TOWNSHIP OF ESQUIMALT STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 15, 2025 Report No. DEV-25-053
TO: Council
FROM: Kirsten Dafoe, Planner II and Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit Application - 622 Admirals Road
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That Council approve Development Variance Permit No. DVP00167 for 622 Admirals Road to allow a wall sign to be orientated towards a side lot line for the variance outlined in Staff Report No. DEV-25-053.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to install two wall signs for the senior’s housing and congregate care business at 622 Admirals Road. Of these two signs, the sign proposed on the south façade of the building would be oriented towards a neighbouring property rather than towards the street. To allow the proposed wall sign’s orientation towards a lot line other than the street frontage, the variance to the Sign Regulation Bylaw, 1996, No. 2252 as outlined in this staff report is required. The sign proposed on the east façade of the building complies with the Sign Regulation Bylaw and is not further discussed in this report.
The development variance permit is required before a Sign Permit can be issued for the installation of the sign on the south face of the building.
Consideration of this application should focus on the appropriateness of the sign for the location, impacts on public realm and surrounding properties, and consistency with the overall direction contained within the Official Community Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Relevant Policy:
Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2018, No. 2922
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050
Sign Regulation Bylaw, 1996, No. 2252
Development Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2012, No. 2791
Local Government Act
Purpose of Application
The applicant proposes to install two wall signs advertising the senior’s housing and congregate care business at 622 Admirals Road [Appendix D]. Of these two signs, the sign proposed on the south façade of the building would be oriented towards a neighbouring property rather than towards the street. To allow the proposed wall sign on the south façade, the applicant is requesting the following variance to the Sign Regulation Bylaw, 1996, No. 2252:
• Section 9.17.2, Wall Signs - Location: to allow a Wall Sign to be oriented towards a lot line other than the street frontage, being the south side lot line.
The development variance permit is required before a Sign Permit can be issued for the installation of the sign on the south face of the building.
Application Timeline
July 30, 2025 - Application Submitted
September 26, 2025 - Revised Drawings Submitted
November 18, 2025 - Advisory Planning Commission
Context
Applicant: Carlos Rengifo, Signarama Tri Cities
OCP Present Land Use Designation: Commercial/Commercial Mixed-Use
OCP Proposed Land Use Designation: Commercial/Commercial Mixed-Use
Zone Designation: Comprehensive Development District No. 82 [CD No. 82]
Existing Land Use: Commercial Mixed-Use
Surrounding Land Uses:
• North: Commercial
• South: Commercial
• East: Commercial, Multiple Family Residential
• West: Multiple Family Residential
Advisory Body Recommendations:
Advisory Design Commission:
The Commission’s comments included the following:
• The sign would be visible from the street, providing for advertising and wayfinding needs.
• It is acceptable for the sign to cover part of the stonework wall treatment, as the overall design intent for the building is maintained.
• Use of a material for the sign other than acrylic could enhance the proposal.
• If the sign was determined to instead be a Rental Apartment Sign, variances would still be required.
That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council to approve the Development Variance Permit application to authorize the proposed wall sign to be orientated towards a side lot line at 622 Admirals Road, with the variance outlined in the “Purpose of Application” section of staff report no. APC-25-022, given that it addresses public-facing advertising needs.
Referral Comments:
The application was circulated to Building Inspection, Engineering Services, and Economic Development. No concerns with the proposed wall sign were identified.
ANALYSIS:
OCP Analysis:
The existing uses operating on the property are consistent with the OCP Designation of Commercial/Commercial Mixed-Use, and the proposed wall sign is intended to support this use. Signs are exempt from the requirement for a Development Permit.
OCP Section 6.1 Commercial/Commercial Mixed-Use Land Use states an objective for Esquimalt to be a complete community where commercial enterprises serve the needs of area residents, local businesses, and visitors. Relevant policies in this section seek to ensure that development contributes positively to the visual and aesthetic character of its site, setting, and surrounding properties.
Sign Regulation Analysis:
The proposed sign is considered to be a Wall Sign as opposed to a Rental Apartment Sign because the sign does not advertise units for rent or lease and because the sign is intended to be permanent in nature. The proposed sign is consistent with the Sign Regulation Bylaw for the purposes of the number of signs, area and dimensions, and illumination. Wall signs are only allowed to be oriented towards a street frontage and must be associated with a business occurring within the building.
The sign proposed on the south façade of the building is oriented towards a neighbouring property (1310 Esquimalt Road) rather than towards a street frontage. In their variance rationale letter [Appendix C], the applicant notes that the proposed sign will abut a parking lot and loading ramp on the neighbouring property. With the open nature of this abutting area, the proposed sign is effectively oriented towards Esquimalt Road through this neighbouring property. Though the sign is proposed to be installed on a wall adjacent to a unit occupied by a different commercial business on the property (pharmacy), it does relate to a business occurring within the same building and is located within the common strata property.
Only one wall sign is permitted per building face. If the proposed wall sign were authorized, it would become the one sign allowed, meaning that another business (i.e., the pharmacy) could not have their own signage on the south side of the building unless it was incorporated into a redesigned sign generally in accordance with the dimensions of the sign considered in this application.
One stated purpose of the Sign Regulation Bylaw is to maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment. This purpose reinforces and supports the OCP policies referenced above. While signs are exempt from the requirement for a development permit, the building itself was subject to the review for such a permit, which among other things considered the stonework façade return on the building’s side wall as reflective of the building’s design intent. The proposed acrylic wall sign would cover much of this stonework and may in part defeat the design intent. Staff concur with the comments from the Advisory Planning Commission that partial coverage of the stonework with the proposed sign would not defeat the design intent. The proposal satisfies the purpose of the bylaw to maintain the aesthetic environment.
OPTIONS:
1. Motion
That Council approve Development Variance Permit No. DVP00167 for 622 Admirals Road to allow a wall sign to be orientated towards a side lot line for the variance outlined in Staff Report No. DEV-25-053.
2. Alternate Motion
That Council postpones consideration of Development Variance Permit No. DVP00167 pending receipt of additional information.
3. Alternate Motion
That Council denies Development Variance Permit No. DVP00167.
COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Diversified & Thriving Economy
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There are no financial implications associated with the proposal.
COMMUNICATIONS/ENGAGEMENT:
As this is a Development Variance Permit application, notices were mailed to owners and tenants of properties within 50 meters of the subject property on December 3, 2025.
TIMELINES & NEXT STEPS:
Should Council approve Development Variance Permit No. DVP00167, Development Services staff would then proceed with review Sign Permit Application No. BP014638.
REPORT REVIEWED BY:
1. Bill Brown, Director of Development Services, Reviewed
2. Deb Hopkins, Director of Corporate Services, Reviewed
3. Ian Irvine, Director of Finance, Reviewed
4. Dan Horan, Chief Administrative Officer, Concurrence
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
1. Appendix A: DVP00167
2. Appendix B: Aerial Map
3. Appendix C: Applicant’s Variance Rationale Letter
4. Appendix D: Signage Drawings and Specifications
5. Appendix E: Staff Presentation