Let’s Embrace Our Nonconforming Grandpas
In many cities, renovating mixed-use buildings like this one would be difficult, as it would lose any allowances given to grandfathered buildings.
One summer, my Opa and Oma came from the Netherlands to visit us on our farm. They stayed in an RV trailer that we parked near our house. Shortly after their arrival, I discovered something fiendishly wonderful for a six- or seven-year-old.
Soon after sunrise, I knocked on the door of the trailer to say hi to my Opa and Oma. But my Oma didn’t want to be seen by anyone at that hour because she wasn’t in her day clothes. So, she frantically scurried out of bed and rummaged through her things. Then, the door opened a crack and Oma stretched her hand out of the door. Without a word, she dropped a Dutch candy into my outstretched hand. Brilliant!
After enjoying the candy, I knocked again. Just like before, my Oma launched into action and another candy was dispensed from the trailer door.
I lost count of how many times and how many mornings I and my two siblings did this before my parents discovered what we were doing and put a stop to it.
My Oma was plainly not ready for scrutiny of any kind. She didn’t want to be seen in her early-morning state. She wanted us to go away.
Grandfathered (Grandparented?) In
This episode of summer sweetness came to mind as I was thinking about the idea of a property being “grandfathered” in. Many property owners do not want city inspectors to come by because there’s no end to the list of infractions that they might come up with. In some cases, these are properties that probably should be checked out and made safer. But in many other cases, the buildings are perfectly fine and were just built to simpler standards in a prior era.
Lawful Prior Nonconforming Use
One smart lawyer explains it this way:
If you’ve previously bought an older home or cottage, or have renovated in the past, you’ve likely come across the term ‘lawful prior non-conforming use’, but frankly, most people know it more informally as ‘grandfathered’. The term ‘grandfathered’ is used rather often when it comes to real estate and property ownership when issues arise with the existing property that no longer conform to by-laws, ordinances, or construction standards.
Properties are “grandfathered” when they do not conform to the current standards for building. This is a common situation for heritage buildings, farm buildings and interesting spaces from previous eras to find themselves in. I’ll bet you a nickel that the best buildings in my city have features about them that are nonconforming to current codes. The lawyer explains further:
For example, you may be dealing with an electrical, plumbing or construction issue in an older home that doesn’t meet the current building codes. Or, perhaps your shed was built too close to the neighbour’s yard long before you moved in. As long as your building is safe, it may not have to be upgraded, relocated or torn down to meet the more current requirements – it’s been ‘grandfathered in’. However, any new construction, additions or renovations must meet the new building code or other by-law requirements.
The Problem
The rules around grandfathered buildings pose a dilemma for property owners who want to modify their buildings: They either bite the bullet and undertake a much larger project than they first intended to bring the building up to code or they ignore the upgrade that is needed and affordable because they can’t stomach the prospect of addressing all the nonconforming areas in the building.
The new Brittania Brewing storefront looks great. Pity no one lives upstairs….
I’ll give you an example. The former Ladner Village Hardware store on Delta Street was renovated by its new owners after a long and convoluted process during which the property sat unused.
The owners decided not to add residential units on top of the building during construction.
Why? Under the parking requirements, they would be opening up a giant can of worms if they changed the structure of the building in any way because they would need to find alley parking spaces on a site that didn’t have room for them.
By keeping it as it was, the building was grandfathered in under the original parking requirements and they avoided the financial and logistical nightmare of trying to squeeze parking onto the site. The result? A missed opportunity to put a few residential units on the second story of an exciting renewed space in Ladner.
The Delta Optimist quotes former Delta Councilor Heather King lamenting that “it is unfortunate a redevelopment isn’t going to take place that would see residential units added above, [because this is] something the city is hoping will occur in that Ladner business district.”
Our excessive parking regulations are the reason.
Another example: A friend of mine inherited a home in Vancouver that has been in their family for over a century. This little stone home has become dilapidated over the last decade, and it has sat empty for a long time because any and all upgrades are cost prohibitive.
The reason? The house sits at the back of the lot, and the city’s zoning bylaws now require a considerable setback from the back alley.
So this little house, vacant in the midst of a housing crisis, sits in limbo and declines by the day because it is unfixable. The only option is to tear it down and scrape away every sign of the offending back-alley hugger! Tsk tsk. Houses should know better than to be hanging out in the backyard.
This is not a unique situation. In addition to homes, many nonprofits, churches, halls, farm buildings, volunteer-run stores and even publicly owned facilities get stuck in this cycle. This piece in the New York Times demonstrates that 40% of the buildings in Manhattan could not be built today. The article quotes an analyst named Stephen Smith, who says, “Look at the beautiful New York City neighborhoods we could never build again. It’s ridiculous that we have these hundred-year-old buildings that everyone loves, and none of them ‘should’ be the way they are.”
Allowing grandfathered properties makes sense because it allows properties to exist as they are. That’s a good thing — leave well enough alone! However, city officials shoot themselves in the foot by making it impossible for buildings to be modified in small and various ways to suit the needs of residents and users. When it's difficult to make small changes, all cities will be left with are big, disruptive ones.
When people make it difficult to make small changes, cities will be left with big disruptive ones.
The Solution
So, how can city officials solve this problem? They can create a program that lets property owners choose, in all but the most essential categories of accessibility upgrades and toxin containment, to be under the code of past (grandfather) or present.
I know this would be unsettling to the planners and lawyers, but I’ll bet there’s a way to make this happen. There’s a squad of city building inspectors who must be sick of having to write up code violations in old buildings when they know full well that they were built right the first time. People instinctively know that modern building codes are better suited to new construction and much harder to rationalize with older stock. So why not open up the doors to the renovators, restorers and modifiers of modest means who can give our ‘grandpas’ some love and care?
The Rationale
If the insurance industry is willing to insure a grandfathered building as is, why couldn’t a modification be covered by the most risk-averse people as well? Cities don’t need to be more risk averse than property insurers. If they’re ‘fine’ with it — as proven in the annual policies they grant to owners — shouldn’t the city get out of the way and remove the obstacles that heritage buildings and other significant buildings face?
While I’m sure planning staff could regale me with descriptions of hare-brained renovation schemes that they’ve had to nix, I am certain that they’ve sat across the table from nonprofit volunteers, heritage homeowners, and others like them and hated having to deliver the news that the planned upgrade was not allowed or would be financially prohibitive. It doesn’t have to be this way.
The Consequences
Seriously, what’s the worst that could happen? A fire? There’s a number to call for that! (And we have conveniently placed facilities called fire stations with incredibly trained staff called firefighters who are at the ready.)
A collapse? Well, yes, that is the worst that could happen, but it’s arguably something that could happen right now without any modifications in our buildings. In fact, the barriers to upgrading old buildings have made it more likely that structural issues have gone unaddressed.
Complaints from the neighbors? Well, perhaps there would be fewer if cities allowed more modest, gradual changes instead of forcing everything through the viability squeeze. After all, the financial outlay required to bring a grandfathered building up to code usually forces developers to majorly step up the building's intensity of use. Gradual change through modest modifications will unsettle the neighbors a lot less than big, sudden, expensive projects.
But what about the worst possible consequence? What if owners really do prefer the flexibility provided under the old codes that built North America's great places? Well, then maybe that tells us a thing or two about all of our arbitrary requirements concerning parking, setbacks, building placement, and maximum and minimum amounts of window glazing.
If they've stood for so long without falling down, burning down or damaging the neighborhood for this long, maybe city officials and developers can learn a thing or two from these buildings.
The Benefits
Nonprofits would benefit from this rule change because they optimize their buildings for their uses. Folks who are handy with tools would benefit because they would be allowed to work in their homes and shops more easily. Farmers would benefit because their various outbuildings could be modified as needed without the imposition of new restrictions. Elderly homeowners would benefit because they could more easily build onto their homes or upgrade existing features to serve them better. Families would benefit because the option to modify their homes would be more feasible without all of the extra expenses from bringing homes into full conformity. Heritage building owners would benefit because they could ‘unfreeze’ their buildings and come up with new ways to use their buildings more effectively. Commercial store owners would benefit because they would have access to more renovation options.
Can It Be Done?
Have you met a few nonconforming grandfathers? They’d tell you there’s always a way, even if it makes you stick out like a sore thumb and brings a few sideways glances in your direction.
Let’s hike up our pants (endure the discomfort) and pioneer a new approach to property improvements.
Or we can tell our grandfathered properties to be like my Oma — hiding away from scrutiny and trying to make everyone leave them alone for a while longer.
