A proposed 10-home townhouse project on Simpson Avenue became a debate over rental housing, home ownership and what a change in zoning could allow in Kelowna's Springvalley neighbourhood.
In March 2026, council rejected an application to add a rental-only designation to a property already zoned for townhouse housing. The decision did not amount to a ban on all townhouses at the site. It concerned the requested change from the existing townhouse zone to a rental-only townhouse subzone.
What the applicant proposed
The city’s public development-permit record, DP25-0173, describes a proposed ten-unit townhouse development at 1610 Simpson Avenue. A March 30 staff report recommended that council consider changing the property from MF2 townhouse housing to the MF2r rental-only subzone.
Planning staff supported the requested change, according to March 31 reporting by Castanet. That reporting said staff understood the applicant intended to seek a rental tax exemption if the rezoning were approved. A tax exemption is an incentive, not evidence that the homes would necessarily have had below-market rents.
The same reporting said the rental-only designation would have made additional floor area and reduced parking requirements available, but that the applicant was not seeking those incentives for the 10-home proposal then presented. Those are distinct points: an incentive potentially available under zoning is not necessarily something shown in a particular plan.
Why council disagreed
Castanet reported an 8-1 vote against the application. It reported that Councillor Loyal Wooldridge expressed concern that zoning remains attached to the land and was not necessarily limited to the accompanying plan. Councillor Ron Cannan favoured an ownership opportunity in a family neighbourhood, while Councillor Rick Webber discussed a mix of ownership and rental homes.
Staff's stated case emphasized housing variety near services and the role of rental incentives in the economics of a development. The decision illustrates a real policy disagreement: whether this site should prioritize homes for purchase, purpose-built rentals, or a mix, and how much flexibility should accompany a rental-only zone.
Council’s rejection is not evidence that all neighbours opposed rental housing. The positions reported above belong to the named councillors; they should not be presented as a representative account of neighbourhood opinion.
What remains uncertain
The public DP25-0173 record still describes the ten-home proposal. The records reviewed for this article do not establish a later approval, construction start or the owner’s present intentions. The ten homes should therefore not be described as either completed or permanently lost.
The case also shows why land-use decisions are more complicated than a simple choice between building and not building. Townhouse zoning, rental-only zoning, incentives and the final development permit each answer a different question.
What do you think? Should council encourage rental townhomes on sites like this, prioritize homes for ownership, or seek a mixture?