Thread by @PlannerSean

I don’t normally tweet about projects I work on, but when it involves a Committee of Adjustment denying a variance to maintain an entirely existing (not legal) triplex containing 3 units of affordable housing bc the new owner wanted the fire department to make sure it was safe...

I might have to approve a variance to my policy. But need some time so I’m not angry tweeting.

And yeah, this is entirely yellowbelt shit.

ok I'm home now and am still pissed (I take all my projects personally, but this one extra so)... but let's get into it anyway.

Engage tweetstorm.

First, by way of background you can review this: galbraithplanning.com/blog/2017/7/25…

This story might meander a bit.

Deep in the yellowest of yellowbelt, i.e. the RD - Residential Detached zoning area, about 20 years ago a house was split into 3 apartments without permission. People moved in, and no complaints or problems were ever registered. Good people.

In 2015, my client buys the property with its 3 units. Because client is a good guy, he keeps the rents affordable for the tenants, who are:
-An older single woman on disability
-A single mom who must keep her child in the area for school
-Young immigrant couple getting on feet

Like, actually affordable, including utilities.
And being a good guy, he wants to ensure his tenants are safe, so he asks the Fire Dept to inspect to confirm. He didn't know that the units weren't added with permission. The fire inspection passed, exceeding requirements.

Fire Dept had to tell city that there were 3 units, and thus began the process that lead up to the CoA hearing today.

This is not an area that had a lot of other illegal builds (we tried every way we could think of to find them) that we could determine. We found 2 other triplexes of unknown legality, but that's it. However, OPA320 basically says that these other 2 triplexes are irrelevant.

3 variances were needed (2 repeats under old/new bylaw).
- Allow a triplex, where 1 is allowed
- Allow for 1 parking space where 3 are required (which no one seemed to care about, thankfully)

A week ago we get a staff report frm City Planning recommending refusal of the triplex

The reason was that "three dwelling units within the existing detached dwelling results in an intensity of use that is not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the by-law and is not considered minor".

This gets to crux of why I rant about the yellowbelt so often

The intent of the RD zone is, at its heart of hearts, to regulate people (same could be said about other zones, but this is the worst). This is not about buildings. You have 2 identical buildings, and you split one into 3 lower cost units and that is intolerable.

You have 2 identical buildings, containing the same number of bedrooms and the same number of people, and one is allowed and the other is not because one has a couple extra locked doors. It is that ridiculous.

And so today, we went to the CoA with 45 letters of support from neighbours (unprecedented for a file of mine), and the support of the local councillor asking that the Committee go against the recommendation of planning and allow these three affordable units to remain.

And 12 days before Xmas, the Committee agreed with Planning staff that the it was not minor enough that an entirely existing use, three affordable units with not a square inch extra building, that has been there for 20 years should be refused.

And this is how idiotic this whole thing is. All the landlord might need to do is combine 2 units into 1 (i.e. remove one internal locked door), forcing 2 tenants to share a unit, and suddenly this goes from a triplex to a detached with a secondary suite!

And a detached unit with a secondary suite is a permitted use. It's literally the exact same building. I don't know if that will happen, or what. I truly, truly hope that no one has to be evicted from their place because that's the intent of the by-law and their unit is major.

And so basically, in summary until I think of more things to say about this, if anyone out there wants to file a human rights complaint about the discrimination inherent in the municipal bylaws that only allow a single detached house, you have my full support. DM me.

Background on triplexes in the super yellowbelt:
galbraithplanning.com/blog/2017/7/25…

You have to wonder how many fewer units of rental apartments the city would have if other good landlords had their places fire inspected.

oh yeah.. and the suggestion was “why don’t you rezone it?”

Rezoning application base fee: $41,664.74

Also, city wouldn’t likely support the rezoning anyway.

I just can’t accept that providing 3 units of affordable housing that generates zero impacts on anyone is ILLEGAL.

Today, in comic form:
smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-02-…

The only good thing about today was the staggering support these great tenants got from their neighbours. They want them to stay so much. How often do we see affordable housing get NIMBYd… not here they didn’t.

BTW if you’re wondering what you can do about this, talk to your councillor. Tell them that you support a complete overhaul of the Official Plan Neighbourhood policies and Zoning bylaw policies so that they supportive and encouraging of projects like this. Big things need change.