REQUEST FOR DECISION
MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 Report No. APC-26-017
TO: Advisory Planning Commission
FROM: Kirsten Dafoe, Planner II; and Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: Development Permit Application - 445 Grafton Street
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That the Advisory Planning Commission recommend that Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny Development Permit Application No. DP000267 to authorize the construction of the proposed single-family dwelling and associated landscape changes at 445 Grafton Street, including reasons for the recommendation.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to redevelop the property at 445 Grafton Street with a new single-family dwelling per the Single Family Waterfront Residential [RS-3] zone. Both a Development Permit and a Development Variance Permit are required to authorize this development. The Advisory Planning Commission has previously made recommendations to Council regarding Development Variance Permit Application No. DVP00179. The purpose of this report is for the Advisory Planning Commission to consider and make a recommendation to Council for Development Permit Application No. DP000267.
Consideration of this application should focus on impacts on the natural environment, the protection of development from hazardous conditions, and sustainability (energy and water conservation, GHG emissions). Form and character guidelines do not apply to the proposed development, so any consideration of building or site design should be restricted to guidelines specifically related to the above matters.
If Development Variance Permit No. DVP00179 and Development Permit DP000267 are approved by Council, the applicant could proceed with Building Permit and Tree Removal Permit applications.
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
Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw, 2023, No. 3128
Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw, 2012, No. 2792
Local Government Act
Purpose of Application:
The applicant proposes to redevelop the property at 445 Grafton Street with a new single-family dwelling per the Single Family Waterfront Residential [RS-3] zone. Both a Development Permit and a Development Variance Permit are required to authorize this development.
The Advisory Planning Commission has previously considered Development Variance Permit Application No. DVP00179, as presented in staff report no. APC-26-004. Because the Director of Development Services has subsequently recommended that Development Permit Application No. DP000267 be decided by Council, the proposal must once more be referred to the Advisory Planning Commission. A Development Permit for the proposal is subject to the guidelines of the following Development Permit Areas:
• Development Permit Area No. 1 - Natural Environment
• Development Permit Area No. 2 - Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions
• Development Permit Area No. 7 - Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction
• Development Permit Area No. 8 - Water Conservation
The variances to Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050 previously considered by the Commission were to reduce the front setback from 7.5m to 2.77m, to reduce the exterior side setback from 3.6m to 2.19m, and to reduce the combined side setback from 4.5m to 3.81m.
In their rationale letter [Appendix B], the applicant outlines site constraints and other pertinent considerations that have led to the proposed development design and building siting:
• Natural Environment
Due to the coastal location of the property, there are important environmental considerations and constraints. The additional setbacks necessary to protect the natural environment sets an effective southern limit for redevelopment. The applicant has provided an environmental assessment report [Appendix G].
• Tsunami Hazard
The applicant has provided a geotechnical report [Appendix F] establishing that the land is safe for the intended use. A flood construction level of 4.31m sets the lowest elevation for redevelopment.
• Restrictive Covenant
The property is subject to a legal charge on title dating to 1964 that sets a more restrictive building height than is regulated by the Zoning Bylaw. This covenant prevents a 2-storey dwelling and sets the highest allowable elevation for redevelopment. The covenant also applies to the maximum allowable height for newly planted trees.
If Development Variance Permit No. DVP00179 and Development Permit DP000267 are approved by Council, the applicant could proceed with Building Permit and Tree Removal Permit applications.
Application Timeline:
December 22, 2025 - Application DVP00179 submitted
January 28, 2026 - Application DP000267 submitted
March 17, 2026 - Advisory Planning Commission (DVP00179)
Context:
Applicant: Margaret Cormode, MAC Reno Design Build
Owner: Tyson Green
Lot Area: 2,083m2
OCP Present Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
OCP Proposed Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Residential
Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single-Family Residential
South: Park (Denniston Park), Strait of Juan de Fuca
East: Single-Family Residential, Strait of Juan de Fuca
West: Single-Family Residential
Zone Designation: Single Family Waterfront Residential [RS-3]
Advisory Body Recommendations:
Advisory Planning Commission
The Commission considered the Development Variance Permit application No. DVP00179 on March 17, 2026. The Commission’s comments included the following:
• This is a challenging lot and there has been an effort to maintain and re-establish trees as feasible
• The setbacks seem reasonable
• The house fits within the character of the neighbourhood
The Commission passed the following motion:
That the Commission recommend that Council approve with conditions the Development Variance Permit application to authorize the siting for the proposed single-family dwelling at 445 Grafton Street, with the variances outlined in the “Purpose of Application” section of staff report no. APC-26-004, because the application has minimal impacts on the neighbourhood and is consistent with the low-density aims of the Official Community Plan, and provides an easement to the park.
Subsequent to the previous APC meeting, staff would note the following:
• The easement to the park (Denniston Park) is not a voluntarily offered amenity, but rather a requirement from Engineering Services to satisfy the frontage improvement regulations of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw, 2023, No. 3128. Engineering Services will allow the required sidewalk improvements to be accommodated within a statutory right-of-way rather than through dedication of the property’s frontage to the Township.
• The plans and supporting documents provided by the applicant and presented during the March 17 meeting omitted the presence of a large municipally owned Douglas-fir tree near the northwest corner of the property that is subject to an increased degree of risk on account of the requested setback variances.
Referral Comments:
The proposed development was circulated internally to Building Inspection, Engineering Services, Fire, and Parks. Comments were also sought from the City of Victoria as related to water service considerations.
• Building Inspection & Fire
No issues were identified.
• Parks
Following provision of the applicant’s amended arborist report reflecting the initially omitted municipally owned Douglas-fir (tree M1), Parks comments related to the information needed to understand development impacts on that tree. Following receipt of a further amended arborist report reflecting an exploratory root investigation of tree M1, Parks’ Lead Arborist stated, “I am not confident that our municipal Douglas fir tree will be undamaged by this development.”
• Engineering Services
A 2.0m wide statutory right-of-way along the property’s Grafton Street frontage will be required, in lieu of frontage dedication, to contain sidewalk improvements. Comments on the condition and maintenance of the sewer main were also provided.
• City of Victoria Engineering and Public Works
The proposed dwelling may be able to reuse the existing water service. If the water service is to be replaced, a new service connection may re-use the existing location or use any other location able to meet BC Plumbing Code limits.
ANALYSIS:
OCP Analysis:
The proposed single-family dwelling is consistent with the Official Community Plan’s Low Density Residential Land Use Designation.
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:
• Land that is subject to hazardous conditions including but not limited to tsunami impacted areas is not eligible for Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing.
• 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.
The proposed single-family dwelling development located within and is subject to Development Permit Area No. 1 - Natural Environment, Development Permit Area No. 2 - Protection of Development From Hazardous Conditions, Development Permit Area No. 7 - Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, and Development Permit Area No. 8 - Water Conservation. The guidelines of these Development Permit Areas are contained within the Official Community Plan
Development Permit Area No. 1 is designated for the purpose of establishing objectives for the protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity.
Lands Free of Development
Guidelines discourage the construction or replacement of structures within 10m of the high watermark of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Though the proposed dwelling is sited 10.2m from the high watermark, the associated retaining wall structure is proposed to be approximately 6.5m from the high watermark.
Natural Features, Biodiversity, Shorelines, and Birds
With the with the proposed dwelling location partially overlapping with the location of the existing dwelling, impacts on natural features resulting from the new building are generally limited. However, the proposed retaining wall and associated re-grading would result in the removal of three mature Douglas-fir trees that might be otherwise possible to retain. Except for these trees, the siting of proposed buildings and structures provides for the protection of natural features and trees in the southwest and southeast extents of the property.
Because of the restrictive covenant limiting the allowable height of replacement trees, careful attention must be paid to the impact of tree removal, as once the ecological benefit of existing mature native trees is lost it cannot be reestablished through the growth of new native trees of similar size. Eight protected trees are proposed to be removed as part of the development. Of these, two trees are dead and one is to be removed to allow for the construction of a Township-mandated sidewalk. Trees 155 and 156 are proposed for removal due to their proximity to the location of existing sewer and drain service connections that will be replaced as part of the development. Staff concur that it is not possible to retain these five trees.
It may be possible to retain the other three trees proposed for removal (trees 152, 153, and 154). The applicant has provided an arborist report [Appendix H] that provides the following removal rationale:
• A new retaining wall and associated re-grading are proposed to align with the applicant’s design intent. These changes would require removal of the three trees. The applicant’s design intent is largely aesthetic in nature and conflicts with guidelines.
• A new water service connection location is proposed for the development, with the associated on-site plumbing routed well to the south of the proposed dwelling. Removal of the trees would be necessary, as the plumbing route would involve trenching through the tree protection zones. There is no clear need for this specific underground pipe alignment, and it appears that feasible design alternatives would make tree retention possible.
• The arborist report claims that the public sewer main running through the property is beyond its expected lifespan and that its replacement will require removal of the three trees. Circulation comments from Engineering Services indicate that the sewer main is not at end of life, it is not due for replacement, and when it is time to be replaced, trenchless methods not necessitating tree removal would likely be used. Sewer main upgrades are not required for the proposed development and would not impact on the possibility of the trees being retained
Guidelines in this section also relate to consideration of variances where trees and natural features are being protected. The proposed development includes the removal of trees that the variances could help to retain (152, 153, and 154) and increases risks to the retention of a large, municipally owned Douglas-fir tree (M1). If approved, the requested variances would allow the dwelling to extend well into the tree protection zone of tree M1 [see Appendix I]. The arborist report confirms that the growth direction of tree M1’s structural roots does not conflict with the proposed dwelling siting and outlines methods of tree protection to protect the tree during construction works. Though Circulation comments from Parks generally concur with the recommended protection methods, they also state “I am not confident that our municipal Douglas fir tree will be undamaged by this development,” and recognize that, as with any construction, unsurmountable conflicts between tree retention and development may become apparent during work. While such risks would be present even without the requested siting variances, they are exacerbated by the proposed proximity between tree M1 and the dwelling.
The applicant has provided an Environmental Report providing recommendations to ensure the proposed development and associated landscape activities remain compliant with the guidelines of DPA No. 1 [Appendix G]. The proposed development does not satisfy all recommendations of the applicant’s environmental report, which include:
• Avoid unnecessary tree clearing, where possible. As described earlier in this staff report, the retention of trees 152, 153, and 154 should be possible.
• Underground infrastructure and pipes should be placed within paved or previously disturbed areas to avoid tree root damage. The proposed water service connection and alignment of on-site plumbing seems to conflict with this recommendation.
• Remove invasive English Ivy and replant with ecosystem-appropriate species. As shown on the proposed landscape plan [Appendix E], the majority of shrub and groundcover plantings are of native species suited to the coastal ecosystem.
• Recommended tree species for planting include western redcedar, grand fir, arbutus, red alder, and bigleaf maple. Because all recommended species grow to exceed the maximum height allowed by the property’s restrictive covenant, they cannot be planted. Instead, proposed replacement trees consist of non-native species only.
• When trees or snags are removed from the property, portions of the trunk should be placed as coarse woody debris in natural areas and incorporated into the landscaping. The landscape plan does not indicate the placement of any coarse woody debris to reflect the 8 trees and snags proposed for removal.
• For every dead tree removed, at least one bird nest box or bat box should be installed. The proposal does not identify the installation of these boxes.
Development Permit Area No. 2 is designated for the purposes of establishing objectives for the protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity and for the protection of development from hazardous conditions.
Guidelines state that no building intended for the occupation of people shall be built within an area impacted by a tsunami without the recommendation and guidance of a professional geotechnical engineer. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report [Appendix F] to address the tsunami hazard. The report confirms that a basement main floor level (MFE) of 4.31m to be safe with respect to coastal flooding and tsunami inundation. The proposed dwelling’s lower floor level is at a grade of 4.31m. The report states that the land may be used safely for the intended use as a single-family residence.
Development Permit Area No. 7 is designated for the purposes of energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction.
Siting, Form and Exterior Design of Buildings and Structures; Special Features
The proposed dwelling design includes large windows on the south side of the building and limits windows on the north side. The south windows are sheltered with roof overhangs. Materials have been selected to withstand weather conditions and sea spray.
The applicant states that Passive House principles have been incorporated into the proposed dwelling. The design includes large windows on the south side of the building and limits windows on the north side. The south windows are sheltered with prominent roof overhangs. Materials such as locally sourced stone veneer and durable fibre-cement siding have been selected to withstand weather conditions and sea spray.
Landscaping
The nature of the driveway access from a neighbouring easement means that only a small portion of the property is paved for vehicle parking and maneuvering. Substantial areas of landscaping are proposed elsewhere on site. Several mature Douglas-fir trees are proposed for removal through the development, with the smaller replacement trees necessitated by restrictive covenant on the property being unable to attain a greater mature size. The replacement trees are largely proposed along the pedestrian frontage of the property. Landscaping incorporates layered, energy efficient lighting.
Development Permit Area No. 8 is designated for the purpose of water conservation.
Landscaping areas are proposed to be predominantly planted softscaping comprised of largely native, drought resistant species. Tree retention and new planting within the southwest and southeast portions of the property will support on-site water absorption. Removal of several mature Douglas-fir trees will potentially reduce absorption capacity between the proposed dwelling and the shore.
Zoning Analysis:
Because the property is identified as a “Tsunami Hazard Lot” on Schedule A.2 Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing (SSMFH) Zoning Overlay Map, it is not subject to the regulations of the Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing Zone (Medium Lot) [RSM-2] regulations and cannot be developed as Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing.
Density, lot coverage, Height, and Setbacks: except with respect to the requested setback variances as outlined in this report, the proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Bylaw’s RS-3 zone.
The location of the property between Grafton Street and the natural boundary of the sea results in an unusual configuration of lot lines, with three lot lines abutting Township roads. Two of these lot lines are parallel to the centerline of Grafton Street and one is approximately parallel to the centerline of Beatty Street. As the lot line parallel with Beatty is the shortest by 0.74m, it is defined as the front lot line, with the other two being exterior side lot lines.
Parking Analysis:
The proposed dwelling includes an attached 2-car garage, which exceeds the minimum Parking Bylaw requirement of 1 parking space for a single-family dwelling. Dimensions of the 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 Development Permit application No. DP000267 to authorize the construction of the proposed single-family dwelling and associated landscape changes at 445 Grafton Street, including reasons for the recommendation.
2. That the Commission recommend that Council approve with conditions the Development Permit application to authorize the construction of the proposed single-family dwelling and associated landscape changes at 445 Grafton Street, including reasons for the recommendation.
3. That the Commission recommend that Council deny the Development Permit application to authorize the construction of the proposed single-family dwelling and associated landscape changes at 445 Grafton Street, including reasons for the recommendation.
COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Housing
Climate Resilience & Environmental Stewardship
REPORT REVIEWED BY:
1. Bill Brown, Director of Development Services, Reviewed
2. Victoria McKean, Committee Coordinator
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
1. Appendix A - Aerial Map
2. Appendix B - Applicant’s Rationale Letter
3. Appendix C - Proposed BCLS Site Plan
4. Appendix D - Proposed Site Plans and Building Elevations
5. Appendix E - Landscape Plan
6. Appendix F - Geotechnical Tsunami Report
7. Appendix G - Environmental Assessment Report
8. Appendix H - Arborist Report
9. Appendix I - Tree Protection Plan
10. Appendix J - Applicant’s Presentation