Acknowledgements
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II. BACKGROUND
III. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Methodology
Property Review: Regional District of Central Kootenay, (Electoral
Area E):Private Property
Regional District of Central Kootenay, (Electoral Area F):Private
Property
City of Nelson : Private Property
Subject Property Detail
IV. MANUFACTURED HOMES
V. CITY OF NELSON
Regulations
Summation
VI. REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY (ELECTORAL AREAS
E & F)
Regulations
Summation
VII. MANUFACTURED HOME LAND TENURE OPTIONS
Fee Simple Title
Bare Land Strata Title
Manufactured Homes on Leased LandCommunity Housing Trust/Cooperative
B.C. Housing Management Commission (Provincial Rental Housing
Corporation)/Equity Housing Cooperative
B.C. HOusing Management Commission (Provincial Rental Housing
Corporation)/Leasehold Bare Land Strata
VIII. SUBJECT PROPERTY COSTS OUTS
Site Servicing Costs
Site Development Costs
Annual Operating Budget
Development Option Cost Out
Summation
IX. CONCLUSIONS
APPENDICES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author of this report acknowledges the co-operation and information provided by many people during the research and production of this report. Thanks to:
KATHY HENDREN,
Project Coordinator/Researcher
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Project was to locate suitable land which could be developed in order to provide a viable and secure land tenure option for manufactured home owners in Nelson and the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK), (Electoral Areas E and F).
The Project Objectives involved:
The Final Report Objectives were to:
Identifying affordable, small-lot subdivision opportunities within the City of Nelson and the RDCK (Electoral Areas E and F) was difficult. A diminishing supply of useable land and high development costs, seem to be the most limiting obstacles of residential development in Nelson. Locating properties within the RDCK, where both community services are provided, is rare. Further, locating sites large enough to accommodate the current sewage disposal requirements and well set-backs from sewage disposal is hard, if not impossible. Proof of potable water is yet another hurdle that can often be difficult and costly to obtain. All of the properties identified during this Project involved “challenges”, and as a result were proving to be expensive to purchase and develop for the provision of affordable residential housing.
Given the opportunity of a reduced market value, a location within City limits and the availability of community services, the subject property was selected as being the most viable and affordable property choice. The two identified tenure options that could be applied to this property are an Equity Housing Cooperative model or a Leasehold Bare Land Strata. Although these tenures do not provide manufactured home owners with a fee simple title to the land, they would provide the security of a 60-year, pre-paid ground lease for the use of the property, which would involve the members (the manufactured home owners), being collectively responsible for the operation and management of the site on a non-profit basis. This model is in contrast to the month-to-month “for profit” lot rentals that exist in traditional manufactured home parks, which are subject to annual lot rent increases.
This Project, through its research and information outlined in this Report, has presented a cost-effective approach towards providing a viable and secure land tenure option for manufactured home owners, while at the same time offering an affordable housing ownership choice for Nelson and area residents.
II. BACKGROUND
Affordable housing has become an increasingly important issue that is facing Nelson and area residents. BC Statistics population projection for this area, based on the 1996 census, forecasts steady growth well into the new millennium. Given the shrinking financial resources of Government, and the Federal Government’s disengagement from its traditional leadership and funding of housing programs, more creative approaches are necessary in order to continue addressing affordable housing needs.
Housing for some people means renting and for others it means owning a home. Housing is much more than concrete, wood or stucco. It is a necessity of life, one that makes a substantial difference to the health and well-being of individuals, their families and their communities. It is the largest monthly expense for most households and the major source of financial security in many people’s lives. For most Canadians, owning their own home is a lifelong dream. It brings with it a sense of achievement, pride, security and community. This statement holds true for Nelson and area residents. Given this areas expensive housing market, combined with an uncertain economy and a high unemployment rate, home ownership has become increasingly difficult for many residents to obtain. As has been witnessed in other parts of British Columbia, such trend can lead to the creation of a community that only addresses the needs and goals of higher income households. In these cases, low and moderate income residents live without hope of being able to achieve their goals and as a result often leave their communities. If this were to occur in this area, many residents indicate they would view it as a tragedy.
Manufactured homes can offer an attractive and affordable home ownership option. In the Kootenays, the majority of these factory built homes have been moved into manufactured home parks that involve a month to month lot rental. The sense of community the park environment offers can be appealing to seniors, young families and first-time home buyers.
A problem exists with this home ownership/tenancy arrangement
when an unsatisfactory rental situation develops between the home
owner and the park owner. The home owner is then encumbered by
an asset, the home, that can be both expensive to move, and given
a lack of lot spaces available in this area, difficult or impossible
to relocate to another site. Manufactured home owners, many of
whom are elderly and on fixed incomes, indicate they are also
concerned about their month to month, “for profit”,
lot rental status. Regular rent increases can result in a true
threat on the ability of many residents continuing to live in
their homes. The Provincial and Municipal Governments have stepped
in to some degree to stabilize
Many studies involving this form of housing have been conducted
over the last twenty-five years (Appendix #1). The author of this
Report conducted a study entitled, Impact of Legislative Changes
on Manufactured Home Park Tenancies in the Kootenay Region,
in 1996/97. One of the exercises involved with that Study was
a mail-out of five distinct surveys to manufactured home owners
(95), manufactured home park owners (51), realty companies (47),
Regional Districts/Municipalities (27) and Government Agents (11)
throughout the Kootenay Region. The rates of survey returns were
as follows: manufactured home owners (55%), manufactured home
park owners (49%), realty companies (40%), Regional Districts/Municipalities
(63%) and Government Agents (100%). A clear need was identified,
in respondent returns received from all five survey categories,
for a secure land tenure development for manufactured home owners.
Cooperative and strata developments were mentioned most often.
That study, along with several other local studies, have consistently
reported the need for retention and development of affordable
housing choices.
It is with the above mentioned background and identified needs that the Proposal for this Project was put forward to the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia for consideration.
III. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
An increasing population, combined with a diminishing supply of useable land, seems to be at the heart of high housing and land prices in the greater Nelson area. Much of the population growth is the result of people moving out of the main urban areas, often in search of more affordable housing. In theory, rising demand is usually balanced by adjustments in supply. Increasing prices normally attract investment to the market - more housing is provided and prices adjust. In practice, things do not work quite so smoothly in the West Kootenay housing market for several reasons, mostly related to the supply and price of land.
Only a small proportion of the land is suitable for housing development. Much of it is mountainous and has little access by road. Land cannot be made available for new communities until basic services and infrastructure have been installed. Over recent years this expense has been falling more and more directly on the shoulders of the purchasers of land and homes. Finding suitable, developable properties that are serviced by approved community water and sewage disposal systems can be difficult, if not impossible. In addition, some properties in the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) are located within alluvial fans and subject to significant flood hazard. Land availability is further restricted by decisions about land use. A great deal of land in the West Kootenays has been protected for agricultural purposes, forest reserve or provincial parks. Zoning also restricts the kinds of buildings and the density of development.
Methodology:
One of the first exercises involved with this Project was the identification of potentially developable properties within the City of Nelson and adjacent rural Electoral Areas E and F of the RDCK. A City of Nelson legal composite map was obtained, as well as cadastral maps for Electoral Areas E and F. Property identification was based upon the following criteria:
Properties meeting the above criteria were identified mainly through discussions with local residents who, like the author of this Report, were born and raised in the area. Initially, five properties were identified within the City of Nelson, six properties within Electoral Area E and twenty-two properties within Electoral Area F. These properties were highlighted on the applicable maps. Four of these sites involved properties that were currently listed for sale. Assessed property values, local applicable land-use/zoning and photos of each property were obtained for review. Property owners were then contacted to identify acquisition potential. It was clear at this stage, that property owners are aware of the diminishing supply of useable land and some of the responses and asking prices for properties reflected this knowledge. Since one of the objectives of this exercise was to identify affordable land options, the property choices were narrowed down considerably during this stage of the Project.
In order to be true to each area reviewed, the property selection included a property within Electoral Area E, one in Electoral Area F and two sites within the City of Nelson. The most obvious development challenges were identified, and a preliminary cost analysis was done on these four sites as to acquisition and servicing of the same. From this point, two properties with the most potential were chosen and involved one private property and one public property within the City of Nelson. In-depth research was then conducted on these two sites as to the history of the properties, service locations, utility locations, available road access and any upgrades involved with the same, approximate costs involved with internal services and roadways, access to transit services, land-use (zoning) and rezone requirements, development permit and development variance permit requirements. Although one of the Final Report Objectives was to identify the costs involved to secure, develop and service two potential sites, after doing the in-depth cost outs on both sites, the cost difference was great enough the decision was made to not devote more time and expense on the private property and the focus was then directed on the public site as the subject property.
Property Review:
Regional District of Central Kootenay
During the selection process, the RDCK properties chosen for further review involved one private property within Electoral Area E and one private property within Electoral Area F.
Electoral Area E:
The land chosen for review in Electoral Area E involved a 1.8 hectare (4.34 acre) parcel of land. The property was moderately sloped and approximately half of it was pastured land. The water supply to the site would not have met current requirements. A sewage disposal system would be required. Overhead electric, telephone and cable lines, and natural gas service were at, or near the property. Road development on-site and access to the site would have been challenging and costly. Conventional transit service was near the property.
Electoral Area F:
The land chosen for review in Electoral Area F involved two adjacent lots of approximately 0.91 hectares (2.25 acres) each. Just over half of the site was flat property. An artesian well was in place which might provide a sufficient amount of water for subdivision approval, if a storage reservoir were built of a size to provide for the number of homes to be sited. Given the amount of flat land on this site and the likelihood of gravelly soil, a sewage disposal system which included a package treatment plant, would likely be required. Overhead electric, telephone and cable lines, and natural gas service were at, or near the property. The property bordered a highway and is therefore a controlled access. Any driveway accesses would be subject to the regulations set out under Section 54 of the Highway Act. Conventional (rural) transit service was near the site. One lot was zoned RR1 (Rural) and the other was zoned M1 (Industrial). The RR1 zone minimum site area for each single-detached or duplex dwelling is 2 hectares (4.94 acres) and the M1 zone does not provide for residential use. A consolidation of the two lots and a rezone would have been required.
City of Nelson:
During the selection process, the City of Nelson properties chosen for further review involved one private property and one public property. The public property was selected as being the most viable and affordable property choice and is described under the Subject Property Detail below.
Private Property: The private property chosen for review in the City of Nelson involved a 0.53 hectare (1.30 acre) parcel of land. The property was relatively flat. Overhead, and some underground, utility services ran near or to the site. There was a stream running through the property. The site was located in a congested area and would require several easements in order to extend the sewer service. A storm sewer would have been required. The site would have needed approximately one block of street upgrade. Conventional transit service ran near the property. This lot was zoned R1 (Single and Two Family Residential Zone). The R1 zone minimum lot area for (1) single-detached dwelling is 463 m² (5000 ft²) and (1) two-family dwelling is 372 m² (4000 ft²). A rezone would have been required.
SUBJECT PROPERTY DETAIL:
The subject property involves two adjoining 0.4 hectare (.99 acre) parcels of moderately sloped, grassy land, (0.8 hectare/1.98 acres in total), which are located within the City of Nelson. The property is currently owned by the British Columbia Assets & Land Corporation (BCAL). The Land Titles office confirms that a lot consolidation can take place as there are no charges, roadways or exceptions on the properties prohibiting cancellation of the interior lot lines. Overhead electric, telephone and cable lines, and natural gas service run alongside the property. Although it would not be a requirement to provide underground servicing for a development that involves a division of land for lease, City policy has been to recommend the same for all new development. Approximately one and one-half blocks of upgrade would be required to the street that provides access to the site. Conventional transit service has not yet been extended to this area of the City. A history check, as to previous titles and use of this property, was conducted back to the year 1890. The primary use of this property seemed to be ranching and none of the previous uses would indicate the likelihood of environmental contamination or hazard on the site. There are no apparent signs of bedrock or ground water around the banks that surround the property and all surface evidence would indicate good digging conditions and reusable fill. A local excavator who has done work on property to the immediate south of this site has experienced good digging conditions. The current zoning is P-1 (Institutional Zone). This zoning does not specify a number of “buildings per lot”; nor does it specify the “number of dwelling units per building”; and, it allows for seniors housing. A development variance permit would not be required. Although the City Planner and Chief Building Inspector indicate that a rezone would not be necessary for a seniors’ residential housing development to proceed, given the restriction of use and the location of the subject property, the author of this Report would recommend a rezone to a CD (Comprehensive Development) in order to provide for the choice of a “mixed use” community, as well as the siting of either modular or mobile homes as a permitted use.
The disposition of Crown land includes, amongst other agencies, an initial referral to the local First Nation tribal council. Prior to the land going to public disposition, a referral is also made to the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC). BCHMC has the opportunity to express an interest in any land referred to them by BCAL under the Affordable Housing First Lands Policy. Under this policy, the subject property would be purchased by BCHMC, via the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation (PRHC), and leased at discounts of up to seventy-five per cent of the market value of the property. The Affordable Housing First Lands Policy was adopted in 1994 and the terms of implementation were established in 1995. This Policy designates non-profit housing as a high priority use for surplus Provincial land and was introduced as a way of ensuring long term affordability and to provide communities with the ability to develop affordable housing without ongoing Government assistance. The Crown grant of the land states, “grant of the land in the favour of the purchaser, for so long as the land is used for housing of persons, or households, of low or moderate income, as determined by BCHMC”. This restriction of use (restrictive covenant) is registered on the property title. Registration of covenants must comply with Section 219 of the Land Titles Act. As such, if any alteration or removal of this restrictive covenant were to occur, such alteration would have to be applied for by BCAL. Four sites have been purchased by BCHMC, from BCAL, under the Affordable Housing First Lands Policy. Two of these sites involved projects that were developed under the Homes BC program. The other two sites involved group homes which are managed by the PRHC, but were funded by other Provincial Ministries. The two sites developed under the Homes BC program were financed with CMHC mortgage insurance and BCHMC further provided a mortgage guarantee to CMHC.
The Provincial Government has established a Strategy for Affordable Housing. Although the Province presently does not have an ownership initiative available under its Homes BC program, either a manufactured home ownership/Cooperative model or a manufactured home ownership/Leasehold Bare Land Strata model on the subject property would coincide with the Strategy for Affordable Housing. The sections of the Strategy which would be most relevant are Reducing Land Costs, Increasing Affordable Ownership and to some extent, Building Partnerships to Broaden Participation. The Strategy also identifies manufactured homes as being a viable approach to affordable ownership.
In order to attain the acquisition potential, the author of this Report has viewed and discussed the site with BCAL representatives. As a result of, and during the term of this Project, BCAL has determined the subject property’s potential for disposition. BCAL sent a written referral and held a meeting with the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket tribal council. Subsequently, the disposition of this land was approved. Further, the author of this Report arranged a meeting and site visit, involving BCAL and BCHMC representatives, to discuss the acquisition and development potential of the property. The site-service research information has been shared with both BCAL and BCHMC representatives to assist in the acquisition process. Subsequently, BCHMC has notified BCAL of their interest in acquiring this property.
A development design was prepared to identify the most feasible internal road system and lay-out of the homes. The author of this Report provided a written report identifying detailed property service information and the development design to the Engineer for his technical analysis. The Engineer prepared a preliminary site grading plan for the property and as a result recommended a slight change for the internal road system and the lay-out of the homes. This resulted in three less homes, for a revised total of thirteen homes and potentially one common building (Appendix #2). From this point, the Engineer prepared a revised design showing thirteen homes and a preliminary site service lay-out. The author of this Report then reviewed this plan with Municipal staff, applicable utility company personnel and local excavation and paving contractors for their input regarding utility service requirements/costs and to more thoroughly identify the required street upgrades to the site and a feasible design for the same. This information was then returned to the Engineer to apply to the Site Service Plan (Appendix #3) and to include in his written comments (Appendix #4)) regarding site feasibility.
Manufactured homes offer an attractive, cost-effective alternative to standard construction methods. The old concept of “transient living” that was associated with “trailers” has become a thing of the past. It is evident that most owners of today’s manufactured homes are taking pride in their home ownership and its surroundings. The manufactured housing industry deserves credit for its progress and continued efforts in making manufactured homes the attractive housing choice they are today.
The broad definition of manufactured housing has five categories which include mobile, modular, timber frame, pre-cut and panelized homes. Mobile and modular homes were the type of homes focused on during this study.
All mobile and modular homes available in British Columbia are constructed in factories that are certified by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). That certification covers approval of a comprehensive factory quality assurance program and ongoing auditing of the quality assurance program. All modular homes will bear a CSA A277 modular label which certifies that the homes meet all requirements of the applicable Building Code in this province. All mobile homes will bear a CSA Z240MH label which certifies full conformance with the CSA Z240MH series of standards. The 1998 British Columbia Building Code, Part One, Section 1.1, Sentence 1.1.2.2(1)(g), states, “This Code does not apply to factory built housing and components certified by Canadian Standards Association prior to placing on the site as complying with CSA Standard A277-M1990 - Procedures for Certification of Factory Built Houses; or CAN/CSA Z240 MH Series-M86 - Mobile Homes; but this exemption does not extend to on-site preparations (foundations, basements, mountings), interconnection of modules, connection to services and installation of appliances.” The CSA label affixed to each housing unit exempts the factory construction of a mobile (Z240) home and modular (A277) home from local building inspection and any building permit fees associated with that portion of the home. Local inspection and building permit fees would only be applied to any on-site construction of a foundation, porch, deck, etc.
In North America the accepted definition of modular housing is housing that has approximately eighty-five per cent of its value added at the factory. It leaves the factory on a flatbed trailer in the form of three dimensional modules. The modules usually contain the interior wall surfaces with all insulation, plumbing and electrical work installed, as well as floor coverings, cabinetry and plumbing fixtures. Generally, two or more modules are joined at the construction site to form a completed house or multi-unit building.
The following outlines a few of the factors which work in favour of manufactured home components. Manufactured homes are manufactured indoors under ideal conditions. The industry’s labour force is well trained, their automated equipment is precise and their materials are stored indoors meaning they are dry, warm and undamaged when installed. Manufactured home units are assembled and fully secured on the day they are delivered. There are no materials or supplies exposed and subject to theft or vandalism. A basic mobile home can be ready for occupancy the day it arrives on site and a modular home can be made fully ready for occupancy within one week of basement completion. The need for interim financing is dramatically reduced from the 75-100 days or more that often applies to conventional construction. Neighbourhood impact, in terms of work crew traffic, equipment, debris and garbage, is reduced accordingly.
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is charged on all new manufactured homes. The new housing GST rebate would apply. This rebate offers a thirty-six per cent return on the GST paid on all construction. If the manufactured home is not going to involve a basement/permanent concrete foundation, the GST rebate is normally applied for at the time of purchase. However, if the manufactured home is going to be attached to a basement/permanent concrete foundation, the home owner should wait until all construction is complete before applying for the rebate, as it would include G.S.T. paid for the on-site construction as well.
As was outlined in the previous Section, the identified property is a moderately sloped piece of land that is located within the City of Nelson. Mobile homes, which are less than the 4.5 metre (15 feet) minimum residential dwelling unit width outlined in the City’s Land Use Regulation Bylaw, are restricted to siting in Mobile Home Parks. The City of Nelson considers modulars, which are affixed to permanent/concrete foundations, the same as they would any other residential home . Therefore, the design lay-out viewed in the Appendix section of this Report (Appendix #2) includes a modular home plan, which reflects a permitted dwelling use under the present zoning of the subject property. It should be noted, however, these lots could accommodate mobile homes, with a storage/crawl space foundation, if a rezone was granted to permit this use.
If modular homes were to be sited on the identified property, it may be practical to construct a secondary suite in the foundation of the home. The British Columbia Building Code sets out the restrictions for “conforming” secondary suites (Appendix #5). The City of Nelson has permitted secondary suites in most residential zones for many years. A secondary suite can generally be defined as a smaller, (less than 40% of the entire building), independent unit built within a single-detached dwelling to meet a home owner’s needs for additional income, or to provide a residence for extended family members. In addition to providing an excellent, and often necessary, mortgage/income helper, the secondary suite offers expanded rental housing stock at a time when few developers are constructing purpose-built rental housing. The secondary suite initiative is also mentioned in the Province’s Strategy for Affordable Housing under the Expanding Affordable Rental Housing section. One single-detached dwelling utility hook-up fee would apply to the (full) building at the time of development for a home/suite combination in Nelson. However, the City’s annual water/sewer/garbage fees applied to each building would be doubled to include the addition of the secondary suite in each home.
A metes and bounds description of the Municipal boundaries of the City of Nelson is provided under the Appendix section of this Report (Appendix #6). Based on the 1996 census, the current population of the City of Nelson is 9,585 residents.
Regulations:
Since 1992, Local Governments are required by the Municipal Act to include policies regarding affordable, rental and special needs housing when updating their Official Community Plans (OCP). Community Plans have become a useful and widely adopted policy tool of Municipal Governments for land use planning. In October, 1993, the City of Nelson adopted the Official Community Plan, Bylaw No. 2600. Policy #2 of this Bylaw provides for Affordable Housing and speaks to the comprehensive development zoning technique, existing rental housing stock, serviced housing, housing for seniors, housing for students, housing for families with children and mixed use of buildings in the downtown core. This Bylaw was amended in 1996 to provide for a boundary extension on the North Shore and again in June, 1997 to accommodate a proposed development on the East Waterfront area of the City.
The City of Nelson distinguishes between mobile and modular homes. Mobile homes, which are less than the 4.5 metre (15 feet) minimum residential dwelling unit width outlined in the City’s Land Use Regulation Bylaw, are restricted to siting in R5 (Mobile Home Park Residential Zone), properties. The City of Nelson considers modular homes, which are affixed to permanent/concrete foundations, the same as they would any other residential home. The City of Nelson Residential Mobile Home Parks Bylaw No. 1751 sets out the regulations for the construction, establishment, extension, design and servicing of mobile home parks. This Bylaw was established in 1977. The Chief Building Inspector is responsible for applying the provisions of the Residential Mobile Home Parks Bylaw. Bylaw No. 1751 defines a mobile home to be, “a single family dwelling unit equipped with a water-closet and bath-tub or shower, waste from which may be disposed of directly into a sewer, and manufactured as a unit or units intended to be occupied in a place other than of its manufacture on a year-round, long term basis. It may be designed with detachable towing and touring gear and upon arrival at the site, can be completed and ready for occupancy except for placing on foundations, connections of utilities and some incidental assembly”. It goes on to define a mobile home park to mean, “land used or occupied by any person for the purposes of providing spaces for the accommodation of two or more mobile homes and for imposing a charge or rental for the use of such space, or any parcel of land on which are located two or more mobile homes”. If a property was to be divided into lots for the siting of two or more mobile homes, the City Residential Mobile Home Parks Bylaw would apply. The minimum site area for a mobile home park is 2.0 hectares (5 acres). The maximum density for a mobile home park is eight mobile home units per 0.4 hectare (1 acre). The minimum area for a mobile home space is 325m² (3500 ft²). Each application submitted for a permit to establish a new mobile home park in the City, is charged an application fee for each mobile home site shown in the mobile home park plan.
The Chief Building Inspector indicates that his department does not inspect, nor apply a building permit fee to, the factory construction of a mobile home, and that a building permit fee is only applied to any on-site construction, including a porch, deck, etc. He goes on to state however, that although they do not inspect the factory construction of a modular home, they do apply a building permit fee to the full value of the home, including the factory construction portion, at the time of local inspection. If a property was to be divided into lots, on a fee simple, bare land strata or lease basis, for the siting of one or more modular homes, the development would be treated as a subdivision of land and the Residential Mobile Home Parks Bylaw would not apply.
The City of Nelson Land Use Regulation Bylaw No. 2243 specifies land use and lot size requirements. Under this Bylaw, the minimum lot size, per single-detached dwelling in a Residential Zone Designation, is 372m² (4000 ft²) under the R7 (Low Density Residential Zone).
With bare land stratas, an application can be approved where a parcel of land is smaller than the minimum lot size specified in the Land Use Regulation Bylaw, so long as the average size of the lots does not fall below the minimum lot size. This provision, which enables development of high density “clusters” of strata units, notwithstanding local regulations restricting parcel density, was implemented by B.C. Reg. 307/83, pursuant to the Condominium Act. The regulations were further amended by B.C. Reg. 137/84 to permit Local Governments to specify minimum average lot size requirements for bare land strata subdivisions which are separate from Land Title Act subdivision minimum lot sizes, but that authority is rarely exercised.
The Municipal Act was amended in 1993 to provide Local Governments with two important tools. Density bonusing, (increasing the amount of living or working space allowed on a site), which offers an incentive for developers to include affordable, rental or special needs housing or amenities in their plans; and, Comprehensive development zoning which gives Local Governments the authority and flexibility to negotiate with developers of larger, complex sites and to customize zoning regulations to meet particular purposes. The City of Nelson Land Use Regulation Bylaw has been amended to include Comprehensive Development Zoning capabilities.
The City of Nelson Subdivision and Development of Land Bylaw No. 2374 sets out the subdivision and servicing conditions for subdivision of properties located within the City of Nelson. The Land Title Act, Condominium Act, Real Estate Act and Municipal Act require that subdivisions be approved by an official known as an Approving Officer. The City Director of Works and Services is the Approving Officer responsible for applying the provisions of the City’s Subdivision Servicing Bylaw.
Before spending time and money on a subdivision application, anyone proposing a development should contact the Approving Officer to identify the existing zoning regulations, the type of information that is required in support of an application and whether there are any plans which conflict with a proposed subdivision.
Application for Preliminary Layout Approval (PLA) forms are available at the City Hall office.
To ensure that an application is fully evaluated and to avoid delays, it is important that all necessary information is provided. The following information, and a subdivision application fee, should be submitted to the Approving Officer:
The Approving Officer will analyze the proposal and circulate the application to the Fire Chief, City Planner and City Electrical Department for a review and written response.
Once all comments have been received, the Approving Officer will circulate the application and reports to the appropriate Municipal Officials. The Preliminary Layout Approval (PLA) to the proposed subdivision would then either be granted, a request made to the applicant to revise the proposal, or rejected. The PLA is valid for 180 days. Although PLA gives a measure of assurance that the subdivision will be approved, it is not a guarantee of such final approval. The process is designed to minimize the risk of proceeding with construction/development, only to find that it is not acceptable. If PLA to the proposed subdivision is granted, a number of prerequisite conditions must then be satisfied before final approval is received. This stage can be time consuming and will involve the expenditure of funds. In the case of subdivision applications requiring a rezoning, PLA would not be given until the Rezoning Bylaw had been given Third Reading.
For decisions related to development construction, City staff would make reference to the Land Use Regulation Bylaw, the British Columbia Building Code Bylaw, the Municipal Building Bylaw and, if applicable, the Residential Mobile Home Parks Bylaw.
Summation:
A diminishing supply of useable land and high costs to develop any remaining property, seem to be the most limiting obstacles of residential development in the City of Nelson.
As was mentioned earlier in this section, the City last amended its OCP in 1997 to accommodate a proposed development on the East Waterfront area. One of the policies outlined in the City’s OCP is to protect the “small-City” character of Nelson. In the 1996 City of Nelson Housing Inventory & Housing Needs Update, the City Planner reports that the residential component of Nelson is keeping pace with the population increase and that this is evidenced by the proposed development on the East Waterfront area. This multi-phased project was proposed to include 294 multi-family units, 35 single-detached dwellings, a hotel, marina and RV park. An arrangement was made for “cash in lieu of” fourteen affordable housing units. Several of the contractual requirements involved with this development were not fulfilled within the required period of time and there is no longer a contract between the property owners and the developer. When the City is reevaluating its housing strategy, it is hoped that sufficient attention is directed towards addressing, and providing for, the increasing need for affordable housing in the community.
V. CITY OF NELSON
The City of Nelson currently has two mobile home parks situated within its boundaries. These two parks combined site approximately one hundred mobile homes. The definition of a mobile home, as defined in the City’s 1977 Residential Mobile Home Parks Bylaw, would reflect the age of this document. City staff could make reference to two documents to assist them in amending this Bylaw to better regulate the manufactured housing land lease developments of today. One is a guide entitled, Regulating Today’s Manufactured Housing in British Columbia, and the second is an accompanying document entitled, Draft Model Bylaws for Manufactured Home Land Lease Developments in British Columbia. Both documents are distributed by the Manufactured Housing Association of British Columbia in Abbotsford.
It is suggested that the City review its current policy regarding local inspection involving modular housing. As was mentioned earlier under the Manufactured Home section of this Report, the 1998 British Columbia Building Code, Part One, Section 1.1, Sentence 1.1.2.2(1)(g), states, “This Code does not apply to factory built housing and components certified by Canadian Standards Association prior to placing on the site as complying with CSA Standard A277-M1990 - Procedures for Certification of Factory Built Houses; or CAN/CSA Z240 MH Series-M86 - Mobile Homes; but this exemption does not extend to on-site preparations (foundations, basements, mountings), interconnection of modules, connection to services and installation of appliances.” Although the Chief Building Inspector indicates that his department does not inspect, nor apply a building permit fee to, the factory construction of a mobile home, he does indicate that even though they do not inspect the factory construction of a modular home, they do apply a building permit fee to the full value of the home, including the factory construction portion, at the time of local inspection.
A metes and bounds description of Electoral Areas E and F of the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) is provided in the Appendix section of this Report (Appendix #7). Based on the 1996 census, the current population of Electoral Area E is 3,533 residents and the current population of Electoral Area F is 3,854 residents.
Regulations:
Since 1992, Local Governments are required by the Municipal Act to include policies regarding affordable, rental and special needs housing when updating their Official Community Plans (OCP). It should be noted however, this is not a requirement, but instead a recommendation, under Part One of a Rural Land Use Bylaw. Instead of a Land Use Regulation Bylaw and an OCP, Electoral Area F has a Rural Land Use Bylaw. Part One of a Rural Land Use Bylaw addresses some of the provisions of an OCP. Electoral Area E has no Land Use Regulation Bylaw and OCP, nor does it have a Rural Land Use Bylaw and therefore is regulated by the Local Services Act.
The RDCK does not distinguish between mobile and modular homes and categorizes them both as manufactured homes. The 1995 RDCK Manufactured Home Parks Bylaw No. 1082, and amendments thereto, set out the regulations for the construction, layout and facilities of manufactured homes in manufactured home parks. The Chief Building Inspector is responsible for applying the provisions of the RDCK Manufactured Home Parks Bylaw. Bylaw No. 1082 defines a manufactured home to be, “any structure, whether ordinarily equipped with wheels or not, that is designed, constructed or manufactured to be moved from one place to another by being towed or carried, and to provide a dwelling house or premises”. An amendment to Bylaw No. 1082 defines a manufactured home park (MHP) to be, “a parcel of land which has been planned and improved to provide sites, services and/or amenities for the placement and occupation for non-transient residential purposes for three or more manufactured homes in exchange for payment of a fee or rental to the owner”. If a property was to be divided into lots for the siting of three or more manufactured homes, and a lease tenure were applied, the RDCK Manufactured Home Parks Bylaw would apply. The minimum site area for a manufactured home park is 0.8 hectares (2 acres). The maximum density for a manufactured home park is twenty manufactured home units per hectare (2.5 acres). Each application submitted for a permit to establish a new manufactured home park in the RDCK, is charged an application fee for each manufactured home site shown in the manufactured home park plan. The Chief Building Inspector indicates that his department does not inspect, nor apply a building permit fee to, the factory construction of a manufactured home. A building permit fee is only applied to any on-site construction, including the foundation of the home, a porch, deck, etc. If a property was to be subdivided into lots for the siting of one or more manufactured homes, and a fee simple or bare land strata tenure model was applied, the development would be treated as any other subdivision and the Manufactured Home Parks Bylaw would not apply.
Applicable Land Use Regulation Bylaws and OCP’s or Rural Land Use Bylaws specify land use and lot size requirements. Not all Electoral Areas within the RDCK are zoned and regulated by a Land Use Regulation Bylaw or Rural Land Use Bylaw. As was mentioned above, Electoral Area E has no Land Use Regulation Bylaw and OCP, nor does it have a Rural Land Use Bylaw and therefore reference is made to the Local Services Act to determine lot size requirements. Under the Local Services Act, the minimum lot size, per single-detached dwelling, for residential development where both community services are provided is 560 m² (6000 ft²); for residential development where only one service is provided it is 695 m² (7500 ft²); and, for residential development where no community services are provided it is 1670 m² (18,000 ft²). It should be noted that properties are very seldom found within the RDCK that provide both community services. Further, it should be noted that in all likelihood the minimum lot size (where no community services are provided) would not meet local Health Authority requirements as it would not be of a size to accommodate the current sewage disposal requirements and well set-backs from sewage disposal.
Proposed subdivisions within zoned Electoral Areas, and Electoral Areas regulated by a Rural Land Use Bylaw with lot size requirements, must conform to the minimum lot sizes under the applicable zone in the Rural Land Use Bylaw. Electoral Area F is regulated by Rural Land Use Bylaw No. 951. Under this Bylaw the R1 (Suburban Residential Zone) permits the minimum lot size, per single-detached dwelling. In this zone the minimum lot size, per single-detached dwelling, for residential development where both community services are provided is 600 m² (6460 ft²); for residential development where only one service is provided it is 0.2 hectares (.49 acre); and, for residential development where no community services are provided it is 0.5 hectares (1.24 acres).
With bare land stratas, an application can be approved where a parcel of land is smaller than the minimum lot size specified in a Rural Land Use Bylaw, so long as the average size of the lots does not fall below the minimum lot size. This provision, which enables development of high density “clusters” of strata units, notwithstanding local regulations restricting parcel density, was implemented by B.C. Reg. 307/83, pursuant to the Condominium Act. The regulations were further amended by B.C. Reg. 137/84 to permit Local Governments to specify minimum average lot size requirements for bare land strata subdivisions which are separate from Land Title Act subdivision minimum lot sizes, but that authority is rarely exercised. This authority does not, however, extend to minimums prescribed by the Local Services Act where it applies.
The Municipal Act was amended in 1993 to provide Local Governments with two important tools. Density bonusing, (increasing the amount of living or working space allowed on a site), which offers an incentive for developers to include affordable, rental or special needs housing or amenities in their plans; and, Comprehensive development zoning which gives Local Governments the authority and flexibility to negotiate with developers of larger, complex sites and to customize zoning regulations to meet particular purposes. To date, the RDCK has not amended its Bylaws to include Density Bonusing or Comprehensive Development Zoning capabilities.
The RDCK Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 399 sets out the servicing conditions for subdivision of properties located within Electoral Areas A, B, C, H, I and J of the District. Electoral Areas D, E, F, G and K are not included in this Bylaw. Subdivision servicing conditions for subdivision of properties located within Electoral Areas not covered under the RDCK Subdivision Servicing Bylaw are set out in the Local Services Act - Subdivision Regulations, B.C. Reg. 262/70. The RDCK has recently been in the process of proposing a new Subdivision Bylaw which would include all Electoral Areas of the District under the one Bylaw. To date, this revision has not received approval from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Land Title Act, Condominium Act, Real Estate Act and Municipal Act of British Columbia require that subdivisions be approved by an official known as an Approving Officer. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MOTH) Approving Officer is responsible for applying the provisions of the Regional District Subdivision Servicing Bylaw and subdivision provisions outlined in the Local Services Act.
Before spending time and money on a subdivision application, anyone proposing a development should contact the RDCK Planning Department first to determine if the land is within the Agricultural Land Reserve, the Forest Land Reserve, or is regulated by Bylaws such as Land Use Regulation and OCP, Rural Land Use or Manufactured Home Park. Subdivision application packages are available at the Ministry of Transportation and Highways District Office.
To ensure that a subdivision application is fully evaluated and to avoid delays, it is important that all necessary information is provided. The following information, and a preliminary layout approval fee, should be submitted to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways District Office:
MOTH will refer a copy of the application to several other Government agencies for comment. The most common agencies of referral are the RDCK, the Kootenay Boundary Community Health Services Society (Environmental Health Protection Services Branch), the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Improvement/Irrigation Districts (if applicable).
The referral to the RDCK is to provide for their review and comment as to whether the land is within the Agricultural Land Reserve, the Forest Land Reserve, or is regulated by a Land Use Regulation Bylaw and OCP, Rural Land Use Bylaw or Manufactured Home Park Bylaw.
A referral is made to the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for approval of lands with respect to flooding.
When a property is situated within an Improvement/Irrigation District, referral is made to that Improvement/Irrigation District for comment in regards to the provisions set out under their Bylaws.
Proof of potable water, for properties located within the RDCK, is handled by three different agencies. In Electoral Areas that are covered by the RDCK Subdivision Servicing Bylaw, the RDCK is responsible for approving potable water. In Electoral Areas not covered by the RDCK Subdivision Servicing Bylaw, the MOTH Approving Officer has the approval authority for proof of potable water. The Environmental Health Protection Services Branch of the Kootenay Boundary Community Health Services Society (KBCHSS), assists both the RDCK and MOTH in determining the proof of potable water in these Electoral Areas and, has the approval authority for all community water systems in rural areas. Unless there is an approved community water system that can be connected to, approval is required from the Environmental Health Protection Services Branch of KBCHSS to construct a small water system under the Safe Drinking Water Regulations. Both the water source (ground water or surface water) and the water distribution system must meet a minimum health standard. If surface water (i.e.: creek or lake) is to be used, it must be disinfected. Some examples of water disinfection methods are chlorination, ozonation and ultraviolet light. Surface water will also require a water license from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
MOTH also refers subdivision applications to the Environmental Health Protection Services Branch of the KBCHSS for evaluation with respect to health legislation and policies regarding sewage disposal. On-site sewage disposal is a complex subject. The Health Act Sewage Disposal Regulation, B.C. Reg. 411/85 sets out the standard for on-site sewage disposal of under 22,700 litres (5,000 gallons) a day. For proposed developments of a larger size, referral is made to the Pollution Prevention Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for evaluation regarding sewage disposal. In these cases, the Waste Management Act sets out the standard for on-site disposal. A considerable amount of suitable land is needed for the sewage disposal of a development siting even ten homes. Most of the land around Nelson is mountainous and has various constraints to on-site disposal. Disposal fields must be at least one hundred feet from any surface body of water and any water source. The land slope should not be over thirty percent. There should be at least four feet of permeable soil over bedrock, impermeable soils and the highest seasonal water table. A sewage disposal system of this size should be designed by a professional engineer. A reserve area of equal size to the original drain field should be available in case of failure of the first disposal field. As a result of these requirements, it is hard, if not impossible, to find land large enough to site even ten dwellings, in proximity to Nelson.
Once all comments have been received, the Approving Officer will either grant Preliminary Layout Approval (PLA) to the proposed subdivision, request that the applicant revise the proposal, or reject it. The PLA is valid for 180 days. Although PLA gives a measure of assurance that the subdivision will be approved, it is not a guarantee of such final approval. The process is designed to minimize the risk of proceeding with construction/development, only to find that it is not acceptable. If the Approving Officer grants PLA to the proposed subdivision, a number of prerequisite conditions must then be satisfied before final approval is received. This stage can be time consuming and will involve the expenditure of funds. In the case of subdivision applications requiring a rezoning, PLA would not be given until the Rezoning Bylaw had been given Third Reading.
For decisions related to development construction, RDCK staff would make reference to their RDCK Floodplain Bylaw No. 1000 (which prescribes flood plain requirements for any construction adjacent to water courses), the Land Use Regulation Bylaws and OCP or the Rural Land Use Bylaws, the British Columbia Building Code, the Local Building Bylaw, and if applicable, the Manufactured Home Parks Bylaw, the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Forest Land Reserve Act.
Summation:
In the RDCK, water supply and sewage disposal have become the most limiting obstacles for development of properties that are not serviced by approved community systems. There may be opportunities available to the RDCK through the recently announced Provincial Government’s Local Government Grants Programs for water, sewer and other infrastructure implementation and for infrastructure planning. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has announced that new commitments of $50 million will be made annually - in each of the next three years, and possibly longer. Program priorities for water and sewer infrastructure will include protection of public health and the environment; communities or regions in transition; and, community or regional projects which support growth strategies.
As was outlined earlier, the RDCK has not amended its Bylaws to include Density Bonusing or Comprehensive Development Zoning capabilities. These might be useful techniques for the RDCK to consider when addressing its housing needs to accommodate the projected population growth for the area.
The RDCK may also want to review Part One of its Rural Land Use Bylaw No. 951 (that regulates Electoral Area F) and amend the same to coincide with the 1992 amendment to the Municipal Act to include policies regarding affordable, rental and special needs housing.
VII. MANUFACTURED HOME LAND TENURE OPTIONS
The Land Title Act defines the term “subdivision” as
being the division of land into two or more parcels in order to
create fee simple titles. The most common conception of a subdivision
is a division of land into a group of lots upon which residential
homes may be constructed, having all the utilities, roads, sewers,
water, etc. already installed. To create a subdivision several
statutes must be complied with. The Land Title Act deals with
the method of subdividing by means of a plan prepared by a Surveyor;
the Municipal Act contains rules regarding the approval of subdivisions
by Municipal Approving Officers; and, the Condominium Act provides
for strata lot subdivisions (please refer to the Manufactured
Homes Located on Leased Land write-up under this section, which
speaks to the Strata Property Act, that is proposed to soon replace
the Condominium Act). In addition, the Real Estate Act is used
to establish when a prospectus/disclosure statement is required
to sell the subdivided lands. All of these statutes, and others,
define the subdivision of land in different ways suited to their
specific statutory purposes.
All four tenure options identified in the Objectives of this Study have been reported on (Fee Simple, Strata, Cooperative and Land Trusts). It should be noted however, that fee simple, bare land strata and land trust options would not apply to the subject property as B.C. Housing Management Commission’s current policy is that title to the land must remain in the name of the PRHC. The remaining tenure options that could be applied are a Cooperative model or a Leasehold Bare Land Strata. Instead of creating a Subdivision Plan, a Surveyor would provide a Reference Plan of Consolidation, which defines the outside perimeter of the land(s); and, a Reference Plan of the Leasehold (if a Cooperative model is applied), or a Leasehold Bare Land Strata Plan (if a Leasehold Bare Land Strata is applied), which define the individual lease lots. The two latter tenures will be the most thoroughly described during this section of the Report.
Although with these tenures the manufactured home owners would not have fee simple title to the land, they would have the security of a 60-year, pre-paid ground lease for the use of the property, which would involve the members (the manufactured home owners) being collectively responsible for the operation and management of the site on a non-profit basis. The established monthly lot fee will have greater stability since no one will be seeking a profit from the lease arrangement. This model is in contrast to the month-to-month “for profit” lot rentals that exist in traditional manufactured home parks, which are subject to annual lot rent increases. A long-term lease arrangement would have a value far exceeding the month-to-month lease. This would be an attraction both to the existing manufactured home owner as well as to any future prospective buyers.
It is recommended that sound legal advice be obtained from an established real estate lawyer before entering into any property purchase or lease arrangement. Please refer to Appendix #8 for a legal opinion regarding the land tenure information contained in this section of the Report.
Fee Simple Title:
Fee Simple is the fullest type of ownership possible. The owner has title to, and full use of, the land and buildings over an indefinite period.
The fee simple model outlined on this page provides for a group of people who would collectively purchase a piece of land and subdivide and service the site so as to create individual fee simple titled lots to then place their manufactured homes on, for owner occupied use.
Title (Ownership and use of the land):
Costs:
Approval Authorities/Most Relevant Acts:
Financing Options:
Assessments:
Once the manufactured home is placed and affixed to the land, an application for de-registration may be submitted to the Manufactured Home Registry. The property owner would then be assessed on both the manufactured home and the land. This assessment is based on the market value as of July 1st. of the year before taxation. The Home Owner Grant could be applied to the property taxes levied on both the improvement and land.
Bare Land Strata Title:
Ownership of a bare land strata lot is similar to ownership of any fee simple lot as the owner has a fee simple interest in the bare land strata lot. Any property not designated as strata lots on the strata plan is common property, i.e.: the internal roadway, service lines, spaces provided for parking and recreation, a common building, etc. A bare land strata owner has title to the common property along with the other owners who all belong to a Strata Corporation. Since it would be impracticable for all the owners to conduct the affairs of a strata development, the Condominium Act provides for the annual election of a strata council. The council is elected from among the members and is usually made up of at least three, but not more than seven, owners. As the ownership of common space is shared, so are repair, maintenance and replacement costs. These costs are charged back to individual owners through strata fees and contingency funds.
The bare land strata model outlined on this page provides for a group of people who would collectively purchase a piece of land and subdivide and service the site so as to create individual fee simple strata titled lots which they would then place their manufactured homes on, for owner occupied use.
Title (Ownership and use of the land):
Costs:
Approval Authorities/Most Relevant Acts:
Financing options:
The same options outlined under Fee Simple could apply to this tenure model.
Assessments:
Once the manufactured home is placed and affixed to the land, an application for de-registration may be submitted to the Manufactured Home Registry. The property owner would then be assessed on both the manufactured home, the lot the home sits on and the home owner’s share of the common areas. This assessment is based on the market value as of July 1st. of the year before taxation. The Home Owner Grant could be applied to the property taxes levied on both the improvement and the applicable portion of the land.
Manufactured Homes on Leased Land:
Part 7, Section 73(1) of the Land Titles Act states that, “Except on compliance with this Part, a person must not subdivide land into smaller parcels for the purpose of leasing it for a term exceeding three years”. Part 7, Section 99(1)(k) states that, “The Registrar may accept a metes and bounds description or an abbreviated description, with or without a reference plan or an explanatory plan, or a reference plan or an explanatory plan, with or without a metes and bounds description, if a new parcel is being created for a lease”. Section 99(2) states that, “The Registrar must require the applicant to provide satisfactory evidence that the Municipal Approving Officer has granted approval of the subdivision”.
Section 25(1)(a) of the Manufactured Home Act states that, “Unless exempted by the regulations, a person must not move a manufactured home unless the manufactured home is registered under this Act.” Manufactured homes are registered at the Manufactured Home Registry. Section 30 of the Manufactured Home Act outlines situations of exemption from the Act. Section 1 of the Manufactured Home Act defines a manufactured home to be, “any structure, whether ordinarily equipped with wheels or not, that is designed, constructed or manufactured to be moved from one place to another by being towed or carried, and to provide a dwelling house or premises”. Section 13(1) of this Act defines a manufactured home park as, “land used or occupied by a person for the purpose of providing space for the accommodation of three or more manufactured homes and for imposing a charge or rental for the use of that space”. Section 13(2) states that, “If a person moves a manufactured home to a manufactured home park, the manufactured home is not part of the land that forms the manufactured home park”. As a matter of policy, the Manufactured Home Registry does not de-register manufactured homes that are located on leased land.
Section 3(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act states that, “no landlord, other than an individual who is the holder of a lease under a tenancy agreement for a term exceeding twenty years and is the occupier of the rental unit, shall enter into a tenancy agreement for a term exceeding twenty years, or assign a tenancy agreement with twenty or more years of its term yet to run, except with the prior approval, by bylaw, of the municipality in which the premises are located”. Section 3(2)(b) of this Act states that, “The Residential Tenancy Act does not apply where residential premises in respect of which a Cooperative Association is the landlord, and a member of the Cooperative Association is the tenant, because the landlord and the tenant are essentially one and the same”. In this case, the Consumer Policy section of the Ministry of Attorney General states that Section 3(3) would not apply. This same situation exists for Leasehold Bare Land Stratas. The Cooperative Association Act (Part 2) regulates Housing Cooperatives. The Condominium Act (Part 3) regulates Leasehold Stratas.
There are proposed amendments being considered to the Cooperative Association Act. The Cooperative Association Act provides the legislative framework under which Cooperatives incorporate and operate in British Columbia. The legislation dates back to 1896 and was last amended in 1988. The changes in 1988 focused on provisions for Housing Cooperatives, and reducing the role of the Superintendent of Cooperatives. The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations has legal responsibility for the Cooperative Association Act and other corporate legislation, like the Company Act. The Ministry of Human Resources has policy and program responsibilities for Cooperatives and is taking the lead on amendments to the Cooperative Association Act. The proposed amendments would:
These amendments dramatically increase the options available to Cooperatives in terms of structure and operation. The vast majority of the new provisions are voluntary, not mandatory. Part 2 of the Act, which specifically pertains to Housing Cooperatives, is minimally affected. The only change that pertains to non-profit Housing Cooperatives is that they would be restricted to issuing membership shares on a par value basis. However, Housing Cooperatives may take advantage of the other proposed amendments to the legislation, subject to the limitations respecting non-profit status.
In July, 1998, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia passed a new Strata Property Act. This Act will replace the existing Condominium Act without changing the fundamental nature of strata property ownership. The Strata Property Act has not been brought into force yet, in order to allow for the preparation of new Forms and Regulations (which will set out more detailed procedures for some matters), and to enable the correction of any technical errors. Part 12 of the Strata Property Act (Part 3 of the Condominium Act), specifically pertains to Leasehold Strata Plans.Generally speaking, the Strata Property Act maintains the Condominium Act’s Leasehold Strata provisions, but expands upon and clarifies those provisions. The Strata Property Act includes two major additions to the Leasehold Strata provision. Section 214 (2)(b) provides for a basis of calculating the purchase price of a leasehold tenant’s interest in the strata lot on the termination of the strata lot lease, for cases when a purchase price was not set out in the strata lot lease or a schedule. In these cases, the calculation would be based on the fair market value of the leasehold tenant’s interest in the strata lot evaluated, in accordance with the regulations, as if the strata lot lease did not expire. Section 216 provides for the creation of a new method for converting Leasehold Strata Corporations to Freehold Strata Corporations. A conversion would only apply if all Leasehold Strata lots included in the Leasehold Strata Plan were to be converted. This addition is meant to provide for a more simple and less expensive method of converting. It is proposed that the Strata Property Act will be in force by the end of 1999 or early 2000. In the meantime, Strata Corporations will continue to be regulated by the Condominium Act.
The ground lease is the foundation for the leasehold project. It outlines the terms and provisions for both the land owner and the residents. It is recommended that sound legal advice be obtained from an established real estate lawyer before entering into any leasehold arrangement. It is also advised that the prospective lender be contacted, well in advance to the parties entering into ground lease negotiations, to discuss lender requirements and financing terms and options. Furthermore, it is recommended that a Resource Group be retained that is familiar with manufactured home communities and ground lease negotiations. Resource Groups can play a two-fold role. They can coordinate and administer the development, acting on behalf of the residents in dealings with all businesses and agencies involved in the lease and development of the land and the decisions regarding the manufactured homes being placed on the land. They can also perform an important education and group development function, preparing residents for their role as managers and decision-makers.
Community Housing Land Trust/Cooperative:
Cooperatives:
A Housing Cooperative is an association of shareholders, known as members, incorporated under the Cooperative Association Act. It is a democratic organization that operates on a one member/one vote basis. Most Cooperatives subscribe to a set of principles that are guidelines by which they put their values into practise (please refer to the PRHC/Equity Housing Cooperative model for a description of these principles). Rules, operation management and budgets are determined by a majority vote of Cooperative members.
Community Housing Land Trust:
In April, 1993, the members of the Cooperative Housing Federation of British Columbia (CHF/BC) instructed their Board to incorporate a land trust society. The Community Housing Land Trust Foundation was incorporated in June, 1993. The Community Housing Land Trust Foundation is a non-profit organization established to acquire, create and preserve all types of affordable housing for future generations and to foster self-managed housing communities in B.C. The Trust relies on land being available at a discount, through charitable contribution, Government write-down or other means, to ensure the overall affordability of projects. The Foundation’s program is aimed at contributing, along with Government and the private sector, towards the long-term regeneration of the affordable housing sector.
The key feature of a Community Housing Land Trust/Cooperative model, is shared tenure rights that ensure long term security and affordability without ongoing Government operating assistance. While the Land Trust maintains title to the land, those who live on the land retain the right to live there. The rights and responsibilities of the Land Trust and the residents are spelled out in legal agreements drawn up between them.
The model outlined on this page provides for the Community Housing Land Trust maintaining title to a piece of land. The Community Housing Land Trust would enter into a long-term ground lease with a Cooperative Association for the use of that land. The Cooperative Association would enter into individual sub or occupancy leases with manufactured home owners who would be locating their homes on the site, for owner occupied use. The members of the Cooperative Association would consist of these manufactured home owners. The Cooperative Association would be responsible for payment of the lease value, all costs involved with development of the site and ongoing operational costs.
Title (Ownership and use of the land):
Costs:
Approval Authorities/Most Relevant Acts:
Financing Options:
The same financial options outlined under the PRHC/Equity Housing Cooperative model might apply to this tenure model. At the same time, similar obstacles may apply if there are restrictions of use on the land. In this case, the restricted use of land may not be registered on title.
Assessments:
Section 2 of the Manufactured Home Tax Act requires assessors, as a general rule, to assess each home to the owner of the land on which the home is located. Section 3 of this same Act provides that if a manufactured home is located in a manufactured home park (as defined in that Act) and the home is not owned by the park owner, the home must be assessed in the name of the home owner. This assessment of the improvement is based on the market value of the improvement as of July 1st of the year before taxation. The land is assessed in the name of the land owner (the Community Housing Land Trust). As a non-profit, charitable organization, the Community Housing Land Trust may be able to apply to the Municipality involved, for exemption from taxation. The affected Municipality should be contacted to determine whether any such exemption is possible. The Home Owner Grant could be applied to the property taxes levied on the improvement.
B.C. Housing Management Commission (BCHMC)/Provincial Rental Housing Corporation (PRHC)/Equity Housing Cooperative:
As was mentioned earlier in this Report, the Affordable Housing First Lands Policy aims to add to the supply of land for affordable housing, notably by establishing a mechanism for making publicly owned land available at below market value. Under this policy, the subject property would be acquired by BCHMC (via the PRHC) and, leased at discounts of up to seventy-five per cent of the market value of the property.
The model outlined on this page provides for the PRHC maintaining title to a piece of land. The PRHC would enter into a 60-year, pre-paid ground lease with an Equity Housing Cooperative Association for the use of that land. The Equity Housing Cooperative Association would then enter into individual sub or occupancy leases with manufactured home owners who would be locating their homes on the site, for owner occupied use. The members of the Equity Housing Cooperative Association would consist of these manufactured home owners. The Equity Housing Cooperative Association would be responsible for the payment of the discounted lease value, all costs involved with the development of the site and the ongoing operational costs.
Equity Housing Cooperative:
Cooperative ownership is one of the oldest forms of property ownership known to man. The modern incorporated cooperative enables a large number of individuals to participate in joint ownership of a single property. Cooperative housing associations in British Columbia may be created under the Cooperative Association Act. Cooperatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others. Cooperative principles are guidelines by which Cooperatives put their values into practise. These principles are: Voluntary and Open Membership, Democratic Member Control, Member Economic Participation, Autonomy and Independence, Education, Training and Information, Cooperation Among Cooperatives and Concern for Community.
The key feature of a PRHC/Equity Housing Cooperative model is a self-managed housing development that aims towards ensuring long term security and affordability without ongoing Government operating subsidy. Equity Housing Cooperatives are Cooperatives that are generally financed from a combination of member equity, mortgage and sometimes community equity. The price of shares in the Equity Housing Cooperative is generally controlled according to a formula related to the original cost of the property. To varying degrees, Equity Housing Cooperatives are non-profit developments: some are strictly non-profit, others allow for the controlled appreciation of equity. Affordability is primarily tied to the non-profit nature of the arrangement in which the purchase price of the shares is related to the cost of producing the development, not to the price it could command on the open market. Equity Housing Cooperatives are usually formed from among the general public under the leadership of a resource group.
Title (Ownership and use of the land):
Costs:
Approval Authorities/Most Relevant Acts:
Financing Options:
In the PRHC/Equity Housing Cooperative model, the land would have a covenant on title that restricts use for low or moderate income households. Any alteration, or removal of this restrictive covenant would have to be applied for by BCAL. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is regulated by the National Housing Act and the National Housing Loan Regulations. Further, CMHC normally only provides mortgage insurance to approved National Housing Act lenders. Section 19 of the National Housing Loan Regulations states that, the approved lender shall, in accordance with normal and prudent mortgage practise, attend to all matters related to the approving and making of the loan, including, (b) the obtaining of good and marketable title to the loan security and the ascertainment of the lawfulness of the intended use and occupation of the mortgaged property. Sites that have been developed under the Homes BC program have been financed with CMHC insured mortgages. In these cases BCHMC has further provided a mortgage guarantee to CMHC. If provision is granted that will satisfy both CMHC and the lender as to the restriction regarding the land use, in the case of default; and, CMHC and lender’s normal policies regarding the borrowers’ mortgage and loan eligibility are met, the borrowers may qualify for individual residential mortgage of lease loans.
Assessments:
The Manufactured Home Tax Act defines a manufactured home park to be, “land occupied by a person for the purpose of providing space for the accommodation of one or more manufactured homes, and imposing a charge for the use of that space”. Section 3 of the Manufactured Home Tax Act states that, “If a manufactured home is located within a manufactured home park and the owner of the manufactured home is not the owner of the manufactured home park, the manufactured home is to be assessed to the manufactured home owner”. Section 339(1) of the Municipal Act states that, “Land and improvements vested in by the Provincial government is exempt from taxation”. Section 10(2) of the Ministry of Lands, Parks & Housing Act provides that, The PRHC is an agent of the Crown”. Further, B.C. Reg. 302/90 declares an interest of a residential tenant in property owned by the PRHC to be exempt from assessment pursuant to Section 26 of the Assessment Act. Sections 26 and 27of the Assessment Act state that, “Land, the fee simple of which is held by the Crown and which is occupied otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown, must be entered in the assessment roll in the name of the occupier, whose interest must be valued at the actual value of the land and improvements determined under Section 19 of the Act.”
A question regarding exemption of the land could arise as a result of Section 3 of the Manufactured Home Tax Act and B.C. Reg. 302/90, Section 2(f) which declares exemption from assessment under Sections 26 & 27 of the Assessment Act on the “interest of a residential tenant in property owned by the PRHC.” The interest of a residential tenant in this case, being the land. The Residential Tenancy Act refers to a “tenancy agreement” as being, “an agreement between a landlord and tenant respecting possession of residential premises”. It goes on to define “residential premises” to mean, “a dwelling unit used for residential purposes,” and includes a manufactured home pad in the definition. Reference may then be made to Section 3 of the Residential Tenancy Act which speaks to exemption under this Act for non-profit cooperatives or societies, because in such cases the landlord and tenant are essentially one and the same.
The Kootenay Area Assessor’s interpretation at this time would be that the Equity Housing Cooperative Association would be considered the occupier and landlord of the land development, and as such an exemption under Reg. 302/90 would not apply to the Association because it only applies to the residential “tenant”. Using the Area Assessor’s interpretation, each home owner would be assessed on their manufactured home. The Equity Housing Cooperative Association would be assessed on the land. These assessments would be based on the market value as of July 1st. of the year before taxation. As a result of its non-profit nature, the Equity Housing Cooperative Association may be able to apply to the Municipality for exemption from taxation. The Municipality should be contacted to determine whether any such exemption is possible. The Home Owner Grant could be applied to the property taxes levied on the improvements.
B.C. Housing Management Commission (BCHMC)/Provincial Rental Housing Corporation (PRHC)/Leasehold Bare Land Strata:
The model outlined on this page provides for the PRHC maintaining title to a piece of land. The PRHC would enter into a 60-year, pre-paid ground lease with a Strata Corporation for the use of that land. The Strata Corporation would enter into individual strata lot leases with manufactured home owners who would be locating their manufactured homes on the site, for owner occupied use. The members of the Strata Corporation would consist of these manufactured home owners. The Strata Corporation would be responsible for the payment of the discounted lease value, all costs involved with the development of the site and the ongoing operational costs.
NOTE: Sections 97(1) and (2)(a)&(b) of the Condominium Act state that, “ the Lessor must purchase the strata lot lessee’s interest in the strata lot on the termination of the strata lot lease. The purchase price must be arrived at as of the date of expiration of the strata lot lease, and must be the price calculated on the basis set out in a schedule filed with the leasehold strata plan, or if none, the fair market value of the lessee’s interest in the strata lot evaluated as if the lease did not expire”.
(Please also refer to the Manufactured Homes on Leased Land cover page under this section of the Report, which refers to an addition to this provision under the related proposed Strata Properties Act).
Costs:
Approval Authorities/Most Relevant Acts:
Financing Options:
The same options outlined under the PRHC/Equity Housing Cooperative model could apply to this tenure model.
Assessments:
For the same reasons outlined in the PRHC/Equity Housing Cooperative model, each home owner would be assessed on their manufactured home. The Strata Corporation would be assessed on the land. These assessments would be based on the market value as of July 1st. of the year before taxation. As a result of its non-profit nature, the Strata Corporation may be able to apply to the Municipality for exemption from taxation. The Municipality should be contacted to determine whether any such exemption is possible. The Home Owner Grant could be applied to the property taxes levied on the improvements.
One of the Final Report Objectives of this Project was to identify
the costs involved to secure, develop and service the subject
property and to identify any issues which need to be addressed
in order for a development to proceed.
Three check lists were used to determine site servicing costs, site development costs and an annual operating budget for the development. The total figures of these three pages were added together and divided by thirteen to determine what a monthly lot fee would be for thirteen manufactured home owners who would have a ground lease and use of the subject property for sixty years. The lot sizes vary in size between 275m² (3000 ft²) and 415m² (4500 ft²). A fourth cost out was done, using one of the available development options, to determine what a mortgage might be when applied to both the land and home; and, what the required household income would be to qualify for such a mortgage.
3-Year Term at 6.75% , 25-year amortization
$2,527.28/month ¸ 13 =
$194.41/month per home owner
$194.41 - Monthly land mortgage.
$128.20 - Monthly site operation cost (as brought forward from the following page).
$322.61 - Total monthly lot fee per home owner (includes a common building on site). Please also refer to the NOTE at the bottom of the following Annual Operating Budget page.
* * * * * * * * * *
NOTE: Lot fees charged for similar lot sizes, in the manufactured home month-to-month “for profit” parks in Nelson and area range between $250.00 to $325.00. These lot fees do not include the provision of a common building.
ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
Property taxes on serviced land & one common building.
Insurance on common building.
Heat for common building.
Electricity for common building street light.
Water/sewer/garbage for all lots & common building.
Snow removal.
Maintenance person salary.
Administrative/Accountant Fees.
Contingency for vacancy loss.
Replacement reserve.
Total of above items: $20,000.00
$20,000.00 12 months = $1,667.00/month 13 home owners = $128.20/month
* * * * * * * * * *
NOTE: The maintenance and administration costs could be reduced
or eliminated through active and involved participation by the
members (the home owners). This could potentially reduce each
home owner’s monthly site operation cost to $94.23 and each
monthly lot fee to $288.64.
DEVELOPMENT OPTION COST OUT
The following calculation is considering the cost of a basic modular home (including set up and crane) and secondary suite combination at $105,000.00.
$105,000.00 minus 5% down payment of $5,250.00 = $99,750.00 x 1.0375% (3 3/4%-CMHC single-advance mortgage insurance fee) = $103,490.62.
Residential mortgage loan on $103,490.62:
3-Year Term at 6.75% , 25-year amortization
$709.00/month
The following calculation is based on CMHC’s gross debt service
ratio:
· $600.00/month secondary suite rental (CMHC useable portion of rental-$300.00).
· $50.00/month heating.
· Annual taxes on modular home/suite of $1,200.00 ¸ 12 = $100.00
$ 50.00 Heat 194.41
+ 100.00 Taxes + 709.00
+ 322.61 Lot fee (brought forward from page 42) 903.41 monthly mortgage
+ 709.00 Modular home/Secondary Suite (3-year term) - 600.00 suite rental 303.41
$1,181.61 ¸ .32 = $3,692.53
- 300.00 = 50% of $600.00 secondary suite income(CMHC useable portion of rental income)
$3,392.53 = (gross monthly household income required)
The total cost of the lot: $28,790.00 + the modular home/secondary suite: $105,000.00 = $133,790.00.
The total down payment, at 5%, on the modular home/secondary suite and the land is: $6,689.51.
The household income required for a total mortgage of $131,866.99 ($103,490.62 on the modular home/secondary suite and $28,376.37 on the land) is:
$40,710.36 (two annual incomes of $20,355.18).
The monthly mortgage would be $903.41 minus $600.00 suite rental = $303.41.
The two bedroom secondary suite/rental unit, at $600.00/month, is accommodating a $24,000.00 annual household income (two annual incomes of $12,000.00).
* * * * * * * * * *
NOTE: If the same calculation was done without the provision of
a secondary suite, and allowing $15,000.00 for a full concrete
foundation/basement:
The total cost of the lot and modular home/basement would be $100,790.00.
The total down payment, at 5% on the home and the land, would be $5,039.51.
The household income required for a total mortgage of $99,341.13, would be $35,954.62 (two annual incomes of $17,977.31).
The monthly mortgage would be $667.09 (with no suite rental offset).
Summation:
It should be noted that one quarter of the identified site servicing costs are related to off-site Municipal service connection charges and the street upgrades the City has indicated they would require for a development to take place on the subject property. The impact these charges have on the overall development costs provide a vivid example of why initiatives like the Province’s Affordable Housing First Lands Policy have become necessary components in the development of non-profit housing.
The provision of an affordable ownership model combined with an affordable rental suite, coincides with the Province’s Strategy for Affordable Housing. The Affordable Housing First Lands Policy can assist both in the reduction of land costs and with Increasing Affordable Ownership and the Secondary Suite Initiative is intended to assist as a mortgage helper for the home owner while at the same time offering expansion to the community’s rental housing stock.
Using the development option outlined on the previous page (with either the provision of a secondary suite or a foundation/basement), the household income required to qualify for the total mortgage (on the building and the land) falls within the identified target income range that BCHMC may determine to be for households of low or moderate income, when applied to ownership/lease housing in Nelson. Further, the inclusion of the two bedroom secondary suite in this development option, at $600.00/month, could accommodate a household income which falls within the low household income range for Nelson renters.
NOTE: If a conventional mortgage through a lender was involved, the lender considers up to 75% of the suite rental income and applies it as an “offset to the monthly expenses”, when determining the monthly household income required to qualify for the mortgage. However, when a high ratio insured mortgage through CMHC is involved, CMHC considers 50% of the suite rental income and applies it as a “useable portion of the monthly household income required” to qualify for the mortgage. CMHC’s calculation results in the requirement of a significantly higher monthly household income to qualify for the mortgage. This could be considered good risk management on the part of CMHC, but questionable housing policy.
As this development option provided for an upper end choice of the identified manufactured home variables, any of the other home options applied could presumably lower the total cost out. The total identified cost of the development option applied is $133,790.00 (for the modular/secondary suite and land) and $100,790.00 (for the modular foundation/basement and land). Although the lease of the land does not provide a fee simple title to the land, it does provide the security of a 60-year, pre-paid ground lease for the use of the property. When compared to new and similar sized fee simple condominiums, townhouses and single-detached dwellings in Nelson, the costs of this option would be well below market value.
The annual operating budget was also based on an upper end choice of hiring personnel to assist in the ongoing operation of the site. Maintenance and administration costs could be reduced or eliminated through active and involved participation by the members (the home owners). The identified lot fee of $322.61 is comparable, when related to lot fees charged for a similar lot size, in the manufactured home month-to-month “for profit” parks in Nelson and area. It should be noted however, when making these two comparisons, the model outlined in this Report includes the added provision of a common building, and the security of a 60-year, pre-paid ground lease for the use of the property, which would involve the members (the manufactured home owners) being collectively responsible for the operation and management of the site on a non-profit basis. The established monthly lot fee will have greater stability since no one will be seeking a profit from the lease arrangement. A long-term lease arrangement would have a value far exceeding the month-to-month lease. In these ways, the model outlined in this Report is in contrast to the month-to-month “for profit” lot rentals that exist in traditional manufactured home parks. When compared to similar sized fee simple lots in Nelson, the identified individual lot cost of $28,790.00 (which includes a serviced common building) is also well below market value.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
As was identified at the beginning of this Report, the need for affordable housing has become an increasingly important issue that is facing Nelson and area residents. More creative and cost-effective approaches are necessary in order to continue addressing all of the community’s housing needs.
The Provincial Government has established several excellent initiatives over the past few years, which aim towards ensuring that individuals have affordable housing choices within liveable and lasting communities. Increasing Affordable Ownership is one of the identified objectives of the Province’s Strategy for Affordable Housing, and manufactured homes are mentioned as being a viable and affordable approach to ownership. The manufactured housing industry deserves credit for its progress and continued efforts in making manufactured homes the attractive housing choice they are today.
Locating affordable small-lot subdivision opportunities to site manufactured homes, within the City of Nelson and the adjacent rural Electoral Areas E and F, was difficult. A diminishing supply of useable land and high development costs, seem to be the most limiting obstacles of residential development in Nelson. Locating properties within the RDCK, where both community services are provided, is rare. Further, locating sites large enough to accommodate the current sewage disposal requirements and well set-backs from sewage disposal is hard, if not impossible. Proof of potable water is yet another hurdle that can often be difficult and costly for residential developers to achieve. All of the properties identified during this Project involved “challenges,” and as a result were proving to be costly to purchase and develop for the provision of affordable residential housing.
Given the opportunity of a reduced market value, a location within City limits and the availability of community services , the subject property was selected as being the most viable and affordable property choice. The two identified tenure options that could be applied to this property are an Equity Housing Cooperative model or a Leasehold Bare Land Strata. Although these tenures do not provide manufactured home owners with a fee simple title to the land, they would provide the security of a 60-year, pre-paid ground lease for the use of the property, which would involve the members (the manufactured home owners), being collectively responsible for the operation and management of the site on a non-profit basis. The established monthly lot fee will have greater stability since no one will be seeking a profit from the lease arrangement. This model is in contrast to the month-to-month “for profit” lot rentals that exist in traditional manufactured home parks, which are subject to annual lot rent increases. A long-term lease arrangement would have a value far exceeding the month-to-month lease. This would be an attraction both to the existing manufactured home owner as well as to any future prospective buyers.
The OCP for Nelson identifies affordable housing and the provision of a variety of housing types as being part of the City’s overall vision and policy. The City will undoubtedly be continuing to address its housing strategy in order to accommodate the projected population growth. This Project, through its research and information outlined in this Report, has presented a cost-effective approach towards providing a viable and secure land tenure option for manufactured home owners, while at the same time offering an affordable housing ownership choice for Nelson and area residents.
X. APPENDICES - Only Appendices 1, 5, 9 are available online
1. Various Manufactured Home Studies & Reports conducted over the last twenty-five years.
2. Site Design Lay-Out for the Manufactured Homes.
3. Site Service Plan.
4. Engineer’s Written Report.
5. “Conforming” Secondary Suite Requirements.
6. City of Nelson Metes and Bounds Description.
7. Regional District of Central Kootenay (Electoral Areas E and F) Metes and Bounds Description.
8. Legal Opinion regarding the Land Tenure Information contained in Section VII of this Report.
9. List of Resources
VARIOUS MANUFACTURED HOME STUDIES & REPORTS CONDUCTED OVER THE LAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
Mobile Homes: Problems and Prospects - Report of an Inquiry on Mobile Homes in British Columbia, Michael J. Audain, November, 1975.
Mobile Home Task Force Report, Province of British Columbia, Carol Gran, MLA - Langley, April, 1990.
Manufactured Homes Survey (Key Highlights & Statistical Tables), R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. For the Ministry of Social Services & Housing, October, 1991.
Manufactured Housing Study (British Columbia), for the Manufactured Homes Advisory Committee of British Columbia, September, 1992.
Manufactured Homes’ Legislative Review Recommendations Report, by Rick Kaspar, MLA (Malahat-Juan de Fuca) and assisted by P.A. Research Consultants Ltd., for the Honourable Moe Sihota, Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, November, 1992.
Manufactured Housing Survey, Prepared for the Manufactured Housing Association of British Columbia, October, 1994.
The Scrivener, Volume 5, Nubmer 1 - Please, Don’t Call Them Trailers! The Changing Face of Manufactured Homes, Brian Scrivener, Spring, 1996.
Regulating Today’s Manufactured Housing in British Columbia, by Hilding Franson for the Manufactured Housing Association of British Columbia, 1996.
Manufactured Home Manual, United Manufactured Home Owners’ Association of British Columbia.
Impact of Legislative Changes on Manufactured Home Park Tenancies in the Kootenay Region, by Kathy Hendren for the Central Kootenay Manufactured Home Owners’ Association, 1997.
Appendix #5:
B.C. BUILDING CODE RESTRICTIONS FOR “CONFORMING” SECONDARY SUITES
The B.C. Building Code sets the following restrictions for “conforming” secondary suites. Units which fall outside of these parameters would be considered one unit in a duplex (for new construction) or “non-conforming” (for existing construction).
Suite Size:
Minimum Room Sizes:
Floor Area ft² Smallest dimension
Living: 143 9'9"
1179'9" (if combined with dining room & kitchen)
Dining: 74 7'6"
35 7'6" (if combined with living room)
35 5'7" (if part of kitchen)
Kitchen (including cabinets): 45
39 (if dwelling has less than 2 bedrooms)
45 6'6" (if in living space - i.e.: bachelor)
104 8'9" (master - no closet)
93 8'9" (master - with closet)
74 6'6" (2nd/3rd - no closet)
64 6'6" (2nd/3rd - with closet)
Hallway: 34"
Ceiling Height: A minimum of 6'7" everywhere.
Windows:
Heating: There must not be any heating or cooling air flow between two different units (therefore usually a second source of heat is required).
Plumbing:
Entry:
Fire Safety: Units must be separated by “3/4 hour fire resistance rating” = 5/8 “type X” drywall (preferred) and other fire resistant materials (i.e.: fire rated doors); or electric smoke alarms that go off in both residences regardless of location of fire (i.e.: if there is existing ½" drywall).
Sound Barriers: Strongly recommended, but not mandatory.
Electrical Connections:
Appendix #9
LIST OF RESOURCES