The heated debate over a proposal for a megayacht marina in British Columbia just got a whole lot hotter.
You may remember a story on Megayacht News last year describing a tussle over the plans for Victoria International Marina, a private facility to be built on Victoria’s Inner Harbour. The local government, with the approval of British Columbian and Canadian government officials, set aside the location several years ago. The site was to feature 54 slips for yachts from 65 to 135 feet, with most for superyachts, along with amenities like a restaurant and yacht club. However, strong opposition from condo owners, kayakers, and other community members forced a handful of public hearings. Some people claimed the marina would cause a safety problem for kayakers and small boat owners. Others took issue with the scope of the project, stating it would block residents’ views. The most recent development occurred just last week: The city of Victoria has stated it will not forego its legal interest in the waters at the foot of a park within the proposed site.
Specifically, Victoria is claiming it has riparian rights. In brief, this refers to the entitlement of a landowner whose property is adjacent to a body of water to use and have access to that water. Riparian rights typically encompass things such as the right to use the water for irrigation or other domestic needs, and even the right to create docks and provide access for fishing, swimming, and boating. It’s often a point of controversy, with opposing sides arguing who does and doesn’t have the true entitlement.
In the case of Victoria International Marina, the city hired a consultant to review the plans. The consultant reported last week that the marina would limit boat access to Lime Bay Park. Since the city claims ownership of that park, Dean Fortin, Victoria’s mayor, was quoted in several newspapers as saying, “We certainly will be protecting our riparian rights as the landowner.” He added, “We also think, in the larger sense, that the size and scope of the current marina will block views, [and] diminish both the esthetic and functional values of the park. And we believe the public has an expectation of unencumbered views from parks, especially on the waterfront.”
In addition, the mayor says that the layout would make it difficult for Victoria’s emergency vessels to access the foreshore. A test performed with the city’s fire boat, at 36 feet LOA, proved the point, the papers report. Unless risks such as this are also addressed, the plans cannot proceed.
As a result of the new delays, the marina developer is contemplating a lawsuit. Bob Evans, a partner in the project, was quoted as saying, “We knew that the city was going to try and come up with something,” and added that Victoria does not hold riparian rights. In fact, he claims, the park is primarily fill, and he, as the original builder of the area back in the 1980s, created the park and gave it to the city. “We did not have to do that,” he stated. “There was nothing in the agreement that said that the city was acquiring any riparian rights.”
Given how long this battle has been going on, it doesn’t appear resolution will occur any time soon. I am continuing to follow the story and will update accordingly.
Tim Houlihan
June 22, 2015
I’m sure that you are not following this anymore. FYI, the un-built project has been sold in 2014 to other interests. After minor construction starts to maintain permitting in place: ( – drove 3 piles in late August 2013) and with approved building plans prepared and approved in 2014, the promoter started telling people in August 2014 that they were going to do something else.. a floating structure for the support facilities. A Victoria Harbour Club with $69.95 memberships appeared at this years Victoria Floating Boat Show in April.
Here’s their new website for your info… http://vimarina.ca/
The proponent carried out dredging last fall and into Feb. 2015 when their authorization expired. As of last week no extensions had been given for further work and the regulator “is actively working with the proponent and their consultant to identify and resolve outstanding compensatory elements of the Authorization” Sounds like they haven’t completed the mitigation that was a condition that allowed them to kill fish and destroy fish habitat.