Subdivision Reclassification Amendment (Maloney)
Motion 3 · Standing Committee of Council on City Finance and Services, July 15, 2026
Summary
- Three adjoining property owners on West 37th Avenue applied to have their large lots reclassified to allow subdivision into smaller lots, citing a desire for multigenerational owner-led redevelopment.
- Staff recommended refusal on the basis that the existing block pattern of wide lots (70–80 ft) is established and consistent, and reclassification would set a precedent for subsequent applications.
- Applicant's representative argued neighbours initially misunderstood the proposal as multiplex development; 12 signatures of support were collected and some prior objections were withdrawn.
- Staff noted subdivision would not prevent future multiplex development on the resulting smaller lots, and that the total unit yield would be similar either way.
- An amendment to approve the subdivision was moved but failed; the main motion to refuse carried.
Vote
In favour 2
Opposed 8
Abstained 1
Public comments
Read all 2 statements
Transcript
90 segments
My name is Angela Zuo and my father is the registered property owner of 1868 West 37th Avenue. I'm speaking on behalf of my family and my neighbors, the applicants for this proposal. We respectfully ask council to support the proposed reclassification of these properties. While we understand the current policy aims to maintain subdivision categories by the block, current large lot designation often leaves homeowners with only two realities, sell to developers to build six to eight unit multiplexes or retain a large single family house. Our three families share a different vision, owner-led redevelopment that creates modest single-family lots for multigenerational living, allowing children, parents, and grandparents to remain close while preserving neighborhood character. Subdivision would enable gentle densification consistent with the intent of the R1-1 zoning while mirroring the housing pattern of our neighbors directly across the street. The staff report places considerable weight on concerns from four neighboring property owners regarding traffic, parking, neighborhood character, and density. We take those concerns seriously and made every effort to speak directly with as many neighbors as possible. What we found was telling. Many neighbors misunderstood the application, believing it would introduce a new housing form or substantially increase density. Once they understood our intentions for seeking this reclassification, support was overwhelming. We have since collected 12 signatures supporting the application, which I can share with staff and council. Some who previously submitted written objections have since revoked their opposition and have expressed their support, which you may have received recently in writing. The staff report states that reclassification will result in additional driveways to serve each subdivided parcel, contributing to traffic and pedestrian impacts. Respectfully, I believe this statement is incorrect, as our properties are served by a rear lane rather than front driveways. Our proposal would generate little measurable change in traffic volumes, parking demand, and neighborhood dynamics. The report suggests approval could set a precedent that transforms the neighborhood's lot pattern. Respectfully, this overlooks the fact that the block directly across West 37th Avenue already consists of smaller lots in lower subdivision categories, and that the neighborhood is already evolving rapidly under R1-1 zoning. In closing, our proposal integrates with the existing neighborhood while achieving gentle density and opportunities for independent ownership. By providing subdivision potential, Council would allow for more diverse redevelopment options and provide existing families with long-term flexibility and the opportunity to leverage existing assets to better meet housing needs. For these reasons, we respectfully ask Mayor and Council to support this application and consider the staff report with these clarifications in mind. Thank you.
Thank you, Angela. Speaker number two is David Hollands.
I'm on the line. Can I be heard?
Yes, we can hear you.
Please go ahead. Interestingly enough, I was not approached by the previous speaker. I am an adjacent neighbor in a rebuilt heritage home. And at first glance with the civic notice that came to our house, I vehemently opposed this project in an uneducated manner. And I think it's based on current redevelopment done within the neighboring blocks or jurisdictions that we've seen a number of multiplexes. So my immediate fear went to we're getting a multiplex on the 37th, an additional one, of which clearly I believe most of us would not approve of. In reading the documents this morning and doing a little bit more discovery, strangely in the last hour, I might flip in support of the previous speaker that... In my honest opinion, what they're proposing is the lesser of two evils, that if we do not approve what they are seeking to do, it will revert back to a potential rezoning in a multiplex potential environment. So given that I think her terminology is soft, gentle re-densification, I actually would probably more support uh their immediate use and uh and not the future risk of a multiplex development on that same uh residential block and i i think this is somewhat uh consistent with last night's council meeting over the neighborhoods plan where uh the risk of it being very binary of uh no individual housing lots or laneway houses and only of multiplex so I have to voice my support of this plan, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
Thank you. All right, so this is the end of the speaker's list. Thank you, everyone, for speaking to the Standing Committee on City Finance and Services. Would someone like to move a motion?
Yeah, that's after we move the motion. Moved by Councillor Meiszner, seconded by Councillor Orr. Committee members, is there any discussion? I saw Councillor Damanato. Please go ahead.
I'll have to do both my questions and comments in five minutes now because of that. But anyways, a couple of questions. Staff, there was a motion previously around better enabling multi-generational living on existing properties. Right now we have laneways, but they're rentals. But we were going to move to looking at stratification And I'm curious, what's the status of that report back? It was supposed to be here, I believe it was due Q2 or Q3 of this year. But I'm asking in the context of this report and the subdivision request, because I think it might achieve some of the objectives that the applicant is seeking, but I don't think we have an update on that yet. I haven't seen one, and apologies if I missed it. And this is a motion flowing from Councillor Claassen, and he may have been in partnership with another councillor. I can't recall.
Yeah, it's still under review, and it sits with planning.
And would it have any bearing on such an application here where they're seeking to subdivide to do multi-generational living? Would the policy work that's underway be relevant?
It would just be specific to stratification.
To stratification, okay. I'm just curious, the applicant's daughter spoke about sort of a change in position of neighbors on this file. Do we have any additional information in writing in that regard?
No, we haven't received anything to date.
Oh, okay.
And then could you just speak to the refusal recommendation and the grounds and basis for that?
Yeah, I'll pass that on to Michelle Lau, Director of Planning.
Thank you. Appreciate that.
Good morning. My name is Michelle Au, Director of Permitting Services. And it's based on the premise of the subdivision bylaw, which is to respect the block pattern and consistency in an orderly and consistent manner in the way that we're reviewing them. So the request actually...
We always look at the maximum potential of what happens after we allow for the reclass and then should they come in for a subdivision later, which would be an equivalent to the number of units, which is a maximum of 24 if they're doing secured market rental and 24 in strata ownership and in the entire block combined. So the number of units hasn't changed. They can also do multi-generation right now if they were to do multiplex. on that same site. And also, if they subdivided in the future, it wouldn't stop them from also doing a multiplex. So whether or not it's gentle densification, it depends on the owners of the property at the time. So, you know, 10 years later, we could have subdivided this particular large lot into two smaller lots and it would still be subject to the R11 district schedule, which allows for multiplex.
Okay, so could you just boil it down then for me as to what the rationale for the refusal of the subdivision at this time? Maybe that's what I'm trying to get at.
It's the block pattern. It's mainly the block pattern that is already established in the area that has this particular 80-foot lot pattern, 70-foot lot pattern, wide.
Okay, so adhering to that block pattern is what you're saying. And you can see that all towards the south. It's different in other neighborhoods.
It's different in every neighborhood. We look at all the different subcategories, and they're all based on the block face of each block. Right.
But under the current policy framework, there would be the ability to add density, including stratification with multiplex. Correct. A little different than I think the policy work that was directed by Council previously, but that is possible in this context.
In this context, in all R11 zones.
Okay. Okay. I'll leave my questions there. Thank you.
Okay. Thanks, Councillor Domenato. All right. Seeing no one else on the... Oh, Councillor Maloney? Sorry, I just want to clarify When we vote will we be voting if we vote in favor of the recommendation will be voting against Subdivision can I just clarify that?
Yes, yes, so if you if you support the refusal all right yes and if we want to We don't want to support a refusal and we wanted to vote in favour of the subdivision. Could staff perhaps help with a form of words to move that as the motion? We have a draft amended motion if you would like one. Yeah, I would like to move that.
Okay, so Councillor Maloney, well, you're taking a look at the wording. I'm going to advance the next councillor. Yep, that's no problem at all. Councillor Bligh.
Thanks very much. I just... We don't often find ourselves in these situations. And there seems to be a few discrepancies. And I wonder on timing of this particular proposal, there's some feedback in the report that out of 40 surrounding property owners, I think you heard back from five to oppose. I'm just trying to figure out how to weight the surrounding public consultation and feedback on this as one part of the rationale to not support it. Seems like very few people engaged on this issue. And then also what you're saying around the established block.
Yes. And the 80 foot lots. Is that from a land economics perspective or is it a built for like, can you just help explain that in just real plain language? In terms of the rationale, it seems like that's the main rationale not to support this. And so I just want to make sure I fully understand implications.
So in the late 1980s, that was how all the categories were created. There were seven subcategories that were created for each zone. And then subsequently in 2023, when we did the R11, we have 10 more subareas that were created. And that was to enable for staff to review based on consistency of the lot patterns. And so it would be different for every area. And they're all quite unique, the ones that we consider for reclassification under subdivision.
And the implication of changing a block pattern in a one-off case is?
This would be setting a precedent for others in the area. So, for example.
And the risk of that is?
That you would not create a consistent block pattern in the area.
And the purpose of a consistent block pattern is?
Is to maintain that consistency in the look and feel of an area.
But what's the purpose of it? Like look and feel and consistency is...
It is the intent of the bylaw. That is the intent of the subdivision bylaw is to regulate those existing block patterns.
Right. I'll give another quick example. So at one point in time, there was a discussion here around view cones and view cones had a purpose. And then we talked about the... application of you cones and we've sort of adjusted as they were naturally an iterative process or intended to be is this different than that because there's something more sort of um scribed in in how it's are that it should never change
It's not to never change. I think it depends on what we're looking for in each area, right? So there are some blocks that actually already has a mix of different widths. And so when reclassifications come in for those, then we would look to see what is the generic block pattern in the area.
Okay, do we get a lot of requests for these?
Sorry?
Do we get a lot of requests for these?
Not too many. We get once or twice a year.
So setting the precedent, the risk of that is?
It depends. I can't say because it depends on who's going to come in later on. apply for reclassification in the area. So for example, would you like an example of ones that we've had in the past? So we had one in the past in 2004, for example, that we had refused from staff and council overturned that. And then that set a precedent for subsequent applications that came in two more times after that in, I believe, 2014 and 2020. So we had two more cases after that on the same block. So it changed the nature of the block over time.
Okay. That's a helpful example. Thank you.
You're welcome. Thanks. Councillor Montague. Yeah, thanks.
What stops someone from subdividing and selling off each parcel?
Sorry?
What stops somebody from subdividing the lots and then selling?
Nothing.
So is staff concerned that by setting a precedent you could have homeowners subdividing and then selling off those lots?
It's not so much a concern as it is just it's a possibility and somebody could sell that off and still continue to build multiplex if they wanted to. Okay, thank you. Okay, Councillor Maloney.
It's been moved.
Okay, so let's follow the queue. Councillor Maloney is the next one on the queue. My time's running, been running, but I'll just launch in. I would like to amend the recommendation that's been moved and seconded. by replacing it with the words that have been provided to me by staff very helpfully to approve the subdivision of these lots. And my reasoning for that is that council will need to make any future decisions. We and any future councils are not... not bound by this decision, even though it could be cited as a reason to look at the other blocks in the neighbourhood. And for me, in all the circumstances, I think that this is a reasonable request and that it's not going to have an undue impact on neighbouring residences.
Okay, so you know what, I need to move you to the amendment queue. And we need a seconder for the amendment. Second by Councillor Bligh. Okay, so I'm going to cue Councillor Bligh.
Yeah, thanks. So thank you, Councillor Maloney, for advancing this conversation because I agree with some of your rationale, but similar question to Councillor Montague and running down the clock there was concern of that being the risk because I don't think that we want to be careful about allowing subdivision. if it creates parcels of land that can be sold individually. I think that that is clearly something we need to be careful about. And so I'd like to have your sort of more expanded response to that in terms of... And barring not being able to get that answer, I think this needs to be referred back and we get a more fulsome report and presentation on it because... I don't think I have enough information to vote on this right now, given the public consultation, now this amendment, and the risk of subdivision in selling those lots. Granted, it's not the intention, I hear you, but it could be the intention of somebody in the future, and we need to make decisions that are sort of in the best. So can you expand your answer to the risk of subdivision creating a sale of eight lots as opposed to what it is right now, as an example?
I would say it would make it easier to sell a lot if it was already divided into two, as opposed to buying a large lot. I'd say that there are also precedents. You know, if this were to start a precedent for this area, the subsequent reports that we would likely write would likely move towards less of a refusal because there's already a precedent in the area. So there's also that. There's a series of things that we would look at. We would look at the block pattern. We would look at the neighborhood support in the area. We would look to see whether or not there are any other precedents in the area. And there aren't any of that right now. And other ones that we've done in the past, in the last couple years, has to do with, you know, a larger lot. on a block that has smaller widths on the same block so we would actually match the block if we were to recommend for approval and would also you know in those cases allows for lanes as well so that enabled multiplex development
Okay, I'll come off and see if there's other questions. Do we have anyone from planning in the gallery right now?
We do.
Okay, I don't know if there's any additional, like would planning recommend this in terms of risk of subdividing and then selling of individual lots? It's been something that people have brought up before in various contexts, but recognizing the value of the land in this particular area, I think it's worth a thoughtful consideration.
Sure. Marie Linehan, Senior Development Planner. So Josh White reviewed this report and supported the recommendation of DBL. And that's mostly because we just don't have a strong rationale to support the subdivision. The subdivision bylaw intent is very clear. It's... basically to retain the pattern in the neighborhood. And by changing the classification and allowing these lots to be sort of half the size of the surrounding neighborhood, it had changed the pattern. Now, maybe there would not be a significant impact to that, but it would be a change in the pattern. So we supported the subdivision approving officer in recommending refusal.
Okay, I'll come off. Thank you very much.
Thanks. Counselor Corbillon.
Yeah, thanks, Tara. I have two sort of observations, I think, on this. And I think, generally speaking, regardless of the subject, I don't think that good policy is made by considering individual cases and exceptions. And so for me, as sort of a principle around being regulators and policymakers, I think that that's something I will sort of hold in my mind in terms of evaluating these situations. And this is essentially a one-off request to change what is an established policy. I think there's different forums to have a debate on the policy. I will say that sometimes when we do get these requests and come to council, they can be informative with respects to daylighting potential desires, challenges, risks, issues, considerations, but I think that, again, that there's a different forum to have conversations around significant policy shifts as opposed to one. It's not a perfect analogy, but when you have a business license hearing, for example, and someone comes and wants an exception to our short-term rental and may or may not be their primary residence because their circumstances are unique, and yet we have a policy where we try to apply it equitably and consistently to everyone. And so I sort of bring that lens into looking at and evaluating this particular situation that I think there's a fairness and an equity perspective, but I think there's also broader policy implications as opposed to doing something on the fly as a one-off. So I'll just sort of share those thoughts for council's consideration as we deliberate, but I don't think that this is the ideal route to go about consideration of changes. Thanks.
Okay, thanks. Councillor Maloney? Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the concerns raised by my colleagues. I am aware that we have voted against staff recommendations on pretty significant projects a number of times. And for me, I view this as a positive change. In the pattern, I think that it would allow... I know that a concern has been raised about being able to sell a subdivided block. For me, that's a positive outcome. It would allow other families to enjoy this area and I think that it would allow... that would suit the style of the neighbourhood in any case. So for me, that would be subdivision and selling. What could the negative outcome be? It could be, you know, more families being able to live in this area. So for me, that's a positive outcome. Thanks.
Councillor Warr. Thanks. I'm sort of getting caught up here, but the... The justifications from staff here says the reclassification and subsequent subdivision applications, if approved, will result in additional driveways to serve each subdivided parcel. This will contribute to additional traffic and pedestrian impact, which were primary concerns by the resident to oppose reclassification. Can you go into the impact on the pedestrian and... possibly cycling realm if this is reclassified?
Thank you. That was simply a reflection of the concerns from the neighbors in terms of traffic and more roads in the area. So just impeding along a road.
Okay, and in terms of sort of allowing this to have more families, is that accurate? I'm just looking at the numbers here. It looks like 12 to 18 strata ownership dwelling units or 24 secured market rental units if we don't reclassify. And if we do reclassify, it's just strata ownership. So would this not allow for 24 secured market rental units if we reclassify?
It would not because if it's a smaller lot, it can only do three or four strata as a multiplex on a smaller lot. And on a larger lot, you actually can do four to six on a large lot or eight secured market rental dwelling units.
It's the same number at the end of the day. So on the left side of the chart, you'll see 24 secured market rental units enabled, same number of units as 24 except their strata. If you're dividing the lot into two from 80 to 40s.
Okay. So if we reclassify, did we lose the potential for 24 secured market rental units?
Yes.
Thanks. Councillor Meiszner.
Yeah, thanks. I don't have any specific questions, but I've been listening intently to the responses from staff. I strongly agree with my colleague, Councillor Kirby-Young, around the need for these sorts of changes to be approached through planning tools, whether that's ODP or an area-specific plan. And I think what's giving me pause is while we've heard from the applicants, and they certainly seem earnest in sharing their plans, there's no guarantee that the city's being provided here. And that causes me a bit of pause. So I'm just going to continue to listen if there are more questions and speakers. But at this stage, I'm leaning towards upholding the staff recommendation for those reasons.
Thanks. Councillor Maloney? Yeah, I'd just like to clarify that the public speaker did say that there is a real laneway. So the... the concern about having a proliferation of driveways on the front-facing street may not be a valid concern. Also, whether those additional, the maximum number of say, multiplex homes and below-market housing is built absolutely depends on whether the landowner decides to make that investment. So I guess people would have to weigh up whether they thought it was more likely that the maximum number of housing units would be built on that land if it remained unsubdivided or whether it would... more likely that if it was subdivided there would be more dwellings put on it on the two separate separate blocks so I think that's something to consider and the last thing I'll say I think is that I would very much welcome I you know am quite open to the concerns raised by my colleagues that this should go through a formal planning process, but I would invite them to add an amendment to the wording of the staff recommendation that does commence that planning process rather than just say no and leave it as is. All right, thanks. So seeing no one else on the queue, so let's go to the vote. So, yeah, so clerk, please take us to the voting screen. and the council please register vote while voting on councillor Maloney's amendment yeah so oh there we go okay Councillor Meiszner Okay. All right. So the amendment failed with Councillor Klaus and Kirby on Dominado, Montague, Joe, Meisner, Mayor Sin, and Councillor Ward in opposition, and Councillor Bligh out.
Upstanding.
Okay, so going back to the main queue. Councillor Maloney? I'll hop off just for a moment and come back on. Councillor Bligh?
All right. Well, I am in the process of drafting an addition to the recommendation that... direct staff to commence a planning process to consider a holistic planning process that incorporates this idea and how it affects the broader area, as my council colleagues have raised the idea that that's a more appropriate process to consider this. Perhaps I could ask staff for some assistance in... coming up with an addition to the recommendation that would allow us to consider that.
Okay. Do we want the five minutes to recess?
Thank you. That would be very helpful.
Oh, Councillor Orr. Oh, well, Councillor Maloney had a minute and a half left.
She needs more time.
She had a minute and a half left on her speaking. She's not on the queue. She was.
You just advanced me.
Okay, we have someone called the question already.
Do we need a seconder, clerk? Okay. So, Councillor Kirby did call the question. I heard that. Do we need a seconder, clerk, for calling the question?
We don't.
Do you need to be on the queue to call the question? We do need a seconder.
I was on the queue. So it was seconded by Councillor Dominato. So the question has been called.
I was already on the queue, though. She called the question before you were on the queue.
Okay, so call the question, take precedent of the member's question. So that's what clerk saw from the procedure by law. The question has been called, has been seconded. So we can go to the vote directly, right, clerk? Okay, so we need two-thirds of vote for calling the question. Is that right, clerk? Okay.
Okay, so now we need to vote on calling the question, which requires two-thirds of the vote.
Okay, clerk, please take us to the voting screen.
Chancellor Meisner?
Okay, so we are missing Councillor Fry. Can you tell us if it's two-thirds or not?
Okay, so the motion carries.
The question has been called, so we can go directly to the vote of this report. So, clerk, please take us to the voting screen. We are voting directly on this report, on staff's recommendation. That's right. Yeah, the main motion from staff's recommendation.
Just to point a procedure before we go to the vote, I just want to confirm, so it's two-thirds of members present.
Okay, so Council, please register your vote on the main motion.
Councillor Meiszner, Councillor Wu.
Okay, the main motion passed with Councillor Meiszner and Councillor Maloney in opposition and Councillor Bligh abstaining.
Statement Watch
My name is Angela Zuo and my father is the registered property owner of 1868 West 37th Avenue. I'm speaking on behalf of my family and my neighbors, the applicants for this proposal. We respectfully ask council to support the proposed reclassification of these properties. While we understand the current policy aims to maintain subdivision categories by the block, current large lot designation often leaves homeowners with only two realities, sell to developers to build six to eight unit multiplexes or retain a large single family house. Our three families share a different vision, owner-led redevelopment that creates modest single-family lots for multigenerational living, allowing children, parents, and grandparents to remain close while preserving neighborhood character. Subdivision would enable gentle densification consistent with the intent of the R1-1 zoning while mirroring the housing pattern of our neighbors directly across the street. The staff report places considerable weight on concerns from four neighboring property owners regarding traffic, parking, neighborhood character, and density. We take those concerns seriously and made every effort to speak directly with as many neighbors as possible. What we found was telling. Many neighbors misunderstood the application, believing it would introduce a new housing form or substantially increase density. Once they understood our intentions for seeking this reclassification, support was overwhelming. We have since collected 12 signatures supporting the application, which I can share with staff and council. Some who previously submitted written objections have since revoked their opposition and have expressed their support, which you may have received recently in writing. The staff report states that reclassification will result in additional driveways to serve each subdivided parcel, contributing to traffic and pedestrian impacts. Respectfully, I believe this statement is incorrect, as our properties are served by a rear lane rather than front driveways. Our proposal would generate little measurable change in traffic volumes, parking demand, and neighborhood dynamics. The report suggests approval could set a precedent that transforms the neighborhood's lot pattern. Respectfully, this overlooks the fact that the block directly across West 37th Avenue already consists of smaller lots in lower subdivision categories, and that the neighborhood is already evolving rapidly under R1-1 zoning. In closing, our proposal integrates with the existing neighborhood while achieving gentle density and opportunities for independent ownership. By providing subdivision potential, Council would allow for more diverse redevelopment options and provide existing families with long-term flexibility and the opportunity to leverage existing assets to better meet housing needs. For these reasons, we respectfully ask Mayor and Council to support this application and consider the staff report with these clarifications in mind. Thank you.
Statement Watch
I'm on the line. Can I be heard?
Yes, we can hear you.
Please go ahead. Interestingly enough, I was not approached by the previous speaker. I am an adjacent neighbor in a rebuilt heritage home. And at first glance with the civic notice that came to our house, I vehemently opposed this project in an uneducated manner. And I think it's based on current redevelopment done within the neighboring blocks or jurisdictions that we've seen a number of multiplexes. So my immediate fear went to we're getting a multiplex on the 37th, an additional one, of which clearly I believe most of us would not approve of. In reading the documents this morning and doing a little bit more discovery, strangely in the last hour, I might flip in support of the previous speaker that... In my honest opinion, what they're proposing is the lesser of two evils, that if we do not approve what they are seeking to do, it will revert back to a potential rezoning in a multiplex potential environment. So given that I think her terminology is soft, gentle re-densification, I actually would probably more support uh their immediate use and uh and not the future risk of a multiplex development on that same uh residential block and i i think this is somewhat uh consistent with last night's council meeting over the neighborhoods plan where uh the risk of it being very binary of uh no individual housing lots or laneway houses and only of multiplex so I have to voice my support of this plan, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you.