REQUEST FOR DECISION
DATE: April 15, 2025 Report No. APC-25-007
TO: Chair and Members of the Advisory Planning Commission
FROM: Alex Tang, Planner and Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT:
Title
Development Variance Permit Application - 1215 Colville Road
End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That the Esquimalt Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development variance permit consistent with the architectural plan provided by Carma Design Group, including the following variances for the property located at 1215 Colville Road:
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, 40.3 (7) (a) (iii)- Siting Requirements: Principal Building: Combined Side Setback: A 0.6-metre decrease to the requirement that the two Principal Building Setbacks shall not together measure less than 3.0 metres [i.e. from 3.0 metres to 2.4 metres]
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, 40.3 (7) (a) (iv)- Siting Requirements: Principal Building: Rear Setback: A 1.8-metre decrease to the requirement that no Principal Building shall be located within 4.5 metres of a rear lot line [i.e. from 4.5 metres to 2.7 metres]
Body
RELEVANT POLICY:
Declaration of Climate Emergency
Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2018, No. 2922
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No 2050
Parking Bylaw, 1992, No. 2011
Development Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2012, No. 2791
Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw, 2012, No. 2792
Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw, 1997, No. 2175
Local Government Act
STRATEGIC RELEVANCE:
Housing
BACKGROUND:
Appendix A: Aerial Map
Appendix B: Architectural Drawings and Site Plan
Appendix C: Applicant’s Letter
Appendix D: Applicant’s Presentation
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant is proposing to build a second principal building containing one dwelling unit. The parcel currently contains a two-family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a variance to Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050 for both a side setback and a rear setback.
Evaluation of the development variance permit should focus on an assessment of the variances requested.
CONTEXT:
Applicant / Owner: Barbara and Mervin Smith
Architect: Carma Design Group
Property Size: Metric: 668 m2 Imperial: 7190 ft2
OCP Presenta and Proposed Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
Zone: RSM-2
Existing Land Use: Two-Family Residential
Proposed Land Use: Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Institutional
South: Single Family Residential
East: Single Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
ZONING ANALYSIS:
The RSM-2 zone allows for up to 4 dwelling units in up to 2 principal buildings. The proposal conforms to the density, height, and lot coverage of the zone. The proposed development includes a Principal Building that does not contain the adequate side and rear setback. The zone requires that the combined side setback be at least 3 metres. The existing eastern side setback is 1.1 metres. The proposed western side setback is 1.3 metres; hence, the proposed combined side setback equates to 2.4 metres (0.6 metres less than 3.0 metres).
Moreover, the applicant is proposing to reduce the rear setback to 2.7 metres. Within the RSM-2 zone, the required rear setback is 4.5 metres.
PARKING ANALYSIS:
Parking: Parking Bylaw, 1992, No. 2011 requires 1 parking space per residential dwelling unit. The proposed development provides 3 parking spaces for 3 residential dwelling units; hence, it conforms to the Township’s Parking Bylaw.
ISSUES:
Please comment on the appropriateness of the variances to Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050 as it pertains to the development. The development permit that governs form, character, landscaping, and adherence to the development permit area guidelines in the Official Community Plan will be considered separately.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that the development variance permit application be approved including reasons for this recommendation.
2. That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that the development variance permit application be approved subject to conditions, including reasons for this recommendation.
3. That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that the development variance permit application be denied including reasons for this recommendation.