Docstoc

Subdivision and

Document Sample
Subdivision and Powered By Docstoc
					                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175



                                                          DATE: May 18, 2007
11318 – 38 Street                                         APPLICATION NO: 66092358-001
EDMONTON, AB T5W 2G5                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-089

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated April 3, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct an addition to a Single Detached House (second storey, rear covered patio and
reconstruct rear covered deck)

on Lots 12 and 13, Block 8, Plan 2107KS, located at 11318 – 38 Street, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on May 3, 2007. The decision
of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to refuse an application to construct an addition to a Single Detached
                     House (second storey rear covered patio and reconstruct rear covered
                     deck) located at 11318 – 38 Street. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single
                     Detached Residential Zone and is located within the Mature
                     Neighbourhood Overlay. The refusal is based on the non-conforming
                     flanking side yard of the existing dwelling.

                     The Board notes that there is one letter of support on file from a
                     neighbour directly south of the subject site.

                     The Board heard from Mr. Marvin Boonstra, the Appellant and property
                     owner and Mr. Ivan Mast, of I & M Homes, who advised the Board as
                     follows:

                        The original site width of the property was 15.33 metres. Twenty
                         percent of this site width is 3.066 metres. At that time, with a side
                         yard of 3.05 metres, the building was conforming.


SDAB-D-07-089                               2                                       May     18,
2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                    However, a piece of land 1.4 metres in width was purchased from
                     the neighbour to the south of the subject site. This increased the site
                     width to 16.74 metres and the building is now non-conforming.
                    Adding insulation and new siding to the home would also increase
                     the size of the home to some extent.

                Mr. Boonstra submitted a petition containing 18 signatures in support of
                the proposed development, together with two letters of support, one of
                them being from a site directly across the street from the subject site.

                Mr. Boonstra also added that:

                    The house has been in existence in its current state for
                     approximately 40 years.
                    The proposed development will not be adding to the footprint of the
                     home, but only to the height of the home and hence is not using up
                     more of the site area of the yard.
                    The proposed renovations to the rear covered deck include the
                     removal of the existing roof and replacing one-half of the existing
                     roof, leaving one-half of the deck open.

                Mr. Mast indicated that Mr. Boonstra was intending to beautify his
                property in applying for the proposed development.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the deficiency of 0.30 metres in the minimum side yard requirement
                abutting the flanking public roadway be permitted
SDAB-D-07-089                            3                                    May        18,
2007



REASONS FOR DECISION:


                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      the proposed development is an addition to a Permitted Use in the
                           RF1 Zone.

                   2.      In accordance with Section 643 of the Municipal Government
                           Act and Section 11.3(3) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, the
                           Board is of the opinion that the proposed development will not
                           unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or
                           materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of
                           neighbouring properties because:

                           a)     the footprint of the house will remain as it has been for
                                  the past 40 years.
                           b)     the most affected neighbour south of the subject site and
                                  an affected neighbour directly across the street from the
                                  subject site as well as most of the neighbours within the
                                  60 metre notice zone have indicated their support for the
                                  proposed development.
                           c)     no one appeared in opposition to the proposed
                                  development and no letters of objection were received.
                           d)     the proposed development will not increase the non-
                                  conformity of the building.


                          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Such permit must be obtained separately from the
     Development and Inspection Services, Planning and Development Department, 5th
     Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

2.   The appellant is advised there may be issues relating to the building code involved with
     this application and the appellant should review the proposal with the Development
     and Inspection Services of the Planning and Development Department.

3.   When an application for a development permit has been approved by the Subdivision
     and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until:

     a)     any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been
            fulfilled.
SDAB-D-07-089                             4                                    May 18, 2007


4.   Except as provided in the DC2 District, IF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY A
     DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE
     DATE OF ITS ISSUE, SUCH PERMIT CEASES TO BE VALID, provided that, if the permit
     holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
     development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed.

5.   Notwithstanding Clause (1) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
     within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not
     lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum
     development permit.

6.   If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an
     application for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal
     Government Act, such notice shall operate to suspend the development permit. Section
     688 of the Municipal Government Act, 1994, provides that:

     (1)    Notwithstanding Section 506, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on a
            question of law or jurisdiction with respect to:

            (a)    a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
            (b)    the Municipal Government Board on a decision on an appeal under
                   Section 619, an intermunicipal dispute under Division 11 or subdivision
                   appeal under this Division.

     (2)    An application for leave to appeal pursuant to subsection (1) must be made to a
            judge of the Court of Appeal within 30 days after the issue of the decision
            sought to be appealed and notice of the application must be given to:

            (a)    the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
                   Appeal Board; and
            (b)    any other persons that the judge directs.

     (3)    On hearing the application and the representations of those persons who are, in
            the opinion of the judge, affected by the application, the judge may grant leave
            to appeal if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal involves a question of law
            of sufficient importance to merit a further appeal and has a reasonable chance
            of success.
SDAB-D-07-089                               5                                     May 18, 2007

        (4)   If the judge grants leave to appeal, the judge may

              (a)    direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
                     the appeal.
              (b)    specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
                     appealed, and
              (c)    make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
                     appropriate.

        (5)   If an appeal is from a decision of a Subdivision and Development Appeal Board,
              the municipality must be given notice of the application for leave to appeal, and
              the board and municipality:

              (a)    are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
                     and
              (b)    are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is
                     granted, at the appeal.

NOTE:
        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).

        (2)   When an application is approved and an agreement or caveat is required, the
              registration costs are the responsibility of the applicant. These costs must be
              paid to the City of Edmonton before the plans and application will be processed.




                                                   Ms. L. Parish, Presiding Officer
                                                   SUBDIVISION         AND      DEVELOPMENT
                                                   APPEAL BOARD

cc:     I & M Homes – Attn: Ivan Mast
                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175



                                                           DATE: May 18, 2007
7737 – 112S Avenue                                         APPLICATION NO: 65612579-001
EDMONTON, AB T5V 0H5                                       FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-090

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated April 10, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct a Semi-detached House

on Lot 11, Block 12, Plan 1497AE, located at 6904/6906 – 127 Avenue, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on May 3, 2007. The decision
of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to refuse an application to construct a Semi-detached House located at
                     6904 / 6906 – 127 Avenue. The subject site is zoned RF3 Low Density
                     Development Zone and is located within the Mature Neighbourhood
                     Overlay. The refusal was based on a deficiency in minimum required Site
                     Area, a deficiency in minimum required Site Width, an excess in
                     maximum allowable Site Coverage for a Principal Building, an excess in
                     maximum allowable total Site Coverage and a deficiency in minimum
                     required Front Yard.

                     The Appellant submitted a written submission evidencing completion of
                     community consultation for the proposed development and several
                     photographs.
SDAB-D-07-090                        2                                    May       18,
                2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from Martin Sliwinski, the principal of JRSR
                Investments, and Kasia Pereira, also of JRSR Investments. They made the
                following points:

                   Ms. Pereira advised that she had circulated the community
                    consultation document and sought the support from neighbours for
                    the proposed development. She indicated that several neighbours
                    within the 60 metre notice radius were not home when she was
                    seeking support for the proposed development, however she still
                    obtained 11 signatures of support.
                   Mr. Sliwinski indicated that the proposed semi-detached house on
                    the subject site was located in the RF3 Zone.
                   He acknowledged the reasons for refusal as noted by the
                    Development Officer. He also acknowledged that the principal
                    building exceeded the maximum allowable site coverage by 21.75
                    square metres and the maximum allowable total site coverage was
                    exceeded by 11.92 square metres. However, he felt that he needed to
                    build two dwellings based on reasons of economics.
                   The majority of the excess site coverage related to the front porch
                    and the rear deck. In his opinion, if the front porch and rear deck
                    was removed the proposed development would be within the
                    maximum allowable site coverage.
                   He reviewed the photographs that made up part of his submission.
                    He was of the opinion that the buildings with two or more suites
                    which did not have front porches were not as aesthetically appealing
                    as developments with a front porch and felt that a development with
                    a front porch would fit better aesthetically into the neighbourhood.
                   He stated that other houses in the neighbourhood exceeded the
                    maximum allowable site coverage.
                   He commented on the economics of the Balwin neighbourhood and
                    noted that the Balwin School had been closed due to low enrolment
                    and also noted the neighbourhood has few young families with
                    children. He explained that it was his desire to rejuvenate the
                    neighbourhood and felt that a development such as the one he is
                    proposing would help do that.
                   The Balwin area is comprised of middle-class and low income
                    families and therefore it is more appropriate to build affordable
                    housing on the subject site. He noted that his proposed development
                    could sell in the low $300,000.00 range per unit whereas prices
                    would be in excess of $400,000.00 per unit with a larger
                    development.
SDAB-D-07-090                         3                                     May        18,
                2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                In response to questions, Mr. Sliwinski indicated the following:

                   The two proposed units would be separated at the rear of the first
                    unit by 2-inch by 4-inch walls with a 5-inch fireguard on both sides.
                    The main entrances of both units face onto 127 Avenue.
                   He noted that the site plan for the proposed development shows a
                    proposed two-car garage located at the rear of the subject site but
                    that garage is not the subject of this appeal.
                   A separate application for a separate development permit for the
                    garage had been submitted and as yet had not been dealt with by the
                    Development Officer.
                   He wants to proceed with the development of the semi-detached
                    house even if the proposed two-car garage is subsequently not
                    permitted.
                   The rear deck is 36 inches high and is therefore less than one metre
                    in height and is attached to Unit “B” only by a door. He stated he
                    would be filing a condominium plan for the two units and that the
                    bylaws of the condominiums would have a clause that would note
                    that the rear deck and rear yard are exclusively for the use of Unit
                    “B” while Unit “A” has the exclusive use of the front yard.
                   Unit “A” will have a living area of 655 square feet and Unit “B” will
                    have a living area of 728 square feet and the total developed area for
                    Unit “A” is 1,295 square feet and for Unit “B” it is 1,456 square feet.
                   If the proposed development is approved he indicated he would plant
                    10 to 12 trees and 15 shrubs on the subject site.



DECISION:

                that the appeal be DENIED and the DEVELOPMENT REFUSED
SDAB-D-07-090                            4                                 May 18, 2007


REASONS FOR DECISION:


                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      The proposed development would unduly interfere with the
                           amenities of the neighbourhood and materially interfere with and
                           affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties
                           because:

                           a)      the proposed development requires several variances for a
                           deficient site area, a deficient site width and an excess in site
                           coverage which, when taken together, illustrate that the proposed
                           development is an overdevelopment of the subject site;

                           b)      the proposed development does not satisfy the general
                           purpose of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay as set out in
                           Section 814.1 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw because it is not
                           sensitive in scale to existing developments and does not ensure
                           privacy and sunlight penetration on adjacent properties;

                           c)     the minimum front yard deficiency would exist whether
                           or not a veranda is added to the front of the proposed
                           development; and

                           d)      the two-storey wall which is 60 metres in length along the
                           west side of the proposed development would infringe on the
                           privacy and sunlight penetration of the immediately adjacent lot
                           to the west.


                IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Such permit must be obtained separately from the
     Development and Inspection Services, Planning and Development Department, 5th
     Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

2.   The appellant is advised there may be issues relating to the building code involved with
     this application and the appellant should review the proposal with the Development
     and Inspection Services of the Planning and Development Department.
SDAB-D-07-090                             5                                  May 18, 2007

3.   When an application for a development permit has been approved by the Subdivision
     and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until:

     a)     any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been
            fulfilled.

4.   Except as provided in the DC2 District, IF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY A
     DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE
     DATE OF ITS ISSUE, SUCH PERMIT CEASES TO BE VALID, provided that, if the permit
     holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
     development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed.

5.   Notwithstanding Clause (1) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
     within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not
     lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum
     development permit.

6.   If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an
     application for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal
     Government Act, such notice shall operate to suspend the development permit. Section
     688 of the Municipal Government Act, 1994, provides that:

     (1)    Notwithstanding Section 506, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on a
            question of law or jurisdiction with respect to:

            (a)    a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
            (b)    the Municipal Government Board on a decision on an appeal under
                   Section 619, an intermunicipal dispute under Division 11 or subdivision
                   appeal under this Division.

     (2)    An application for leave to appeal pursuant to subsection (1) must be made to a
            judge of the Court of Appeal within 30 days after the issue of the decision
            sought to be appealed and notice of the application must be given to:

            (a)    the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
                   Appeal Board; and
            (b)    any other persons that the judge directs.

     (3)    On hearing the application and the representations of those persons who are, in
            the opinion of the judge, affected by the application, the judge may grant leave
            to appeal if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal involves a question of law
            of sufficient importance to merit a further appeal and has a reasonable chance
            of success.
SDAB-D-07-090                                  6                                   May 18, 2007


        (4)    If the judge grants leave to appeal, the judge may

               (a)      direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
                        the appeal.
               (b)      specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
                        appealed, and
               (c)      make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
                        appropriate.

        (5)    If an appeal is from a decision of a Subdivision and Development Appeal Board,
               the municipality must be given notice of the application for leave to appeal, and
               the board and municipality:

               (a)      are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
                        and
               (b)      are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is
                        granted, at the appeal.

NOTE:
        (1)    When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
               Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
               carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
               Development Department, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street,
               Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).

        (2)    When an application is approved and an agreement or caveat is required, the
               registration costs are the responsibility of the applicant. These costs must be
               paid to the City of Edmonton before the plans and application will be processed.




                                                      Ms. L. Parish, Presiding Officer
                                                      SUBDIVISION         AND      DEVELOPMENT
                                                      APPEAL BOARD

cc:     Kasia Pereira
                          SDAB-D-07-091
                       Application No. 65331905-002

An appeal by Ken McLeod to construct a third storey addition and develop two
additional dwellings to and existing three dwelling Apartment House and
construct interior and exterior alterations on Lot 16, Block 10, Plan RN43,
located at 11548 – 96 Street, has been TABLED TO MAY 17, 2007.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:12/5/2011
language:English
pages:12