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
0                                                        Fax: 780-496-8175


                                                         DATE: December 5, 2008
                                                         APPLICATION NO: 74895921-001
                                                         FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-190


    NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated July 22, 2008, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:

Construct a five-unit Row Housing development (two three-bedroom units and three two-
bedroom units) and to demolish a Single Detached House.

on Lot 20, Block 19, Plan 2298HW, located at 15604/06/08/10 and 15612 - 97 Avenue NW, was
heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 14,
2008, October 23, 2008 and November 20, 2008. The decision of the Board was as follows:

August 14, 2008 Hearing:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
                     to refuse an application to construct a five-unit Row Housing development
                     (two three-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units) and to demolish a
                     Single Detached House located at 15604, 15606, 15608, 15610, and 15612
                     – 97 Avenue NW. The subject site is zoned RA7 Low Rise Apartment
                     Zone. The refusal is based on a deficiency in minimum Site Area, a
                     deficiency in minimum Site Width, a deficiency in the minimum Side
                     Yard requirement, a deficiency in landscaping requirements and the
                     objection to the proposed slope for the underground driveway ramps by
                     the Transportation Department.

                     The Board notes that no letters were received in support or opposition to
                     the proposed development.
SDAB-D-08-190                         2                                 December 5, 2008

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                The Board heard from the Appellant, Mr. Mudliar, who made the
                following points:

                1. He addressed the reasons for refusal indicating that this was the last
                    single family lot in this neighbourhood which is on a corner and a five-
                    unit Row Housing development makes sense as it fits in with the
                    City’s Smart Choices initiative program.
                2. He indicated that the Development Officer told him that she could
                    relax some of the requirements for this development but is unable to
                    relax any of the Transportation requirements.
                3. The proposed development is targeted for first time home buyers and
                    will not be a rental property.
                4. In response to questions, he indicated that there is a five-unit row
                    housing development located at 15815 – 102 Avenue that has more
                    than a 16 percent slope driveway.
                5. With respect to the building being three storeys, he indicated that it
                    was not economical to have dormers in the upper floor bedrooms.
                6. In order to meet the requirements for the slope of the driveway there
                    would need to be approximately twelve steps instead of seven steps to
                    the entrance of each unit.
                7. The Site Area is 687.5 square metres and the minimum Site Area
                    requirement is 800 square metres and nothing can be changed to meet
                    this requirement.
                8. The minimum Site Width requirement is 20 metres and the proposed
                    Site Width is 15.22 metres and nothing can be changed to meet this
                    requirement.
                9. The Side Yard deficiency of 1.0 metres results from the building being
                    three storeys.
                10. The photographs indicate a vehicle parked on the driveway which has
                    a slope of 15.7 percent not 15.7 degrees as indicated. Each driveway
                    will be separated by a retaining wall.

                After some consideration, the Appellant requested a two month
                adjournment to explore alternative designs for the site and other options
                regarding the current design. In particular, the Appellant will be dealing
                with the issues raised by Transportation, and examining the options
                presented by Transportation in their correspondence on this matter.
SDAB-D-08-190                             3                                December 5, 2008


DECISION:

                    that the appeal be TABLED TO OCTOBER 23, 2008 at the verbal request
                    of the Appellant.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                    The Board finds the following:

                    1. Tabling the appeal will allow the Appellant time to explore alternative
                       designs and development options.”


October 23, 2008 Hearing:

MOTION:

                    “that SDAB-D-08-190 be raised from the table.”

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                    “The Appellant advised the Board that the Transportation Department no
                    longer objects to the proposed development and submitted revised
                    drawings. After reviewing the revised plans, the Board determined that
                    the plans were incomplete and did not provide consistent and accurate
                    dimensions and other development details that are required to make a
                    decision on this matter.


DECISION:

                    that SDAB-D-08-190 be TABLED to November 20, 2008 to allow
                    additional time for the revised plans to be thoroughly reviewed by the
                    Planning and Development Department. If required, the Appellant shall
                    provide the Planning and Development Department with a set of drawings
                    that contain accurate and consistent metric measurements, including the
                    total height and elevations for the proposed development and any other
                    information required. The revised plans shall be submitted to the
                    Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Office on or before
                    November 10, 2008. The SDAB Office will then forward the revised
                    plans to the Planning and Development Department for their review.”
SDAB-D-08-190                            4                                December 5, 2008


November 20, 2008 Hearing:


MOTION:

                   “that SDAB-D-08-190 be raised from the table.”



SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                   “This is a continuation of the hearing of SDAB-D-08-190. The Appellant
                   had provided revised plans to the Planning and Development Department
                   for review and comments.

                   The Board heard from the Appellant who provided the following
                   responses to questions from the Board relating to the revised plans:

                   1.     He had been advised by the Development Officer that a
                          computation error had been made in reference to his landscaping
                          plan. He provided a copy of an e-mail from the Planning and
                          Development Department confirming that only 28 shrubs rather
                          than 34 shrubs are required. As a result there is no a deficiency in
                          the landscaping.
                   2.     He indicated, with respect to bicycle parking, that one bicycle
                          parking space would be provided to each condominium unit sold
                          and would be located within the garage space of the proposed
                          development.
                   3.     The Transportation Department accepts the revised eight percent
                          slope for the underground driveway ramps from the original 15
                          percent slope.
                   4.     He has no difficulty in complying with the balance of conditions
                          being imposed by the Transportation Department.



DECISION:

                   “that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED
                   and the deficiency of 112.5 square metres in the minimum Site Area
                   requirement, the deficiency of 4.76 metres in the minimum required Site
                   Width, and the deficiency of 1.0 metres in the minimum required interior
                   Side Yard be permitted, subject to the following conditions:
SDAB-D-08-190                          5                                December 5, 2008


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                1.      The approval is in accordance with Enclosure II attached to and
                        forming part of a Memorandum dated September 17, 2008 from
                        the Transportation Department to the Subdivision and
                        Development Appeal Board, which evidences a proposed driveway
                        ramp slope of eight percent.

                2.      One bicycle parking space per condominium unit shall be provided
                        in the garage area for that specific unit.

                3.      The proposed three residential accesses to 97 Avenue are
                        acceptable as shown on Enclosure I attached to and forming part of
                        the above captioned Memorandum. The owner/applicant must
                        obtain a curb crossing permit, available from the Planning and
                        Development Department, 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street (contact
                        Val Gordychuk at (780) 496-6733 to make an appointment). As
                        there is roll faced curb abutting this site, a curb cut may not be
                        necessary (owner’s choice). However, whether or not a residential
                        crossing is constructed, the accesses and portions of driveway on
                        road right-of-way must be inspected by a Roadway Maintenance
                        Inspector once forms are in place and prior to pouring of concrete.

                4.      There is an existing streetlight pole that may interfere with the
                        proposed centre driveway access to 97 Avenue, as shown on
                        Enclosure I. The access must maintain a minimum clearance of
                        1.5 metres from the streetlight pole.           The Transportation
                        Department will not support the driveway curving around the pole,
                        given the proposed driveway ramp slope. Should relocation of the
                        pole be required, all costs associated with relocation must be borne
                        by the owner/applicant. The applicant should contact Ben
                        Yarmuch (780) 496-2668) of Transportation Operations for more
                        information.

                5.      The owner/applicant must enter into an Encroachment Agreement
                        with the City for any portions of the retaining wall within road
                        right-of-way, including sub-surface. The owner/applicant must
                        contact Kerry Bauer (78) 496-8487 of the Planning and
                        Development Department for information on the agreement.

                6.      A minimum separation of one metre is required from the back of
                        sidewalk to the start of the ramp slope. The proposed 1.2 metre
                        separation is acceptable.
SDAB-D-08-190                          6                                 December 5, 2008


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                7.      The proposed retaining walls bordering the underground driveway
                        must not exceed a height of 0.3 metres for a distance of three
                        metres from the start of the driveway slope.

                8.      There may be utilities within road right-of-way not specified that
                        must be considered during construction. The owner/applicant is
                        responsible for the location of all underground and above ground
                        utilities and maintaining required clearances as specified by the
                        utility companies. Any costs associated with relocations and/or
                        removals shall be at the expense of the owner/applicant.

                9.      Any alley, sidewalk or boulevard damage occurring as a result of
                        construction traffic must be restored to the satisfaction of the
                        Transportation Department, as per Section 15.5(f) of the Edmonton
                        Zoning Bylaw. The alley, sidewalk and boulevard will be
                        inspected by a Roadway Maintenance Inspector prior to
                        construction, and again once construction is complete. All
                        expenses incurred for repair are to be borne by the owner.

                10.     The Development Officer may require, as a condition of
                        Development Permit approval, a guaranteed security, from the
                        property owner, to ensure that Landscaping is provided and
                        maintained for two growing seasons. Only the following forms of
                        security are acceptable:
                           a)       cash to a value equal to 100 percent of the Landscaping
                                    cost; or
                           b)       an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of 100
                                    percent of the Landscaping cost.

                        Any Letter of Credit shall allow for partial draws by the City if the
                        Landscaping is not completed in accordance with the approved
                        Landscape Plan(s) within one growing season after completion of
                        the development; or the Landscaping is not well maintained and in
                        a healthy condition two growing seasons after completion of the
                        Landscaping. The City may draw on a cash security or a Letter of
                        Credit and the amount thereof shall be paid to the City for its use
                        absolutely. All expenses incurred by the City, to renew or draw
                        upon any Letter of Credit, shall be reimbursed by the owner to the
                        City by payment of invoice or from the proceeds of the Letter of
                        Credit.
SDAB-D-08-190                            7                                December 5, 2008


DECISION: (CONTINUED)


                   11.     All outdoor trash collection areas shall be located and screened to
                           the satisfaction of the Development Officer in accordance with
                           Section 55.4(4) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.

                   12.     The vehicular ingress and egress, off-street parking, loading and
                           unloading (including aisles or driveways) shall be hardsurfaced,
                           curbed, drained and maintained in accordance to Section 54 of the
                           Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      The proposed development, Row Housing, is a Permitted Use in
                           the RA7 Zone.
                   2.      There are no letters of objection on file and no one appeared in
                           opposition of the proposed development.
                   3.      The Appellant has made extensive modifications to the original
                           plans for the proposed development in order to satisfy the
                           requirements set out by the Transportation Department.
                   4.      The variances granted for total site area, site width, and interior
                           side yard were granted as the proposed development is adjacent to
                           a site developed with an apartment and with a blank wall facing the
                           proposed development.
                   5.      Based on the above reasons, the proposed development would not
                           unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or
                           materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of
                           neighbouring parcels of land.”


          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,
     located on the 5th Floor, 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-08-190                             8                                 December 5, 2008


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-08-190                               9                                 December 5, 2008


        (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, located on the 5th Floor, 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.




                                                    Mr. A. Skoreyko, Chairman
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD
                     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
0                                                         Fax: 780-496-8175



                                                  DATE: December 5, 2008
                                                  APPLICATION NO: 78284052-002
                                                  FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-284


          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD


This appeal dated October 27, 2008, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct three Stacked Row Housing buildings having four Dwellings each (12 Dwellings total)

on Lots 2 - 4, Block 11, Plan RN64, located at 11908 – 122 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on November 20, 2008. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
                     to refuse an application to construct three Stacked Row Housing buildings
                     having four Dwellings each (12 Dwellings total), located at 11908 – 122
                     Street NW. The subject site is zoned RF3 Low Density Development
                     Zone. The refusal is based on a deficiency in the total Side Yard
                     requirements.

                     The Board heard from Ron Harrison, representing Metis Capital Housing
                     Corp. Mr. Harrison provided the following information in support of the
                     appeal:

                     1.     Metis Capital Housing Corp. is a province wide corporation
                            providing affordable housing throughout the province and
                            currently have 425 housing units in the Edmonton area.
                     2.     The proposed development will be situated on a site that is 1962.74
                            square metres in area and consist of three separate buildings with a
                            total of 12 dwelling units.
SDAB-D-08-284                         2                                  December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                3.     The subject site was formerly a greenhouse operation.
                4.     The organization had met with the executive of the Prince Charles
                       Community League and most neighbours residing within the 60
                       metre notification radius.
                5.     One of the principle reasons for refusing the proposed
                       development was the two metre side yard rather than the three
                       metre side yard required under the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                6.     The proposed development would be constructed using a fire rated
                       wall system made of magnesium oxide. To clearly show the fire
                       retardant properties of the wall system, a short video was shown
                       demonstrating the fire spread rating of this product to be far
                       superior to the vinyl siding which had initially been proposed for
                       the proposed development.
                7.     He addressed the dormers which are not recessed from the face of
                       the building as required in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw but did
                       point out the dormers only face east and therefore do not intrude on
                       the privacy of neighbours to either the north or south of the subject
                       site.
                8.     The exterior finish will be a stucco surface over the fire rated board
                       rather than the vinyl siding which had initially been proposed.

                In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Harrison noted that the three
                lots where the proposed development is to be located are not all exactly
                the same size. However, the three lots in question are considered as a
                single site and that was the position taken by the Development Officer.

                Mr. Harrison, in response to questions regarding community consultation,
                noted that although some of the support for the proposed development
                came from residents residing outside the 60 metres notification radius,
                their first consultation resulted in a petition with respect to parking,
                landscaping, and the possibility of overloading the existing sewer services.

                The Board then heard from Murray Jurak who provided the following
                information:

                1.     He had canvassed the neighbourhood himself and indicated he
                       found a high degree of apathy and little response from residents
                       inside the 60 metre notification radius.
                2.     One resident residing outside of the 60 metre notification radius
                       objected to the “rental properties” in the area.
SDAB-D-08-284                          3                                  December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                3.     One neighbour immediately south of the subject site is objecting to
                       the proposed development but was not aware of any other
                       objections other than some concerns about increased density.

                The Chair noted that the petition submitted by the community, a copy of
                which is on file, objected to the use being proposed. He noted that this is
                not a valid objection since the use is set by City Council and the Board has
                no jurisdiction over the use. The use planned for the site, in this case, is a
                Discretionary Use as allowed under the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw. The
                petition did not address the requested variances.

                In response to further questions from the Board, Mr. Harrison provided the
                following:

                1.   The neighbours residing to both the north and south of the subject
                     site would not be impacted by the proposed development as there are
                     no windows planned for the south wall on the southernmost building
                     or the north wall of the northernmost building mitigating any privacy
                     issues that would arise.
                2.   They could compress the area between the interior buildings and
                     meet the 1.2 metre requirement for side yards between buildings and
                     in doing so meet the three metre side yard requirement. However, in
                     doing this, the proposed development would not be consistent with
                     the balance of the block along the east and west sides of 122 Street.
                     Given it is their intention to keep the spacing between buildings
                     balanced, this is the reason for requesting the variances in the north
                     and south side yard setbacks.
                3.   Each of the rooflines on the three buildings is different and the
                     buildings themselves are slightly staggered from the front yard set
                     back in an effort to break up the massing and appearance of the
                     proposed development.

                The Board then heard from Lex Lakeman, who resides immediately south
                of the subject site. He expressed concerns regarding the potential for fire
                safety given his residence is approximately two metres from his north
                property line and the proposed development is two metres from the south
                property line.

                In response to questions, he indicated that the front of his house faces 122
                Street and was originally part of the old greenhouse operation.
SDAB-D-08-284                         4                                  December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                It was pointed out by the Board that the original side yard for the proposed
                development was 1.25 metres but had been increased to 2.01 metres.
                However, Mr. Lakeman still felt that aesthetically the proposed
                development was too close to his home in spite of the fact that there were
                only two small windows looking to the north and there were no windows
                placed on the south wall of the proposed development.

                In rebuttal, Mr. Harrison only pointed out that if the proposed
                development did not proceed, any party could develop on the lot
                immediately north of the Lakeman property with a building of a similar
                size and height and could be built closer to the property line.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the deficiency of 2.0 metres in the total Side Yard requirement, that being
                20 percent of the Site Width be permitted and the requirement of Section
                814.3(11a) to recess dormers on exterior walls when a structure is more
                than 7.5 metres in Height be waived, subject to the following conditions:

                1.     Dormers on the east side of Buildings A, B, and C may project
                       only into the front yard of the proposed development.

                2.     The walls of the three buildings are to be constructed of Bisonwall
                       (magnesium oxide impregnated board) and covered with a stucco
                       finish.

                3.     Prior to the release of drawings for Building Permit review, the
                       Applicant or property owner shall provided a guaranteed security
                       to ensure that landscaping is provided and maintained for two
                       growing seasons. The landscape security may be held for two full
                       years after the landscaping has been completed. This security may
                       take the following forms:
                       a. cash to a value equal to 100 percent of the landscaping costs; or
                       b. an irrevocable Letter of Credit having a value equivalent to 100
                          percent of the established landscaping costs.
SDAB-D-08-284                          5                                 December 5, 2008


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                        Any Letter of Credit shall allow for partial draws by the City if the
                        Landscaping is not completed in accordance with the approved
                        Landscape Plan(s) within one growing season after completion of
                        the development; or the Landscaping is not well maintained and in
                        a healthy condition two growing seasons after completion of the
                        Landscaping. The City may draw on a cash security or a Letter of
                        Credit and the amount thereof shall be paid to the City for its use
                        absolutely. All expenses incurred by the City, to renew or draw
                        upon any Letter of Credit, shall be reimbursed by the owner to the
                        City by payment of invoice or from the proceeds of the Letter of
                        Credit.

                4,      All outdoor trash collection areas shall be located and screened to
                        the satisfaction of the Development Authority in accordance with
                        Section 55.4(4) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.

                5.      The vehicular ingress and egress, off-street parking, loading and
                        unloading (including aisles or driveways) shall be hardsurfaced,
                        curbed, drained and maintained in accordance to Section 54 of the
                        Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.

                6.      There is an existing power pole in the alley that may interfere with
                        access to a proposed parking stall, as shown on the enclosure.
                        Should relocation of the pole be required, all costs associated with
                        relocated must be borne by the owner/applicant. The applicant
                        should contact Kin Lui (780) 412-4510 of EPCOR Power for more
                        information.

                7.      The area between the parking area and the alley must be paved to
                        the satisfaction of the Transportation Department, as shown on the
                        Enclosure.

                8.      Any hoarding or construction taking place on road right-of-way
                        requires an OSCAM permit. The owner must call Traffic
                        Operations at (780) 496-2680 to arrange for the permit.
SDAB-D-08-284                         6                                 December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                9.      Any alley, sidewalk or boulevard damage occurring as a result of
                        construction traffic must be restored to the satisfaction of the
                        Transportation Department, as per Section 15.5(5) of the
                        Edmonton Zoning Bylaw. The sidewalks and boulevard will be
                        inspected by a Roadway Maintenance Inspector prior to
                        construction and again once construction is complete. All
                        expenses incurred for repair are to be borne by the
                        owner/applicant.

                10.     There may be utilities within road right-of-way not specified that
                        must be considered during construction. The owner/applicant is
                        responsible for the location of all underground and above ground
                        utilities and maintaining required clearances as specified by the
                        utility companies. Any costs associated with relocations and/or
                        removals shall be at the expense of the owner/applicant.



REASONS FOR DECISION:


                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development is a Discretionary Use in the RF3 Zone
                2.      Support for the proposed development was received from the
                        Prince Charles Community League executive.
                3.      No letters of objection were received but a resident immediately
                        south of the proposed development was present in opposition to the
                        proposed development.
                4.      The neighbour appearing in opposition was not objecting to the use
                        on the proposed site but expressed concern with the aesthetics of
                        the proposed development and safety issues.
                5.      The Appellant has addressed both the aesthetic and safety concerns
                        expressed by the resident so the variances granted on the side yard
                        and the condition imposed relating to the construction materials to
                        be used was done so in conjunction with the material presented by
                        the Appellant at the hearing.
                6.      The petition that was presented to members of City Council by
                        community representatives went to the use of the site only and was
                        not specific to the variances being requested by the Appellant.
SDAB-D-08-284                             7                                 December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                   7.      The proposed development has been designed and sited to blend in
                           with other similar and like buildings in the adjacent area.
                   8.      Based on the above reasons, the proposed development would not
                           unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or
                           materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of
                           neighbouring parcels of land.”


          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,
     located on the 5th Floor, 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.

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:
SDAB-D-08-284                            8                                 December 5, 2008

     (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.

     (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.
SDAB-D-08-284                               9                                 December 5, 2008


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, located on the 5th Floor, 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.




                                                    Mr. A. Skoreyko, Chairman
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD
                       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
0                                                           Fax: 780-496-8175



                                                     DATE: December 5, 2008
                                                     APPLICATION NO: 79048625-001;
                                                     LDA08-0216
                                                     FILE NO.: SDAB-S-08-007

           NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated October 24, 2008, from the decision of the Subdivision Authority for
permission to:

Create an additional residential lot

on Lot 8, Block 127, Plan 2919HW, located at 10132 – 136 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on November 20, 2008. The decision of the
Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                       “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Subdivision Authority
                       to refuse an application to create an additional residential lot, located at
                       10132 – 136 Street NW. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached
                       Residential Zone and is within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The
                       refusal is because the proposed lot depth will not comply with the
                       regulations prescribed by the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, the proposed
                       subdivision would not comply with the intent and spirit of the Mature
                       Neighbourhood Overlay and would negatively impact on the privacy of
                       the adjacent property.

                       At the outset of the hearing, the Chairman dealt with the issue of late
                       filing. Given the fact the Subdivision Officer was unable to confirm the
                       date of mailing, the Board accepts that the appeal was filed in time and
                       accepts jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

                       The Board first heard from Blair McDowell, Subdivision Officer, who
                       provided an overview of the subject site and outlined some of the issues
                       facing the Board.
SDAB-S-08-007                         2                                December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board then heard from Christine Nardella, one of the Appellants and
                property owners. She provided a hard copy of her submission to the
                Board and provided a thorough, well-presented oral submission.

                Some of the highlights of Ms. Nardella’s presentation included the
                following information:

                1.     They have owned their property for approximately three years and
                       resided in the area for two years.
                2.     They moved into the Glenora area feeling it would meet their
                       lifestyle requirements, its close proximity to the downtown and the
                       unique mix of housing styles.
                3.     They had determined they wished to continue to reside in the area
                       and felt that by subdividing their property they could continue to
                       enjoy the lifestyle but with less yard maintenance.
                4.     The Glenora Community League had indicated they were not in
                       opposition to the proposed subdivision.
                5.     City of Edmonton Transportation Department had accepted the
                       new parking arrangement for the property.
                6.     There were other options in regards to where the buildings could
                       be located on the subdivided site to suit the surrounding area and
                       they were prepared to be flexible in terms of the design of the
                       buildings to ensure they blend in with the unique designs found in
                       the area.
                7.     Property values would not be negatively affected by the proposed
                       subdivision, her evidence was that they would, in fact, be
                       enhanced.
                8.     She provided three letters of support for the subdivision.
                9.     Two letters of opposition were received; one from an adjacent
                       neighbour, and another from a neighbour across 102 Avenue.
                10.    Mention was made of the Carruthers Caveat which covers the
                       Glenora area but which is not under the purview of the Board.

                Terry Bachynski, an adjacent property owner directly south of the subject
                site, pointed out that he supported the proposed subdivision. He noted that
                the garage of the new lot exiting directly adjacent was not a problem for
                him.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Blair McDowell, Subdivision Officer,
                who provided the Board with the position of the City, which was
                presented in the agenda.
SDAB-S-08-007                          3                                  December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                He reiterated that the subdivision of this particular lot would, in fact,
                interfere with the character of the neighbourhood and a similar application
                was refused by the Board a year prior. He explained that there were
                general lot sizes in the Glenora area ranging from 571 square metres to
                971 square metres with an average site depth of 42 metres and the
                proposed lot with a depth of 22 metres would not comply with the
                minimum requirement in site depth of 30 metres.

                In his opinion, Mr. McDowell felt people moved to the Glenora area
                primarily because of the large lot size although some remnant lots had
                been created that were unique in their application and in their location. He
                referred to an example of a ravine lot subdivision but noted that lot was a
                very large lot.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the SUBDIVISION
                AUTHORITY CONFIRMED


REASONS FOR DECISION:


                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed lot(s) would not comply with the minimum lot depth
                        (30 metres) as prescribed by the regulations of the RF1 (Single
                        Detached Residential) Zone as prescribed by the City of Edmonton
                        Zoning Bylaw 12800. The proposed lot depth(s) are less than
                        those of the existing adjacent properties and will result in site areas
                        that are uncharacteristically smaller when compared to the adjacent
                        properties. Therefore, the Subdivision and Development Appeal
                        Board concurs with the position of the Subdivision Authority that
                        the proposed subdivision would not comply with Section 654 of
                        the Municipal Government Act.
SDAB-S-08-007                             4                                 December 5, 2008


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                   2.      The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board concurs with the
                           position of the Subdivision Authority that the proposed subdivision
                           would not comply with the intent and spirit of the Mature
                           Neighbourhood Overlay. Any proposed development would not
                           be in scope or size with the existing developments and would
                           negatively impact on the privacy of the adjacent property.
                           Although it may be possible to construct a home on the proposed
                           lot that doesn’t exceed the maximum site coverage, the
                           Subdivision Authority contends that the lot itself doesn’t fit the
                           immediate neighbourhood. The fundamental issue is the increase
                           in density, and the resulting negative impact on adjacent
                           properties. Also, the Subdivision Authority can not ignore the
                           non-conformance with certain development regulations, such as
                           the lack of a required rear yard for the north lot (the remnant).”


          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,
     located on the 5th Floor, 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.

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.
SDAB-S-08-007                             5                                 December 5, 2008

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.

     (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.
SDAB-S-08-007                               6                                 December 5, 2008

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, located on the 5th Floor, 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.




                                                    Mr. A. Skoreyko, Chairman
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD
                   SDAB-D-08-285

              Application No.: 77205666-001

An appeal by Rod Neil VS Hodgson Schilf Architects Inc. to
demolish the existing Single Detached House and two garages
and to construct a Single Detached House with a terrace,
fireplace, basement, and rear detached garage on Lots 17-18,
Block 102, Plan I , located at 10451 Saskatchewan Drive was
TABLED TO FEBRUARY 5, 2009.
                   SDAB-D-08-286
               Application No.: 77207323-001

An appeal by Rod Neil VS Hodgson Schilf Architects Inc. to
construct a Duplex House with attached garages, terraces,
fireplaces and basement development on Lots 17-18, Block 102,
Plan I , located at 10451 Saskatchewan Drive was TABLED
TO FEBRUARY 5, 2009.
                   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
0                                                      Fax: 780-496-8175



                                                DATE: December 5, 2008
                                                APPLICATION NO: 63534978-001
                                                FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-287

         NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated October 24, 2008, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct three four-store Apartment House buildings (341 Dwellings) with underground
parking garages and an accessory Amenity building

on Lot 1, Block 54, Plan 0123749, located at 15607 – 139 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on November 20, 2008. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                   “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
                   to approve with conditions, an application to construct three four-storey
                   Apartment House buildings (341 Dwellings) with underground parking
                   garages and an accessory Amenity building, located at 15607 – 139 Street
                   NW. The subject site is zoned RA7 Low Rise Apartment Zone. The
                   approved development permit was appealed by an adjacent property
                   owner.

                   The Board heard from the Appellant, Mr. Harry Hall, who provided the
                   following information in support of his appeal:

                   1.     He had previously obtained signatures of opposition regarding
                          potential future development on the subject site.
                   2.     His main concerns related to the height of the proposed
                          development, loss of privacy, reduced property values of the single
                          detached homes on 158 Avenue and increased traffic.
SDAB-D-08-287                         2                                December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Hall confirmed he resided at
                13829 – 158 Avenue. As to the Sun/Shadow Study done by the developer
                and noted in the Agenda, he indicated he had not seen that study. As to
                the RA7 zoning on the subject site, that was done prior to 2005. There
                had not been any signage on the subject site relating to the proposed
                development.

                The Board also heard from Ms. Kerry Kotyshyn in opposition to the
                proposed development. She provided the following information:

                1.     She also resides along 158 Avenue and noted that there are
                       approximately 15 single family residences bounding the subject
                       site and approximately 30 children along that section of 158
                       Avenue.
                2.     She was concerned about the substantial increase in vehicular
                       traffic as a result of the proposed development.
                3.     As well, she was concerned about the potential for reduced
                       property values and security.

                The Chairman explained that in the RA7 Zone, the proposed development
                was a Discretionary Use due to the size of the development and the
                application for underground parking. The Density of the proposed
                development is below the maximum allowable as is the proposed Floor
                Area Ratio.

                In response to questions, Ms. Kotyshyn confirmed that her main concerns
                related to the height of the proposed development and the increased
                vehicle traffic. She confirmed that there is a school scheduled to be
                developed in the US Zone to the north of 158 Avenue.

                The Board Officer confirmed that the Carleton Area Structure Plan was
                adopted by City Council on April 26, 1999 and shows the subject site as
                “Medium Density Residential”.

                The Board also heard from Mr. Darius Kokoszka, who reiterated the
                concerns already put forward by the neighbours relating to loss of privacy
                and increased traffic.
SDAB-D-08-287                         3                                 December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)


                The Board then heard from Patrick Brost, the Construction Manager for
                the Respondent, Cassel Developments (Silhouette) Ltd. He provided the
                following information:

                1.     The proposed development would provide a tax basis for the area;
                2.     They planned an “upscale” condominium development.
                3.     Residents of the development would make effective use of area
                       schools and provide a source of revenue for retailers in the area.
                4.     The plans for the proposed development show 1.5 parking stalls
                       per condominium unit plus visitor parking on the site.
                5.     The landscaping plans were developed, in part, to address some of
                       the concerns put forth by the residents.

                In response to questions, Mr. Brost confirmed that construction would
                likely commence in the next three to six months with the buildings being
                constructed in phases. The first phase would see Building “A”, that being
                the building abutting the single family residences, being built first,
                Building “B” to the south being built next and Building “C” located
                between Building “A” and Building “B” built last.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Gordon Barke, from Award Designs, who
                offered the following information:

                1.     The original plans had been for two buildings but after consultation
                       with the Planning and Development Department they revised their
                       plans to have three buildings which would address the issues
                       relating to vehicular ingress and egress from the site.
                2.     As to issues brought up about privacy, there will only be a small
                       percentage of the total number of units whose windows/balconies
                       would face the houses to the north.
                3.     The setback from the homes to the north was increased from 7.62
                       metres to 12.19 metres.
                4.     The proposed development would be finished with a commercial
                       grade stucco.
                5.     The Sun/Shadow Study had been conducted to demonstrate that
                       the impact of the proposed development on the RSL Zone along
                       158 Avenue would be minimized.
SDAB-D-08-287                         4                                  December 5, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Barke confirmed that 139
                Street was a public transit route and a collector road. As well, the height
                restriction in Section 210.4(11) was addressed by increasing the setback of
                Building “A” from the property line rather than by stepping back the upper
                storeys of Building “A”.

                In rebuttal, Mr. Hall reiterated his concerns about loss of privacy and a
                decrease in property values.

                The Board also heard from Ms. Cathy Charney, a resident of a
                condominium project immediately south of the site. She stated that she
                was also concerned with loss of privacy issues. She confirmed that the
                condominium project she resides in is also a phased development and
                expressed concerns with respect to timelines requiring the completion of
                the proposed development.

                Mr. Brost responded that completion of the proposed development is
                subject to economic conditions. He felt that in a positive economic
                climate, the proposed development could be completed in three years but
                it could take longer. He confirmed that they are the owners of the subject
                site but indicated that they are partners in a joint venture with the
                developers with the condominium project to the south of the site.

                Mr. Hall indicated to the Board that he had nothing further to add.


DECISION:
                that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the DEVELOPMENT
                AUTHORITY CONFIRMED and the requirement to set back or step back
                that portion of building development above 10.0 metres, when the
                development is directly adjacent to a Site zoned to allow Single Detached
                Housing as a Permitted Use be waived, subject to the following additional
                condition:

                1.     The Applicant provide a revised landscaping plan showing a larger
                       number of trees of a size greater than those currently proposed and
                       any other screening alternatives the developer may wish to utilize
                       on the setback area between the north property line and Building
                       “A” to address the concerns of the adjacent property owners, to the
                       satisfaction of the Board on or before December 15, 2008.
SDAB-D-08-287                             5                                 December 5, 2008



REASONS FOR DECISION:


                   The Board finds the following:

                       1. The proposed development is a Discretionary Use in the RA7
                          Zone.
                       2. The northern property line abuts an area zoned RSL where Single
                          Detached Housing is a Permitted Use.
                       3. The southern property line abuts an area where Single Detached
                          Housing is not a Permitted Use.
                       4. The Board accepts the modifications to the setback which added
                          6.2 metres to the required 7.5 metre setback of Building “A” from
                          the north property line as mitigating the effect of massing and
                          building height at a height of 4 storeys and 14 metres in height.
                       5. The condition requiring additional landscaping will address the
                          concerns of the Appellant and other residents relating to loss of
                          privacy in their rear yards.”


          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,
     located on the 5th Floor, 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.

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.
SDAB-D-08-287                             6                                 December 5, 2008


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.

     (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.
SDAB-D-08-287                               7                                 December 5, 2008

        (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, located on the 5th Floor, 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.




                                                    Mr. A. Skoreyko, Chairman
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:14
posted:12/8/2011
language:
pages:33