902 Foul Bay Road, Victoria, BC

I took these photos back in August but never got around to posting about this house until now. Sadly, the reason I am finally posting it is that it was mostly gutted in a fire yesterday. This is a sad end to what's been a sad saga for a while. But let's start at the beginning...

This house is heritage designated--not just the outside, but the interior and grounds as well. It was built in 1911, and architect John A. Di Castri redesigned the kitchen in the 1970s. Here are some photos from the 70s from the Hallmark Heritage Society (more at the link).

Here's the "charming little octagonal bay", as the Victoria Heritage Foundation describes it

The house received its heritage designation in 2003. However, a recent owner was a pet hoarder, and had about 100 cats in the house at one time. This left it in awful shape inside. In January 2014, "inspectors for the Vancouver Island Health Authority and the City of Victoria found the condition of the house, which was not heated in the last two years of its occupancy, posed health risks" (Times-Colonist). The page where this was posted has since been taken down, but the Hallmark Society had written sometime last year, "It is highly contaminated by cat urine and feces. [...] In 2008, it was cleaned up somewhat but now the interior woodwork is in poor condition and the roof is rotten. It looks like somebody is living in the basement."



There's some more info on a few Facebook threads. "Foul Bay and Quamichan has been condemned a few times. The scent of cats is overwhelming and the realtor was wearing a hazmat suit" (comment on a post from August 2015; the thread also has a few photos). "I know the woman who inherited/lived there for many years with too many cats. It was condemned several times, then she lived with my parents a block away. Now it has sold, and yet I still see her panhandling" (comment on a September 2015 post, which also has a photo). "As some one who used to live there and a friend of the family i witnessed the transformation from a classic home to a run down dump, after the owners father and mother died she started taking in cats and letting them take over, myself and the owners son tried our best to fix the house and remove the cats but it was really a losing battle, every time we got a step foreword the owner (the mother) would take 2 steps back, in the end after years of trying we had to bring health services in and have the place condemned, it was pretty sad" (comment from yesterday). Here's another good photo.

However, the sale listing is positive: "BRING THIS HOME BACK TO ITS FORMER GLORY! This home sits on a spectacular property on the Victoria side of the Oak Bay border. The home has wonderful Arts & Crafts elements such as the half timbered upper story. The interior has many beautiful original features including 2 grand fireplaces, original wood, leaded glass & more." Although, at the end it is noted, "Home & Land being sold 'AS IS WHERE IS' This home has deferred maintenance. [...] PLEASE DO NOT GO ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE LIST REALTOR PRESENT"

yeah, my photos are crappy

The new (current) owner says they were planning to rehabilitate it, but after realizing the extent of the damage, they requested to be able to demolish it in April 2015. From the Heritage Advisory Panel meeting minutes:

• It was clear in the realtor sale notice that the property is heritage designated and that any changes would be to the satisfaction of the City. Examples of similar houses that were contaminated by animals and then rehabilitated include a property on Amelia Street and Ross Bay Villa.
• Can it be restored? Applicant: No. Initially the goal was to restore the house. However, Island Health has advised that there is no guarantee that the house would be liveable after rehabilitation due to odours, insects, etc. Obtaining insurance would be difficult. [...]
• It appears that the applicant’s request is actually to de-designate a heritage designated house. The house is so compromised that it is unable to be rehabilitated due to health concerns.
• Is the house beyond redemption from a health viewpoint? Senior Heritage Planner: According to a City report in 2013, the house was ordered vacated by the Vancouver Island Health Authority. [...]
• This is an example of demolition by neglect. Animals have destroyed the building. It cannot be determined from the information provided whether the building is salvageable. Clean it up, then reassess the status of the building.
• Applicant: There is sufficient information regarding the health hazards of the building, for example, mould resulting from moisture (urine) and leaking pipes. Remediation could be attempted, but no sealant can ward against the leakage of microbes and biohazards. No one will guarantee that health risks will not continue.
• [...] According to current regulations, the applicant would be required to clean up the property regardless of whether the property were to be rehabilitated or demolished.

In the end, the demolition request was denied. But in September 2015, the owner requested to de-designate the property. The October 2015 HAP meeting minutes report: "Following the Panel’s review [in April], staff recommended that the applicant obtain an opinion from a Heritage Professional, who has consulted with the Environmental Consultants, Remediation Contractors and Health Authorities that have carried out site visits to the subject property, in order to confirm whether any historic material on the property could be remediated in a way that would satisfy insurers and health authorities. A request to de-designate the heritage-designated house and property was received from the applicant on September 23, 2015. The request is based on environmental assessments of the subject property, many of which render the house contaminated beyond reuse, and an opinion of Keay Cecco Architecture Ltd. who have identified historic fabric that can be retained."

There was disagreement as to whether parts of the house (like the exterior or at least features such as windows and stonework) were salvageable or not. The conclusion was, "it is not clear [...] that if all of the contaminated fabric were to be removed, whether the extent of contamination would still apply to the underlying structure. With a HAP [Heritage Alteration Permit], there would at least be an opportunity to reevaluate the conditions when all of the fabric is removed. At that point, one would be in a better position to consider the next step. The building needs to be de-contaminated before the applicant returns to the Panel. At that time the Panel may be better able to consider the evaluated condition of the building and whether it might be fully decontaminated and insurable. There is no indication that the exterior is unsalvageable and therefore, it could be reutilized in a new development. Materials can be salvaged and retained during the

decontamination process." So the request to de-designate was denied.

Apparently, according to that document, "The applicant did not enter the house before the purchase", which seems foolish. If they bought it intending to rehabilitate it, wouldn't they have taken a good look to make sure that was possible, or to assess how much it would cost?

Anyway, the whole thing is moot now that the building has been largely destroyed by fire. Someone called the fire department around 12:30 am on Monday, but because the house was boarded up, the crews couldn't get in and could only fight the fire from the outside, which is why the damage was so extensive. The fire chief called the remainder "a burnt-out shell". It's not known yet what caused the fire; "a preliminary probe around the perimeter of the building yielded no obvious cause", and the house "was considered unsafe to enter and inspect further".

The owner said he was told the building will need to be torn down, which, judging by these post-fire photos, is accurate. As I said at the beginning, this is a very sad ending for this formerly-lovely home. Councillor Pamela Madoff "said other developers had wanted to buy and restore the property. 'If the other guys had gotten it, it would have been well along its restoration process by now and wouldn’t have sat empty for a year and a half at risk the way that it has been.' " A Chek News article (which also has a video of the fire) adds, "Michael Sweet was one of the developers wanting to purchase the home two years ago. 'From previous experience, this building would have pushed over a million to restore the exterior and interior of the building due to neglect and deterioration but it was absolutely restorable,' Sweet said."

The building didn't have electricity anymore, but according to Chek News squatters had been inside. Some suspicion is being directed at the owner (multiple comments in that thread), though, since this has worked out quite well for him.

Here are two photos from during the fire, and one more post-fire. The person who posted those must live nearby; they note in one of the descriptions, "The fire broke out about 12:15am last night. Earlier in the day we'd noticed the boarding over the front door had been removed." I'm not sure what to make of that fact, but it definitely seems like it must be connected to the fire somehow...

Anyway, here's the Google street view link, although you can't see much because the whole area was overgrown. And the last of my photos: