Rockland Neighbourhood Association:  Secondary Suites
BACKGROUND: 

Link to the City's proposal "Expansion of Secondary Suite Policy in the City of Victoria"

 http://www.city.victoria.bc.ca/cityhall/departments_comdev_hsngln_scndry.shtml



Neighbours Email Response to the Secondary Suites Issue



Through the RNA “Neighbours” email list, Rockland neighbours provided comments on the City of Victoria’s proposal to allow secondary suites in all single family dwellings city-wide, and specifically on the question of whether Rockland should be an exclusionary zone.

Nearly 9% of the subscribers to the email list responded. The comments received are presented below. They do not clearly support either the expansion of secondary suites or declaring Rockland to an exclusionary zone.

The RNA Board will continue to review the secondary suites proposal and will accept additional comments. Residents may also wish to write to the Mayor and Council to express their views on expansion of secondary suites.

Comments Received:
* I do not see why Rockland should be any different than any other neighbourhood on this issue. Suites are often the only way someone can continue to live in their home so I say “let them do it”.  
* Thanks for the secondary suites heads-up.  I would support allowing secondary suites in any house with at least 1600 sq ft of space regardless of when it was built (I can’t imagine why we have the current pre-1970 distinction) but I feel strongly that off-street parking should be provided with one space per suite over and above the owner’s requirements. Our street, like most others in Victoria and anywhere else for that matter looks more like a parking lot than a neighbourhood street!
* We would support establishing Rockland as an exclusionary zone.
* The regulations should stay as they are for our area—we can’t have extra suites and no parking for them. It will create too many problems. 
* I am of the opinion that if you are going to allow secondary suites, on-site parking should be provided. We recently had a house built on our street as an in-fill and parking was one of the hot issues and was addressed by the owner. You only have to take a drive through some areas of Fairfield to see what impact suites without adequate parking are having on that neighborhood.
* Are there many secondary suites in Rockland at present? Has there been any interest from Rockland residents about adding suites? There will be four opposed from this complex.
* The bottom line is that we should be in favour if this would encourage preservation of Rockland looking pretty much the way it does now, ideally without any loss of heritage or potential heritage structures and open space. The threat to Rockland as we know it is not a slight increase in legal density (probably a very small increase in actual density) through legalization of secondary suites, rather it is infill of today’s gardens and open space by townhouses and parking lots. I think that at least in the short to medium term, this change would make it easier for owners to extend the lives of existing properties by giving them additional revenue to keep them going, rather then sell out to developers who would then do wholesale conversions. These developments sometimes maintain the original heritage structure as a focal building, but usually greatly reduce green space, gardens, trees, street parking, wildlife, etc. In the long run, who knows? In fifty years, Rockland may solid high-rises like Vancouver’s west end, but hopefully it will be pretty much preserved, like Vancouver’s Shaughnessy.
* I think that I like the existing regulations - I would not like our neighbourhood flooded with secondary suites and cars parked all over the place. Not only that we already have a multitude of Bed and Breakfast places in many of the houses in Rockland and I am sure secondary suites also. 
* I support the secondary suite proposal for Rockland as well. I like the idea of on street parking acting as natural traffic calming. If one looks at Linden for example, with parking on both sides, through traffic is greatly reduced and residents’ enjoyment of their street is actually enhanced. I also like the idea of diversifying the neighbourhood with a larger mix of folk from different walks of life.
*The problem with requiring off-street parking is that it encourages people to pave over green space, which is a detriment to everyone. Parking on the street is a traffic-calming device, which benefits everyone.
* Once again, Rockland and City residents are being asked to respond to an ad-hoc proposal. This time it’s to extend the Gonzales Neighbourhood Secondary Suite regulations to the rest of the City. In effect, this extreme ad-hoc approach proposes to extend one policy of the recently updated Gonzales Neighbourhood Plan throughout the City. We are being asked if Rockland should be excluded (exempted) from the new secondary suites regulation (a proposed new generic standard?).  Site-specific zoning asks for exemptions from plans and generic bylaws (established neighbourhood standards). Does anyone see the irony here? It is well known that affordable housing is an oxymoron in many North American coastal cities. It has also been established that a solution will only be found by multi-level government, NGOs, and private sector strategic planning and resource commitment. This City proposed ad-hoc approach to implement a new city-wide policy is simply bad management. It’s obvious that one selected policy from the recently developed Gonzales Plan cannot be summarily recommended to override the precedent setting policies of twenty-year-old plans and generic bylaws in Rockland and elsewhere.  Strategic management requires that the Rockland Plan and other neighbourhood plans be updated to, among other things, “maintain unique and attractive neighbourhood features”.
Unfortunately, at this stage, there is no summary report to identify the reason for this unique approach to a city-wide policy change that will override precedents established in neighbourhood plans and generic bylaws. 
* We are okay with secondary suites as long as they have on-site parking for all residents.  Street parking where duplexes/suites have gone into single family dwelling areas has caused real problems for many people we know in Fairfield. 
*I think all of Rockland should be an exclusionary zone.
* I don’t think that Rockland should have more, or unlimited secondary suites. Many of the big older homes have apartments or condominiums, and there must also be off-street parking for one can still drive along this lovely, curvaceous roadway. The area has great appeal to visiting tourists. Call me a curmudgeon, a conservative or whatever, but I think Rockland should be an exclusionary zone.
*As a Rockland resident I am not in favour of Rockland being an exclusionary zone.
* With poor or non-existent parking for suite dwellers I’m in favour of keeping the Rockland area as an Exclusionary Zones for Secondary Suites. Our streets are crowded enough already with parked cars; St. Charles, for example, south of Rockland Avenue. Unless the home owner provides several off-street parking spaces for suite dwellers, then I’m against further encroachment into Rockland.
* I am pleased that Council has finally realized that the City has, I suspect, thousands of secondary suites currently in existence. Rockland, with its numerous large houses, has more than its fair share already, I suspect. Try driving down St. Charles St. in the evening and the number of automobiles parked on the street gives one a reasonable idea of the number of secondary suites already in existence. Personally, I think we have to recognize what already exist. However, that being said, the suites should all be inspected, approved and ideally licensed by the City naturally with each suite having off street parking available. Being licensed means the owners would be liable for income taxes and that might remove some of the incentive for secondary suites that generate tax free dollars.

:

Posted  June 12, 2005