The District of Squamish will look at defining exactly what a co-living house is in a future zoning bylaw update.
On March 18, following a presentation from two Squamish residents, Nellie Whitney MacRae and Timothy Clayman, councillors decided they needed a clearer definition of 鈥渃o-living鈥� for future developments.
The move comes after a proposed co-living development in Brackendale received serious backlash from local residents who were against the form of housing in their neighbourhood.
A need for an update
During the regular council meeting, MacRae and Clayman pleaded with the council to consider updating the zoning bylaw for the sake of their community.
鈥淥ur objective is to advocate for change to current zoning that would define co-living and co-housing developments and account for co-housing developments within the District of Squamish,鈥� MacRae said.
鈥淥ur planning department currently has no definition or regulation for co-housing developments and has expressed no intention to change this. I feel that a zoning loophole exists, and the gravity of this zoning loophole is immense.
鈥淚t sets a precedent; any residentially zoned lot in Squamish can be turned into a co-living complex without any community input, regulation, established neighbourhood plan, needs assessment, infrastructure upgrade, developer contribution to community or density consideration.鈥�
MacRae said that she personally made a 鈥渃onscious choice鈥� to purchase their home in a residentially-zoned neighbourhood, and while she supports housing diversification, she couldn鈥檛 support 鈥渦nregulated densification.鈥�
Similarly, Clayman also said he was 鈥渢otally on board with densification and housing diversity,鈥� but he wanted it to happen in a 鈥減ositive way.鈥�
鈥淭his isn't just a Squamish issue, this is something happening across North America and in the world. Other cities have recognized that these co-living developments are commercial developments and have taken measures to kind of shut down the exploitation of the loopholes that exist,鈥� he said.
He also noted that Vancouver, Kelowna and Tofino all have definitions of what a co-living house is.
鈥淰ancouver added a rooming house definition and as a result they were able to require business licenses, enforce accessibility standards and commercial building and fire codes,鈥� he said.
鈥淜elowna labelled high-occupancy rentals as boarding houses and 鈥ofino set some definitions up as bunkhouses or employee houses.鈥�
He asked the District to label a co-living house as a 鈥渄istinct commercial land use鈥� and not a single unit dwelling.
A response to change
In response to the request, Coun. Jenna Stoner proposed a motion that 鈥渢he definition of co-housing, co-living and rooming-house be included in a forthcoming zoning bylaw update.鈥�
鈥淚 think co-living actually serves a really important part of the housing spectrum generally, but I will also agree with the folks who came here to present this evening, that we are well served by providing some sort of guidance and regulation around it,鈥� she said of her motion.
鈥淚 often feel like currently, the co-housing spaces that I am aware of, I often refer to them as living in all the grey spaces of our regulation, both locally and provincially. So nothing is actually wrong, but nothing actually feels quite right, so that is why I think it is important that we actually spend some time looking at this.鈥�
All her fellow councillors supported the motion and agreed it was time to set a definition for the housing model.
Coun. Lauren Greenlaw said she believed co-housing could be a 鈥渞eally interesting way of densifying.鈥�
鈥淚 think it could be very space efficient. I hear a lot of people saying that they want to live in closer community, and I think it could be a really interesting and viable solution for our community,鈥� she said.
鈥淲e need to move towards planning for it and not just allowing it to exist in the grey spaces that it currently does, so happy to support this motion and the step forward in that.
Coun. Eric Andersen said he was wary of the housing model for safety reasons, which is why he supported the motion.
鈥淚'm convinced in speaking with community volunteers and professionals in the protective services fields that there are some safety issues that need to be addressed with this form of housing at present in Squamish,鈥� he said.
At a special business meeting on March 25, Squamish RCMP gave their end-of-year presentation, where Andersen asked if the detachment had seen a rise in calls related to co-housing.
Staff Sgt. Gareth Bradley said the answer to this was 鈥淣o.鈥�
鈥淣o, for the most part, they are really well run. I can鈥檛 off the top of my head recall [any calls],鈥� Bradley said.
It is uncertain when the zoning bylaw update for co-housing will return, but Stoner requested that it be at a 鈥渇orthcoming鈥� meeting.
