With one vote, City of North Vancouver council doubled the number of cohousing developments in the municipality, bringing the total to two.
Following in the co-operative spirit of Quayside Village, the 19 families that constitute Driftwood Village won the right to build a 27-unit, five-storey complex on three lots at 2121, 2129 and 2137 Chesterfield Ave. last Monday.
Driftwood Village founders formed in 2014 and first appeared before council more than two years ago to explain their ambition to form a community that would be collectively shared and individually owned.
鈥淵ou have... that connection and support network built right in,鈥� explained Driftwood Village founder Mackenzie Stonehocker in 2016.
The complex is being shoehorned into the site, according to Coun. Pam Bookham.
The complex is slated to be 16 metres tall with a floor space ratio 鈥� which measures a building鈥檚 total floor space against its lot size 鈥� of 2.28.
鈥淚 believe that this is a particularly challenging site and it ought not to have been considered for density bonusing,鈥� she said.
Instead of paying for the project鈥檚 extra density with a cash contribution of $1.657 million, Driftwood Village is offering eight units to be sold at 25 per cent below market prices in perpetuity.
The approach is 鈥渋ngenious,鈥� according to Mayor Darrell Mussatto.
Rather than allowing owners to enjoy a windfall, the discount will be passed on to the next generation of Driftwood Village residents, he said.
Coun. Rod Clark differed, explaining that he was 鈥渃hoking鈥� on the concept of subsidizing homeowners making more than $120,000 a year.
鈥淚 have a problem subsidizing 鈥� with taxpayer鈥檚 money 鈥� people who are making that kind of dough,鈥� he said.
Clark鈥檚 position was echoed by city resident Peter Thrift, who expressed concern about taxpayers taking a hit.
鈥淭his project should proceed or not 鈥� based on its own merits, not funded by CNV taxpayers,鈥� Thrift wrote in a letter to council.
The proposal also received a mixed reaction from Community Housing Action Committee chairman Don Peters. The city is passing up $1.657 million to 鈥渆ase the purchase of the eight units鈥� is contrary to CHAC鈥檚 mission to help lower-income renters, he wrote.
But Coun. Linda Buchanan defended the city鈥檚 decision to forgo a cash contribution.
鈥淚 do believe that is a community amenity contribution,鈥� she said of the eight discounted units. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a way in which we will continue to help people be able to stay within the community or come into the community.鈥�
Buchanan also praised Driftwood Village for doing the 鈥渉eavy lifting鈥� of finding a property and devising a creative housing solution.
Coun. Don Bell echoed Buchanan鈥檚 praise for co-housing as a concept, noting there are: 鈥渢oo many people who don鈥檛 know their neighbours.鈥�
With 2,800 square feet of shared space, Driftwood Village鈥檚 concept is reminiscent of the days when lawn mowers were communal property and neighbours doubled as short-term child care, according to Bell.
Ultimately, cohousing is an 鈥渆xperiment,鈥� according to Bell.
鈥淲e鈥檒l see how it works.鈥�
While she supported the project, Coun. Holly Back said allowing that much density on the site was likely a mistake.
鈥淭hey鈥檝e been working on it for three-and-a-half years and I don鈥檛 think at this point in time that I鈥檓 quite willing to stand up and say: 鈥業鈥檓 going to stop the project,鈥欌�� Back said.
Back previously praised Driftwood鈥檚 project for helping new buyers get into the market.
鈥淵ou鈥檙e hopefully not going to stay there for 20 years, you鈥檙e going to use that as a stepping stone,鈥� she said to Driftwood鈥檚 prospective owners in council chambers. 鈥淓very three to four years you should be buying up.鈥�
Cohousing offers social and financial benefits, according to U小蓝视频 teaching fellow and post-doctoral researcher Allison Earl.
鈥淭he strength of the community bond results in higher contentedness, overall happiness, and lower levels of transience, as people tend to remain in their homes longer than average,鈥� she wrote in a letter to council. 鈥淭hese factors are a necessity for community resilience, enabling people to cope not only with the minor struggles of daily modern life, but equally in potential future natural disasters.鈥�
Council was slated to vote on the project July 9 but voted to defer after neighbours complained about the city鈥檚 plan to drag the three-metre wide lane behind Chesterfield eastward and erect a fence between the lane and Wagg Creek.
The narrow lane would exclusively benefit auto body shops, said neighbour Rodger Sabey, who said the new alley would make one of his parking spots inaccessible.
Sandwiched between Wagg Creek and the co-housing complex, the lane needs to be wide enough to accommodate garbage trucks without jutting toward the creek and necessitating a review from Fisheries and Oceans and Canada.
Staff submitted their final plan for the lane Monday, which is designed to protect the riparian area with a fence while maintaining access for neighbours.
