Jump to content
  • Townhouse development raises issues around trees, density, affordability


    Russ Francis
     Share

    A proposed high-density development on the Victoria-Oak Bay border will either destroy the neighbourhood’s ambience—or help save the planet.

     

    WHO COULD OBJECT TO A MULTI-DWELLING PROJECT that—according to the developer—encourages walking, helps solve the climate crisis and eases housing pressures?

    “The project enables a high quality, densified, compact, walkable lifestyle which is critical to solving our climate and housing crisis [sic] all while creating more livable and healthier communities,” said Aryze Developments in a January 20, 2021 letter to the City of Victoria.

    Some neighbours in the Foul Bay Road-Quamichan Street area don’t see it that way, believing that the 18-unit townhouse project on a small lot adds too many dwellings, means the removal of too many trees, and will damage the neighbourhood’s ambience. Some are also very unhappy with what they regard as an attempt to intimidate them into supporting the development.

     

    The property

    The lot at number 902 sits just where Foul Bay Road, heading south, departs Oak Bay and ventures into the Gonzales neighbourhood of Victoria, where it remains before ending at Gonzales Beach.

    The property at 902 Foul Bay Road is a familiar one to those who follow heritage properties and to fans of large urban trees. The 1911, two-storey, cross-gabled house was reminiscent of a country estate, with an external granite chimney and a two-storey verandah nearly encircling the house, according to information from the Victoria Heritage Foundation. A heritage designation awarded in 2003 included the property’s rock wall and landscape. 

     

    FoulBay902.jpeg.f65bb8c87678c5e11320258b7994d416.jpeg

    The heritage designated house that occupied the site until 2016

     

    Large and Co. purchased the property in 2014 with hopes to develop some townhouses on the property, though also preserving the house. The company subsequently applied for a demolition permit and removal of the heritage designation, citing contamination from mould, feces and urine: the house had been unheated for two years and housed an estimated 100 cats. 

    In 2015, the City of Victoria’s heritage panel recommended that the council reject the request to demolish. But in January 2016—before the City council had determined its fate—an unexplained fire badly damaged the house. 

    One year later, Victoria police arrested Earl Large (who heads sales for Large and Co.), holding him in jail overnight. Large was released without charges the next day, because the Crown did not approve charges. Following the fire, the remains of the house were demolished.

    The 0.503 acre lot is currently assessed at $2,566,000, and is now owned by Lions West Homes Ltd, with Aryze as the developer. It is currently zoned R1-G, which permits four single family houses. Each is allowed one accessory use, such as a secondary suite. For the proposed development to proceed, the property would need to be rezoned to permit multi-family dwellings, as well as be granted a development permit.

     

    The project

    Aryze is a Victoria developer, active in numerous area projects from infill housing to the Telus Ocean office building. The privately-held company proposes to build 16 three-bedroom and 2 one-bedroom townhouses at 902 Foul Bay, according to the latest version of the project posted on the City’s website, dated January 20, 2021. The average size of the units is 1,100 square feet. These would be contained in two three-storey structures.

    Quamichan-at-Foul-Bay-scaled-e1590510357891-2048x1050.thumb.jpg.991608d16c1927cc48a049e3016a1e4b.jpg

    An illustration of Aryzes proposed townhouse project at the corner of Foul Bay and Quamichan

     

    Site-No-Shadows-2048x1442.thumb.jpg.6010e99733932245c37daefbf0ed369c.jpg

    An aerial illustration of how the proposed development will occupy the 1/2-acre site

     

    Aryze says it has applied to the BC Housing Affordable Home Ownership Program (AHOP), which would allow prices to be reduced by from 5 to 20 percent for eligible buyers, in part by providing interim construction financing at reduced rates.  To support what it calls “middle income” families, BC Housing would hold the second mortgage to cover its contribution. There are a number of hurdles to be passed before BC Housing approves a project under AHOP.

    For instance, community support for the project should be “evident,” and projects should be “consistent with official community plans and strategies,” according to AHOP’s published principles. As well, the townhouses would not be available to the open market. Ineligible are any would-be purchasers who already own or part-own a dwelling anywhere in the world. To buy an AHOP dwelling, purchasers must currently be in rental or other non-tenureship housing, must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents, and must have lived in BC for the past 12 months. These rules apply to everyone on the title of a townhouse.

    In addition, buyers are limited by household income, which cannot exceed the 75th income percentile of BC families with children—currently $163,220—for those purchasing a three-bedroom unit. For one-bedroom units, their household income must not exceed the 75th percentile of BC families without children—currently $116,330. As of March 13, 2021, 902 Foul Bay Road had not been approved for the AHOP program.

    To give an example of the strength of these restrictions, somebody just arrived from Ontario, would not qualify, even if living in a tent. A family that part-owns a quarter-acre lot in Australia or earns $164,000 annually would also be ruled out. It remains to be seen how many prospective buyers there are who both meet the stringent qualifications and can afford to pay the mortgage.

    Aryze principal Luke Mari has said the three-bedroom townhouses would sell for $725,000 each, assuming that the project is approved under AHOP for the maximum 20 percent of the project’s market value. This means that the market value is 5/4 x $725,000 = $906,250. If, on the other hand, AHOP covers just 5 percent, the selling price would be $860,937—or approximately $136,000 more than the $725,000 figure quoted by Aryze. In an email, Mari responded, “Even though the BC Housing AHOP program allows the discount to be anywhere from 5-20 percent, we have committed to the City and BC Housing to use an income test methodology instead. This would cap the sale values of the one-beds at $375,000 and the three-beds at $725,000. This will be secured by a tri-party agreement should we move past committee of the whole.”

    Neighbours have expressed concerns about added traffic resulting from the addition of 18 new housing units, as well as parking issues. 

    To judge by the latest version of the proposal, Aryze appears to be bending over backwards to support cycling over driving. The proposal includes a bike repair station and 36 bike stalls, but just 16 places to park a car. As well, it is promising 18 memberships in the Modo car-sharing service. Aryze claims there are no fewer than 841 street parking stalls within a five-minute walk. The proposal does not state how many of those stalls are already occupied much of the day.

     

    902-sign.jpg.2434f8b82199746e4776a85170836517.jpg

    Signs like this abound throughout the neighbourhood

     

    Aryze proposes to plant 39 trees, of which 21 would be native, including 4 Garry Oaks. At the same time, it will remove 7 existing Garry Oaks, and two much-admired mature Copper Beech trees, among others. This has led to some of the most vociferous complaints, with signs throughout the neighbourhood proclaiming “Save the Trees at 902 Foul Bay.”

    Responding to criticism of the proposed tree-cutting, in an August 20, 2020 letter to neighbours, Mari said: “We take no pleasure from cutting down trees.” However, he added, “to retain all trees on the property, only a small single building can be built.” Mari also commented on the beech trees. “The two large beech trees, while beautiful, are in declining health and are non-native species,” he said in the letter, which did not mention the fact that nearly half of the promised new trees would also be non-native.

     

    Heritage concerns

    Though the house is now gone, the property’s landscape heritage designation means that any development project must still pass muster at the City of Victoria’s Heritage Advisory Panel. At the panel’s November 10, 2020 meeting, chair Pam Madoff—a longstanding heritage advocate—asked about the proposed removal of the beech trees. 

    In response, architect Erica Sangster told the panel that the trees grow in a “challenging part of the site,” according to minutes of the meeting. “We tried to keep one of the copper beeches, but it was not in the best health,” added Sangster. “We had to choose which had to be removed. Ultimately both would need to be removed.”

    In the end, the development sailed through, with five voting in favour, and just Madoff opposed.

    In a later interview, Madoff told Focus that it’s rare for a property owner to designate the landscape, and she wants to honour that decision. “We are the stewards of that intention,” she says.

     

    1036082112_902beechesetc.thumb.jpg.6e48e7a28d9bf138fe5398454be1ace0.jpg

    The treed property at 902 Foul Bay Road, with two large copper beeches

     

    The loss of the two beech trees was a particular concern. “I just felt that there was not enough attention paid to the mature trees on the site,” Madoff says. Though not native, the beeches are a significant feature of the site, storing significant quantities of carbon that new trees would not.

    Monique Genton is a neighbour of the proposed project who would also like the older trees to remain. “There’s value in mature trees, even if they’re not native,” says Genton, a member of UVic’s Native Plant Study Group, and who is registered as a native-plant salvager in Saanich. She adds that the beech trees are very much loved by the neighbours. “The best tree is the one you’ve got.”

     

    A $2 million neighbourhood?

    In arguing that the 16 three-bedroom town homes will sell for $725,000 each, Mari said they would be far cheaper than the $2.1 million he says is the average price for a three-bedroom house in the neighbourhood. To some, that $2.1 million figure is on the high side.

    Madoff, for one, questions Mari’s claim regarding local house prices. “I thought that was very misleading,” she says, adding that the average price is likely much lower. A check of assessed values in the immediate area lends support to the view that the Aryze claim is far too high. 

    BC Assessment lists nine properties as “neighbouring” 902 Foul Bay. Of these nine, just three are three-bedroom; one has two bedrooms. The average assessed value of these four properties is $971,624.

    Only four properties adjoin 902 Foul Bay, all on the north side. The 910 Foul Bay Road address consists of two properties, one of which has a 2,236-square-foot house; the other is vacant. The two properties are currently assessed at a total of $1,249,500. On Hawes Road, a small cul-de-sac that runs off Redfern Street, sit 1940 and 1946 Hawes. They are assessed at $846,000 and $910,000 respectively. 

    The property at 910 Foul Bay that adjoins 902 makes for an interesting comparison with the Aryze proposal. The single house on the two properties at 910 occupies 0.47 acres, just less than 902’s half-acre. Put another way, this means that the Aryze proposal would result in 18 times more dwellings on roughly the same size lot as its only immediate, single-family, Foul Bay Road neighbour. One concern for neighbours is that if the Aryze proposal is approved by the City, it might set a precedent for subsequent redevelopment of nearby properties.

     

    The covenant: A hindrance or irrelevant?

    There is a longstanding covenant executed against the title of 902 Foul Bay Road, and approximately 100 neighbouring properties. Registered October 24, 1924, the covenant reads as follows: “No building is to be erected upon any lot other than a private dwelling house with suitable outbuildings; and no dwelling house to be erected upon any lot adjoining or fronting on Foul Bay Road shall cost less in erection thereof than Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) and on other lots not less than Two thousand dollars ($2,000.00).” (The minimum prices for houses seems positively laughable in today’s runaway real estate prices; they reflect typical prices of nearly a century ago.)

    Such restrictive covenants remain in effect when the property passes on to successive owners. This feature of covenants is often referred to as “running with the land.” 

    If enforced, this restrictive covenant may well rule out 18 townhouses on the lot. Or does it?  Mari claims that some other properties covered by the covenant already violate it, since they have basement suites.

    Answering a question from Focus, Mari says the effect of the covenant is “unclear” regarding townhouses. “The covenant restricts the property to ‘private dwellings,’ but does that exclude townhouses?” Mari says in the emailed response. He adds, “The Strata Property Act did not exist at the time of drafting. Under property law, a strata townhouse is a form of private dwelling.” 

    With regard to the trees, Mari notes, “the private covenant does not save the trees as the existing zoning rights allow potentially even broader tree removal in order to build out the four single-family dwellings under existing zoning.”

    In general, the practical impact of restrictive covenants is questionable. Many are found in older neighbourhoods, even predating zoning bylaws. Sometimes, they are placed by developers as a selling point, in an attempt to control the neighbourhood. They are technically separate and apart from anything the city does. Municipal governments are not obligated to abide by them, though some cities do take note of them in deciding on a proposal. In the case of Victoria, a City official told Focus the City ignores restrictive covenants in determining the fate of a proposed development. The only exception is when the City is a party to the covenant; in the case of 902 Foul Bay Road, it is not.

    Are restrictive covenants immutably attached to the properties they govern? The short answer: No. Under BC’s Property Law Act, a court may discharge a restrictive covenant. Section 35 of the Act lays down a number of conditions under which a restrictive covenant can be set aside. How difficult is that? According to an in-depth 2012 report on restrictive covenants for the British Columbia Law Institute, the threshold for modifying or cancelling a restrictive covenant under section 35 is “quite high.”

    Said the report: “The courts will not exercise the powers given by section 35 lightly, recognizing that a restrictive covenant is a valuable property right.” The report notes that restrictive covenants have been seen as “a useful means of protecting valuable interests connected with the use and enjoyment of land at a localized and private level that public planning does not reach.”

    On January 22, 2020, 902 Foul Bay Road property owner Lions West Homes Ltd filed a petition asking the BC Supreme Court to discharge the covenant. In support, Lions West lawyer Lindsay LeBlanc cited changes in the nature of the neighbourhood, as well as the covenant’s “impediment of practical use.” The petition claims that since the covenant was signed, “the neighbourhood has experienced significant densification with the restrictive covenant not being followed or enforced.” 

    Noting that 31 of the approximately 100 lots to which the covenant applies have more than one dwelling, Lions West said in the petition that the restrictive covenant is now “obsolete,” and “is unreasonably impeding the petitioner’s plans to build on the property.” 

    Representing a number of area residents, lawyer Kyle Hamilton filed a response to the Lions West petition on June 24, 2020. In the response, the neighbours said that the covenant provides them with a such practical benefits as natural beauty, the park-like feel of backyards due to the collective view of all yards together, peaceful setting of their homes, established green space, uniform visual appearances, low turnover rate of owners, and a sense of neighbourhood.

    In the court filing, the neighbours said that removing the covenant would lead to loss of privacy, increased residential noise and traffic, loss of the neighbourhood’s current character, removal and destruction of green space, and their uniform park-like view replaced with three storey, multi-family units.

    To the surprise of neighbours, on August 13, 2020—less than two months after the response was filed—Lions West asked the court to adjourn hearing the petition. Asked in March 2021 for the reason, Mari provided a single sentence in an email to Focus: “It was adjourned to gather additional material as requested by the respondents.” 

     

    A threat? Or helpful advice?

    A letter from Aryze, headed “Common Questions and Answers” was distributed to residents served with petition materials in February 2020. It said that Aryze was pursuing removal of the covenant because there is a “potential grey area” between the proposed development and the covenant. “As such, we are pursuing the removal of this covenant for clarity moving forward,” said the letter.

    The Aryze letter also contained what some recipients regard as a threat. Said the letter: “While not ideal, we should note that if property owners decide to pursue legal action to oppose this discharge, and we are successful in the removal through the courts, we will be seeking legal compensation from those opposing property owners due to the added costs of additional court processes.”

    In their response filed with the court, the neighbours said the letter had two purposes. Quoting from the court filing, these are:  

    “(a) To downplay the significance of the petition and what Aryze was seeking to do with the covenant and

    (b) threaten the respondents with possible financial repercussions should they oppose the removal of the covenant and lose.”

    Heritage advocate Madoff is not happy with Aryze’s statement that it will ask the court to order that opponents pay costs. “A letter like that would be very unsettling,” Madoff says. “The threat of an award of costs would be terrifying.”

    Asked for a response to residents’ concerns about that section of the letter distributed to the respondents, Mari said the following:

    “I can say with absolute sincerity, this portion of the letter was to give residents a clear understanding of what they were getting into,” Mari said in an email. “If they didn’t oppose, it’s a 3-4 week process to discharge the agreement, $5,000 in fees kind of thing. If they chose to oppose, it takes months and months and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. We take no joy in these situations and even conveyed that in a follow up letter that we welcomed their right to oppose but the added time, complexity, and costs then afforded us via the Courts to recoup some of those costs.”

    A neighbourhood website has been seeking donations to help cover legal costs.

     

    How many is too many?

    Despite their court-filed objections to the project, some neighbours regard an increase in density as acceptable. Neighbour Peter Nadler says that while some want no more than what current zoning allows on the site—four single-family houses—others would accept some densification, as long as most of the trees are preserved. “We have to accept increased density,” says Nadler, speaking for the second group. “What we’re after is balance.”

    Focus asked Mari if he would consider fewer townhouses on the property. He replied: “Yes, we could provide less homes on the property, but it would mean that we would be unable to provide 100 percent of the project under the BC Housing Affordable Home Ownership Program, which offers homes at more than 20 percent below market rates,” he said in an email. 

    He also stated: “Regarding neighbour feedback, we have found some inconsistencies. On one hand some claim to express support for added density on the property but then are also seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant that limits the project to no added density, as the covenant supports the existing zoning to build four single family homes which will certainly be priced at well over $2m each. So we are left wondering which is it?” 

     

    What’s next?

    The development proposal is expected to soon head to the City of Victoria’s committee of the whole to decide whether it merits proceeding to a public hearing. 

    Aryze is well known to council members from numerous development proposals as well as its recent spearheading of a project to re-purpose shipping containers as tiny homes for 30 homeless citizens.

    As with other developers, Aryze officials were generous in their support for some candidates during Victoria’s 2018 municipal election. Mari donated $500 to the campaigns of successful council candidate Marianne Alto and Mayor Lisa Helps, according to Elections BC records. A $500 donation to Councillor Jeremy Loveday was declined by Loveday. Mari also gave to unsuccessful candidates Anna King ($500), and Grace Lore ($485.20). In addition, Aryze staffer Ryan Goodman donated $500 to Helps, and $485.20 to Lore. Donations to Victoria candidates from both Mari and Goodman in the 2018 campaign totalled $3,470.40.

    These donations fall well below the permitted limit. Elections BC rules set maximum individual donations to a single local election candidate at $1,200 for 2018. (Only individuals may contribute to candidates for municipal councils; companies, unions and other and organizations are now banned from reimbursing individuals who make campaign contributions.)

    While some claim donations from developers put council members in a conflict of interest, a recent ruling from the BC Supreme Court confirmed donations to local election candidates do not in themselves restrict successful candidates from voting on donors’ projects. Two lawyers with Vancouver-based law firm Young Anderson, Kathleen Higgins & Sarah Strukoff analyzed the court ruling in a January 12, 2021, report. “In summary, this case, along with others, suggests that a campaign contribution made by a developer, assuming it has been accepted in accordance with other applicable legislation such as the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act and even if made while the developer has an ‘in-stream’ application before council, is not a ground in and of itself for a disqualification of a council member on the basis of the conflict of interest provisions in the Community Charter.”

    Asked when he expects to see shovels in the ground, Mari replies: “In an optimistic world, Fall 2021.”

    As an intense wave of high-density development sweeps through Victoria, Madoff is troubled by what she sees as a common attitude about new projects, the mistaken view that there is no such thing as bad development. Says Madoff: “I really care about what’s happening to this city.”

    Russ Francis admits to liking both houses and trees—not necessarily in that order.

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Guest Trees good. Density good.

    Posted

    Excellent, in-depth reporting! I'm one of the neighbours of this proposed project with one of those "Save the Trees" signs in front of our house. My family and I strongly support increased density and affordable housing in our neighbourhood in general and at this site in particular. We also think it would be a tragic blow to the neighbourhood to lose all those beautiful big old trees that surround this heritage property and are a defining and majestic part of our local landscape. I have not spoken to a single neighbour who would oppose a multi-family building being constructed on the centre of the lot, thus sparing most of the giant trees that make this spot so special. The bullying and gaslighting by the developer has been disappointing and we hope for some leadership from city council that moves things toward a common sense solution that most of us can get behind.
    -Aaron Hill

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    After reading this well informed article, I can’t help but think that the high-density proposal is nothing more or less than a developer’s attempt to maximize profit. Unfortunately, that profit is coming at the expense of the trees, the environment, and the neighbourhood.

    As one of the many nearby neighbours with a ‘save the trees’ sign in the yard, I hope that Victoria Council challenges Aryze to come up with a more creative and balanced design that saves more of the magnificent (and bylaw-protected) trees and respects the existing character of the neighborhood. 
     

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The current proposal for 902 Foul Bay requests the removal of 29 trees.  21 of them are Bylaw-Protected, including 7 Garry Oaks and the 2 iconic Copper Beech trees estimated to be 100 years old (based on their presence on a 1928 aerial photo, available on VicMaps).  The arborist's Tree Resource Spreadsheet for 902 Foul Bay includes remarks about dead tree limbs, etc, but as the property has passed through the hands of several investors, there has been no evidence of any tree care.  It is concerning when lack of property maintenance appears to support tree removal.

    The developer's most recent landscape scheme includes a significant number of "native" plants and trees which are not native to this region.  As the re-introduction of native plants serves to support a development proposal, this is a concern.  Furthermore, there are three illustrations submitted, such as the one above showing the view from of the southeast aspect of the lot, where a large tree is shown adjacent to the east bank of townhouses.  That tree does not exist. Two other illustrations show large trees which appear to provide screening for neighbours to the north, where in fact, they are indicated for removal. 

    A multi-unit development could take advantage of the large open space where the heritage house was positioned.  Many mature trees could be retained--trees which are vital in mitigating effects of climate change, provide food and shelter for wildlife, and support the health and well-being of citizens.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    To be clear, BC Housing does not "cover" any % of the price of these units. That is not how the program works. The difference between the amount the buyer has to borrow and the fair market value of the unit is considered to be part of the down payment for the purpose of qualifying for the bank mortgage. So the buyer ends up with a mortgage with the bank AND a second mortgage with BC Housing. Which means they owe the full market value plus GST, minus whatever they have put down themselves.

    It is important to recognize that even with BC Housing's second mortgage, buyers pay full market value for these properties (which the developer is suggesting will be $900k). If the market value is $900k plus GST ($950k), then that is the true selling price of the units, not $725k. In the future, the seller must be able to recuperate $950k (plus inflation), otherwise it will result in a loss for the original buyer and BC Housing won't get their full second mortgage paid back. When the developer states that the buyer only pays $725k for the units, that is misleading.

    If the seller has to sell these units for $950k in the future, it's hard to see how that will help with future "affordability" in Victoria (and it seems rediculous when you can buy a 1/2 duplex around the corner with a small suite and land for $800k).

    Further, at $900k per unit, even after accounting for the difference in land values between Gonzales and other neighbourhoods, the cost per square foot of these units appears to be high relative to comparable projects in the neighbourhood and around the city. For example, Aryze's own Rhodo project, in the same neighbourhood, works out to an average of about $735 per square foot (although they advertise it as starting at $708), whereas the suggested market value of 902 would be closer to $782 per square foot. This might be due to the fact that Aryze needs to make sure that Lions West (who owns the property) gets the amount of land lift value that they want (they bought it for $2.2 Million maybe 3 years years, but then tried to sell for $2.8 Million a couple of years later. They couldn't sell it for that. So maybe Aryze has promised to get them their money?). 

    If the units DID sell for $725k, the cost per square foot would be more like $630, which is more inline with other projects in the city. So, it looks very much like Aryze is leveraging the AHOP program to get as much density and profit out of this project as possible.

    Another observation is that although the city is approving density with the objective of creating affordabilty, generally speaking, the industry does not appear to be passing that benefit onto the buyers. Instead it seems to be moving in the direction of making smaller units, but charging significantly more per square foot. So, yes, a unit might cost less, but it's also much smaller than what units used to be.

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I, too, have a Save the Trees at 902" sign on my lawn.  It is ironic that the illustration of the development shows trees the size of the ones being removed.  This development can only look like this in about 50 or 60 years.  Any "replacement" trees planted in this development I very much doubt will grow to the size of the ones proposed to be cut down, given the restricted room they will have to grow.  These majestic trees have survived the past 100 years, and are an essential part in fighting the Climate Crisis declared by the City.  These trees are protected, and if permission is given to remove them, how can it be justified that they are only protected if a developer does not deem them to be in the way of their project?  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am one of the respondents in the legal action brought on by Aryze to remove the restrictive covenant. Mr. Mari incorrectly stated in the article that the hearing “was adjourned to gather additional material as requested by the respondents”. Our lawyer vigorously opposed their application for an indefinite adjournment and unfortunately was unsuccessful. He was well prepared and thought we had a strong case. Perhaps this is why Aryze wanted to adjourn. Furthermore, I also received the letter written by Mr. Mari which he justified with: “ I can say with absolute sincerity this portion of the letter was to give residents a clear understanding of what they were getting into...” I can say that I and other recipients I have spoken with felt threatened and intimidated. I did not feel the letter was intended to be helpful in any way, contrary to Mr. Mari’s statement.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is the same developer who, just days before the new Victoria tree bylaw came into effect, cut all the trees that would of been protected on their property at 1720 Fairfield Road (Rhodo).  There were so many trees it took two days to cut them all down.
     
    1090143220_TreesbeingcutatAryzeRhodoproject.png.9b2f78287613d0d964b3bd508c8121bc.png
     
    P1000827.JPG.05aa655333e7dd7d7a9e1f08c8260b4e.JPG
     
    P1000840.JPG.757e11c0072145ab08a2bd9457dafdfb.JPG
     
    P1000861.JPG.7b93ab0038bf2f7d3d2c44b29608b1bb.JPG
     
    P1000855.JPG.f13fc59be3edaa35b36b2919e57cc81a.JPG
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In a revised “Letter to Council,” Aryze says it has now abandoned plans to use the BC Housing Affordable Home Ownership Program (AHOP) to help finance construction and to provide second mortgages for the proposed 18 townhomes. In the undated letter, posted to the city’s development site on June 2, 2021, Aryze principal Mari cites several reasons for dropping the idea.

    “Unfortunately, due to the length of processing time, volume of off-site improvements, rampant increase in construction costs, and the Fall 2020 BC Provincial Election, we don’t have firm direction from BC Housing on the details surrounding this program.”

    It was partly Premier John Horgan’s fault for calling the last election early, on October 24? The connection escapes me.

    And Aryze has no “firm direction” from BC Housing? One can’t help but wonder whether it has merely a soft direction—or any direction at all.

    “With these details in mind,” the letter continues, “we are pivoting the project to include four homes (22%) to fall under the Capital Regional District’s price restrictive resale program whereby the homes are sold between 15% - 25% below market in perpetuity.” Just two of the one-bedroom units and two of the three-bedroom units would sell “below market.”

    June 29 2021 UpdateAryze June 2021 Letter to Council.pdf

    In a June 29 email to interested parties, Mari suggests that the public hearing for the project will occur “this summer.”

    While we are driven by our commitment to advocate for attainable housing in our city, the road for 902 Foul Bay has been challenging,” Mari says in the letter. “Every day we are reminded about the lack of housing supply within Victoria, yet it continues to take far too long to bring townhomes to market—especially affordable ones.”

    Later in the letter, Mari adds: “We’re disappointed with the process to date . . .”

    I understand his disappointment: Those annoying neighbours, heritage advocates and tree-lovers sure do slow things down!

    Mari adds that the two 1-bedroom units will sell for $360,000 and the two 3-bedroom units for $640,000.

    Aryze June 29 2021 902 Foul Bay Project Update.pdf

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "... four homes (22%) to fall under the CRD's price restrictive program..."    22% sounds pretty good, but when you add up the square footage of two small 1-bedroom units situated over 4 parking spaces, and two 3-bedroom units, it amounts to 16% of the entire project's space as 'affordable'.  Some form of multiplex centred on the bare area, where the large heritage house and outbuildings once stood, could save most of the 18 Bylaw-Protected Trees, planned for removal.  And, as the townhouses have no yard of their own–currently there is one 15 x 20' designated play space on the property–it would give families room to play and appreciate their natural surroundings.  

    Edited by Monique Genton
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...