Rhodo is a proposal to build 20-units of townhomes in the 1700-block of Fairfield Road in the City of Victoria's Fairfield neighbourhood.
Click here to learn how to keep your data current and how to upgrade to a Citified Plus project profile.
Except, of course, in those extra special parts of town.
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.
FWIW, my take on the Rhodo lawsuit in the new issue of FOCUS: https://www.focusonvictoria.ca/focus-magazine-nov-dec-2019/density-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.