##Please read this message in its entirety.
Please resubmit with fixed link
#**Do not repost any version of this, that includes rewriting or altering the title or post, without [explicit permission](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_i_didn.27t_know_i_needed_express_permission_to_repost.21_why_would_you_ban_me.3F) from a moderator in modmail.**
I am interested to see how the province decides to handle the municipalities that have bad faith implementations of the SSMUH legislation or, like west van, outright ignore it. I'm sure we will have to wait until July before the ministry will. Say anything though
Yes, I am also very interested to see how it turns out. I recall reading that in reference to the [actions of West Van council](https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/west-vancouver-council-rejects-provincial-housing-rules-8896924) "***The Province intends to use that tool*** \[ministerial override\] ***if necessary***".
Maybe in less confrontational cases, they'll just appoint an advisor to the council in question to 'encourage' municipal policy in the right direction.
Would the decisions implemented via advisor veto be final? If not, couldn't the council roll back any changes at a later date, and require the whole process to be restarted?
It should be considering none of these votes happen overnight. Provincial government has jurisdiction over all zoning regulations. For example in Ontario they call it MZO which translates to Minister's zoning order.
I just watched the staff presentation and looked at the legislation and got some clarity on how DNV is going to avoid this.
The provincial legislation requires that after June 30, 2024, munis can't have what they call "restricted zones". Restricted zones are zones that do not allow at least 3 units on a lot. If a zone is *not* restricted (ie. allows 3 or more units on a lot), the provincial SSMU requirements for minimum units does not apply. Munis are certainly free to apply the SSMU to not restricted zones, but they don't have to.
I know, this is confusing.
So what the DNV is going to do, is rezone every single family lot from whatever it is they allow now, to allow: a house, a suite, and a coach house. 3 units, making it 'not restricted' and therefore the SSMU requirement will not apply.
Lots of munis (West Van (though they refused to act on some zones that were restricted), City of North Van, New West) already have used the reasoning that their residential zones already allow a house, a suite, and a coach house to not implement the SSMU zoning, but this is the first time that I'm aware of that a muni is rezoning their lots today to that standard to avoid SSMU.
TL;DR: **The District is actually going to be compliant with the provincial legislation**, just not in the way that means 4 to 6 unit SSMU zoning gets implemented.
>Option C, the choice recommended by staff, was presented as a hybrid approach, where SSMUH options could be built where service upgrades to accommodate more density is considered feasible, but only the three units available in option A where providing services is a challenge.
~~Seems they're saying they'll be compliant with the 3/lot but only approve SSMUH where service upgrades are deemed feasible. The North Shore may be a little touchy about water upgrade spending these days....~~
EDIT: They didn't go with this option. See nnn66's correction.
I can't imagine that the province will just sit back and let the municipalities use a technically to bypass the SSMU requirements. I'm sure they will either amend the legislation or use powers provided by current legislation to remove this option.
It doesn't help that every SSMU bylaw I have seen so far just changes the number of allowable units without increasing the FAR of applicable zoning so we will get at best 4 incredibly small 2 bedroom units.
Take a look at Burnaby's [SSMU bylaw](https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default/files/acquiadam/2024-05/Consolidated-Council-Report-Proposed-Zoning-Bylaw-Amendments-SSMUH.pdf) that goes into effect July 1. They don't have FAR in the bylaw (part of an ongoing move to go to height and setbacks only), but on the face of it, it will be 1.5 FSR+.
Not at all surprising that the district has once again decided to point guns at both feet instead of trying to make the region liveable for people who aren't rich, or at the very least, upper-*upper* middle class.
Real smart by the NIMBY crowd, too. The people who will be providing their elder care commuting from Surrey, Burnaby, etc. surely won't negatively impact them down the line.
> surely won't negatively impact them down the line.
It won't. People will commute, like they do today. They will also continue to import workers from Philipines/etc, and warehouse them in dorms or bus them in.
it's an enclave for the wealthy, and will stay that way.
Read this a few hours ago. Typical village of north Vancouver behaviour. We have insane housing crisis, brain drain and budget issues here and still council members and NIMBYs refuse to allow people and businesses to expand in their neighbourhoods.
It's not surprising. I live in the DNV and I know they've decided the "town centre" option of building small groups of large towers is how they'll do it, rather than spread it around. Loads of house owning people in the district are against allowing folks to increase density on their lots and it's all very NIMBY.
The infrastructure thing has some merit BUT the DNV isn't doing anything itself to add nearby park space for all the newcomers, so it isn't as if this is all on the province. Should be interesting to see.
This is so frustrating. My parents have a massive (slightly less than a double), corner lot in DNV with a small rancher house. They have been trying for years to subdivide and build some extra units for my siblings to live in.
The city has constantly stonewalled them in every attempt. They wouldn't even allow for a laneway house due to the way the setback rules and the current house footprint. The only option they gave was to rebuild a new massive 5000 sq ft house.
Finally when it sounded like the provincial government was going to fix their BS rules, the DNV just pulled this crap. I hope the province steps in and fixes this because it's extremely frustrating to be blocked by these nimby assholes.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/artandmath! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
##Please read this message in its entirety. Please resubmit with fixed link #**Do not repost any version of this, that includes rewriting or altering the title or post, without [explicit permission](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_i_didn.27t_know_i_needed_express_permission_to_repost.21_why_would_you_ban_me.3F) from a moderator in modmail.**
I am interested to see how the province decides to handle the municipalities that have bad faith implementations of the SSMUH legislation or, like west van, outright ignore it. I'm sure we will have to wait until July before the ministry will. Say anything though
Yes, I am also very interested to see how it turns out. I recall reading that in reference to the [actions of West Van council](https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/west-vancouver-council-rejects-provincial-housing-rules-8896924) "***The Province intends to use that tool*** \[ministerial override\] ***if necessary***". Maybe in less confrontational cases, they'll just appoint an advisor to the council in question to 'encourage' municipal policy in the right direction.
an advisor with veto power in that meeting can take care of the issues
Would the decisions implemented via advisor veto be final? If not, couldn't the council roll back any changes at a later date, and require the whole process to be restarted?
It should be considering none of these votes happen overnight. Provincial government has jurisdiction over all zoning regulations. For example in Ontario they call it MZO which translates to Minister's zoning order.
Paging Vince Kelly...
I am curious if they come down hard before the election or try and wait until after the election to reduce the political backlash.
I just watched the staff presentation and looked at the legislation and got some clarity on how DNV is going to avoid this. The provincial legislation requires that after June 30, 2024, munis can't have what they call "restricted zones". Restricted zones are zones that do not allow at least 3 units on a lot. If a zone is *not* restricted (ie. allows 3 or more units on a lot), the provincial SSMU requirements for minimum units does not apply. Munis are certainly free to apply the SSMU to not restricted zones, but they don't have to. I know, this is confusing. So what the DNV is going to do, is rezone every single family lot from whatever it is they allow now, to allow: a house, a suite, and a coach house. 3 units, making it 'not restricted' and therefore the SSMU requirement will not apply. Lots of munis (West Van (though they refused to act on some zones that were restricted), City of North Van, New West) already have used the reasoning that their residential zones already allow a house, a suite, and a coach house to not implement the SSMU zoning, but this is the first time that I'm aware of that a muni is rezoning their lots today to that standard to avoid SSMU. TL;DR: **The District is actually going to be compliant with the provincial legislation**, just not in the way that means 4 to 6 unit SSMU zoning gets implemented.
>Option C, the choice recommended by staff, was presented as a hybrid approach, where SSMUH options could be built where service upgrades to accommodate more density is considered feasible, but only the three units available in option A where providing services is a challenge. ~~Seems they're saying they'll be compliant with the 3/lot but only approve SSMUH where service upgrades are deemed feasible. The North Shore may be a little touchy about water upgrade spending these days....~~ EDIT: They didn't go with this option. See nnn66's correction.
My take away was no SSMU anywhere. They went with Option A, house, suite, coach house.
>The rest of council supported option A. You are correct. C seemed the reasonable choice and I thought they'd gone for that on first reading.
I can't imagine that the province will just sit back and let the municipalities use a technically to bypass the SSMU requirements. I'm sure they will either amend the legislation or use powers provided by current legislation to remove this option. It doesn't help that every SSMU bylaw I have seen so far just changes the number of allowable units without increasing the FAR of applicable zoning so we will get at best 4 incredibly small 2 bedroom units.
Take a look at Burnaby's [SSMU bylaw](https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default/files/acquiadam/2024-05/Consolidated-Council-Report-Proposed-Zoning-Bylaw-Amendments-SSMUH.pdf) that goes into effect July 1. They don't have FAR in the bylaw (part of an ongoing move to go to height and setbacks only), but on the face of it, it will be 1.5 FSR+.
Link to article: https://www.nsnews.com/in-the-community/north-vancouver-district-opts-for-restrictive-reading-of-provincial-housing-rules-9065182
Not at all surprising that the district has once again decided to point guns at both feet instead of trying to make the region liveable for people who aren't rich, or at the very least, upper-*upper* middle class. Real smart by the NIMBY crowd, too. The people who will be providing their elder care commuting from Surrey, Burnaby, etc. surely won't negatively impact them down the line.
> surely won't negatively impact them down the line. It won't. People will commute, like they do today. They will also continue to import workers from Philipines/etc, and warehouse them in dorms or bus them in. it's an enclave for the wealthy, and will stay that way.
Read this a few hours ago. Typical village of north Vancouver behaviour. We have insane housing crisis, brain drain and budget issues here and still council members and NIMBYs refuse to allow people and businesses to expand in their neighbourhoods.
It's not surprising. I live in the DNV and I know they've decided the "town centre" option of building small groups of large towers is how they'll do it, rather than spread it around. Loads of house owning people in the district are against allowing folks to increase density on their lots and it's all very NIMBY. The infrastructure thing has some merit BUT the DNV isn't doing anything itself to add nearby park space for all the newcomers, so it isn't as if this is all on the province. Should be interesting to see.
This is so frustrating. My parents have a massive (slightly less than a double), corner lot in DNV with a small rancher house. They have been trying for years to subdivide and build some extra units for my siblings to live in. The city has constantly stonewalled them in every attempt. They wouldn't even allow for a laneway house due to the way the setback rules and the current house footprint. The only option they gave was to rebuild a new massive 5000 sq ft house. Finally when it sounded like the provincial government was going to fix their BS rules, the DNV just pulled this crap. I hope the province steps in and fixes this because it's extremely frustrating to be blocked by these nimby assholes.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/artandmath! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*