At a regular meeting of the District of North Vancouver Council on June 3, the Council passed the first, second, and third readings of bylaws in support of Provincial legislation—Bills 44 and 47—intended to allow more homes.
The council designated two Transit-Oriented Areas (TOAs): one around Phibbs Exchange in Lynn Creek and one at Capilano University. The council also considered three bylaw proposals for zoning changes to the district’s residential single-family neighbourhoods in compliance with provincial legislation.
Bylaw 8698 passed three readings in a 4:3 vote. This vote will amend the Zoning Bylaw to permit a secondary suite and a coach house, in addition to the principal dwelling unit, on each parcel in all single-family zones within the urban containment boundary.
This Zoning Bylaw amendment permits an additional 17,000 dwelling units within existing single-family neighbourhoods, a 40% overall increase. “This direction supports and accelerates the District’s strategy to achieve infill housing in our single-family neighbourhoods and to increase housing options across the municipality,” DNV said in a press release.
The press release said this bylaw option chosen by the Council addresses the need to increase housing capacity as directed by the Province and also recognizes the need for continued infrastructure planning to support increased densification.
“The decision respects community feedback and the principles of focusing growth in town centres as outlined in our Official Community Plan, and also does not preclude future densification and upzoning as we continue to work towards increasing housing diversity for our residents,” it said.
As mandated by provincial legislation, new bylaws must be adopted by June 30. The council will meet again on June 17 to adopt the bylaws.
Regarding the TOAs, to my understanding, those were decreed by the Province. The Cap U one doesn’t make sense; geography eliminates much of the land from development and it would be wrong to remove the current uses (cemetery, sports fields, riding stables) on other parcels. Regarding the number of units, that number estimates FULL BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL, meaning every single-family home in the District would add a secondary suite and a coach house. This is very unlikely in the foreseeable future. An interesting side-bar, the Province legislation requires municipalities to plan infrastructure that anticipates the possible housing. Could this be an attempt by the District to argue for better external funding of that potential?
It is highly unlikely we will see massive builds of coach houses and secondary suites in the district
unless we have several residents with deep pockets that want family or others to occupy space.
Building costs and taxes are too high! Add all related building costs – permit fees for approval, excavation,
plumbing, heating and electrical permits etc.labour costs of over $250.00 a square foot for basic
construction and over $1200 a square foot for custom construction. (real estate stats).
In my view what matters here is the provincial Government gave us a mandate that had to be followed. Too bad the democratic process of for the people bye the people was not followed.
Could we not have had a Referendum on these new density issues?
Do our municipalities council and staff have the necessary time and expertise to implement
the provinces bidding by June 30, 2024?
We are hoping that the District will allow larger Coach Houses to be built. Our lot is big enough to support two small homes. Our son and his family totaling four people would love to raise their family in the District but the rules restrict Coach House size to 968 square feet which is not big enough for a family. We need to provide options for families not just singles or couples which seems to be the focus of most of new construction these days.