A demolition permit has been approved for the apartments located at 9972 Third St. in Sidney, marking a significant step forward for Highstreet Ventures' proposed redevelopment project.
The decision follows months of uncertainty and debate tied to zoning changes, tenant concerns and questions about the application of the town's Tenant Assistance Policy (TAP).
The site – home to the Charmay and Seacrest apartments – has been the subject of considerable discussion since Highstreet acquired it in October 2023 with initial plans to build condominiums.
On June 27, a demolition permit was issued, more than a year after a petition to halt the project was launched. Sarah Waddington, part of a group of tenants who created the petition, lives in the last remaining occupied unit and said the news was hard to take.
“It really sucks,” she said. “I’m going to miss this building."
Highstreet confirmed ongoing discussions with Waddington and said compensation will be provided, though details are still being finalized, according to vice-president Dave Sargent.
Waddington was served a four-month notice to end tenancy on the same day the demolition permit was approved.
“I have to move out by Halloween, it says on the eviction notice,” said Waddington. "Unless something reasonable comes up before then.”
As of now, no demolition date has been set.
“We still need approval for rezoning, development, and building permits,” said Sargent. “There’s a fair bit of work ahead before construction begins.”
The impact of rezoning
The approval of the permit comes at a time when ‘clarity’ has been sought by Highstreet months after the company started the process of developing what it first anticipated as condominiums to sell.
The development faced its first major hurdle in June 2024 when the Town of Sidney, responding to provincial calls for increased housing density under Bill 44, approved a zoning amendment.
The amendment split the site into RM7 and RM6-R zones. The latter protects purpose-built rental housing and effectively prevents condominiums from being developed on that portion.
Highstreet CEO Scott Butler called the rezoning a major setback, stating that building rentals on such a valuable property was financially unfeasible.
"We paid $11 million for the site," Butler told PNR back in May. "And then to go and turn it into a rental – the math doesn’t work, we can’t build it."
The company originally proposed a 75-unit, four-storey strata development, but pushback from remaining tenants, concerns about the potential removal of heritage trees and a petition to halt the demolition further complicated the development process.
However, it was the downzoning that ultimately stalled the project.
Highstreet submitted a redevelopment application in March of this year, including a development permit, building permit and rezoning application. This application, revised from January, aimed to address staff requests for more detailed tenant assistance plans.
Tenant concerns and the Tenant Assistance Policy
Adding another layer to the complexity, an email sent to Black Press Media in June on behalf of 'Sidney Tenants' in the soon-to-be-demolished apartments alleged that neither the town nor Highstreet Ventures had properly notified tenants about the applicability of the Tenant Assistance Policy.
The Town of Sidney adopted TAP in 2019 to complement British Columbia's Residential Tenancy Act (RTA), intended to assist tenants facing displacement due to redevelopment in a challenging rental market.
While the policy does not apply to redevelopment permitted outright under the zoning bylaw, the town explains it serves as a best practices guide for the redevelopment of any purpose-built primary rental property.
Sargent addressed town council on June 23 to outline the company's response to TAP.
He stated, during an in-person meeting with tenants in March 2024, Highstreet discussed the requirements of RTA, which mandates four months' notice and one month's compensation for tenants facing eviction due to redevelopment.
According to Highstreet, the majority of the 14 tenants have already moved out, each receiving a compensation package commensurate with their length of stay and rent paid.
However, Waddington claims Highstreet did not fully adhere to the spirit of TAP.
"They’ve offered buy-outs, which are not tenant assistance plans," she said.
Highstreet maintains that they were not required to follow TAP until the land was rezoned, however, Butler emphasized the company has gone above and beyond the policy requirements.
To date, Highstreet has paid an average of $11,585 per tenant, nearly three times the amount required under TAP.
Waddington acknowledged the financial compensation but questioned the value of the "first right of refusal."
TAP "requires developers to offer a comparable unit in a new development to tenants displaced by redevelopment, at rents within 10 per cent of their current rent level, but only when three or more households are affected."
"When they say to me that they've offered more than what's required financially, I go, sure, I'm not going to disagree with you on that," Waddington said. "But then, how do you value the first right of refusal?”
Sargent said the company did not offer Waddington this option because it wasn't equitable for the 74 future tenants to have to subsidize someone in perpetuity.
"We don't know how long that resident will be there, he explained. "I think there are programs for subsidized housing. We're not a subsidized housing provider."
Unintended consequences and a call for clarity
Sargent explained the "unintended consequences" of the rezoning decision in June left Highstreet with no choice but to re-evaluate its plans.
"All of those costs from the unintended consequences, unfortunately, get passed on to the project, which eventually gets passed on to the tenants/residents of that building," Sargent said.
He admitted Highstreet had not initially focused on the implications of Sidney's TAP because the company had not intended to build rental housing and was not requesting a rezoning before the June decision.
The zoning amendment application submitted in March requests rezoning half the site back to RM7, which has further complicated the application of the policy.
"I think it has caused confusion as to what a policy is – the policy is not a law," Sargent explained. "It's not part of RTA. It's not a bylaw and it's not a statute. It’s just a guideline at this point, and it's a guideline that we took seriously and overextended on as well."
Sidney director of community planning Corey Newcombe confirmed during the June 23 meeting that TAP lacks the legal force of a bylaw or legislation.
Waddington expressed disappointment that it took so long for council to recognize the ineffectiveness of TAP.
"It really doesn’t have any effect other than allowing council to consider if they will grant a rezoning application," she said. "A bylaw is needed as affordable housing isn’t being rebuilt and is being replaced with ‘luxury’ housing."
Highstreet hoped addressing the TAP issue would provide clarity on their application.
Waddington, on the other hand, hopes council realizes a bylaw would help regulate tenant displacement more equitably.
"This authority has been granted to them by the province, so I feel like it should be something they work on and take seriously, given the growing corporate acquisition of housing stock we can see across Canada," she said.
She suggested attaching TAP to a demolition checklist, similar to the approach taken in Coquitlam, and cited a bylaw in Ladysmith that addresses renovictions and demovictions.
Council concerns and the human element
Coun. Sara Duncan acknowledged the confusion surrounding the process, stemming from council's unwillingness to act as a mediator between developers and tenants, and staff having to answer questions outside their legal jurisdiction.
"This would be something the developers and the tenants, as per our TAP, are supposed to work out on their own," she said.
"But if they are not able to, they must turn to the Residential Tenancy Branch and seek legal counsel there – mediators between landlords and tenants."
Amidst the debate, Coun. Scott Garnett emphasized the human impact of the housing crisis.
"These are people’s homes and that’s their attachment to the community," he said. "As you're going through this process, just be mindful of words and what you say and how it will impact people who are going through something which really is traumatic for them."
He cautioned against focusing solely on the financial aspects of the situation.
"When we start talking about just the financial aspect of something and how much compensation is required and how much is given, it becomes more transactional and we lose the humanity of the process," he said.
Waddington, acknowledging she is fighting a "losing battle," emphasized the importance of housing security.
"Seeing what my neighbours were subjected to with this process, I would have liked it if the developers were transparent throughout on what was happening, as no one told us anything until they started offering us money to leave.”
The future of 9972 Third Street remains uncertain, but the approval of the demolition permit marks a significant step toward redevelopment, albeit one that continues to raise questions about tenant rights, affordable housing and the balance between development and community needs.
