August 27, 2025 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Remote (Zoom) Meeting

Present:

Wayne Craig, General Manager, Planning and Development, Chair

Lloyd Bie, Director, Transportation

James Cooper, Director, Building Approvals

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on July 30, 2025 be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 19-869484

 (REDMS No. 8039192)

APPLICANT:

David J. Ho Architecture Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7890 No. 5 Road

INTENT OF ESA DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:

Facilitate the construction of an elementary school and associated amenities within the area of the lot which is zoned "Assembly (ASY)".

Applicant’s Comments

Todd Chow, of Cornerstone Evangelical Baptist Church, introduced the project and spoke about the history of the church, the establishment of the elementary school in 1997, and the existing portable school buildings nearing end of life, which has necessitated the proposed construction of a new elementary school building and associated educational amenities for students that could also be utilized for church programs.

David Ho, of David J. Ho Architecture Inc., with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1), provided background information on the proposed development, highlighting the following:

§   

the subject site consists of lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) which are zoned “Assembly (ASY)” in the western portion and “Agriculture (AG1)” in the eastern portion;

§   

a significant portion of the site is designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), which includes the entire “Agriculture (AG1)” area and the northwestern portion of the land zoned “Assembly (ASY)”;

§   

the northern portion of the “Agriculture (AG1)” and the northwestern portion of the “Assembly (ASY)” zoned areas are leased to an agricultural operation for farming activities; 

§   

the subject site includes an existing church building and three portable school buildings used for classrooms;

§   

the existing church building will be retained and the portable school buildings will be removed;

§   

the proposed development will be constructed in three phases and includes a three-storey school building (first phase), gymnasium/cafeteria (second phase) and auditorium (third phase) which will be located in the northwestern portion of the site zoned “Assembly (ASY)” and within the ESA designated area;

§   

due to the encroachment of the proposed development into an ESA designated area, an ESA compensation package has been proposed for the site;

§   

the existing vehicular access to the site on No. 5 Road will be removed and replaced with two vehicular access points on No. 5 Road with right turn only exits;

§   

additional vehicle parking as well as Class 1 and Class 2 bicycle stalls and storage areas will be provided;

§   

a pedestrian pathway is proposed from No. 5 Road to the proposed school building; and

§   

the proposed development has been designed to achieve BC Energy Step Code Level 3.

Fred Liu, of Fred Liu and Associates Inc., with the aid of the same visual presentation, briefed the Panel on the landscape aspect of the project, noting that (i) two trees are proposed be installed to frame the pedestrian entrance on No. 5 Road, (ii) trees will be installed in the surface parking area to provide shade, (iii) street trees are proposed along the boulevard on No. 5 Road and low level evergreen shrubs will be planted along the No. 5 Road frontage to provide separation and screening to the surface parking area, (iv) there are cedar hedges along the north property line to provide screening to the adjacent property to the north, (v) a grassed play area for students is proposed at the back of the proposed elementary school building and planting will be installed to provide screening and separation to the loading area to the south for the safety of students, and (vi) the proposed planting for the site includes trees that are flower-bearing and evergreen shrubs and groundcovers to provide seasonal interest.

Chris Lee, of Aquaterra Environmental Ltd., with the aid of the same visual presentation, spoke about the environmental aspect of the project, noting that (i) the contiguous southeast portion of the “Agriculture (AG1)” zoned lands has the highest value habitat and will be retained, (ii) areas occupied by the septic field and existing nursery to the north are proposed restoration planting areas to compensate for ESA designated lands impacted by the proposed development, (iii) an Ecological Restoration Plan (ERP) has been submitted to the City which includes a planting scheme that would result in a higher ecological value for the subject site and offset the impact on ESA designated lands on-site encroached by the proposed development, and (iv) a mapping of the Japanese knotweed on the subject site has been undertaken to develop an appropriate plan for their management, removal and disposal.

Staff Comments

Joshua Reis, Director, Development, noted that (i) the subject site was granted permission by Council to continue the use of the site for school use when Council decided in 2021 to remove schools from the City’s No. 5 Road Backlands Policy, (ii) the proposed development is consistent with the “Assembly (ASY)” zoning of the western portion of the site, (iii) the ESA enhancement on the site includes ecological planting consisting of a variety of different shrubs and trees resulting in ESA restoration at a greater than 1:1 compensation ratio, (iv) the applicant has a lease with the existing farmer in the northeast portion of the site and which will continue to be farmed, (v) the City is securing a Statutory-Rights-of-Way (SRWs) providing Public Rights-of-Passage (PROP) for future road widening along No. 5 Road and Blundell Road, and (vi) there is an extensive Servicing Agreement associated with the project that is required prior to Building Permit issuance including interim frontage works along No. 5 Road and Blundell Road, construction of a new bus pad on No. 5 Road, and appropriate servicing upgrades and utility connections.

In addition, Mr. Reis confirmed that that the proposed development is consistent with the existing Non-Farm approval granted by the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) in 2008.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, the applicant noted that (i) the existing single vehicular entry and exit and the existing L-shaped parking area present a challenge for the drop off and pick up of students in the subject site, (ii) the proposed development provides two vehicular entry and exit points and a significant number of temporary parking spaces that would improve the drop off and pick up of students, (iii) at the current stage, the applicant will only be removing one existing tree that would be in conflict with the proposed new driveway that would replace the existing driveway, (iv) the proposed play area on the east side of the new school building would be sufficient for the play requirements of students, (v) a traffic impact study for the proposed development indicated that the on-site turning radii would meet fire truck requirements, (vi) a rooftop play area is currently not being considered due to the increased cost of construction, (vii) there is a continuous fence as well as cedar hedge planting along the north property line and a continuous fence the along the boundary between the “Assembly (ASY)” zoned lands in the western portion and the “Agriculture (AG1)” zoned lands in the eastern portion, (viii) the applicant will consult with the Ministry of Education to confirm if the proposed development meets the Independent School Act licensing requirements, (ix) there is no lighting plan at this stage of the project but will be provided at the Building Permit stage, and (x) the timing of the three phases of the project has not yet been determined as they are subject to fundraising.

In reply to a query of the Panel regarding the potential removal of existing trees along No. 5 Road, staff clarified that (i) the interim construction works that are required for frontage improvements do not anticipate the need for removal of existing trees at this time, and (ii) the applicant is required to provide a design for future road improvements to be constructed by the City and staff will continue to work with the applicant through the Servicing Agreement process to review opportunities to retain as many trees as possible.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

As a result of the discussion with the applicant, the Panel provided the following direction:

1.

That the applicant consult with the Ministry of Education to confirm whether the proposed development meets the Independent School Act licensing requirements;

2.

That the applicant work with staff to install a continuous cedar hedge in addition to the solid fence along the boundary between the “Assembly (ASY)” zoned lands in the western portion and the adjacent “Agriculture (AG1)” zoned portion to the east similar to the landscaping along the north property line; 

3.

That the applicant provide information regarding the exterior lighting plan for the proposed development, particularly for the surface parking area to ensure there is no light spillover onto adjacent properties and across No. 5 Road;

prior to the application moving forward for Council consideration.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That an Environmentally Sensitive Area Development Permit be issued at 7890 No. 5 Road, which would facilitate the construction of an elementary school and associated amenities within the area of the lot which is zoned "Assembly (ASY)".

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-009725

 (REDMS No. 8112988)

APPLICANT:

Alon Gal

PROPERTY LOCATION:

100 Douglas Crescent

INTENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:

1.

Permit the retention of an existing rear yard infill unit on a site zoned "Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)"; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum required side yard setback for the rear yard infill unit from 1.2 m to 1.0 m; and

(b)

reduce the minimum required building separation between the rear yard infill unit and principal dwelling from 6.0 m to 2.1 m.

Applicant’s Comments

Orly Gal, Applicant, with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2), provided background information on the application, highlighting the following:

§   

the applicant acknowledged that the existing two-storey rear yard infill unit was built without appropriate permits and expressed a commitment to comply with the City’s requirements;

§   

the subject site is zoned “Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)” that allows  coach houses to be built subject to a Development Permit application;

§   

the existing two-storey rear yard infill unit was designed to match the form, character and scale of the primary dwelling on the subject lot;

§   

two outdoor parking spaces are provided on-site for the use of residents of the primary dwelling and rear yard infill unit;

§   

a garbage and recycling area is provided for the use of residents of both units;

§   

wall-mounted downward-facing lighting is installed at the main entry of the rear yard infill unit to highlight the entry but avoid light spillover onto adjacent properties;

§   

the outdoor amenity area consisting of a deck and grassed area is provided for the shared use of residents of the two units;

§   

the existing rear yard infill unit complies with the zoning of the subject lot except for the proposed variances to the required side yard setback for the infill unit and building separation between the principal dwelling and rear yard infill unit;

§   

there are no windows located on the west elevation of the rear yard infill unit to avoid potential privacy concerns with the adjacent property to the west;

§   

a Building Permit application will be submitted by the applicant to ensure BC Building Code compliance relating to fire protection and other Code requirements; and

§   

the applicant will register an aircraft noise sensitive use covenant and a flood plain indemnity covenant on Title prior to Development Permit issuance.

Staff Comments

Mr. Reis noted that (i) staff have reviewed the subject site’s land use and density and confirmed to be in compliance with the “Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)” zoning of the subject site, (ii) the applicant is required to apply for a Building Permit prior to Development Permit issuance that addresses deficiencies that were identified as part of the Building Code Compliance Report submitted by the applicant, (iii) staff conducted a site visit and the existing landscaping was found to be in good health and good condition, and (iv) as the outdoor amenity space between the principal dwelling and rear yard infill unit is for shared use and to secure the unit as rental the applicant has agreed to register a covenant on Title restricting the stratification of the rear yard infill unit.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, the applicant noted (i) the circumstances and reasons for the rear yard infill unit being constructed without appropriate permits, including the purchase of the subject property and construction of the rear yard infill unit during the pandemic, (ii) the rear yard infill unit’s exterior lighting includes building-mounted, downward-focused lighting, (iii) the two outdoor parking stalls are for the use of residents of the principal dwelling and rear yard infill unit, (iv) a Building Code Compliance Report has been submitted by the applicant, and (v) the applicant has not received any complaint from their neighbours regarding privacy concerns as a result of the construction of the two-storey rear yard infill unit.

Additionally, staff confirmed that the Building Code Compliance Report prepared by the applicant’s consultants is on file and has been reviewed by staff.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel noted the applicant’s explanation for the construction of the rear yard infill unit without appropriate permits, resulting in a complicated process for the retroactive inspection of the building and a more costly undertaking than applying for permits prior to construction.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued at 100 Douglas Crescent, which would:

1.

permit the retention of an existing rear yard infill unit on a site zoned "Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)"; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum required side yard setback for the rear yard infill unit from 1.2 m to 1.0 m; and

(b)

reduce the minimum required building separation between the rear yard infill unit and principal dwelling from 6.0 m to 2.1 m.

CARRIED

3.

New Business

None.

4.

Date of Next Meeting:  September 10, 2025

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (4:28 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, August 27, 2025.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Wayne Craig

Chair

Rustico Agawin
Committee Clerk