REQUEST FOR DECISION
MEETING DATE: April 21, 2026 Report No. APC-26-009
TO: Advisory Planning Commission
FROM: Kirsten Dafoe, Planner II and Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit Application - 1004 Gosper Crescent
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That the Commission recommend that Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Development Variance Permit application to authorize the proposed rear setback for a Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing development at 1004 Gosper Crescent, with the variance outlined in the “Purpose of Application” section of staff report no. APC-26-009, including reasons for the recommendation.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to construct a Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing (SSMFH) development of 4 dwelling units within 2 principal building under the RSM-2 zone for the property located at 1004 Gosper Crescent. Three dwelling units will be located in the existing principal building, while the fourth unit is proposed to be located in a new proposed principal building towards the rear of the property.
To allow the building siting for the proposed SSMFH development, a variance to the Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050 is required, as outlined in the “Purpose of Application” section of this staff report. The variance requested is to reduce the required rear setback for the proposed principal building containing one SSMFH dwelling unit.
If the development variance permit DVP00177 is approved, staff could then proceed with the delegated approval process for the associated development permit.
.
BACKGROUND:
Relevant Policy:
Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2018, No. 2922
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050
Parking Bylaw, 2025, No. 3089
Development Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2012, No. 2791
Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw, 2012, No. 2792
Local Government Act
Purpose of Application:
The applicant proposes to construct a SSMFH development of 4 dwelling units within 2 principal building under the RSM-2 zone for the property located at 1004 Gosper Crescent. Three dwelling units are located in the existing principal building, and the fourth unit is proposed to be located in a new 2-storey principal building. A variance is requested to reduce the required rear setback for the proposed building.
In their rationale letter [Appendix B], the applicant outlines the following rationale for the requested variance:
• Narrow rear yard dimensions reduce the developable area
• Trees abutting the rear setback will limit impacts on neighbours
• Sensitive building design minimizes overshadowing and other impacts
To allow the building siting for proposed building at 1004 Gosper Crescent, the applicant is requesting the following variance:
• Section 40.2(7)(a)(iv) - Principal Building Rear Setback: to reduce the minimum required Rear Setback from 4.5m to 2.3m. This is a variance of 2.2m.
If the development variance permit DVP00177 is approved, staff could then proceed with the delegated approval process for the associated development permit.
Application Timeline:
March 19, 2026 - Application DVP00177 submitted
Context:
Applicant: John Bernard Ciriaco, JBC Construction
Lot Area: 666 square meters
OCP Present Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
OCP Proposed Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Residential
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single Family Residential
South: Single Family Residential
East: Single Family Residential, Two Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
Zone Designation: Single Family DADU Residential [RS-6] and Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing Zone (Medium Lot) [RSM-2]
Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing (SSMFH):
Section 30.10 of Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050 states that “Lots shown as ‘SSMFH Lots’ on Schedule A.2 Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing (SSMFH) Zoning Overlay Map” that are “between 280 square metres and 4,050 square metres used or intended to be used as SSMFH Dwellings are subject to the [RSM-2] regulations.” The RSM-2 zone allows for three or four SSMFH Dwellings per parcel. The applicant proposes 4 dwellings for this property.
Schedule C of Development Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2012, No. 2791 (Delegation of Development Permit Powers) identifies that Council delegates to the Director of Development Services the authority to issue development permits for “all residential development, in any building form, up to and including six (6) units on a fee simple parcel.”
Referral Comments:
The proposed development was circulated to Building Inspection, Engineering Services, Fire, and Parks. No concerns with the requested variance were identified.
ANALYSIS:
OCP Analysis:
The proposed development is consistent with the Official Community Plan’s Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential. The proposed development consists of four dwelling units within two principal buildings.
Section 5.2 Low Density Residential Redevelopment and Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing states an objective to strive for redevelopment and infill development that improves and enhances the appearance and livability of neighbourhoods and the community as a whole. Supporting policies in this section applicable to the proposed development include:
• Proposed redevelopment or infill within present low density and Small-Scale Multi-Unit residential land use designated areas should be built to high quality design and landscaping standards and respond sensitively to existing neighbourhood amenities.
Part 17 Development Permit Areas provides guidelines that will be considered by staff for the development permit applications associated with the proposed SSMFH development. Development permits for SSMFH development are subject to delegated approval by staff.
Zoning Analysis:
Lot Coverage, Height, and Setbacks: except with respect to the rear setback variance requested for rear setback as outlined in this report, the proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Bylaw’s RSM-2 zone provisions. The RSM-2 zone does not set out a maximum floor area ratio (FAR).
In support of their building design rationale, the applicant has included a diagram comparing the massing of the proposed building to that of Zoning Bylaw-complaint DADU and SSMFH developments [Appendix E]. A 4.2m tall DADU at a 1.5m setback and a 11.0m tall SSMFH at a 4.5m setback would both have more imposing massing than the proposed SSMFH building when viewed from the rear fence.
Parking Analysis:
The proposal provides sufficient number of parking spaces, meeting the minimum of 2 spaces required for 4 dwelling units. Dimensions of parking spaces and maneuvering areas are shown to meet the requirements set out in the Parking Bylaw.
OPTIONS:
1. That the Commission recommend that Council approve the Development Variance Permit application to authorize the proposed rear setback at 1004 Gosper Crescent, with the variance outlined in the “Purpose of Application” section of staff report no. APC-26-009, including reasons for the recommendation.
2. That the Commission recommend that Council approve with conditions the Development Variance Permit application to authorize the proposed rear setback at 1004 Gosper Crescent, with the variance outlined in the “Purpose of Application” section of staff report no. APC-26-009, including reasons for the recommendation.
3. That the Commission recommend that Council deny the Development Variance Permit application to authorize the proposed rear setback at 1004 Gosper Crescent, with the variance outlined in the “Purpose of Application” section of staff report no. APC-26-009, including reasons for the recommendation.
COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Housing
REPORT REVIEWED BY:
1. James Davison, Manager of Planning, Reviewed
2. Bill Brown, Director of Development Services, Reviewed
3. Victoria McKean, Committee Coordinator, Concurrence
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
1. Appendix A - Aerial Map
2. Appendix B - Applicant’s Letter
3. Appendix C - Proposed BCLS Site Plan
4. Appendix D - Architectural Drawings
5. Appendix E - Building Massing Setback Diagram
6. Appendix F - Applicant’s Presentation