Discussions

Careful Steve, you're starting to sound like a school teacher explaining complex calculus to a kindergarten class. It doesn't matter how you explain it, they will still give in to their own belief system.  
 
Far too often people don't realize that a lot of planning, thought and discussion goes into these types of developments long before they are even proposed to city council.  
 
The general public opinion is that "low income housing" needs to be high end homes in new developments. But the reality is, that will never happen. Also, one thing that people don't understand is that when the economy is booming, low income housing falls to the way side. The fact that a developer is even considering a project like this should be celebrated. VBJ could have just put up another high end home, but instead they proposed a series of small units that people with lower incomes could afford...how dare they!

Steve McMillan said "    Johnbisonbear said "didn't ask the planning department about building the detached suites before building the small homes?   If the answer was to be no then they could have built the duplexes like they said. Did the developer assume that their add on suites would be approved? " The houses were permitted so there was nothing stopping us from building them. We also had backup options planned if it wasn't approved, but thought chances were slim of that happening since we had the full support of City Planning Department, as they recommended approval of the applications, and also City Council implemented new rules for detached and garage suites as affordable housing options. We thought rather than just building a 2 storey duplex that could have 3 bedrooms in each unit (6 total bedrooms), that residents would rather have a one storey house (2 bedrooms) with a detached suite (1 bedroom) in the back that looks like a single car garage. What option would you rather have beside you or in your neighbourhood? "

that these three small homes should not have been allowed but am asking why didn't you ask in the beginning about the garage suites? Maybe then when denied you could have changed your plans accordingly?  
I went past the homes and although they are close together I have seen closer. I like seeing new builds! I'm sure once the siding goes up these 3 will look better! I'm hoping that each place will have a different colour for siding?  
 
Check your inbox.

Johnbisonbear said "    Steve McMillan said "    Johnbisonbear said "didn't ask the planning department about building the detached suites before building the small homes?   If the answer was to be no then they could have built the duplexes like they said. Did the developer assume that their add on suites would be approved? " The houses were permitted so there was nothing stopping us from building them. We also had backup options planned if it wasn't approved, but thought chances were slim of that happening since we had the full support of City Planning Department, as they recommended approval of the applications, and also City Council implemented new rules for detached and garage suites as affordable housing options. We thought rather than just building a 2 storey duplex that could have 3 bedrooms in each unit (6 total bedrooms), that residents would rather have a one storey house (2 bedrooms) with a detached suite (1 bedroom) in the back that looks like a single car garage. What option would you rather have beside you or in your neighbourhood? " that these three small homes should not have been allowed but am asking why didn't you ask in the beginning about the garage suites? Maybe then when denied you could have changed your plans accordingly?   I went past the homes and although they are close together I have seen closer. I like seeing new builds! I'm sure once the siding goes up these 3 will look better! I'm hoping that each place will have a different colour for siding?     Check your inbox. "

Are you assuming they didn't talk with planning? He just said that they had support from the planning district before going to council

the three homes are built, why is it just now we are hearing about the detached suites?

PrimeConvoy said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Steve McMillan said "    Johnbisonbear said "didn't ask the planning department about building the detached suites before building the small homes?   If the answer was to be no then they could have built the duplexes like they said. Did the developer assume that their add on suites would be approved? " The houses were permitted so there was nothing stopping us from building them. We also had backup options planned if it wasn't approved, but thought chances were slim of that happening since we had the full support of City Planning Department, as they recommended approval of the applications, and also City Council implemented new rules for detached and garage suites as affordable housing options. We thought rather than just building a 2 storey duplex that could have 3 bedrooms in each unit (6 total bedrooms), that residents would rather have a one storey house (2 bedrooms) with a detached suite (1 bedroom) in the back that looks like a single car garage. What option would you rather have beside you or in your neighbourhood? " that these three small homes should not have been allowed but am asking why didn't you ask in the beginning about the garage suites? Maybe then when denied you could have changed your plans accordingly?   I went past the homes and although they are close together I have seen closer. I like seeing new builds! I'm sure once the siding goes up these 3 will look better! I'm hoping that each place will have a different colour for siding?     Check your inbox. " Are you assuming they didn't talk with planning? He just said that they had support from the planning district before going to council "

maybe I wasn't being clear. The plan from the beginning was to build the houses and detached suites together. It wasn't an afterthought. We had been working with the City since last fall and internally in our own company for the past year on new and innovative housing options.

Steve McMillan said "    PrimeConvoy said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Steve McMillan said "    Johnbisonbear said "didn't ask the planning department about building the detached suites before building the small homes?   If the answer was to be no then they could have built the duplexes like they said. Did the developer assume that their add on suites would be approved? " The houses were permitted so there was nothing stopping us from building them. We also had backup options planned if it wasn't approved, but thought chances were slim of that happening since we had the full support of City Planning Department, as they recommended approval of the applications, and also City Council implemented new rules for detached and garage suites as affordable housing options. We thought rather than just building a 2 storey duplex that could have 3 bedrooms in each unit (6 total bedrooms), that residents would rather have a one storey house (2 bedrooms) with a detached suite (1 bedroom) in the back that looks like a single car garage. What option would you rather have beside you or in your neighbourhood? " that these three small homes should not have been allowed but am asking why didn't you ask in the beginning about the garage suites? Maybe then when denied you could have changed your plans accordingly?   I went past the homes and although they are close together I have seen closer. I like seeing new builds! I'm sure once the siding goes up these 3 will look better! I'm hoping that each place will have a different colour for siding?     Check your inbox. " Are you assuming they didn't talk with planning? He just said that they had support from the planning district before going to council " maybe I wasn't being clear. The plan from the beginning was to build the houses and detached suites together. It wasn't an afterthought. We had been working with the City since last fall and internally in our own company for the past year on new and innovative housing options. "

Thanks for the clarification. It's unfortunate that the city couldn't have provided your company with the no answer before you built the three homes.  
After all you invested a lot of money and in the end you need to make some kind of profit.

Johnbisonbear said "    Steve McMillan said "    PrimeConvoy said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Steve McMillan said "    Johnbisonbear said "didn't ask the planning department about building the detached suites before building the small homes?   If the answer was to be no then they could have built the duplexes like they said. Did the developer assume that their add on suites would be approved? " The houses were permitted so there was nothing stopping us from building them. We also had backup options planned if it wasn't approved, but thought chances were slim of that happening since we had the full support of City Planning Department, as they recommended approval of the applications, and also City Council implemented new rules for detached and garage suites as affordable housing options. We thought rather than just building a 2 storey duplex that could have 3 bedrooms in each unit (6 total bedrooms), that residents would rather have a one storey house (2 bedrooms) with a detached suite (1 bedroom) in the back that looks like a single car garage. What option would you rather have beside you or in your neighbourhood? " that these three small homes should not have been allowed but am asking why didn't you ask in the beginning about the garage suites? Maybe then when denied you could have changed your plans accordingly?   I went past the homes and although they are close together I have seen closer. I like seeing new builds! I'm sure once the siding goes up these 3 will look better! I'm hoping that each place will have a different colour for siding?     Check your inbox. " Are you assuming they didn't talk with planning? He just said that they had support from the planning district before going to council " maybe I wasn't being clear. The plan from the beginning was to build the houses and detached suites together. It wasn't an afterthought. We had been working with the City since last fall and internally in our own company for the past year on new and innovative housing options. " Thanks for the clarification. It's unfortunate that the city couldn't have provided your company with the no answer before you built the three homes.   After all you invested a lot of money and in the end you need to make some kind of profit. "

Maybe a crystal ball would have helped in this situation. They were applying for a variance and were denied. Sometimes they get denied, sometimes they get approved.

Steve McMillan said "    Johnbisonbear said "didn't ask the planning department about building the detached suites before building the small homes?   If the answer was to be no then they could have built the duplexes like they said. Did the developer assume that their add on suites would be approved? " The houses were permitted so there was nothing stopping us from building them. We also had backup options planned if it wasn't approved, but thought chances were slim of that happening since we had the full support of City Planning Department, as they recommended approval of the applications, and also City Council implemented new rules for detached and garage suites as affordable housing options. We thought rather than just building a 2 storey duplex that could have 3 bedrooms in each unit (6 total bedrooms), that residents would rather have a one storey house (2 bedrooms) with a detached suite (1 bedroom) in the back that looks like a single car garage. What option would you rather have beside you or in your neighbourhood? "

That's the very question that should have been asked of the neighbors. Which would they prefer since they already have invested in their neighborhood.could have saved a lot of hassle for everyone.

Let'sgetreal said "    Steve McMillan said "    Johnbisonbear said "didn't ask the planning department about building the detached suites before building the small homes?   If the answer was to be no then they could have built the duplexes like they said. Did the developer assume that their add on suites would be approved? " The houses were permitted so there was nothing stopping us from building them. We also had backup options planned if it wasn't approved, but thought chances were slim of that happening since we had the full support of City Planning Department, as they recommended approval of the applications, and also City Council implemented new rules for detached and garage suites as affordable housing options. We thought rather than just building a 2 storey duplex that could have 3 bedrooms in each unit (6 total bedrooms), that residents would rather have a one storey house (2 bedrooms) with a detached suite (1 bedroom) in the back that looks like a single car garage. What option would you rather have beside you or in your neighbourhood? " That's the very question that should have been asked of the neighbors. Which would they prefer since they already have invested in their neighborhood.could have saved a lot of hassle for everyone. "

sometimes the neighbours are not privy to the details until it's too late.  
We had a home for delinquents forced onto our street and never knew anything ahead of time.

so just to be clear, the city planning department approved the three homes but did they also approve the detached suites? The suites were denied by council then? After residents voiced their concerns?

PrimeConvoy said "    Fishin Guy said "    Steve McMillan said "You are beyond clueless on this issue. Mobile Homes? Really? Stop embarrassing yourself. " I didn't realize you were against mobile homes. I prefer the term modular home. Since I am just embarrassing myself why not shed some light on to how to allow for affordable homes. I guess the first question is what is affordable homes mean to you and how much do you think the limit is? Looking at infill housing on the Realtor site (less than 1000 sqft) there are some running 260 grand 2 bedroom/1 bath with unfinished basement. What is a basement reno cost? Would I be wrong to estimate at 30-50 grand to finish? Now you are looking at over 300 grand for potentially 3-4 bed/2 bath on a 25' wide lot.     Or my retarded thinking is pick up a infill lot even using 100 g for a number which isn't right when dividing it into small lots but simple math...add a 1200 sqft home for about 130 g. Sitting at 230 total but I am thinking closer to the 200 mark.     Now if my numbers are totally out to lunch please correct me with some new ones. But realistically what is wrong with putting in a skinny mobile home/modular home/rtm instead of a site built skinny stick framed home? Or is it the stigma of the word "mobile home" which gets to you? " There is no class or designation for "modular home". No jurisdiction in Canada allows mobile homes in infill areas, Brandon will not be the first if it wants to keep areas desirable...just look what happens to mobile home parks after about 30 years. The second problem with your "solution" is that mobile homes cannot be anything but a single family dwelling without an engineer...the buildings proposed by J&G do not. On to the 3rd fault in your brilliant idea...what contractor could possibly by a 35ft parcel for under $30k?? The would be demolition charges, development costs (landscaping and servicing - those lots would require new water/sewer/hydro services)...then add the $130k for the cheapest mobile you can find...that now puts the cost of a cheap mobile home at north of $200,000...not what I call affordable. But that doesn't matter, because mobile homes are not ever located in in fill lots ANYWHERE. "

First I am not talking about mobile home parks. Sorry if I am an idiot on this topic and am trying to figure things out. I am reading city bylaws and looking at other areas of Canada who are looking at the option. At least I am trying to toss in an affordable housing option vs just saying it cannot be done. So what happens to a mobile home in 30 years vs a house over 30 years? Ya I am a retard when it comes to this as back home we have mobile home developments that are over 30 years old and they look no different than the houses built in the same area. The biggest difference is it isn''t a trailer park. When people own their own land they take greater pride in it. Over the years the buildings are maintained, new roofs, new siding, maybe garage built, etc. No different than a house. I guess places like Kelsey/Tracy will be run down welfare houses in 30 years? I better start telling my neighbors on the street to stop doing improvements to their homes cause we are lower class or something. They are zoned residential mobile/modular homes. Why can''t an infill lot be rezoned into that? The infill housing I have seen are 16'' wide by X feet long which has the same characteristics of a mobile home. And what is wrong with single family dwellings? I don''t know where you got buying land for 35k. I have seen properties go for the 100k mark and them divided. Demolition and new services was nowhere near 100k but that is why I used a lot price of 100k a home moved in for another 130k puts the price at around the 200k mark. What are infills going for?  
 
Oh and infills are being considered and are apparently used in other areas. Yes I am some dumb ass who doesn't know anything. But instead of telling me it can''t be done, why not tell me why it can''t be done? Are you just caught up on the stigma of the term mobile home?  
 
http://www.cmhi.ca/sites/default/files/New%20Building%20Excellence%20Magazine%202012%20Review%20Final%20for%20Web%20Posting.pdf  
 
http://www.edmontonexaminer.com/2018/01/30/there-are-benefits-to-including-pre-fabricated-modular-homes-in-citys-infill-strategies-construction-companies-say  
 
Edited by Fishin Guy, 2018-04-12 14:25:47

As a former engineering employee at a major mobile home builder I know all the "stigmas" attached to the mobile home industry. The company for which I worked many years tried to bend the ears of local authorities in BC, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario to allow mobile homes in their neighborhoods. I was part of the team that convinced Brandon to allow Pacific Estates to get built...and I know what went into it, because I drew the plans!  
 
And a mobile home is a defined term, not an idea or notion. A mobile home is NOT an RTM...but some people associate the two with each other. A modular home can be either an RTM or a mobile home.  
 
The mobile home industry, though highly regulated (CSA/Intertek and the like), they are not built for longevity....trust me...I KNOW this.  
 
I used to live at Noble Lake, where the planning district is involved in a big fight with a group of lakefront owners that want a mobile home moved out of their development. This sort of thing happens everywhere...and it's a fight the city doesn't want to get involved with.  
 
Many people have many thoughts and opinions on this topic..but there are very few people that have the facts.

its too bad this project could not have gone ahead,people want affordable housing but when innovative ideas are presented they look good but nobody wants them in their back yard, freestanding secondary suites have worked elsewhere and would likely have worked here

Brandon is a conservative city and not generally receptive to change.  
 
Fishin Guy - there are plenty of mobile/ modular/manufactured/trailer whatever you want to call home options for people to buy if that is their preference. There are brand new ones on MLS for $175-200k which is certainly more affordable than a brand new conventional type home.  
 
The point being, there is no lack of supply of that type of home so to suggest putting modular housing on infill lots (even if all of the zoning rules were changed to allow it), this would solve absolutely nothing in terms of affordable housing.  
 
Hopefully j&g and others do not get discouraged and continue to try and develop smart solutions.  
 
Edited by TimHorton, 2018-04-12 19:57:50

Steve Maybe you can give us all the pricing on these homes and were we can get details and pictures of the layouts.  
 
People want affordable housing but not in my back yard. I drove by these homes and in my opinion (even from what I can see as they are shells ) they will only enhance the neighbourhood. Would even think they may increase the value of surrounding homes.  
 
The term affordable housing needs a defintion that has yet to be defined. The only way to build affordable housing for the lower income earners is when it it social housing run by the goverment. The feds announce millions in tax dollars to build new social housing but they can't run the ones we already have. The best example is a building off 9th st that has over 40 empty suites that are manitoba housing. If that was a private company loosing thousands a month in lost rents the issues would have been solved years ago. When you play with tax dollars what is the worst that can happen ??  
 
 
I would suggest that if goverment gave incentives to people like those building homes like the one by Vionel Holdings to bring down cost that it could make a big impact.

$130000 - $180,000 for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single car garage, unfinished basement, 1000sq ft house. Basic throughout finnishing with linoleum and carpet flooring. Just enough to get a young family out of a rental property and into a starter home. Payments should be under $1000 per month.

Slo mo said "$130000 - $180,000 for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single car garage, unfinished basement, 1000sq ft house. Basic throughout finnishing with linoleum and carpet flooring. Just enough to get a young family out of a rental property and into a starter home. Payments should be under $1000 per month. "

A new 3 bed 2 bath house with a garage in that price range is not possible without government subsidizing

Oh Canada said "Steve Maybe you can give us all the pricing on these homes and were we can get details and pictures of the layouts.     People want affordable housing but not in my back yard. I drove by these homes and in my opinion (even from what I can see as they are shells ) they will only enhance the neighbourhood. Would even think they may increase the value of surrounding homes.     The term affordable housing needs a defintion that has yet to be defined. The only way to build affordable housing for the lower income earners is when it it social housing run by the goverment. The feds announce millions in tax dollars to build new social housing but they can't run the ones we already have. The best example is a building off 9th st that has over 40 empty suites that are manitoba housing. If that was a private company loosing thousands a month in lost rents the issues would have been solved years ago. When you play with tax dollars what is the worst that can happen ??       I would suggest that if goverment gave incentives to people like those building homes like the one by Vionel Holdings to bring down cost that it could make a big impact. "

of surrounding homes. Wonder how much their tax bills will go up?  
 
I agree, for affordable housing to work government needs to be forking out cash! And I don't mean the city of Brandon!

TimHorton said "    Slo mo said "$130000 - $180,000 for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single car garage, unfinished basement, 1000sq ft house. Basic throughout finnishing with linoleum and carpet flooring. Just enough to get a young family out of a rental property and into a starter home. Payments should be under $1000 per month. " A new 3 bed 2 bath house with a garage in that price range is not possible without government subsidizing "

If Slo mo has defined affordable housing in Brandon it would need to be highly subsidized.  
 
Right now to get a house described above on the used market (40 plus year old house) it would need someone to come up with at least $160,000 to $110,000 in government subsidizes.  
 
Everyone wants supposed affordable housing but few have drilled down the numbers to determine how and were the funds will come from. In this case the homes on 7th street is someone putting money were their mouth is and trying something different.

2 incomes at minimum wages with 2 kids. Not subsidized.

 
 
This is what went down at Council (starting around 24:00 minutes in this video). Most City Councillors agreed with the VBJ concept, but jamming everything within the extremely limited lot size was the main concern.  
 
I think most City Councillors are in agreement that affordable small homes in Brandon are a good thing, but many are wanting to represent their area constituents and it's apparent they have a concern.  
 
This is such a new concept. I give the developer credit, but if I was a homeowner in the neighborhood, I'm not sure about cramming all of this into the lot.  
 
You'll have to watch the video to be educated on what went on with this proposed development.

Lots of good points. To me this looks much better than the skinny duplexes you see going up on other small lots.. which VBJ could have gone ahead and done (probably wishing now they would have).  
 
I think council should have approved this unique project and monitored the success of it as there are unknowns.  
 
This would then form the basis or precedent as counc Cullen referred to for future applications.  
 
Now we will never know...  
 
Edited by TimHorton, 2018-04-14 17:57:24

TimHorton said "Lots of good points. To me this looks much better than the skinny duplexes you see going up on other small lots.. which VBJ could have gone ahead and done (probably wishing now they would have).     I think council should have approved this unique project and monitored the success of it as there are unknowns.     This would then form the basis or precedent as counc Cullen referred to for future applications.     Now we will never know...     Edited by TimHorton, 2018-04-14 17:57:24"

I am assuming when they say it had the planning departments support it was down to a variation to the property. Is that why council is involved? Asking to shave 8 feet off a bylaw put in place seems to be a little excessive and to think it shouldn't have been an issue seems a little blind building.  
 
At what point do you stop building on the size of land? Everyone is using the point of the amount of bedrooms being built. But in reality you are building 2 units on each lot. The garage units are to be owner occupied but how do you enforce it? So essentially you are building a house and a back alley rental on a tiny property. They had set the min lot size as 33 ft. The builder tried to push the envelope to 25'. What next 20' lots? Council wasn't opposed to the idea, they were opposed to the size of the development on such a small lot. And nobody can say how these are affordable. I assume they are unfinished basements, leaving the potential to turn the basement into another 1-2 bedrooms. Thus creating with the extra suite a potential 5 bedrooms per lot x 3 lots, 15 bedrooms in one infill lot. Seems pretty excessive in such a tiny area. If people want to classify it as affordable wouldn't it be cheaper to add that extra bedroom to the house and omit the extra suite? Why create 2 units?

Unfortunately the ship has sailed on this project, so there is not alot of use debating it any longer.  
 
I find it tough to believe people would have been been happier with 3 2-storey skinny duplexes side by side. When council made the 33' lot size rule for detached suite projects I doubt they were envisioning this type of design. I think Steve was correct to assume this would be approved given what they could have built there within the rules.  
 
Fishin Guy. I assume you watched the video but you're incorrect about the garage suites having to be owner occupied. The intent was for the main building to be owner occupied, with the option of that owner to rent out the detached suite.  
 
Another point, I beleive both units are on a slab not built on basements.

I've read the thread and seen the video more times than I care to admit and still have questions.  
 
If the lots need to be 33' to have detached suite build on, why were the main homes built on 25' lots?  
 
If the initial project was for three houses with three detached suites and the city was on board with this, why?  
 
The variance of 8' per lot seems excessive to me.  
 
When and who approved the lots to be subdivided into three 25' x 120' lots?  
 
Would there have been a problem if the 75' lot was divided in half and only two homes with two detached suites were constructed?  
 
I'm really lost because it seems that the build was given the green light even though the lots were only 25' when the bylaw for secondary suites stated the lots had to be 33'.  
 
I think whenever you are doing something new to the neighbourhood, even renos to your existing home, talk to the residents that live there. Could make a difference. Once the contractors are gone, you still have to live there.  
 
I also think affordable housing needs a clearer definition. In this case, these houses were only deemed affordable housing because the owner would live in the main house and rent out the suite, thus making it affordable.  
 
The city/city council says they aren't worried about setting precedent here with this case because they pick and choose what they want to approve and not approve (aka the buddy system). When projects like this are approved (bending the rules) then the city better have some damn good reasons why we can't subdivide our property into 4-25' lots and build four homes with four detached suites, too. If it's not within the rules, we just bend them with a variance.  
 
I wouldn't want these houses in my neighbourhood because they just wouldn't fit with what is already here but residents usually can't control it. This time the residents spoke loud and actually prevailed. I'm not so much against the detached suites as I am how crammed the three houses look on 25' lots.

Hackeda said "I've read the thread and seen the video more times than I care to admit and still have questions.     If the lots need to be 33' to have detached suite build on, why were the main homes built on 25' lots?     If the initial project was for three houses with three detached suites and the city was on board with this, why?     The variance of 8' per lot seems excessive to me.     When and who approved the lots to be subdivided into three 25' x 120' lots?     Would there have been a problem if the 75' lot was divided in half and only two homes with two detached suites were constructed?     I'm really lost because it seems that the build was given the green light even though the lots were only 25' when the bylaw for secondary suites stated the lots had to be 33'.     I think whenever you are doing something new to the neighbourhood, even renos to your existing home, talk to the residents that live there. Could make a difference. Once the contractors are gone, you still have to live there.     I also think affordable housing needs a clearer definition. In this case, these houses were only deemed affordable housing because the owner would live in the main house and rent out the suite, thus making it affordable.     The city/city council says they aren't worried about setting precedent here with this case because they pick and choose what they want to approve and not approve (aka the buddy system). When projects like this are approved (bending the rules) then the city better have some damn good reasons why we can't subdivide our property into 4-25' lots and build four homes with four detached suites, too. If it's not within the rules, we just bend them with a variance.     I wouldn't want these houses in my neighbourhood because they just wouldn't fit with what is already here but residents usually can't control it. This time the residents spoke loud and actually prevailed. I'm not so much against the detached suites as I am how crammed the three houses look on 25' lots. "

You raise many good points and rightly so. Maybe someone from the City can address this?  
 
This is not really about affordable housing at all but more of a major developer pushing the limit until someone says wait a minute.This isn't quite right.  
 
Someone earlier said it's a NIMBY effect. NIMBY means Not in My Backyard.  
If you have worked hard to be able to afford a single detached home, why shouldn't a person be concerned with what goes up beside your home?  
 
Should neighboring homes not be consulted? I'm not sure how that works with City by-laws.  
 
The company went ahead and built these nice 3 little affordable homes and maybe assumed the City would give them a pass for cramming 3 additional garage suites into 3 - 25' lots (versus the standard and by-the-book minimum 33' lot) unless people spoke up.  
 
This is a quiet residential area where people take pride in their homes.  
 
I'm not sure I'd give a pass to any place that looks at $$$ over the quality of the neighbourhood. Maybe people in this local company don't live here...they couldn't give a care.  
 
What if the developer took out 1/3 of this equation and only built 2 front units and 2 garage units on a 75' frontage? Oh wait....it's too late. They've already built 3.  
 
It's too bad for the neighboring homeowners that they were not consulted before the ground was dug. With consultation, educating local residents and knowledge things might have been OK It's amazing how communication helps.  
 
If anyone weighs in, please watch the City Council video. You may never reclaim this time, but if you are interested in City Development it gives you a reason for debating.

this morning I am left wondering if VBJ has set a price for the small home?  
 
Is the price of the unit affordable? Or would it just be considered affordable if there was the detached suite to rent out to offset the purchase price of the main unit?

Johnbisonbear said "this morning I am left wondering if VBJ has set a price for the small home?     Is the price of the unit affordable? Or would it just be considered affordable if there was the detached suite to rent out to offset the purchase price of the main unit? "

I'm curious how much these small homes are selling for now since the detached suites weren't approved and since the developer decided not to add garages.  
 
I'm hoping city council changes the bylaw from the requirement of 33' to 25' lots for these builds as suggested by the developer so I can make a few extra bucks before moving out of Dodge. Then again, -plexes seem to be the money maker.  
 
If you need me, I'm packing.

Hackeda said "    Johnbisonbear said "this morning I am left wondering if VBJ has set a price for the small home?     Is the price of the unit affordable? Or would it just be considered affordable if there was the detached suite to rent out to offset the purchase price of the main unit? " I'm curious how much these small homes are selling for now since the detached suites weren't approved and since the developer decided not to add garages.     I'm hoping city council changes the bylaw from the requirement of 33' to 25' lots for these builds as suggested by the developer so I can make a few extra bucks before moving out of Dodge. Then again, -plexes seem to be the money maker.     If you need me, I'm packing. "

I am curious too at the pricing. In my area they were selling 900sqft houses on 50' wide lots starting at 200 grand. Fast forward 10 years and they build these 800sqft homes. I am going to guess around the 200-250 range. If the rental suite was going up I would easily think they would go easy 300.  
 
The thing is when do you stop? So detached is min 33' a duplex is 25. They made a bylaw a few years ago for sizes now VBJ wants the city to keep making changes and call it affordable. I am sure they are upset that the city didn't fold onto their needs. They knew the requirements going into it. The funny thing when I look up the definition of affordable housing according to the city strategy documents it is classified as the average people can afford. The Brandon stats have the median household income at 75 grand which gets a 200 grand mortgage. It is probably a little low. Average is probably around the 75-100 grand income range. There are currently 200 homes under 250 grand. Between 200 and 300 is 200 homes available. So this coincides with the cities affordable housing definition. These affordable housing as they call it are starting to get close to the 300 grand mark which to me is not affordable housing.  
 
As for low incomes wages trying to get into a house one has to face the reality that housing is not a right. This is where unfortunately rentals come into play. We already have affordable housing. Maybe the city should focus on affordable rentals.

Oh Canada said "    TimHorton said "    Slo mo said "$130000 - $180,000 for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single car garage, unfinished basement, 1000sq ft house. Basic throughout finnishing with linoleum and carpet flooring. Just enough to get a young family out of a rental property and into a starter home. Payments should be under $1000 per month. " A new 3 bed 2 bath house with a garage in that price range is not possible without government subsidizing " If Slo mo has defined affordable housing in Brandon it would need to be highly subsidized.     Right now to get a house described above on the used market (40 plus year old house) it would need someone to come up with at least $160,000 to $110,000 in government subsidizes.     Everyone wants supposed affordable housing but few have drilled down the numbers to determine how and were the funds will come from. In this case the homes on 7th street is someone putting money were their mouth is and trying something different. "

A 900 square foot house with 3 bedrooms 1 bathroom no garage and older but still in good shape flooring for $180,000? It's what we call a "Starter Home" they're all over the BREB. You buy them and then you save up a little and buy new carpets....then you save up a little and you change the windows...then you save up a little and you renovate the bathroom...then you put the house on the market and sell it for $220,000 and use the $40,000 to move into a newer home.  
 
I don't know anyone that moved into a NEW 3 bedroom 2 bathroom 1000sq/ft home with basic finishings throughout with a single car garage as their first home, and I know lots of people who 15 years after their first home live in 5 bedroom 2500sq/ft homes with 3 bathrooms and 2 or 3 car garages.  
 
And what happens to this home when the new family has lived in it for 3 years? Is it zoned as affordable housing so that when the family wants to move they sell it for what they paid for it? Or can they get the true market price on a place like that of around $280,000 and pocket the difference?  
 
You need a mix of the habitat for humanity formula combined with credit unions and if the city subsidized anything I'd do it via property tax forgiveness for a period of time. There are HUNDREDS of affordable houses in the 80 or so small communities surrounding Brandon...HUNDREDS of GOOD affordable houses. When I was young and home ownership in Brandon just didn't look like anything my Dad was going to be able to manage, he moved us to a small community where he could buy a home.