The island

Letters dispute whether secondary dwellings should be limited per lot

A public comment recorded in the December minutes favoured one secondary dwelling per primary dwelling, while the planner described a proposal for one per lot.

The Denman Firestarter · reporting 2025-01-09 · compiled 2026-10-01

Back issue. The Denman Firestarter did not exist on 2025-01-09. This edition was compiled on 2026-10-01 from the public record as it stood on 2025-01-09, and contains nothing dated after that day — no outcomes, no hindsight. It is a reconstruction of what was on the record at the time, not a document from the time. This edition.

Report. Facts and citations only. Where we argue a position we do it in Analysis, labelled. Our standards.

A disagreement over how many secondary dwellings should be allowed on a property surfaced during the Local Trust Committee’s December 10 discussion of proposed changes to Bylaw 249.^[1]

The planner said the proposal was intended to permit secondary dwelling units on a per-lot basis, with one unit per lot to manage density and avoid overdevelopment on larger lots.^[1]

A member of the public said they lived on one of 14 properties with more than one civic address and that the proposal would leave only one of three homes in the R2 zone eligible for a secondary dwelling. The member said they preferred one secondary dwelling per primary dwelling.^[1]

The committee minutes record that site-specific regulations could be considered within the broader Housing Review Project. The committee later requested that consideration of the Bylaw 249 amendments return at a later meeting, following consideration of the broader housing project timelines.^[1]

Spotted an error? corrections@denmanisland.co. We publish every correction.