Don’t get your hopes up that separate suites will solve the problem of lack of suites to rent.
It isn’t likely that a fiefdom which regularly obstructs building residential accommodation will allow many separate suites. There will be concerns about lot size and access, and NIMBYs whining about extra traffic and extra cost of utilities (the latter is nonsense of course but politicians tend to pander to the dishonesty of NIMBYs, the former is questionable due to the low income of residents of suites).
For examples look at the bloated reports from Saanich’s obstruction-planning department, and council’s rejection of subdividing 5197 Del Monte due to NIMBY objections.
Perhaps the tiny house fad might help, as they can be stuck in a corner (with the usual generous setbacks of course, reducing feasibility).
Some fiefdoms in this area have allowed separated buildings for some time now – Metchosin for example. Often they are called “coach houses”, an old term from the days when the driver of a “coach” lived above the garage. Elsewhere cities that have lanes in some housing areas now allow “laneway houses”. (Gee, I lived in one in summers decades ago, people called it a “s h e d”, but it suited me.)
Politicians fiddle with small gains instead of getting out of the way of people who want to build and earn. Politicians increase costs of housing with phoney environmental attacks like “significant” trees and “green” schemes. Voters should think ahead, by developing candidates for the next election, people who will honour what the antis take advantage of while working against it – individual freedom.
Meanwhile, over on Silly Silly Island, elderly people trying to stay on their long-held property are forbidden from living in their original house and renting out the newer one. Are there such cases in Saanich?
Keith Sketchley
Saanich