Secondary Suites

Secondary Suite Reform Process

Council has now completed the secondary suite reform process and made secondary suites discretionary in R-C1 districts via the Land Use Bylaw. While the Land Use Bylaw sets out definitions and land use according to Municipal guidelines, the R-C1 and R-C2 homes in Rutland Park have provincially registered Restrictive Covenants on them that take precedence over, and are separate from, the LUB.

The City is focused on development permits rather than Restrictive Covenants. While they might be willing to support a development permit application for a suite in an R-C1 property in Rutland Park, the Restrictive Covenant means that the Community Association will not support the application, and any landowner on the Restrictive Covenant could take the applicant to Court at any time to have the suite removed. (R-C2 houses here already permit a suite according to both the City and the Restrictive Covenant.)

Only 12% of the housing in Rutland Park is R-C1 (the rest are all higher density)—preserving this section of the community encourages some diversity, and helps us maintain the character of our community. We don’t want to pit neighbour against neighbour, so we ask that you respect the single family dwelling nature of our R-C1 properties, and uphold the Restrictive Covenant.

If you would like to discuss your proposal, please contact development.


Secondary Suite Proposed Amendments

City Council has put forward an amendment which would permit secondary suites in the low density residential section of Rutland Park. Resident feedback had been solicited in 2013, and follow up feedback had been collected in 2014, which did not support this initiative. The proposed amendments also include the removal of minimum lot widths for secondary suites– this has the potential to triple the current density in the area, and is the issue we have focused on. The supporting documents below have been shared with Council (either by mail, email, or verbal presentation).

Further Secondary Suite Proposed Amendments

Proposed LUB changes M-2016-004 could have a huge detrimental impact on our community. Two of these proposed changes were what we as a community association formally opposed during the last round of proposed amendments. A petition with almost 300 signatures from our residents was also shared with Council opposing these changes. These changes have the potential to almost triple the density of our current low density bungalows.

Reducing the minimum lot width for secondary suites to 7.5 meters would allow for 4 dwelling units on our R-C2 lots (which have mainly single family homes on them, but already permit 2 dwelling units).

Increasing the maximum suite size to 100 square meters (over 1000 square feet) opens up all of our R-C1 lots to side by side “duplexes” and 2nd dwellings on the lots in the backyard that could be bigger than the original bungalows (and bigger than a triple garage).

These changes would not only destroy the character of our neighbourhood, they would destroy our urban canopy. Please take the time to get involved and speak out against these changes.

Further secondary suite proposal amendments documents:

Secondary suites M 2016 004

Secondary suites M 2016 for council

Secondary suites 23P2016

Note: these documents will open in a new tab on your browser bar.

Council Secondary Suite Discussions

City Council is revisiting a secondary suite policy. This is directly related to the inordinate amount of time that Council spends discussing land use re-designation to allow for secondary suites. Changes are necessary. We want to ensure that the changes are well thought out, and respectful of the restrictive covenants that dictated the original spirit and intent of our community– multi-residential properties, duplexes/ semi-detached homes, and single family homes (which make up only 12% of our residences). We have submitted a letter to indicate our concerns (see below).

Council secondary suite discussion documents:

Secondary suites November 2017 RPCA

Secondary suites discretionary objection letter

Note: these documents will open in a new tab on your browser bar.

Should you have any questions, please email development