Secondary Suiteson the

West Island of Montreal:

Obstacles and Opportunities

byTim J. Moerman

Adapted from a supervised research project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master’s of

Urban Planning Programme, McGill University School of Urban Planning.

ABSTRACT

A secondary suite, also known as an accessory apartment or a granny flat, is created by converting underused space in or around a single-family home (e.g. a basement or garage) into an independent dwelling unit. Secondary suites offer a means of providing affordable rental housing; improve housing affordability for prospective homeowners; and allow the traditional suburban home to adapt to a wider range of household structures than the nuclear family for which it was designed.

The legalization of secondary suites in residential suburbs faces a number of obstacles. Foremost among these is the so-called NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") response from neighbouring homeowners and residents.

Through a literature review and a survey of homeowners in a suburban neighbourhood on the West Island of Montreal, Quebec, this thesis will investigate the root causes of opposition to the legalization and construction of secondary suites. It will also seek to measure to what extent, if any, certain household characteristics (including the homeowner's age and retirement prospects, housing costs and the size of dwelling relative to the household's needs) affect a homeowner's likelihood of opposing or accepting secondary suites in his or her neighbourhood. Finally, based on these findings, it will suggest strategies for preventing or managing NIMBY opposition.

Introduction

An accessory suite is created in a single-family home by converting part of the house (e.g. the garage, basement or even part of the main dwelling) into a small self-contained apartment. The resulting unit, also known as an accessory apartment, in-law suite or granny flat, can then be used to house an elderly relative, or else be rented out to a tenant.

From a planning perspective, accessory suites offer several advantages. They can increase the supply of affordable rental housing, reduce housing costs for homeowners, and provide a means of gentle intensification. They also allow postwar suburban housing stock to be adapted to the changing needs of the population, including smaller households, single-parent families and elderly couples or widows.

Despite their numerous advantages, however, the introduction or legalization of accessory suites is hampered by a number of obstacles. Foremost among these is the so-called NIMBY, or “Not In My Back Yard” reaction. The resistance of established residents and homeowners to any change in their neighbourhood is a daunting force that can derail even the soundest planning practices. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2001) surveyed 110 Canadian municipalities, ranging in size from 50,000 people to over 1 million, on the subject of regulatory measures affecting affordable housing. By far the most frequently-cited obstacle to affordable housing was NIMBY, while the second-most-frequently cited obstacle concerned regulatory barriers to accessory suites.

This paper will examine the root causes of NIMBY with regards to accessory suites in mature suburban areas.

Literature review

There is a substantial body of literature addressing the NIMBY issue. While some of it deals with accessory suites specifically, much of the existing work deals with issues that are, or are widely seen to be, associated with accessory suites. These include the insertion of rental housing in exclusively owner-occupied areas, the increase in dwelling and population density, and changes in the socioeconomic makeup of a neighbourhood.

Beran (1993, p. 35), examines the topic of intensification in Vancouver. She finds that while only a minority of residents will oppose intensification, this vocal minority may wield disproportionate influence:

Although the majority of residents in existing neighbourhoods is not opposed to intensification, some strong and vocal resistance is likely to be encountered in most neighbourhoods...Some of the concerns expressed by the public relate to parking, property values, crowding and density, and neighbourhood disruption.

McAfee (1988, p.15) finds a similar list of concerns on the part of opponents of intensification:

concerns... included the creation of parking problems, the impact on property values, the use of inappropriate building designs, and the possibility of inheriting noisy neighbours.

Vischer (1987) investigated residents’ attitudes to new apartment housing in a suburban neighbourhood in Vancouver. She concluded (p.139):

Residents are fearful and mistrustful of higher density redevelopment in their neighbourhoods because they attribute changes, such as more traffic, more transcient [sic] residents, loss of views and green space, more crime, and deterioration of neighbourhood appearance, to multiple dwelling developments.

The increase in auto traffic has frequently been cited as an element of NIMBY. Examining NIMBY reactions to new housing developments on nearby greenfield sites, Pendall (1999) looked at 182 different housing developments. Of these, 113 were met with NIMBY opposition; of these protests, 50 were due to traffic concerns alone.

Regarding accessory suites in particular, Frappier (1987) cites the “principle of conformity” as a factor in NIMBY opposition. The principle is based on the idea that a certain degree of homogeneity in built form—e.g. single-family homes and only single-family homes—makes for a more desirable, and thus more valuable, neighbourhood. Thus the fear of lost property value may prompt resistance.

Sickle and Kaskal (1984, p.76) suggest that homeowners “may fear that accessory apartments will lower property values, attract ‘transients,’ increase traffic and parking problems, and burden existing public services.”

Lazarowich (1990, p.171) examines the granny flat program administered by the state government of Victoria, Australia. This program is specifically intended to provide temporary garden suites for the purposes of housing elderly relatives; the suite is then (at least in theory) removed when it is no longer needed, i.e. when the elderly relative dies or is transferred to a full-care seniors’ facility:

Neighborhood opposition might be raised to granny flats if they are perceived as permanent, changing the character of a single family residential area, decreasing property values, increasing traffic, parking congestion, noise, density, and overloading services in the neighborhood.

Hare (1981, p.15) contends that North American homeowners are so culturally and ideologically predisposed to see single-family houses as the ideal housing type, that any change in such a neighbourhood is seen as a step down.

Many homeowners view single-family conversions as the beginning of a movement to change the single-family character of the neighbourhood. Some express fear that speculators will buy up houses for conversion to rental duplexes. They worry about absentee landlords, increased traffic, and code violations.

Thus we find a number of recurring themes in the literature. Issues of traffic, design, noise, neighbourhood character, the arrival of tenant households, property value and the loss of green space are all cited in connection with new housing in general, and with intensification and secondary apartments in particular.

The Study Area

Accessory suites are not a panacea; some neighbourhoods are better-suited to such intensification than others. In choosing a sampling frame, it was decided to examine a neighbourhood that could most benefit from accessory suites.

The survey area would be selected on the basis of proximity to a major transit node; high housing costs (relative to household income) among homeowners; high rent payments among tenant households; and an existing housing stock composed mostly or exclusively of single-family detached homes. Using GIS software and the 1996 Canadian census, a mature suburban neighbourhood in the former municipality of Dollard-des-Ormeaux on the West Island of Montreal was chosen on the basis of these criteria.

Elmpark

The neighbourhood, known as Elmpark after the large city park on its northern border, occupies the southern half of Census Tract #522.01 in the Montreal Census Metropolitan Area. Elmpark is bounded by a major commercial "strip" (Boulevard St.-Jean) to the east; the borders of the Boroughs of Pointe-Claire and Kirkland to the south and west, respectively; and Boulevard de Salaberry, an arterial road to the north. The neighbourhood, built in the late 1960's, comprises 467 single-family detached houses on wide, curvilinear streets typical of the period.

The Survey

A mail-in survey was designed to solicit suburban homeowners' feelings about the prospect of secondary suites being legalized in their neighbourhood. Furthermore, it would seek to determine the specific reasons or concerns behind residents' opposition. Finally, in the case of residents who were not dead-set against secondary suites, it would attempt to discover what kinds of conversions would be deemed most acceptable.1

1 Another purpose of the survey was to gather information about homeowners' feelings about their housing size and cost relative to their needs and means, and about their plans and financial prospects for retirement. These data would be used in a logistic regression to determine how these factors influenced a homeowner's attitudes towards secondary suites. However, the results of the regression proved inconclusive at best, and have therefore not been reproduced here.

The survey, written in French and English, was distributed along with a pre-paid mail-in envelope to each of the 467 houses in the study area. Of these, 99 surveys were filled in and returned, yielding a response rate of 21.2%.

Reaction to a hypothetical by-law allowing secondary suites

Respondents were shown a number of drawings depicting possible secondary-suite conversions made to a two-storey house typical of the survey area. A brief explanation of the idea behind secondary suites was given, as well as of the possible benefits to be had from building one. From a list of five possible answers, respondents were then asked to select the one which best described their feelings about the prospect of secondary suites appearing in their neighbourhood.

Fig.1: Respondents' reactions to a hypothetical by-law legalizing accessory suites.

Conversion types deemed most and least acceptable

The next question asked respondents which type of conversion shown, if any, they would consider most acceptable in their neighbourhood. Respondents were allowed to choose as many or as few conversions as they wished. They were also asked to give a reason for their preference.

Fig. 2: Illustrations of possible secondary suite conversions

House before conversion

The drawing at left shows an unconverted house typical of the study area. Two-storey houses of this type account for as much as fifty percent of the single-family dwellings in the survey area.

Garage apartment with vertical extension

This conversion was by far the most popular, chosen by 59% of respondents. The most frequently-cited reasons were esthetics (the conversion was seen as attractive or blending in well) and the fact that it did not reduce the amount of green space.

Garage apartment with horizontal (back yard) extension

The garage apartment with an extension reaching into the back yard was chosen by 13% of respondents. Most of these cited the appearance, this conversion being least visible from the front. Some also stated that if the unit was to house an elderly relative, the fact that no stairs were involved was a benefit.

Internal subdivision with stairs in back

The internal subdivision with an external staircase was considered acceptable by 16% of the respondents. Again, esthetics (mainly concerning the unit's visibility from the front) and the conservation of green space were most frequently cited.

Detached garden suite

Only 9% of the respondents reacted favourably to the detached garden suite. As well, several respondents were against this conversion in particular, and stated that they would otherwise have no objection to secondary suites. Opponents of the garden suite were concerned that green space would be lost, and that having a dwelling in back of the house would detract from the neighbouring yards' privacy.

Concerns and criteria influencing respondents' answers

In the case of those who either had reservations or would strongly object to secondary suites in their neighbourhood, respondents were invited to give their reasons in a write-in block. From these answers, as well as from the reasons given by those who preferred one conversion or another, the major criteria and concerns on which the respondents' attitudes were based could be inferred.

Fig. 3: Grounds cited for respondents' answers (all respondents)

As well, special attention was paid to the reasons given by residents who indicated that they would either have reservations or would strongly object to a neighbour creating an accessory suite. This group's reasons are summarized below:

Fig. 4: Grounds cited for respondents' answers (respondents who "would have reservations" or "would strongly object.")

Interpretation and discussion

Overall, the results of the survey suggest a fairly good outlook for secondary suites in the survey area. Two-thirds of the households surveyed indicated that they would not object to, or would even take advantage of, a by-law allowing secondary suites. Of the respondents who expressed reservations or objections, nearly three-quarters nonetheless selected one or more possible conversions as being relatively acceptable in their neighbourhood. In many cases, respondents explicitly said that there was one particular conversion that they did not like (usually the detached garden suite,) and would otherwise have no objections at all. And of those who said they would have reservations, their responses indicated just that—that they would like to have certain assurances before lending their approval to such a development. Clearly these respondents are not absolutely dead-set against secondary suites in principle, and there are some conditions under which accessory suites would be acceptable. In other words, there is room here for discussion and negotiation, which may bring a large number of the potential opponents on-side.

The relative importance of different issues was similar for both the general population and the ranks of potential opponents to secondary units. Concern over the appearance of accessory suites and conversions was by far the most frequently-cited, followed by loss of green space and/or increased lot coverage. Neighbourhood character took third place, closely followed by worries about renting households. Noise, loss of views or sunlight, and increased traffic were also significant concerns.

Just how important are esthetics and green space?

At first glance, then, efforts to overcome resistance to secondary suites would have to concentrate on design controls and on protecting existing green space. Clearly, enough respondents considered these issues important that they must be addressed.

However, there is some danger in focusing overmuch on design and green space, based solely on their strong showing in the data. Respondents’ concerns were inferred, not only from their reasons for objecting to accessory suites, but also from their responses regarding which conversions were most acceptable. Here, the power of images held considerable sway; and the visual preference survey may have magnified the apparent importance of these two issues. Looking at the illustrations, it is relatively easy to see which conversion would look better, be more obvious, or cover more land; and so the preference for one or the other would be disproportionately informed by these concerns. By contrast, it is difficult if not impossible to determine which conversions would be noisier or would attract more traffic.

As a result, the apparent importance of esthetics and green space come with the caveat that the survey design tended (albeit unintentionally) to solicit comments on these topics.

At the same time, the strong third-place showing of “neighbourhood character” tends to bolster the importance of esthetics and green space. Although a somewhat vague response, “character” in most peoples’ minds almost certainly includes issues of visual character and green space, in addition to things like noise and social makeup.

Therefore, we cannot overlook the importance of design and green space controls in the minds of suburban homeowners. They are in all likelihood among the most important issues in peoples’ minds, though probably not as overwhelmingly so as a casual reading of the numbers would suggest.

Neighbourhood character

The importance among respondents of maintaining “neighbourhood character” may present serious obstacles to any attempt at modification. After all, many elements typical of suburban neighbourhoods—low density, exclusively residential use, auto-based street networks, etc.—would be in direct conflict with many interventions that are nonetheless desirable from a planning perspective. That potential for conflict begs the question: what constitutes the neighbourhood’s character?

Two documents from the literature—one surveying a suburban neighbourhood in British Columbia, the other examining a neighbourhood on the West Island of Montreal—offer some insight into what suburbanites consider the defining characteristics of their environment. The two studies are striking, both for the similarities to the present project’s findings, and for the remarkable congruencies between them. The ranked importance of different characteristics as found by Marchand 1989 and Vischer 1987 are given below.

Fig. 5: Ranked importance of various neighbourhood characteristics: quoted from Marchand (1989) and Vischer (1987)

Rank Pointe-Claire, PQ Burnaby, BC1 Low crime rate Well-maintained appearance

Low crime rate2 Neighbourhood appearance

Trees and vegetation along streetsQuiet streets

3 Quiet streets Close to shopping4 Property values Close to medical services5 Proximity to parks and green space Accessibility to parks and playgrounds6 Single-family homes the only kind of

housing stockSingle-family homes onlyTrees on streets

7 Proximity to hospitals and medical services

Availability of recreational and community programs

8 Easy access to MontrealWell-served by public transit

Close to work

9 Proximity to stores and shopping Access to downtown Vancouver10 Proximity to parents and friends Close to friends and/or relatives11 Proximity to recreational centres Close to schools12 Proximity to schools Presence of retired households13 Presence of families with young

childrenPresence of families with children

14 Proximity to work --15 Presence of retired households --

From these two studies, several things become apparent. Firstly, both studies found the appearance of the neighbourhood, a low crime rate and quiet to be three of the four most important factors; green space in various forms makes the top five. (“Tree-lined streets” is arguably a subset of either appearance or green space). The findings of Marchand and Vischer thus tend to confirm the findings of the present research in placing esthetics and green space at the top of a list of priorities.

Secondly, the importance of quiet as an element of neighbourhood character is not to be underestimated, even if the present research found a relatively small proportion of respondents who specifically cited noise as a concern.

Third, the importance of a low crime rate may be a double-edged sword. It may account for some of the trepidation regarding renters in the neighbourhood (i.e. a fear that renters, seen as coming from a “lower” class of people, might be more prone to criminal behaviour). On the other hand, it suggests that powerful arguments could be made in favour of secondary apartments by emphasizing (for instance) the security benefits of having a close neighbour to keep an eye on the property while the owners are out.

Fourth, the relative importance of having only single-family homes in the neighbourhood demands further clarification, i.e. “single-family homes, as opposed to what?” In Vischer’s research, the neighbourhood being surveyed was located near several recent high-rise apartment developments; in that extreme case, one may infer that the residents were mostly thinking of high-rises as the alternative to “single-family homes only.” It is less clear how

important the uniformity of the housing stock is per se, when the proposed or implied alternatives are (for instance) low-rise apartments, rowhouses or semi-detached duplexes. However, one may tentatively conclude that if a neighbourhood comprising only single-family homes is the ideal, then the closer another housing type comes to ressembling or behaving like a single-family home, the more acceptable it will be to the current residents. If this is the case, then the importance of a seamless integration of any secondary suites into the existing housing stock cannot be underestimated. Indeed, many respondents who cited esthetics as grounds for their preference of one conversion over another suggested that “it looks like part of the main house” or some variation on that theme.

Concern about renters

The fourth most frequently-cited concern had to do with the prospect of renters moving into the neighbourhood. Unfortunately, most of those respondents who objected to rental housing in their neighbourhood did not specify what exactly it was about renters that put them off. From those who did, the following possibilities could be inferred:

They were concerned about what kind of person would be renting a secondary suite. This could be an expression of concern over the renters’ behaviour; one respondent referred to “renters who lack good manners.” In at least one case, it was a fear of “too much variety”— a comment on the homeowner’s desire to keep a socially homogeneous neighbourhood (and perhaps an ethnically homogeneous one as well, though the respondent stopped short of saying so in as many words). And/or,

They feared a dramatic change in the neighbourhood, expressing concerns that the area would be flooded with secondary suites, with every house having one or more rental suites. This “slippery slope” argument came especially from homeowners who said they “would strongly object” to a neighbour building a secondary suite.

Overcoming NIMBY: Some guidelines for a secondary suite by-law

Anyone developing a by-law which sets the conditions for legalizing secondary suites will be torn between two conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, the by-law must provide sufficient control (over the size, appearance, and number of conversions) to prevent undesirable impacts on the neighbourhood, and to reassure neighbours that changes will be within acceptable limits. On the other, if the by-law is too stringent—for instance, demanding excessive permit fees and lengthy or complicated application procedures—they will discourage the creation of accessory suites and defeat the purpose of the whole exercise.

Based on the relative importance of homeowners’ concerns as indicated by the survey, the following recommendations regarding a secondary suite by-law can be made.

Number of suites per house

The respondents’ answers were based on a scenario wherein one and only one secondary suite per single-family home was allowed. The generally favourable or neutral attitudes revealed by the survey must be treated as conditional; frequently-cited concerns over renters, neighbourhood character and lot coverage indicate that many homeowners would be considerably less accepting of multiple secondary suites. Thus the by-law should specify that no more than one secondary suite be allowed per single-family detached dwelling.

Internal suites only

So few respondents approved of the detached garden suite, and so many came out specifically against it, that it would be wise to specify that secondary suites must be part of the main building. This would not preclude extensions to the main house, but would disallow the kind of temporary outbuildings typical of most "granny flat" programs.

Design controls

The importance of appearances argues strongly in favour of design controls. However, in many cases existing legislation (and the by-laws it enables) is enough to control the appearance of building modifications. Municipalities in Québec are empowered to subject new construction to approval by a design review board. Making design approval a condition for allowing a secondary suite conversion—perhaps piggybacking it on the building permit that would be required in any case—is a small legal step.

Friedman’s (2001) design code for his study area in the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce district of Montreal, Quebec includes rules governing the cladding of additions or outbuildings (specifying wood, brick, stone or reproductions of those materials;) window frame materials that match those in the existing structures; fenestration ratios (i.e. the proportion of glazed openings on the facades); and roof slopes. Taking a similar approach in other suburbs could go a long way towards assuring residents that new additions will fit in with the neighbourhood.

Another possibility, given the relatively small number of house designs in the survey area (indeed, in most postwar suburbs!), would be to have a small number of designs on-hand in a municipal “pattern book.” A homeowner wishing to convert his house could then choose from one of these designs and receive automatic approval without any further review, vastly simplifying the design control process. This would be particularly true in the case of the two-storey house indicated in the survey: a design which, with minor variations, accounts for as much as 50% of the housing stock in the survey area.

On the other hand, the survey responses suggest that some minor conversions could be allowed essentially as-of-right, without any additional approvals beyond the building permit. The bulk of residents’ responses—in particular, the preference for the garage apartment with the vertical extension—suggest that conversions that do not alter the building footprint, or that involve small changes to the building mass, are perfectly acceptable. Minor modifications that could be allowed as-of-right, or under an extremely streamlined design approval process include:

replacing a garage door with a regular door and window, and

inserting a window in the back wall of a garage structure.

Fig.6: Some kind of streamlined design approval would be sufficient for conversions that involve minor changes to the building exterior.

Such a by-law would allow internal subdivisions that included the garage space to be carried out with a minimum of bureaucratic hassle; it would also encourage the kinds of conversions that would have the least impact on the neighbourhood’s character. Larger conversions—including changes to the building mass or footprint, or the addition of an exterior staircase—should be subject to a more stringent design review.

Green space and lot coverage

Despite some conflicting data regarding attitudes towards loss of green space (notably, residents’ apparent lack of concern regarding a neighbour widening his driveway,) lot coverage standards should be applied to houses with secondary suites. Since the concern is green space, and given that houses are (for structural reasons, if nothing else) unlikely to go above two stories, it is recommended that standards be set in terms of lot coverage rather than floor-area ratios. As lots in the area average about six thousand square feet, specifying a maximum of 25% lot coverage by structures should allow space for small additions, while keeping most of the lot open.

Another condition for allowing a horizontal addition to a building—if necessary, to be imposed on top of the maximum lot coverage standard—could be that the homeowner make up for lost green space by planting a certain number of trees on his property. From both an ecological and esthetic perspective, this would more than counterbalance the loss of lawn area with the greater biomass of trees and shrubs. Such an approach echoes the principle of incentive zoning, whereby builders are allowed to exceed the strict limits of the existing zoning (especially regarding lot coverage and building bulk) in exchange for building a public amenity such as a plaza.

Finally, the survey results suggest that secondary suites should be permitted only as part of the main building, not as outbuildings. Many respondents expressed specific objections to the detached garden suite. Given the ease with which garage apartments and internal subdivisions can be made, the benefits of allowing residential outbuildings are outweighed by the opposition they would likely provoke.

Privacy concerns

A number of respondents were concerned that a secondary suite that is accessed from the back yard (for instance, the internal subdivision and garden suite shown on the survey) would detract from the privacy of neighbouring yards.

At the same time, other respondents pointed out that most yards in the area are enclosed by fences or mature hedges, and that these would be sufficient to maintain privacy.

In order to accommodate these two seemingly contradictory positions, while maintaining the maximum flexibility for homeowners wishing to convert, the by-law should specify that the entrance to the secondary suite may be at the front or the back of the house if the back and side yards are enclosed by hedges or opaque fences of a specified height. Otherwise, the entrance to the secondary suite must be at the front of the house.

Also on the subject of privacy, it is worth noting that building codes in Montréal prohibit windows from facing onto a neighbouring building within a certain minimum distance. This is to prevent the occupants of one building from being able to look right into their neighbour’s living room. In the context of secondary suites, this requirement should be enforced with respect to viewlines between dwellings on different lots, and particularly between a secondary suite on one lot and the main dwelling on the neighbouring lot. However, it should be relaxed or waived with respect to viewlines between a secondary suite and the primary dwelling on the same lot. (In other words, if a homeowner chooses to build a secondary suite that can look into his kitchen, that’s his own business!)

Parking

Concerns over parking were cited by a number of respondents. Many municipalities that allow secondary suites require additional parking spaces for the second unit. However, this is probably not advisable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, research on the parking demands of households in secondary suites (Geary et. al. 1999) and on the travel behaviour of households likely to live in such suites (Moerman and Morin 2002) indicate that demand for parking by secondary suites is considerably lower than for single-family detached homes. Requiring even one additional space per secondary suite is in excess of many secondary suites’ needs.

Secondly, the driveways in the survey area tend to be extremely large. Some of them, due to their width and layout, allow up to five cars to enter or exit the driveway, without any of the other vehicles needing to move out of the way! More typically, the driveways are wide enough to accommodate two rows of two cars each, side-by-side (i.e. four cars at once.)

As a result, it seems superfluous to require additional parking spaces as a condition for secondary suite approval; it appears to be a relative non-issue from a technical standpoint. The additional cost to the homeowner, as well as the esthetic and environmental impact of more asphalt on site, more than outweighs whatever marginal benefits might be had by requiring homeowners to pave over more of their lot.

At the same time, it may be advisable to set a minimum standard for houses with secondary suites. That is, instead of requiring additional spaces to be built upon the creation of a suite, the by-law may specify that no house may have a secondary suite unless it has room for two cars to park. As it is a rare driveway indeed that fails to meet this criterion, such a rule would

simply reassure homeowners that the parking issue has been addressed, without imposing any serious obstacles to homeowners wishing to convert.

Rental units

Finally, resistance to the prospect of renters in the neighbourhood demands some attention, if only to rule out certain obvious regulatory strategies.

There is a temptation, given that most people who would build an accessory suite would do so only to house a relative, to specify in the by-law that such a suite may only be occupied by a relative of the main dwelling’s owner. This would certainly allay the fears of neighbours worried about the neighbourhood being inundated with low-income tenants.

Unfortunately, such a by-law is probably untenable from a constitutional standpoint, at least in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Bell vs. Queen (1985) that it is discriminatory and in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to restrict occupation of a dwelling on the basis of blood or marriage. (However, it is useful to note that exactly the opposite principle has been upheld in the United States. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Village of Belle Terre vs. Boraas (1974) it was ruled that a home in a single-family zone may house any number of people, as long as they are related by blood or marriage; but no more than two unrelated people may share the same dwelling [Perin 1977]).

Of course, planners may still specify such a condition in the by-law in order to defuse opposition and get the by-law passed, knowing that it may eventually be challenged and struck down in a court of law. But such an approach would be, in this author’s view, unethical.

Therefore, much as we might like to, no provisions can reasonably be made in the by-law to address residents’ fears of rental housing. On this point, only an honest dialogue with stakeholders can have any lasting benefit.

Bibliography

Beran, Jenny (1994). Promoting Residential Intensification in the Municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Master’s thesis. Halifax: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Department of Urban and Rural Planning.

Calthorpe, Peter (1993). The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (1991). Accessory Apartments: Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities. Research Highlights, Socio-Economic Series, #3. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (1996-2003). Permitting Secondary Suites. Available from http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca./en/imquaf/afho/afadv/pore/pesesu/index.cfm. Accessed July 26, 2003.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2001). Survey of Canadian Municipalities: Regulatory Measures for Housing Affordability and Choice. Research Highlights, Socio-Economic Series, #87. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Canadian Association of Student Associations (CASA) (2001). Research This. March 6, 2001. Available from www.casa.ca/releases/pr2001_0306_01_e.shtml. Accessed July 26, 2003.

Canadian Automobile Association (2002). Driving Costs: 2002 Edition. Canadian Automobile Association. Available from http://www.caa.ca/e/automotive/pdf/driving-costs-02.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2003.

Ciscel, David H (June 2001). “The economics of urban sprawl: inefficiency as a core feature of metropolitan growth.” Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 35 #2: 405-13.

Coulter, Byron (2002). Personal correspondence, August 24, 2002.

Culbridge Marketing and Communications (1999). Developing Consumer Information for Sustainable Community Planning. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Dear, Michael (Summer 1992). “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome.” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol.58, #3: 288-304

District of North Vancouver, Community Planning, Building, Land Use and By-Law Services Division (Janvier 1999). Comment le district de North Vancouver en est venu à faire accepter par la collectivité la légalisation des appartements accessoires dans les quartiers constitués de maisons individuelles. North Vancouver : Abordabilité et choix toujours (ACT).

Dubin, Robin (1991). “Commuting patterns and firm decentralization.” Land Economics, vol. 67, Feb. 1991:15-29.

Elliott, Brent (1998). Small Lot Infill Development: Working with the Community to Find Sensitive Intensification Strategies in White Rock, BC. Supervised Research Project. Montréal: McGill University School of Urban Planning.

Energy Pathways, Inc. (1991). The Role of Planning   : The Impact of Regulations on the Provision of Low-Income and Affordable Housing. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Energy Pathways, Inc. (1994) Community Support for Affordable Housing: A Public Education Package. Ottawa: Affordability and Choice Today.

Energy Pathways, Inc. (1994). Réglement régissant les pavillions-jardins. Ottawa: Affordability and Choice Today.

Energy Pathways, Inc. (1995). Dividing Large Houses: A Solution for Affordability and Maintenance. Ottawa: Affordability and Choice Today.

Energy Pathways, Inc. (1997) Construction Standards for Accessory Suites. Ottawa: Affordability and Choice Today.

Finnie, Ross and Saul Schwartz (1996). Student Loans in Canada. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Fischel, William (February 2001). “Why Are There NIMBYs?” Land Economics, vol. 77 #1: 144-152.

Fortin, Andrée, Carole Desprès and Geneviève Vachon (2002). La Banlieue Revisitée. Québec : Les Editions Nota Bene.

Fortin, Mario (1996). Investment in Residential Rental Housing in Canada: Lessons Learned from Studies and Research. Québec: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Fortin, Mario and André Leclerc (2002). Demographic Changes and Real Housing Prices in Canada. Sherbrooke: Département d’économique, Université de Sherbrooke.

Frappier, Diane (1987). Les logements secondaires dans les quartiers d’unifamiliales de banlieue. Supervised Research Project. Montréal : McGill University School of Urban Planning.

Friedman, Avi (2002). Planning the New Suburbia: Flexibility by Design. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Geary, Vanessa, Margaret Eberle and Deborah Kraus (1999). The Impact of Secondary Suites on Municipal Infrastructure and Services. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Hare, Patrick H. (1981). “Carving Up the American Dream.” Planning, July 1981: 14-15.

Hare, Patrick H. (1982). “Why Granny Flats Are a Good Idea.” Planning, February, 1982: 15-16

Hare, Patrick H., Susan Conner and Dwight Merriam (1981). Accessory Apartments: Using Surplus Space in Single-Family Houses. APA Planning Advisory Service Report #365. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Hare, Patrick H. and Jolene Ostler (1987). Creating an Accessory Apartment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Inhaber, Herbert (1998). Slaying the NIMBY Dragon. London/New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Kapsalis, C. et. al. (1999) The Returns to Education and the Increasing Wage Gap Between Younger and Older Workers. Research Paper #131. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.

Larkin, John K. (1992) An Examination of an Accessory Apartment Policy for Dartmouth. Master’s thesis. Halifax: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Department of Urban and Rural Planning.

Lawrence, Jill and Lesley Watson (1988). “Two by Two: A Status Report on Accessory Apartments in the Bay Area.” Planning, November 1988: 22-23.

Lazarowich, N. Michael (1990). “A review of the Victoria, Australia granny flat program.” Gerontologist, vol. 30 #2: 171-7.

Leblanc, Heather. Personal correspondence, June 23, 2002.

Leinwand, Stan and Carole Desprès (1999). Analyse des accommodements réglementaires actuels en rapport avec le logement supplémentaire de banlieue. Québec: Societé de l’habitation du Québec.

Mangum, Wiley P (1988). “Community resistance to planned housing for the elderly: ageism or general antipathy to group housing?” Gerontologist, vol. 28 #3: 325-9.

Marchand, Jean-Francois (1989). Evaluation du rendement de l’aménagement suburbain dans un contexte de transition économique et sociale: les cas d’Anjou et de Pointe Claire. Supervised Research Project. Montréal : McGill University School of Urban Planning.

Mason, Greg (1995). Housing a Diverse Society: Access and Affordability Issues for Canada. Winnipeg: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

McAfee, Ann et. al. (1988-1989). “Neighbourhood Intensification – How to Succeed.” Canadian Housing, vol. 5 #5: 14-17

Miller, Eric and Michael Meyer (2001). Urban Transportation Planning, Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Moerman, Timothy and Jean-Francois Morin (2002). Factors Influencing Transit Use in Montréal. Unpublished paper. Montréal: McGill University School of Urban Planning.

Pendall, Rolf (1999). “Opposition to Housing: NIMBY and beyond.” Urban Affairs Review, vol. 35 #1: 112-136.

Perin, Constance (1977). Everything In Its Place: Social Order and Land Use in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Pushkarev, Boris S. and Jeffrey M. Zupan (1982). “Urban Densities for Public Transportation” in Urban Transportation: Perspectives and Prospects, eds. Herbert S. Levinson and Robert Weant. Westport, CT: Eno Foundation.

Sickle, Jean M. and Julie A. Kaskal (1984). “Housing options: three variations.” Journal of Housing, vol. 41, May/June 1984: 75-7.

Statistics Canada (StatsCan) (1981). 1981 Canadian Census. Available from http://datacenter2.chass.utoronto.ca. Consulted August 13, 2003.

Statistics Canada (StatsCan) (1996). 1996 Canadian Census. Available from http://datacenter2.chass.utoronto.ca. Consulted August 13, 2003.

Statistics Canada (March 13, 2001). Population projections. The Daily, March 13, 2001. Available from http://www.statscan.ca/Daily/English/010313/d010313a.htm. Accessed July 26, 2003.

Steffel, Jennifer (1995). Storming the Suburban Fortress: Understanding the NIMBY Phenomenon. Master’s thesis. Montréal: McGill University School of Architecture, Affordable Homes Program.

Stein, Debra (1996). “The ethics of NIMBYism.” Journal of Housing & Community Development, vol. 53, Nov./Dec.1996: 34-5.

Tasker-Brown, Julie (1997). A Flexible Regulatory Tool: Model Garden Suite Bylaw. Montréal: Affordability and Choice Today.

Tener, R. T. (1996). “Curing the "NIMBY" cancer.” Journal of Housing & Community Development, vol. 53, Jan./Feb. 1996: 6-8.

Trudeau, Alain (2002). Characteristics of Different Public Transit Modes. Lecture given at McGill University School of Urban Planning. March 14, 2002.

United States Office of Transportation Technologies (USOTT) (2000). Cost of Automobile Ownership and Operation. Fact of the Week #129: May 22, 2000. Available from http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw129.shtml. Accessed July 26, 2003.

Varady, David P. “Elderly independence: promise & reality.” Journal of Housing. vol. 45, Nov./Dec. 1988: 289-95.

Vischer, Jacqueline C. “The Changing Canadian Suburb.” Plan Canada, July 1987: 130-40.