My builder applied to Council for a retain and build 2 townhouses behind on my block in Cloverdale. This proposal has not been supported by Council. This is a R20/40 flexible coded lot which was to have 3 dwellings total (1 existing). The TPS provision Council has cited is: 5.7.3. In dealing with development applications involving or contemplating development of land within any of the flexible coded area up to a maximum density of R50 depicted on the Scheme Map, the base R20 code shall apply to any dwelling but may, at the discretion of City, be increased to a higher code up to the maximum specified provided - (c) Development comprising of two or more dwellings in a front to rear arrangement achieves a minimum side setback of 6 metres between the side wall of the first dwelling fronting the public street and the side boundary of the parent lot. The reason for the Council not supporting at this stage is that the existing dwelling does not achieve a minimum side setback of 6 metres. I wasn't sure they would apply this provision to a development proposing the retention of an existing dwelling but apparently they are. Council has given us two options: 1) Developing at R20, i.e. one (1) additional dwelling to the rear 2) Amending the proposal to three (3) new dwellings, with the demolition of the existing dwelling, which could meet the requirements of the scheme. The owner/applicant can apply to enter a legal agreement, at their cost, to retain the existing dwelling until the rear dwellings are complete. We are going with option 1. In our situation, it's not feasible to demolish an income producing asset. I'm also considering doing a front green title lot for the front house, so I don't want to spend additional money pursuing a three group dwelling development application at this stage. My only concern for option 1 would be if there are any differences in setbacks between R20 and R30 which might make our design, which complies at R30, not comply at R20? @Westminster, you saw the plans for this one. We thought there should be some amendments to the middle townhouse, particularly the master ensuite. There were some other refinements too. I'm not that unhappy about only building one at this stage. I am just a little dissapointed about the time we have lost pursing a proposal that has ultimately not been supported.