$699,000 AMBER SUITE-ARB

5762 Spindrift St, Sechelt

4 bd · 2.0 ba · 1,900 sqft · 6,000 sqft lot · built 1976 · 131 DOM · MLS R3103583

Waterfront Oil-tank era

Redfin ↗

Listing: Redfin search · fetched 2026-08-03T07:15

Description

Great opportunity to get into the market in a family friendly neighbourhood at an affordable price. This home is located right across the street from a huge park with tennis courts, a soccer field, plus a premium playground for kids! This family home has 4-bedrooms over two levels. Enjoy mountain views from the kitchen and back patio, while watching the kids play in the fenced backyard. The lower level has one bedroom, a rec room, storage area, and separate entry. Renovate this home to your taste, and enjoy for years to come. There's lane access in the back of the property, fruit trees in the garden, a single car garage, and this home is walkable to the shops and waterfront in Sechelt.

From listing remarks (RE/MAX City Realty)

Rating 61 /100

Equity	40.0/40	+129,925 vs limit (+12.5% of ARV)
Cash flow	2.8/30	-668/mo
Suite-arb	15.0/15	add-a-suite opportunity, unpriced
Motivation	3.0/15	133d on market, no cuts — anchored seller

Offer case

Price can't fix this. rent test — needs 4,157/mo vs 3,400 estimated. Price cannot fix this; only higher rent (a suite) or a lower ARV would.

EVIDENCE

Coast-wide, homes sell at 97.6% of list — a 2.4% discount is simply normal here.
133 days on market vs a 59-day median — but ZERO price cuts, so this reads as an anchored seller, not a motivated one.

Support score 0.08 — evidence weight that this seller would entertain the discount. Not a prediction; a checklist with numbers.

The four tests

Equity — PASS

(price + $40,000 reno + PTT+legal closing) <= 85% x ARV

all-in = $699,000 + $40,000 + $14,480 = $753,480 ARV = $1,039,300 → limit = 85% × ARV = $883,405 margin = $129,925

Rent — FAIL

est. rent >= 0.40% x ARV

est. rent = $3,400/mo (whole house (4bd) $3,400) floor = 0.4% × ARV $1,039,300 = $4,157/mo rents table: Sechelt · as of 2026-08-02

Cash flow — PASS

rent - carrying >= -800/mo (PM-managed, typical rent, at ask)

payment $2,800 (loan $559,200 @ 4.4%/30y) + tax $429 (mls) + ins $158 + maint $170 + vac $204 + PM $306 carrying = $4,068/mo · rent $3,400 → cash flow = $-668/mo (floor $-800)

Suite-arb — PASS

zone permits suite AND sqft >= 1,900 AND no suite language AND $/sqft < community median

zone R-4 suite:yes · sqft 1,900 (min 1,900) suite language: no · $/sqft 368 vs median 489

Scored 2026-08-03T08:55 · thresholds from criteria.yaml

Cash-flow scenarios $/mo · hover a cell for carrying cost

Price	$3,400 typical self-managed	$3,400 typical PM	$3,900 high self-managed	$3,900 high PM
$699,000	−$362	−$668	+$83	−$268
$664,050 −5.0%	−$222	−$528	+$223	−$128
$639,585 −8.5%	−$124	−$430	+$321	−$30

Rents: rents.yaml as of 2026-08-02 · financing from criteria.yaml

Comps & ARV

ARV $1,039,300 — median $/sqft of 4 renovated sales within 3.0km (4 priced from list x measured sale ratio — registration lag) · confidence medium ($/sqft used: 547)

Sold	Dist	Sqft	Price	$/sqft	Date	Reno
6355 Baillie Rd	1.85 km	2,288	~$1,219,625	533	2026-01-22	✓
5641 Nickerson Rd	2.17 km	1,487	~$804,952	541	2026-03-06	✓
6307 Homestead Ave	2.23 km	1,403	~$775,682	553	2026-01-24	✓
5592 Curtis Pl	2.6 km	1,358	~$973,749	717	2025-11-14	✓
~ = final list price used as sale proxy (BC title registration lags ~6-12 mo)

Solds from Redfin sold-search + public-records sale prices (belowTheFold)

Price & sale history

2026-08-03	new	699000 first seen at $699,000
2026-03-23	Listed	$699,000 GVR

History: Redfin belowTheFold · fetched 2026-08-03T08:45 · events observed by Coastwatch

Zoning & land

R-4 — Urban Infill Residential suite OK

Sechelt R-4 Urban Infill, one of the post-Bill-44 SSMUH zones. Secondary Suite is a named accessory use, and density is capped by combination rather than lot size: a single-detached dwelling with a secondary suite PLUS two detached accessory dwelling units, or a triplex plus one detached ADU, or a fourplex, or four townhouses, or a four-unit cottage court. FAR 1.5. A detached ADU is capped at 120 m2; a secondary suite has NO floor area cap (s.2.3.1). Confirm servicing capacity. [Bylaw 580 s.1.4.2-1.4.4, s.2.3]

PID	007-736-797
Parcel	5762 SPINDRIFT ST (Sechelt)
Wastewater	District of Sechelt sewer service
Water	Chapman system
Fire protection	Sechelt FPA

District of Sechelt Zoning Bylaw 580 (gis.sechelt.ca) · fetched 2026-08-03T05:55 · meanings from zoning_rules.yaml (verify before relying)

Assessment

Assessed total	$663,000
Land / improvements	$481,000 / $182,000 (72% land — the higher, the more the value is in the dirt)
Assessed / ask	0.95
BCA folio	570.00096.450

BC Assessment via SCRD parcel layer · fetched 2026-08-03T06:45

Open questions

Confirm suite legality with the planning department — zone says yes, verify parcel specifics (parking, servicing, floor-area cap).
Built 1976 — oil-tank era. Ask for a tank scan or decommissioning certificate.
131 days on market — ask the listing agent why it hasn't moved.

Notes

$699,000 AMBER SUITE-ARB

5762 Spindrift St, Sechelt

So this is suggesting we lose money on renting it out after purchase and improvements?

Yes — at asking price, cash flow is negative in every scenario except one: | Rent level | Self-managed | PM-managed | |---|---|---| | Typical ($3,400/mo) | -$362/mo | -$668/mo | | High ($3,900/mo) | +$83/mo | -$268/mo | Carrying cost breakdown (typical rent, PM case): mortgage $2,800 (20% down, $559,200 loan @ 4.4%/30yr) + tax $429 + insurance $158 + maintenance $170 + vacancy $204 + PM fee $306 = $4,068/mo vs $3,400 rent → -$668. A few things worth flagging on "after improvements": 1. The $40k reno isn't in this cash-flow math at all. It only shows up in the Equity test (all-in cost $753,480 vs 85%-of-ARV ceiling $871,292 — passes with $118k of margin). The cash-flow table assumes you finance only the purchase price and pay reno costs separately/in cash. If you rolled the $40k into the mortgage instead, carrying goes up ~$200/mo (40k × loan constant), pushing every cell further negative. 2. The rent estimate used is whole-house ($3,400 typical / $3,900 high) — it does NOT reflect the suite upside. The Suite-arb test passes (R-4 zone permits a suite, 1,900 sqft, no existing suite language, $/sqft below community median) but has_suite: false and the rent estimate has no suite line item. That's the real lever here: if the $40k reno is what carves out that lower-level bedroom/rec-room/separate-entry into a legal suite, you'd be renting two units, not one — that math isn't modeled in this table and would likely flip several of these to positive. 3. Even a 5% or 8.5% price discount only gets you to modest losses at typical rent (-$222 to -$124 self-managed) — you need the "high" rent case to clear $0, and only if you self-manage. Bottom line: as scored, yes — you're feeding it money every month unless you self-manage and hit the high-end rent, and that's before financing the reno. The upside case not captured in these numbers is suite income; if you want, I can rerun the cash-flow with a second unit rented separately (need your assumed suite rent) to see if that's what makes this pencil.

Since its been listed for a while there may be room

Worth checking the actual motivation data before assuming discount room — DOM alone is a weak signal here: | Signal | Value | Reads as | |---|---|---| | DOM | 131 days (over the 30-day threshold) | ✅ stale | | Price cuts | 0 — still listed at original $699,000 | ⚠️ seller hasn't budged yet | | Relists | 0 | neutral | | Assessed/Ask | $663,000 / $699,000 = 0.948 | below the 1.0 "strong motivation" bar | So it's sat a long time, but nothing in the record shows the seller is actually flexible — no reductions, and assessed value is meaningfully under ask rather than at/above it. "Room" here is speculative, not evidenced. How much room would you actually need? Non-mortgage carrying is fixed regardless of price (tax $429 + insurance $158 + maintenance/vacancy tied to the $3,400 rent). Only the mortgage payment scales with price, so I can solve for the breakeven purchase price directly: - Self-managed, typical rent: cash flow = 0 at P ≈ $608,700 → 12.9% off ask - PM-managed, typical rent: cash flow = 0 at P ≈ $532,300 → 23.9% off ask That's well past the 8.5% max discount already modeled (which still leaves you at -$124/mo self-managed). A 13%+ concession on a property with zero price history and assessed value only 5% under ask is not a realistic ask. Two things this discount math does *not* fix, no matter how low you go: 1. The Rent test is independent of purchase price — it's rent ($3,400) vs. 0.4% of ARV ($4,100 floor), not vs. price. Even at $500k, that test still fails unless the whole-house rent estimate itself rises (e.g. via a legal suite splitting income). 2. All of this is still whole-house rent — the suite conversion is still the more promising lever than chasing a price cut the listing history doesn't support. If you want, I can push the listing agent question ("why no cuts in 131 days") into the open-questions list, or model the suite-income scenario instead — that's the path more likely to actually move the needle.