study — Bylaw Amendments File: 2140-50

The Camosun Community Association is in the southeast corner of Saanich. The community makes up the lower half of the Shelbourne Local Area south of Derby Road and Mount Tolmie Park, east of Cedar Hill Road including the Saanich Panhandle to the border of the City of Victoria.

Within its area are five educational facilities, two churches, and housing dating from the 1800’s to those currently under construction. Shelbourne has a varied housing stock – predominantly single family with variety in age, style, and lot size. The housing south Lansdowne and east of Richmond were mostly built post war to address the growing families of the baby boom era. Most of the properties east of Richmond are historic, large, and the owners up-zoned in the 1990’s to RS12. Members of the Camosun Community Association (CCA) and the greater community participated in the District of Saanich’s public engagement process regarding the consideration of garden suites. The concerns raised were similar the public engagement finding documented in the planner’s report. They are as follows:

 Notification of application to neighbour/community to build garden suite

 Process for neighbour/community to meet with applicant or comment on application  Application for all RS zones: Mt. Tolmie properties up zoned to restrict development  Would garden suites be considered on those properties?

 No support for garden suites on properties smaller than RS6?

 Two story garden suites: Supportable only if main dwelling is two story.  Do not support prefab or modular construction.

 Protect heritage designated and registered properties.

 Protect natural environment particularly the sensitive ecosystems on the Mt. Tolmie slopes  Flooding: Garden suite must be connected to storm sewer

(16)

2  Impact to property value (not available in report)

 Do not support secondary suite and garden suite on same property.  Property must be owner occupied.

 Would bare land strata regulations prohibit garden suites?

 Do garden suite regulations prohibit building the suite in the main dwellings building envelope?  Will there be a restriction of the number of occupants in the garden suite?

The language use of “should” and “are encouraged” are worrisome and vague. They are often referred to as “weasel words”. The following “Interpretation of language” explanation in the report is appreciated. However, it is concerning that variations may be acceptable.

Quote from the report: “Where shall is used in a guideline, the guideline is mandatory. At the

discretion of the Director, variations may be acceptable, where the intent of the guideline is achieved, to address a unique circumstance that would otherwise render compliance impractical or impossible. Where should is used in a guideline, the guideline is strongly encouraged, but can be varied where unique circumstances require other actions that will still meet the intent of the guideline”.

Garden suites do provide an opportunity for infill housing. However as many are already visible in the Camosun community surrounding SMUS the community is aware that new garden suite housing is not a “fit” within an existing neighbourhood. The large garden suites have significantly altered the character and appearance of the neighbourhood. They are highly visible in the area east of

Richmond Road and north of Knight Avenue.

Understandably these garden suites have been constructed without the oversite of a garden suite bylaw and regulations being in place. They are “illegal”. They would not meet any of the regulations relating to privacy of neighbours, retention of green space, natural topography, overlook and shading adjacent properties, trees, parking, hard surfaces, access from street,

The CCA finds the planners report dated October 9, 2019 comprehensive, including a regulatory framework and zoning bylaw amendments. The proposed garden suite zoning design guidelines are clear and concise. Although the CCA does not support garden suites in all locations it does support the recommendations of the planner’s report.

The CCA supports the recommendation of the delegated Development Permit approval process for garden suite applications that includes design review by the Advisory Design Panel. This

recommendation addresses public engagement. The Association would like to suggest that there needs to be a requirement for a representative of the applicable community association included on the panel.

Should Council support the Garden Suite bylaw the CCA supports the proposed staff review and report back to Council on the garden suite program one and two years after the regulatory changes are formally enacted.

Regards Vicki Sanders

(17)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Nicky Manak

To: Council

Subject: (External Email) Feedback re: Garden Suites

This email sent from outside the District of Saanich. Use caution if message is unexpected or sender is not known to you.

To Mayor Haynes and Saanich Council,

Thank you for moving ahead with introducing legal garden suites in Saanich. It has been a long time coming and your progressive thinking and leadership is very much recognized and appreciated.

I noted in Schedule H that it stipulates that garden suites must be located in the rear yard. Although I agree with this in general terms, I am respectfully requesting Saanich Council keep an open mind and allow garden suites in the front yard for those properties that have oceanfront or lakefront in their backyard. In these instances, a garden suite should be allowed in the front yard as long as all the regular setbacks from the property line are met and the garden suite conforms to all the other zoning guidelines and restrictions.

I am hoping Saanich Council recognizes that not every property is alike and that Saanich residents can have garden suites in the front yard under these specific conditions. This is easily possible through the robust building permit process that already exists in Saanich.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to provide my feedback.

Nicky Manak

General SH

x

A/E

By M. MacDonald, Legislative Serv., District of Saanich at 9:19 am, Sep 15, 2020 2140-50 Garden Suites

(18)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Duncan Jillings

To: Council

Subject: (External Email) Sept 15. Agenda Item E: Garden Suites

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

Conditional support. I favour garden suites but think they should be 10% of lot size.

500 sq ft is too small. That is only a bedroom and basic kitchen, living room, and bathroom.

My in-laws live with my wife, son and I in our two-upstairs bedroom house in Hillside-Camosun. The in-laws would like to be more independent and my wife and I would like more privacy and a bit more space.

I don't understand why 10% is okay for an outbuilding but too large for a garden suite.

There are several out-buildings on lots close to me and you wouldn't know they were there unless you really looked. For us, moving to a bigger house would cost us perhaps $300,000 to $350,000 above our current house value, compared to $160,000 for a garden suite.

I am prepared to pay the extra cost for a flatter roof profile. Have a fun vote.

Duncan Jillings

General SH

x

A/E

(19)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Anne Topp

To: Clerksec; Mayor&Council@saanich.ca

Subject: (External Email) Garden Suite Puplic Hearing letter Attachments: 2020 Sept 14th Garden Suite ltr to council. docx.docx

This email sent from outside the District of Saanich. Use caution if message is unexpected or sender is not

known to you.

Attached is my letter to Mayor and Council for the Public Hearing tomorrow, Sept 15th to consider Bylaw changes for "Garden Suites".

Please ensure Mayor and Council are in receipt of this letter and it becomes a part of the public record.

thank you,

Anne topp

General SH

x

(20)

Sept 14, 2020

Dear Mayor and Council,

Re: Public Hearing for Garden Suite Bylaw changes.

I am opposed to the proposed Garden Suite bylaws for a number of reasons.

1. As you know the use of accessory buildings under the current bylaw has created many "Garden Suites" under the guise of using an accessory building for many uses other than residential. In addition many of these properties clearly have basement units too. The result is 3 units on a lot and, in some cases, there is also an additional studio unit if the "basement" is big enough.

The proposed regulations will result in at least three units per lot. The main unit, the basement suite and the garden suite. And yes one of the additional units will circumnavigate regulation to be a residence, no matter how carefully drafted. I am sure regular residents are not aware of this impact unless it has happened next door.

Why would anyone would bother doing a "Garden Suite" Development Permit, with the resulting restrictions, when an accessory building for some other stated use, could result in an unencumbered building and there could also be a basement suite? Using the average RS 6 lot size as described in the staff report of 733m2 would result in an accessory building of 51m2 ( 548 sq ft) which is the size of many one bedroom apartments.

Before council proceeds with the proposal staff should undertake a field survey of parcels with large accessory buildings to determine

a) how many units are really on the lot ( main unit, basement units, accessory building units) b) do an impervious surface calculation, and

c) gather parking information, how many cars and how many parking spaces.

2. The application of a development permit process will not result in helping the affordability for housing. It will add considerably to the application process time line and therefore application costs. Surrounding residents will get the impression they will have input but in the end a Development Permit will be issued after months of anguish and cost on both sides, the applicant and the surrounding residents.

3. Existing dwellings with "accessory building" / "Garden Suites" in my neighbourhood have resulted in the area between the buildings being hard surface and the front yard being hard surface for the parking. The result is not a stick of grass and certainly no space for trees. There is a total disconnect between the time Council and staff spend on Environmental issues and the reality within the community. Calling what I am seeing in my neighbourhood a "Garden Suite" is an oxymoron because for sure there is no garden.

4. There is lots of talk about food sustainability and back yard food production. "Garden suites" and especially two story " Garden Suites" will preclude space for food production by virtue of the lot coverage and by shading from the additional accessory building, in particular if it is two stories tall.

(21)

5. Council has only recently changed regulations for basement suites. Only if we have the current activities in the municipality meeting bylaws should we consider amending bylaw for additional units on single family dwelling lots. Furthermore, I am not convinced that this has anything to do with

"affordable accommodation". Each of these units will charge market rents and we know that is not easily affordable for workforce employees.

A recent Globe and Mail on line article dated September 13th by Josh Gordon ( Simon Fraser University) titled

"The ‘supply crisis’ in Canada’s housing market isn’t backed up by the

evidence"

concludes with the following:

"

There are several peer-reviewed articles that document the connection between demand-side factors and housing prices in Toronto and Vancouver, particularly the role of foreign ownership and speculation. Yet that peer-reviewed research is dismissed or ignored by advocates of the supply narrative. In fact, the case for the supply narrative is so weak that, after several years of research in this field, I have yet to encounter a single academic peer-reviewed article which documents a substantial causal link between supply-side factors and housing un-affordability in Canada. So why is the debate so evidence-averse? Because the narrative is useful to powerful people.

The supply narrative does two things. It helps stymie action on the demand-side, which might actually bring prices and rents down, while giving cover to governments who want to pretend to care about affordability for the middle class. And it is a useful weapon for developers seeking to gain various policy concessions, including rezonings from municipal governments, which deliver windfall land appreciation.

The vested interests behind the narrative are relentless, since there are billions in profit to be had. Why let pesky facts get in the way? Such interests, and their noisy Twitter allies, are trying to win the debate through sheer repetition. However, housing affordability will suffer to the extent that policy makers either buy into the misdirection, or use the narrative to deflect public pressure to take substantive action. Sometimes, then, it’s helpful to point out that the emperor has no clothes."

Staff and council have put considerable effort into this proposal and some good work was done.

However on balance I think that quick and effective changes to the accessory building regulations would

have been more affective. This would have directed those wanting an additional unit to basement

suites and we would not have the unfortunate situation where there are 3 units per lot and the impacts

that brings to neighbourhoods

Again, this is a letter in opposition to the "Garden Suite" bylaw changes as proposed.

Sincerely,

AE Topp

Polyanthus Crescent

Victoria, BC,

(22)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Therese Borkenhagen

Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 1:58 PM

To: Council

Subject: (External Email) garden suites

This email sent from outside the District of Saanich. Use caution if message is unexpected or sender is not known to you.

Mr

Mayor,

and

Councillors,

I

would

like

to

reconfirm

that

I

am

completely

opposed

to

legalizing

and

encouraging

the

further

development

of

garden

suites.

Such

allowances

will

make

for

denser

housing,

more

noise,

more

street

parking,

...

AND

MOST OF ALL,.. IT WILL PAVE OVER OUR VALUED GREEN SPACES, cut down our precious

trees, forests, change the ecology of the area, the air we breathe, the wellbeing that a green

forest and gardens give us. Rather than enhance the community experience it will down

grade people’s living standard, create more stress , more anger, more sickness,.. less happy

and well‐adjusted people.

People

have

chosen

to

live

in

a

community

because

of

the

atmosphere

it

gives

them,

their

needs

and

affordability,..

be

it

a

condo,

townhouse,

smaller

lots

to

large

lots,

dense

community

living

or

otherwise..

You

wish

to

overlook

and

impose

a

new

zoning

on

communities

as

a

band

aid

to

the

lack

of

planning

and

foresight

of

the

city.

We

make

our

home

in

area,

trusting

and

understanding

that

the

urban

community

plan

will

be

adhered

to,

hence

giving

us

a

sense

of

stability

and

protection.

The

thought

that

“it

is

a

way

to

have

multi

‐

generations

live

on

the

same

property”

has

its

value,..

but

it

is

very

short

sighted,

as

this

intent

can,

and

will

,

soon

be

altered

by

time,

lack

of

wilful

enforcement

and

unscrupulous

developers

and

owners

.

This

is

an

imposition

on

the

many

taxpayers

who

value

their

home

as

a

place

of

solace

,

away

from

the

daily

stresses

of

life.

Paving

over

our

green

areas,

is

counter

to

everything

that

this

government

and

other

groups

pretend

to

care

about.

Paving

over

makes

for

warmer

soil,

climate,

less

habitat

for

the

numerous

creatures,

big

and

small,

who

live

and

thrive

in

the

little

space

we

allow

them

in

our

overly

developed

cities,..

With

an

eye

on

recurring

and

future

pandemics,

the

need

for

more

peaceful,

green

isolating

environments

is

even

more

vital

than

confining

people

to

overly

dense

habitation.

By M. MacDonald, Legislative Serv., District of Saanich at 9:05 am, Sep 11, 2020 General

SH x

(23)

2

Canada

has

huge

areas,

we

can

all

live

surrounded

by

nature

,

listen

to

the

birds,

watch

butterflies,

watch

plants

and

trees

thrive,

these

give

us

a

feeling

of

peace,

wellbeing

and

health,

in

tandem

with

all

the

creatures

who

still

inhabit

this

space.

Instead,

this

council,

governing

bodies,

special

interest

groups,

feel

that

PAVING MORE

AREAS AND DENSIFYING CITIES IS THE BEST FOR EVERYONE, this is a false.

The

city

has

already

shown

it

is

incapable

of

enforcing

its

own

by

‐

laws,

amply

evident

by

the

numerous

“

illegal

“suites,

rentals

and

conversions

existing

in

“

single

family

“

zoned

areas.

The

excessive

noise,

increased

street

parking,

additional

garbage

and

other

obstructions

reported

is

ill

dealt

with

by

the

current

by

‐

laws

officers.

In

the

last

couple

years,

I

have

been

distressed

to

see

newly

built

houses

with

“garden

suites”

in

the

Cadboro

Bay

area.

They

encompass

most

of

the

green

space

on

such

properties.

These

newly

built

houses,

are

massive

structures,

with

paved

parking

lots,

stretching

their

boundaries

to

the

limit.

If

this

is

the

future

of

your

dream

communities,

then

heaven

help

us.

I

can

only

surmise

that

these

are

unlawful

infringements

on

the

current

community

plan

and

now,

to

catch

up,

you

are

forcing

the

community

to

accept

this

illegal

state

by

attempting

to

legalize

it,

proving

the

point

of

your

inability

to

enforce

by

‐

laws.

The

solution

is

to

ENFORCE

EXISTING

BY

‐

LAWS

and

NOT

to

simply

legalize

illegal

activity.

I

am

again

asking

you

to

reconsider

any

further

attempt

to

change

the

present

community

plan

and

enforce

our

present

by

‐

laws.

Use

your

creativity

to

make

our

city

a

more

liveable,

stable

place,

with

safe,

responsible

and

caring

communities.

Sincerely,

Therese

and

Frank

Borkenhagen

Amroth

Place,

Victoria,

BC

(24)

1

Megan MacDonald

From: Don Gunn

Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 9:41 AM

To: Council

Subject: (External Email) GHRA Input for the Public Hearing on Garden Suites. Attachments: Regarding garden suites V2.1.pdf

This

email

sent

from

outside

the

District

of

Saanich.

Use

caution

if

message

is

unexpected

or

sender

is

not

known

to

you.

Please find attached to this email comments from the Gordon Head Residents’ Association on the Garden Suite

proposals that will be discussed at the Public Hearing on September 15.

We would appreciate it if they could be circulated to council with the pack-up for the meeting.

Thank you.

Donald Gunn Treasurer

Gordon Head Residents' Association

By M. MacDonald, Legislative Serv., District of Saanich at 11:42 am, Sep 11, 2020 General

SH x

A/E

(25)

September 10, 2020

For the Public Hearing on Garden Suites

The Gordon Head Residents’ Association is pleased to note that many of the comments that we

made in our presentation to you of May 30, 2019 have been addressed in the present proposal.

Thank you.

We realize that our community is an evolving one and we see the inclusion of garden suites as

proposed, to be a step in the process of respectful densification of residential neighbourhoods

in Saanich.

We applaud the proposal to proceed with the introduction of garden suites by creating a

development permit area. We believe that this process will ensure that consideration has been

given to the “Design Guidelines” and will result in structures that are appropriate for the site.

We are generally pleased with the recommendations in the planning report, the content of the

proposed bylaw changes and the design guidelines. The open site space requirements and the

rear lot coverage requirements are important in order to ensure that garden suites do not

overwhelm the lot.

Many of the concerns of our residents will be assuaged by knowing that only, either a garden

suite or an auxiliary suite will be allowed on a lot. This will allow for a reasonable increase in the

densification of our neighbourhoods. With the recent changes in the BC Building Code and

Saanich Bylaws, the prospect of having up to 18 unrelated individuals living in three dwellings

on one lot was very much of a concern to our residents.

Likewise, it is good that the registered owner of the property will be required by covenant, to

reside in either in the garden suite or in the main dwelling. This will achieve the stated goals of

these proposals while supporting the essential residential character of our neighbourhoods.

We suggest, however, that there are some provisions of the bylaws that should be changed to

strengthen the stated desire to preserve the “character of our neighbourhoods”.

Lot Size

We continue to assert that any lot smaller than the minimum size for an RS8 zoned lot (665m

2

₎

should be considered a “small lot” for the purposes of this bylaw.

Parking

In order to reduce the number of vehicles that are parked on lawns and boulevards the number

of parking spaces should be as is required in table 7.1 of the bylaw. We refer to line 1.1 and

recommend two spaces per dwelling unit for all dwelling units that have one or more separate

bedrooms.

(26)

- 2 -

Design Guidelines

We very much appreciate the “Garden Suite Design Guidelines”. However, we would like to see

the language used in them to be more prescriptive in critical areas.

Specifically: Section 2.1 paragraphs: 1. Location; 2. Tree Protection and 3. Impervious Services

should be mandatory. Section 2.2 Sloping Sites and Section 2.2.19 dealing with mechanical

equipment, both require strengthening.

In section 2.7 of the design guidelines we believe that section 2.7.1 that deals with rainwater

infiltration and 2.7.2 permeable surfaces, should both be mandatory.

Conclusion

We acknowledge that some individuals may think that the present proposal does not go far

enough to support alternative accommodation in Saanich. We believe it is a good start and any

further changes to the proposals under discussion should be based on experience with these

changes and perhaps on the outcome of Saanich’s present Housing Initiative.

In closing, we must add, that of vital importance to the residents of what were previously

single-family zones, are effective regulation and consistent enforcement of Saanich bylaws.

The present proposal would seem to provide the regulations. We would certainly like to see this

backed up with enforcement, both at the approval stage and as these structures are occupied

by new residents of our neighbourhoods.

Finally, we have an important question for council.

How will Saanich handle all the existing properties that contravene not only the present bylaws

and building codes, but will not meet the requirements of either the proposed amended bylaw

or the design guidelines?

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the proposed bylaw changes regarding Garden

Suites.

Sincerely,

Donald Gunn

For The Board of Directors of