159 replies to this topic

[MarkoJ]

The City of Victoria is being sued over the decision to approve this project. A Fairfield resident is asking the BC Supreme Court to overturn the approval based on height concerns and contravention of the community plan: https://www.timescol...ject-1.23969871

 

Wow....some people have way too much time on their hands.

[PPPdev]

Our site is in Gonzales, the Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan doesn't apply. The governing document is the OCP 

[Victoria Watcher]

oh well he got 61 people to pitch in over $9000 so maybe he's just sort of the engineer that can spearhead this effort on behalf of the neighbourhood.

[IPH]

The Fairfield Plan is in draft form, here is the latest version (.pdf)

 

https://engage.victo...d-plan-july2019

 

 

So I guess it comes down to whether you believe 1720 Fairfield is close enough to be considered part of the Fairfield Plaza urban centre.

 

I just can't see a judge looking at these documents and saying a three storey building is explicitly forbidden. 

 

The spirit of both the OCP and Plan hinge on preserving SFD neighbourhoods by densifying urban hubs. A border case like this has a lot of room for interpretation and I don't understand how a court can resolve it.

I suspect his argument will be the Fairfield plan is irrelevant as 1720 Fairfield road is located well into the Gonzales neighbourhood.  The original plan was to have a combined neighbourhood plan for Fairfield/Gonzales.  But the Gonzales residents were so rabid about absolutely no change, that the City caved and split Gonzales off from Fairfield with the intention of developing a separate plan for that area which they have not made any progress on. 

 

As for the OCP allowing up to 3 storeys on secondary arterial roads this is true but Fairfield is a secondary collector road, not a secondary arterial road so that argument for 3 storeys may be difficult.

 

Having said all that, Council has the authority to amend the OCP & exercise that authority fairly regularly, so I would bet the lawsuit will fail. 

 

Guess I should have read all the posts before commenting, PPPdev already spotted that the site is in Gonzales! 

Edited by IPH, 09 October 2019 - 01:05 PM.

[Rob Randall]

I forgot about the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, er, sorry, I mean Fairfield and Gonzales.

 

Here is an excerpt from the Gonzales Plan:

Along Fairfield Road, the plan envisions more people living in small apartment
buildings and townhouses to support frequent transit and nearby urban villages
and parks:
• Create limited opportunity for small apartment buildings (up to 3 storeys) and
townhouses along Fairfield Road between St. Charles Street and Foul Bay
Road
 

Designating a new small urban village at Fairfield Rd and Lillian St/Wildwood
Ave to support businesses and mixed use buildings along the frequent transit
route

 

 

That's two specific references that would support this proposal. How can this case possibly win unless I am missing something in the OCP that overrules that?

[Rob Randall]

Here's the Wildwood/Lillian intersection identified in the Gonzales plan as a desired site for densification as mentioned above:

 

 

I'd hate to lose the Hollywood Pet Centre building, the two structures in the middle of the photo. I think they bring a lot of character. The yellow house on the right with the pet clinic can go. The properties in question are near the moving van on the left.

Edited by Rob Randall, 09 October 2019 - 01:51 PM.

[IPH]

Good catch Rob, I didn't look at the Slovakia constitution, just knew it was not part of the Czech republic!   Either way I agree with you that the legal challenge will fail.

 

Also concur the yellow pet clinic is an eyesore, but the two White buildings deserves preserving just not sure how long they will last.  The pet store that use to be located in the white building right on the corner has closed and the store front is empty.  Hope they can find a tenant to fill it soon its a great spot right across the street from the park and tennis courts.  Once Rodo gets built, it could be a great spot for a coffee shop, small restaurant, or even a small pub as long as it has more character than the Ross Bay!

[Casual Kev]

The City of Victoria is being sued over the decision to approve this project. A Fairfield resident is asking the BC Supreme Court to overturn the approval based on height concerns and contravention of the community plan: https://www.timescol...ject-1.23969871

 

Victorians: We must take radical action to stop global warming

Also Victorians: ThEsE ToWnHoUsEs ViOlAtEs My RiGhTs

[fairfield-ghost]

Has Aryze started on construction here yet? curious are they going to demolish the existing SFDs? Would it be like a 14-16 month construction schedule for a project of this scale given the underground parking? 

[Jacques Cadé]

FWIW, my take on the Rhodo lawsuit in the new issue of FOCUS: https://www.focusonv...y-on-trial-r15/

 

Most of the details will already be familiar to VV forumers, but what you might find interesting comes at the end: my argument that the lawsuit has a reasonable chance of success. Several recent BC court decisions say that when an OCP uses specific language, like "up to two storeys," that language should be followed.

The City could've amended the OCP for Rhodo, but didn't. That could end up causing Aryze a lot of grief.

[E2V]

But doesn’t the Gonzales plan stipulate “up to three stories”?

[Jacques Cadé]

The new Gonzales plan would've allowed up to three stories on "arterial" streets, and reclassified Fairfield Road from "collector" to "arterial". But that plan was shelved: https://www.victoria...rhood-plan.html:

On October 4, 2018 Council passed the following motion to put the Gonzales Neighbourhood Plan on hold until the completion of all other neighbourhood plans.

Motion to Defer Gonzales Neighbourhood Plan:

"That the draft Gonzales Neighbourhood plan be put on hold and be brought back for discussion after completion of all other neighbourhood plans and that the 2002 neighbourhood plan and the OCP are the policy documents that staff will refer to with regard to proposed developments in the neighbourhood."

Edited by Jacques Cadé, 10 November 2019 - 01:01 PM.

[Mattjvd]

It's an absolute joke that any development is subject to this much regulation and scrutiny. This is why we're in a perpetual "housing crisis". Get out of the way and let the developers add supply.

[E2V]

Except, of course, in those extra special parts of town.

[fairfield-ghost]

The project meets the many of the high-level objectives of the OCP. I think because it ticks so many boxes (ground-oriented housing, family friendly, close to park, close to transit, close to thriftey plaza) the City will be abel to make a good argument  as to how they view the project as very much aligned with the OCP. Also, ARYZE makes a pretty good case in terms of debunking the neighbourhood character angle as well given the range of housing types around the site (attached housing, walk-up apartment, and commercial. 

 

If the project did not have all of those characteristics it would be much harder to make the case about deviating from the 2 storeys policy in the OCP Bylaw. 

 

But, will be interesting to see what happens with the case thanks JC (Ross Crockford) for sharing the link to your article in Focus. 

[Casual Kev]

FWIW, my take on the Rhodo lawsuit in the new issue of FOCUS: https://www.focusonv...y-on-trial-r15/

 

Most of the details will already be familiar to VV forumers, but what you might find interesting comes at the end: my argument that the lawsuit has a reasonable chance of success. Several recent BC court decisions say that when an OCP uses specific language, like "up to two storeys," that language should be followed.

The City could've amended the OCP for Rhodo, but didn't. That could end up causing Aryze a lot of grief.

This is the sort of stuff that makes me want to be politically active. The amount of time and resources wasted to make sure no one can do anything in this city is mind boggling. 

 

IAN SUTHERLAND CAN SYMPATHIZE. As chair of the Downtown Residents’ Association’s land-use committee, he’s been battling City Hall over developments since 2011, and he agrees the OCP should be strictly interpreted. “It’s supposed to represent a contract between the council, the development community, and the citizens.”

 

To the boonies with these people. The world can't stop spinning to entertain the whims of those who want the city to be perpetually cased in glass, regardless of property rights or societal considerations infinitely bigger than maintaining a specific look. 

 

When a disruptive business opened up in the floor of my apartment building, what did I do? I bloody moved. I don't expect everyone else to never change when I settle somewhere because I don't, and shouldn't, have the minutest control over what other people choose to do with their property. 

 

The CRD exists as it is today largely thanks to taxpayers from all over the province (and Canada to an extent) propping up institutions like the provincial bureaucracy, university campuses and CFB Esquimalt. Housing should be planned in such a way that ensures regardless of where you pay taxes in BC, that if you need to work in the capital housing will be plentiful and reasonably accessible. Instead, "activists" like John Wells believe they're entitled to keeping a town propped up by people from Port Hardy to Vancouver to Fort St. John all to himself. 

 

Of course, the taxpayer argument is just a blunt hammer because it's absurd that in any dynamic town, housing supply is determined by the wants of people interested in stagnation. We have students, construction workers and doctors who can't find housing either because it's too expensive or scarce. Housing supply affects everyone in a big way, and the inability to provide enough of it means people literally unable to provide for themselves or settle to deliver services to others. It breaks the city socio-economically. It's so stupid most housing advocates just want government to subsidize or build housing themselves when most issues could be solved by simply not allocating an inane amount of energy to not have housing.

[Mike K.]

$500k is now required just to get your foot through the door if you want an SFD. The cheapest SFD, mind you.

[Casual Kev]

$500k is now required just to get your foot through the door if you want an SFD. The cheapest SFD, mind you.

 

I just randomly googled construction data, and the first result demonstrates this...

 

https://www.yellowsh...ts_April_18.pdf

 

And the SFD lot in question really is as pedestrian as it gets, not like it's a Rockland mansion:

 

https://www.google.c...!4d-123.3283797

 

 

What the hell...

[Mike K.]

In that link, which listing should we look at?

[Casual Kev]

In that link, which listing should we look at?

Ah, I was referring to 909 Bank St.