Subdivision and by E27r96rf

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 41

									                    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: October 22, 2010
                                                  APPLICATION NO: 101837840-001
                                                  FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-322

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated September 13, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct an addition to a Single Detached House (3.67 metres by 7.19 metres – Rear Covered
Deck/Pergola), existing without permits

on Lot 36, Block 36, Plan 9825885, located at 1732 – Tomlinson Common NW, was heard by
the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 7, 2010. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                    “At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
                    the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
                    the panel.

                    The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
                    Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.

                    The Board heard an appeal on the decision of the Development Authority
                    to refuse an application to construct an addition to a Single Detached
                    House (3.67 metres by 7.19 metres – Rear Covered Deck/Pergola),
                    existing without permits, located at 1732 – Tomlinson Common NW. The
                    subject site is zoned TSDR Terwillegar Single Detached Residential Zone.
                    The proposed development was refused due to an excess in the maximum
                    allowable Site Coverage for the Principal Building.

                    The Board notes that no letters of either support or objection were
                    received.
SDAB-D-10-322                          2                                    October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from the Appellant, Aimee Zimaro, who provided the
                following information in support of the appeal:

                1.      The subject deck is slightly larger than that permitted in the
                        regulations set out in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                2.      She understood, at the time the deck was built, from inquiries to
                        the Planning and Development Department, that no permit was
                        required as the deck was less than 2 feet above grade.
                3.      A pergola covers a significant amount of the subject deck.
                4.      There had not been, to her knowledge, any complaints in regards to
                        either the subject deck or pergola.
                5.      The entire structure is comparable to other structures in the
                        immediately surrounding area.
                6.      The neighbours on either side of the subject site, who would be
                        most impacted, have no objections to the structure as it currently
                        exists.
                7.      There is a pergola structure two properties to the south of the
                        subject site that is similar to the pergola structure existing over the
                        subject deck
                8.      The roof of the pergola structure is not entirely covered and the
                        pergola is a freestanding structure.

DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of 6.17 square metres in the maximum allowable Site Coverage
                for the principal building be permitted



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development, a covered deck, is an addition to a
                        Permitted Use in the TSDR Terwillegar Single Detached
                        Residential Zone.
                2.      The subject covered deck exists as part of the principal dwelling.
                3.      The structure, as it currently exists, is characteristic of other
                        developments in the surrounding neighbourhood.
SDAB-D-10-322                              3                                   October 22, 2010


REASONS FOR HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                    4.      The total development on the subject site remains less that the
                            maximum allowed total 40 percent Site Coverage.
                    5.      There were no letters of either support or objection received and no
                            one appeared in opposition to the proposed development.
                    6.      The pergola covering on the subject deck protrudes less than one
                            metre from the existing rear wall of the principal dwelling thereby
                            limiting its impact on adjacent properties.
                    7.      Based on the above, 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
                            parcels of land.”


          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
     separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor,
     10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

3.   A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
     date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, 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. For further
     information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

4.   Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
     within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
     unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
     work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.
SDAB-D-10-322                             4                                 October 22, 2010

5.    This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
      jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
      If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
      for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development
      Permit.

6.    When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
      Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
      out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101
      Street, Edmonton.

NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
      Edmonton information, programs and services.



                                                 Mr. R. Colistro, Presiding Officer
                                                 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
                                                            Fax: (780) 496-8175



                                                    DATE: October 22, 2010
                                                    APPLICATION NO: 101504162-001
                                                    FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-323

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated September 14, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct an addition (to cover existing rear deck) to a Single Detached House

on Lot 27, Block 10, Plan 9321467, located at 912 – 115 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 7, 2010. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                      “At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
                      the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
                      the panel.

                      The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
                      Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.

                      The Board heard an appeal on the decision of the Development Authority
                      to refuse an application to construct an addition (to cover existing rear
                      deck) to a Single Detached House, located at 912 – 115 Street NW. The
                      subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone. The
                      proposed development was refused due to a deficiency in the minimum
                      required Rear Yard and an excess in the maximum allowable total Site
                      Coverage.

                      The Board notes there were no letters of support or opposition received.
SDAB-D-10-323                         2                                  October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from the Appellant, Luc Leclerc, who provided the
                following information in support of the proposed development:

                1.     The deck is in existence and the proposed roof would not extend
                       further than the length of that existing deck.
                2.     The existing deck will not change in appearance and there will be
                       no change to the manner in which the deck is attached to the house.
                3.     In his opinion, the excess in maximum allowable total site
                       coverage is minimal.
                4.     The deck will still be open and therefore will not create a massing
                       effect.
                5.     With regards to the construction method, tubing is to be used on
                       the outside edge of the deck and there would be no overhang. As
                       tubing needs to be put on the corner of the deck, the roof would be
                       square shaped and will not have the same corner-cuts as does the
                       existing deck.
                6.     The property owner had consulted with a number of neighbours
                       over the summer months in regards to the proposed development.

                The Board also heard from Mr. S. Asiedu-Ampen, an adjacent property
                owner. He provided the following information in support of the appeal:

                1.    He was aware that the owners of the subject site had issues relating
                      to the afternoon sun shining directly into the kitchen.
                2.    The proposed cover would shield the kitchen area making it more
                      useable.
                3.    He is in support of the proposed development and, although he
                      resides immediately to the rear of the subject site, there are shrubs
                      between the properties which would screen the proposed
                      development.
                4.    Although he may be able to see the proposed roof, he reiterated that
                      he has no objection to it.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of 1.48 square metres in the maximum allowable total Site
                Coverage and the deficiency of 2.79 metres in the minimum required Rear
                Yard be permitted
SDAB-D-10-323                             3                                  October 22, 2010



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      The proposed development, a cover for an existing rear deck, is an
                           addition to a Permitted Use in the RF1 Single Detached Residential
                           Zone.
                   2.      The proposed development is a roof structure over the existing
                           deck which is supported by two piles. The covered deck is open
                           on the sides and therefore will mitigate its massing effect.
                   3.      The proposed development has the support of the three most
                           affected property owners as well as the property owner residing
                           immediately to the rear of the subject site.
                   4.      There were no letters of opposition and no one appeared in
                           opposition to the development.
                   5.      Based on the above, 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
                           parcels of land.”



          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
     separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor,
     10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

3.   A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
     date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, 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. For further
     information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.
SDAB-D-10-323                               4                                   October 22, 2010


4.    Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
      within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
      unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
      work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.

5.    This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
      jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
      If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
      for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development
      Permit.

6.    When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
      Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
      out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101
      Street, Edmonton.

NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
      Edmonton information, programs and services.



                                                    Mr. R. Colistro, Presiding Officer
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD
cc:
                     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: October 22, 2010
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 102071864-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-324

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated September 14, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct a Secondary Suite (2 bedroom), existing without permits

on Lot 14A, Block 92, Plan 8020699, located at 14608 – 30 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 7, 2010. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
                     the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
                     the panel.

                     The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
                     Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.

                     The Board heard an appeal on the decision of the Development Authority
                     to refuse an application to construct a Secondary Suite (2 bedroom),
                     existing without permits, located at 14608 – 30 Street NW. The subject
                     site is zoned RF4 Semi-detached Residential Zone. The proposed
                     development was refused due to a deficiency in the minimum required
                     Site Area for a Single Detached Dwelling containing a Secondary Site.

                     The Board notes that there were no letters of either support or objection
                     received.
SDAB-D-10-324                        2                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from Mr. K. Barker, the Appellant and property owner
                who provided the following information

                1.    Twenty six signatures in support of the proposed development
                      were provided to the Board out of a total of 32 property owners
                      residing within the 60-metre notification radius.
                2.    He explained that he was unable to contact the other six property
                      owners as they were not at home.
                3.    He acknowledged that he required a third on-site parking space and
                      was prepared to have that third on-site parking space located
                      beside the detached garage at the rear.
                4.    He felt that an alternate option was to put the third on-site parking
                      space in the front yard of the subject site as he felt there was
                      adequate space there as well.
                5.    There is a separate entrance at the rear of the principal dwelling
                      which goes to the upper floors.
                6.    The front entrance of the subject dwelling is from an inside porch
                      area with entrances going to both the upper and lower floors which
                      allows the exterior appearance of the dwelling to appear to be a
                      single detached residence.
                7.    The lower level of the subject dwelling is one square metre smaller
                      that the upper floor.
                8.    He had contacted the City of Edmonton who inspected the subject
                      Secondary Suite and noted there were safety issues relating to two
                      windows and the fire alarm system. He has changed the windows
                      and installed the proper smoke alarms.
                9.    He will continue to do small renovations to the Secondary Suite
                      but his main concerns related to safety.
                10.   The third required on-site parking space requires hardsurfacing and
                      he indicated that he was willing to ensure that was done.
                11.   He noted that, as shown on Photograph SDAB-D-10-324, the
                      dwelling immediately to the north of the subject site, is a mirror
                      image of his dwelling. He confirmed that there was not a
                      Secondary Suite in the neighbouring house.
                12.   The Secondary Suite existed when he had purchased the property
                      and he was attempting to ensure that it was a legal Secondary
                      Suite.
                13.   The aerial photograph provided by the Board showed the lot to be
                      smaller than a normal residential lot but similar to the size of the
                      lots adjacent to the subject site.
SDAB-D-10-324                          3                                  October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                14.     He had taken the measurement between the existing Detached
                        Garage and side fence and indicated that it was 5 metres deep by 3
                        metres wide.

DECISION:
                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the deficiency of 33.76 square metres in the minimum required Site Area
                for a Single Detached House with a Secondary Suite be permitted, subject
                to the following conditions:

                1.      The third on-site parking space shall be located between the Side
                        Lot Line and the existing Detached Garage.
                2.      The subject parking space shall be hardsurfaced and in compliance
                        with Section 54 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development, a Secondary Suite, is a Permitted Use
                        in the RF4 Semi-detached Residential Zone.
                2.      The Board accepts the evidence provided by the Appellant that the
                        Secondary Suite existed when he purchased the property and is
                        currently in the process of legalizing the existing Secondary Suite.
                3.      The Secondary Suite complies with all the regulations set out in
                        the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw other than the minimum required Site
                        Area.
                4.      The minimum required Site Area of 360 square metres will require
                        a variance for any type of development on the subject site,
                        regardless of whether or not the principal dwelling contains a
                        Secondary Suite.
                5.      The Municipal Development Plan proposes the City encourage the
                        provision of more affordable housing and a Secondary Suite falls
                        into this category.
                6.      Twenty six signature of support for the proposed Secondary Suite
                        was provided out of 32 property owners residing within the 60-
                        metre notification radius.
SDAB-D-10-324                                4                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                      7.      The Secondary Suite does not result in a change of the character of
                              the Single Detached House from the exterior.
                      8.      There were no letters of opposition received and no on appeared in
                              opposition to the proposed development.
                      9.      Based on the above, 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
                              parcels of land.”



            IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.     THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
       separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor,
       10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

3.     A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
       date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, 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. For further
       information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

4.     Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
       within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
       unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
       work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.

5.      This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26. If the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application for leave to
appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development Permit.
SDAB-D-10-324                            5                                 October 22, 2010



6.    When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
      Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
      out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101
      Street, Edmonton.

NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
      Edmonton information, programs and services.



                                                 Mr. R. Colistro, Presiding Officer
                                                 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
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175


                                                   DATE: October 22, 2010
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 70865671-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-325

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated September 8, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct a Single Detached House with a rear uncovered deck (3.66 metres by 6.71 metres at
0.99 metres in Height), front uncovered balcony (1.52 metres by 8.84 metres), fireplace and
basement development and to demolish a Single Detached House and attached garage.

on Lot 31, Block 2, Plan 2947HW, located at 9307 – 86 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 7, 2010. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
                     the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
                     the panel.

                     The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
                     Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.

                     The Board heard an appeal on the decision of the Development Authority
                     to refuse an application to construct a Single Detached House with a rear
                     uncovered deck (3.66 metres by 6.71 metres at 0.99 metres in Height),
                     front uncovered balcony (1.52 metres by 8.84 metres), fireplace and
                     basement development and to demolish a Single Detached House and
                     attached garage, located at 9307 – 86 Street NW. The subject site is zoned
                     RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone and is within the Mature
                     Neighbourhood Overlay. The proposed development was refused because
                     of a deficiency in the minimum required Front Yard, that being consistent
                     with the Setback of development on adjacent sites and with the general
                     context of the block face.
SDAB-D-10-325                          2                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board notes there were no letters of support or opposition received.

                At the outset of the hearing, it was clarified that the signatures of support
                on the file were those provided to the City Planning Department. The
                signatures had been gathered as a result of community consultation in
                2007 when he had proposed an 8 metres setback for the proposed
                development.

                The Board heard from the Appellant, Mr. Shewchuk, who referenced the
                written submission, a copy of which is on file. He provided the following
                information in support of his appeal:

                1.     Two recently obtained signatures of support for the proposed
                       development were obtained from two new property owners in the
                       neighbourhood since the 2007 community consultation.
                2.     The recent community consultation reflected a new request of an
                       8.5 metres Front Yard setback.
                3.     He wished to site the house as proposed in order to maximize the
                       rear yard for gardening.
                4.     He planned to finish the exterior of the proposed development in a
                       manner to compliment adjacent properties.
                5.     All development regulations relating to size and height have been
                       met and there were no issues in relation to sun-shadowing.
                6.     The proposed development, in his opinion, will increase the
                       property values of surrounding properties in the neighbourhood.
                7.     He referred to the photographs submitted and stated that the house,
                       which was to be torn down, was built in 1951 along with several of
                       the neighbouring houses and was currently derelict and
                       unoccupied.
                8.     He noted the photographs showing a house down the block which
                       had only a 6.5 metres Front Yard was, to his knowledge, the first
                       house built on the block in 1949 and had taken the advantage of
                       being the first to have a large Rear Yard.
                9.     The calculation of the required Front Yard was based on
                       immediately adjacent properties and they did not use the block
                       average which was substantially less and more appropriate, in his
                       view.
SDAB-D-10-325                         3                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                10.    An email was submitted from the Community League President, a
                       copy of which is on file, which stated that if the neighbouring
                       property owners did not oppose the proposed development, the
                       Community League did not see any reason to speak against it.
                11.    He referred to the letter of opposition from Mr. Mills and clarified
                       that he had never refused to provide plans to these neighbours and,
                       in fact, provided a list of the details of the proposed development,
                       including the variances being requested to Mrs. Mills.
                12.    He stated that although it appeared he could move the house
                       further back on the site and still comply with the Rear Yard
                       requirement, he did not wish to do this. In his opinion, doing this
                       would effectively sacrifice some of the rear yard which he wished
                       to be as large as possible.
                13.    Other photographs were referenced showing there is shrubbery and
                       trees in the Front Yard of the subject site and of neighbouring
                       properties which will obscure the view of the front of the proposed
                       development from neighbouring property owners.

                The Board then hearing from Mr. T. Aldridge, a property owner residing
                immediately to the south of the subject site, in opposition to the proposed
                development. He offered the following information:

                1.     While he welcomed new homes being built in the community
                       which is good for the neighbourhood as a whole, he felt the
                       proposed development was being placed too far to the front of the
                       subject site resulting in the proposed development looking out of
                       place in the context of the block.
                2.     The proposed house is a two-storey structure which would result in
                       a solid wall at least 7.5 metres high projecting towards the road on
                       that side of his property with the proposed design being a straight
                       front on the house without any step back on the upper storey.
                3.     He noted there was a balcony at the front of the house which also
                       projects into the Front Yard
                4.     He would find it acceptable if the proposed development extended
                       only 2 metres beyond his home toward the front property line.
                5.     Although some neighbours agreed with the proposed development
                       in 2007, he felt they did not understand the true nature of the
                       proposed development or all the variances required.
                6.     In his view, placing the new house towards the front of the lot as it
                       is proposed will have an adverse visual effect on his property.
SDAB-D-10-325                         4                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)


                7.     Since he purchased his home in 1998 there have not been any new
                       homes constructed on the block.
                8.     He agreed that there was no adverse sun-shadowing effect on his
                       property as his property is located immediately south of the subject
                       site.

                In rebuttal, Mr. Shewchuk provided additional photographs together with
                a copy of a letter from Ace Design, his designer. He referred to the
                photographs to show where landscaping could be placed between the
                proposed development and other homes to lessen the impact of the
                projection into the required Front Yard. He explained that in 2007, he
                verbally described the proposed development to his neighbours. At this
                point in the hearing, the Appellant provided the Board with a revised set of
                plans proposing a Front Yard setback of 9.235 metres.

                Mr. Aldridge was then allowed to comment and he stated that, in his
                opinion, two metres was more than enough of a projection beyond the
                front of his home.

                Mr. Shewchuk had no further comments.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED IN PART and the DEVELOPMENT
                GRANTED and the deficiency of 1.0 metres in the minimum required
                Front Yard setback, that being consistent with the Setback of development
                on adjacent Sites and with the general context of the blockface be
                permitted, subject to the following conditions:

                1.     the minimum Front Yard setback shall be no less that 9.8 metres;
                2.     all yards, visible from a public roadway, other than a Lane, on a
                       Site developed with Single Detached, Semi-detached, Duplex or
                       Secondary Suite, shall be seeded or sodded within 18 consecutive
                       months of the occupancy of the development. Alternate forms of
                       Landscaping, including hard decorative pavers, washed gravel,
                       shale or similar treatments, flower beds or cultivated gardens, may
                       be substituted for seeding or sodding, provided that all areas of
                       exposed earth are designed as either flower beds or cultivated
                       gardens; as specified in Section 55.2(4)(b);
SDAB-D-10-325                         5                                  October 22, 2010


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                3.      lot grades must match the Engineered approved lot grading plans
                        for the area. Contact Drainage Services at 496-5444 for lot grading
                        inspection inquiries; and
                4.      the proposed basement development shall not be used as an
                        additional dwelling unit.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development, a Single Detached House, is a
                        Permitted Use in the RF1 Zone.
                2.      The Board accepts the calculations of the Development Officer of
                        the average block face and of the two adjacent properties which are
                        10.54 metres and 11.8 metres, respectively.
                3.      The property owner immediately south of the subject site
                        expressed his concerns about a two-storey wall to the front of the
                        property but he was prepared to accept a reasonable projection.
                4.      The property owner to the north of the subject site had expressed
                        his concerns in writing with regard to an 8 metre setback.
                5.      The Community League deferred to the view of the immediately
                        adjacent property owners with regard to the proposed
                        development.
                6.      The variance granted of 1.0 metres will allow the location of the
                        proposed development to be no less than 9.8 metres from the front
                        property line and is mindful of the block face of the adjacent
                        properties and the general context of the block face.
                7.      With the variance granted, the Rear Yard will still meet the rear
                        yard requirements, that being 40 percent of the Site Depth.
                8.      Based on the above and taking into account the conditions
                        imposed, 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 parcels of
                        land.”
SDAB-D-10-325                               6                                   October 22, 2010


           IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.    THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
      separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor,
      10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

3.    A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
      date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, 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. For further
      information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

4.    Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
      within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
      unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
      work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.

5.    This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
      jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
      If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
      for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development
      Permit.

6.    When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
      Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
      out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101
      Street, Edmonton.

NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
      Edmonton information, programs and services.



                                                    Mr. R. Colistro, Presiding Officer
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD
cc:
                     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: October 22, 2010
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 90657183-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-326

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated September 13, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct a Semi-detached House with attached garage and to demolish a Single Detached
House and garage

on Lot 24, Block 10, Plan 2028AO, located at 15504/15506 – 109 Avenue NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 7, 2010. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
                     the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
                     the panel.

                     The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
                     Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.

                     The Board heard an appeal on the decision of the Development Authority
                     to refuse an application to construct a Semi-detached House with attached
                     garage and to demolish a Single Detached House and garage, located at
                     15504/15506 – 109 Avenue NW. The subject site is zoned RF4 Semi-
                     detached Residential Zone and is within the Mature Neighbourhood
                     Overlay. The proposed development was refused because of a deficiency
                     in the minimum required Front Yard, that being consistent with the
                     Setback of development on adjacent Sites and with the general context of
                     the blockface, and a deficiency in the minimum required Rear Yard, that
                     being 40 percent of the Site Depth.
SDAB-D-10-326                         2                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board notes there were no letters of support or objection received.

                The Board heard from the Appellant, Ms. M. Cheung accompanied by her
                builder, Mr. P. Afonso, representing Welcome Home Inc. They jointly
                provided the following information in support of the proposed
                development:

                1.     Two letters of support from two property owners north of the
                       subject site together with a petition containing 14 signatures which
                       are either in support of the proposed development or neutral.
                2.     Photographs were provided showing a similar development in the
                       area.
                3.     When the application for the proposed development was first
                       provided to the Development Officer in January, 2010, the
                       Development Officer indicated he would approve it. However, as
                       a result of financial delays during which time City policy changed
                       and, as a result, the development permit was refused. As a result of
                       the refusal, Ms. Cheung chose to appeal the refusal.
                4.     The majority of the residents in the area are tenants and none had
                       any real objections.
                5.     A letter was signed by a tenant who resided immediately north of
                       the subject site and by a property owner who resided two
                       properties to the north.
                6.     The letter provided from the Community League was signed by the
                       interim president who is not a resident of the neighbourhood.
                7.     The hedge shown in the photographs belongs to the neighbouring
                       property to the north and not Ms. Cheung.
                8.     There is a strip mall to the west of the subject property which has a
                       car rental business and clients visiting that site do park along 109
                       Avenue.
                9.     There is a similar development located on 105 Avenue which had
                       just been completed with one half of the duplex being a rental
                       property and the other side currently being up for sale.
                10.    It was confirmed that the height of the structure is 6.8 metres.
                11.    The patio doors depicted on the plans will be removed and
                       replaced by a window since there is not adequate space to
                       construct a deck.
                12.    The only second entrance is through the garage.
                13.    There is a four-plex in the area but not in the same block but rather
                       on 149 Street. There are single family homes located on 155
                       Street.
SDAB-D-10-326                         3                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                14.    The existing home was previously a rental property but is currently
                       vacant.


DECISION:
                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the deficiency of 1.33 metres in the minimum required Front Yard, that
                being consistent with the Setback of development on adjacent Sites and
                with the general context of the blockface, and the deficiency of 12.10
                metres in the minimum Rear Yard requirement, that being 40 percent of
                the Site Depth be permitted, subject to the following conditions:

                1.     the patio doors shown on the plans shall be replaced by a window,
                       with no exterior access;
                2.     the proposed 4.8 metres access to 155 Street located 3.1 metres
                       from the north property line, shall be constructed as a residential
                       crossing as per the City of Edmonton Design and Construction
                       Standards, as shown on the Enclosures. 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);
                3.     there is an existing street light in the vicinity of the proposed 4.8
                       metres access to 155 Street, as shown on the Enclosures. The
                       access must maintain a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres from the
                       street light. The Applicant should contact Jatinder Hayer (780-
                       412-7697) of EPCOR Technology & Meter Services for more
                       information. Should relocation of the street light pole be required,
                       all costs associated with relocation must be borne by the
                       owner/applicant;
                4.     any hoarding or construction taking place on road right-of-way
                       requires an OSCAM permit. The owner must call Transportation
                       Operations at 780-442-6458 to arrange for the permit;
                5.     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;
SDAB-D-10-326                          4                                  October 22, 2010


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                6.      all yards, visible from a public roadway, other than a Lane, on a
                        Site developed with Single Detached, Semi-detached, Duplex or
                        Secondary Suite, shall be seeded or sodded within 18 consecutive
                        months of the occupancy of the development. Alternate forms of
                        Landscaping, including hard decorative pavers, washed gravel,
                        shale or similar treatments, flower beds or cultivated gardens, may
                        be substituted for seeding or sodding, provided that all areas of
                        exposed earth are designed as either flower beds or cultivated
                        gardens; as specified in Section 55.2(4)(b);
                7.      lot grades must match the Engineered approved lot grading plans
                        for the area. Contact Drainage Services at 496-5444 for lot grading
                        inspection inquiries; and


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development, a Semi-detached House, is a Permitted
                        Use in the RF4 Semi-detached Residential Zone.
                2.      The proposed development complies with all other regulations set
                        out in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                3.      The development of Semi-detached Housing is compatible with the
                        Municipal Development Plan.
                4.      The proposed development has the support of 14 other property
                        owners in the area. The proposed development also has the
                        support of the Community League.
                5.      There were no letters of opposition received and no one appeared
                        in opposition to the proposed development.
                6.      There are similar developments in the surrounding area.
                7.      Based on the above, 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
                        parcels of land.”
SDAB-D-10-326                                5                                   October 22, 2010


            IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.     THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
       separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor,
       10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

3.     A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
       date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, 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. For further
       information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

4.     Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
       within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
       unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
       work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.

5.     This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
       jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
       If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
       for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development
       Permit.

6.     When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
       Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
       out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101
       Street, Edmonton.

NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
      Edmonton information, programs and services.



                                                     Mr. R. Colistro, Presiding Officer
                                                     SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                     APPEAL BOARD
Enclosures (2)

cc:
             SDAB-D-10-327
       APPLICATION NO.: 100880424-001


An appeal by Pattison Outdoor Advertising, to
replace/construct an Off-premises Freestanding Sign (4.26
metres by 14.63 metres – Double Side Sign – north facing
static / south facing animated) on Lot 8, Block 3, Plan
4626NY, located at 7255 Girard Road NW, was
TABLED TO OCTOBER 21, 2010.
                     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: October 22, 2010
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 101988181-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-328

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated September 13, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Operate a Major Home Based Business – consultant and repairs to privately owned collectible
cars

on Lot 64, Block 35, Plan 7621843, located at 13627 – 25 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 7, 2010. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
                     the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
                     the panel.

                     The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
                     Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.

                     The Board heard an appeal on the decision of the Development Authority
                     to refuse an application to operate a Major Home Based Business –
                     consultant and repairs to privately owned collectible cars, located at 13627
                     – 25 Street NW. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached
                     Residential Zone.       The development permit was refused as the
                     Development Officer deemed the proposed development to be an
                     Automotive and Equipment Repair Use which is neither a Permitted nor
                     Discretionary Use in the RF1 Zone.
SDAB-D-10-328                         2                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from Mr. R.D. Gillespie, legal counsel for the Appellant,
                Mr. E. Zadora, who was also in attendance. Mr. Gillespie provided the
                Board with a written submission, a copy of which is on file and added the
                following information in support of the appeal:

                1.     The initial decision of the Development Officer was proper in that
                       this business is automotive in nature. However, every home based
                       business can be characterized as something else and the only type
                       of business specifically excluded under the definition was “retail
                       sales”.
                2.     The subject home based business does not interfere with the
                       neighbourhood and this is supported by 9 letters of support
                       previously submitted and five neighbouring property owners in
                       attendance at the hearing.
                3.     The subject home based business is not intrusive in that there is no
                       signage, the business does not generate traffic in excess of the
                       normal neighbourhood traffic, there are no parking problems
                       related to the business and, little or no noise is associated with the
                       business.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Zadora, the Appellant, who provided the
                following information:

                1.     He started the business in 1997 when he purchased the subject
                       property and has operated the business for the past 13 years and is
                       the sole employee.
                2.     A complaint had been lodged but he was not advised as to the
                       reasons for the complaint.
                3.     In reviewing Photograph SDAB-D-10-328b, he confirmed there is
                       a Cadillac, a Porsche, another red vehicle and a NAPA delivery
                       vehicle on the rear driveway. He indicated that to have that
                       number of vehicles on the driveway was highly unusual. He
                       confirmed that the NAPA delivery vehicle was there to deliver
                       parts and only parked there for a few minutes. The red vehicle and
                       the Porsche are vehicles belonging to the Appellant. The Cadillac
                       belonged to a customer who was at the site.
                4.     He has never received complaints from the neighbouring property
                       owners over traffic or parking congestion due to his business.
                5.     It was noted that had the photograph been taken 10 minutes later,
                       the vehicles in the driveway may have been gone.
SDAB-D-10-328                         3                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                6.     The rear lane is unique in its configuration. Clients using his
                       services come to the subject site by appointment only by way of
                       the rear lane.
                7.     Any vehicles that are being worked on are considered large
                       projects, lasting a month or more and all work done on the vehicles
                       is done inside the garage. The vehicles are never left outside as
                       they are considered collectibles and very valuable.
                8.     All supplies, storage, and tools are stored inside the garage which
                       is protected by a monitored alarm.
                9.     His only form of advertising is by way of word of mouth.
                10.    In his opinion, vandalism and other types of crime in the area has
                       decreased as a result of him being in the neighbourhood during
                       daytime hours when neighbours are away at work.

                The Board then heard from Mr. R. Dissanayke, an immediately adjacent
                property owner, in support of the proposed development. He provided the
                following information:

                1.     He purchased his property in 1995 which is located immediately
                       east of the subject site across the rear lane.
                2.     If there were vehicles parked on the Appellant’s driveway on an
                       ongoing basis, he would have difficulty accessing his driveway and
                       he confirmed that up until now he has not had any difficulty.
                3.     He also noted that with Mr. Zadora working in the neighbourhood
                       during daytime hours, incidences of vandalism and other crimes
                       have decreased.
                4.     He had never seen Mr. Zadora working on vehicles outside of the
                       garage, there is no extra noise or refuse as a result of the business
                       and, in his opinion, the business is not a major disruption in the
                       neighbourhood.
                5.     The rear lane is a dead end lane with no access to 137 Avenue.
                       Vehicles coming to the business do so through the long rear lane
                       and he has not been made aware of any problems.

                The Board then heard from Mr. S. Ford, another immediately adjacent
                neighbouring property owner who is in support of the proposed
                development. Mr. Ford provided the following information:

                1.     Prior to purchasing the subject site, Mr. Zadora had spoken with
                       neighbouring property owners advising them what he was
                       proposing and there had been no objections.
SDAB-D-10-328                       4                                  October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                2.    The subject site is well maintained and no work is done outside of
                      the garage and the Appellant has offered neighbouring property
                      owners the use of his tools and garage.
                3.    He noted that during evenings and weekends, parking in the cul-
                      de-sac is congested but there are very few cars parked there during
                      week days.
                4.    There is more traffic using the rear lane during the weekends but
                      not during week days.
                5.    He reiterated what had been stated by Mr. Dissanayke in regards to
                      security issues, extra traffic and noise. In his opinion, there is
                      more noise from the major public transit route on 124 Street than
                      from the home based business.

                In conclusion, Mr. Gillespie stated that the impact of the home based
                business on neighbouring property owners is minimal.


DECISION:
                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED,
                subject to the following conditions:

                1.    the development is approved for a period of five years provided
                      that during the said period the Applicant occupy the dwelling as
                      his principal residence;
                2.    there shall be no outdoor business activity, or outdoor storage of
                      materials or equipment associated with the business allowed on the
                      site. Indoor storage related to the business shall be allowed in
                      either the dwelling or accessory buildings;
                3.    there shall be no mechanical or electrical equipment used which
                      creates external noise, or visible and audible interference with
                      home electronics equipment in adjacent dwellings;
                4.    the Major Home Based Business shall not change the principal
                      character or external appearance of the dwelling or accessory
                      buildings;
                5.    there shall be no exterior display or advertisement other than an
                      identification plaque or sign a maximum of 20 centimetres (8
                      inches) by 30.5 centimetres (12 inches) in size located on the
                      dwelling; and
SDAB-D-10-328                                5                                   October 22, 2010


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                      6.      the Major Home Based Business shall not generate pedestrian or
                              vehicular traffic, or parking, in excess of that which is
                              characteristic of the District in which it is located.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                      The Board finds the following:

                      1.      The proposed development, a Major Home Based Business, is a
                              Discretionary Use in the RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone.
                      2.      The Major Home Based Business operates in accordance with the
                              regulations set out in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                      3.      There is no business activity or storage outside.
                      4.      The Appellant has the support of neighbouring property owners,
                              with 9 letters of support being provided and 5 neighbouring
                              property owners in attendance.
                      5.      The Board accepts the evidence presented by neighbouring
                              property owners that the Major Home Based Business does not
                              generate excessive noise or refuse.
                      6.      The Board accepts the evidence of the Appellant that the Major
                              Home Based Business is not an auto body shop but rather repairing
                              and fine tuning exotic and collectible vehicles.
                      7.      The Major Home Based Business does not display any signage.
                      8.      The characteristics of a Single Detached House have been
                              maintained.
                      9.      Based on the above, 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
                              parcels of land.”

The Applicant should note that the Major Home Based Business (Consultant and repairs to
privately owned collectible cars) Use has only been approved for the time set out in this decision.
If the Applicant wishes to continue the use beyond the time permitted, a new application must be
made to the Planning and Development Department. A business license DOES NOT extend the
time for which this approval by the Board has been given.
SDAB-D-10-328                              6                                   October 22, 2010




          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
     separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor,
     10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

3.   A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
     date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, 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. For further
     information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

4.   Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
     within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
     unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
     work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.

5.   This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
     jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
     If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
     for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development
     Permit.

6.   When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
     Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
     out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
     Street, Edmonton.
SDAB-D-10-328                           7                               October 22, 2010




NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
      Edmonton information, programs and services.



                                               Mr. R. Colistro, Presiding Officer
                                               SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                               APPEAL BOARD

cc:
                     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: October 22, 2010
                                                  APPLICATION NO: 98508793-001
                                                  FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-329

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated September 10, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct a three dwelling Row Housing building with Accessory rear Detached Garage building
and to demolish the existing Single Detached Housing building.

on Lot 1, Block 21, Plan 2655HW, located at 7115/7117/7119 – 96 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 7, 2010. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
                     Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.

                     The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
                     to approve with variances granted in the minimum required Site Width,
                     the minimum required Side Yard abutting the flanking public roadway, the
                     minimum required Rear Yard, and the separation distance from the
                     principal building to the rear Detached Garage, subject to conditions, and
                     subsequently appealed by the Hazeldean Community League with
                     concerns that the proposed development is an over-development and not
                     suitable for the site. The subject site is located at 7115/7117/7119 – 96
                     Street NW. The subject site is zoned RF3 Low Density Development
                     Zone and is within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay.
SDAB-D-10-329                         2                                  October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                At the outset of the hearing, two Board members indicated that they
                previously sat with one the Appellants on the Subdivision and
                Development Appeal Board but felt they could render a fair and just
                decision. The Presiding Officer confirmed with the parties in attendance
                that there was no opposition to the composition of the panel.

                The Presiding Officer then clarified the authority of the Board under
                Section 687 of the Municipal Government Act and pointed out that this
                was a hearing “de novo” with respect to the proposed development and
                was not a review of the decision of the Development Officer.

                The Presiding Officer then requested the Appellant to first address the
                issue of whether the proposed development should properly be categorized
                as “row housing” or “stacked row housing”

                The Board heard from the representatives of the Hazeldean Community
                League, Mr. F. Mitchell, Civics Director and Mr. J. Said, League
                President. A written submission was provided, a copy of which is on file.
                The written submission outlined some of the arguments of the Hazeldean
                Community League in opposition to the proposed development, including:

                1.     The proposed development is a Discretionary Use and the Board
                       can refuse a discretionary development if it is not suitable for the
                       particular location, based on sound planning reasons.
                2.     The Development Officer had granted variances with respect to
                       site width, minimum required flanking side yard, minimum rear
                       yard, permitting visitor parking to be provided in tandem, and a
                       reduction in the required separation space between the garage and
                       principal dwelling.
                3.     The Community League suggested that there were other variances
                       required for the proposed development which were not identified
                       by the Development Officer, which included the following:

                       a)     A deficiency of one visitor parking stall;
                       b)     Deficiencies in the length of parking stalls provided on-site;
                              and
                       c)     Deficiencies with respect to the amount of amenity space
                              provided and the depth of the amenity space affecting two
                              of the units forming part of the proposed development.
SDAB-D-10-329                        3                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                4.    The number of variances that are required for the proposed
                      development indicate a development which is not suitable for the
                      proposed location.
                5.    There are more suitable developments for the subject site, all
                      which can be development without the need for variances. This
                      suggests there is no hardship associated with the subject site itself.
                6.    Parking should be provided in accordance with the requirements of
                      Section 54 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                7.    The Respondent did not conduct a proper community consultation
                      in accordance with the requirements of the Mature Neighbourhood
                      Overlay.
                8.    The Community League cited Professor Laux, Planning Law and
                      Practice in Alberta in support of the propositions that variances
                      should only be granted in situations where unusual circumstances
                      exist such that the Applicant would suffer unnecessary hardship
                      forced to comply with the zoning bylaw.
                9.    The Community League raised a number of objections with respect
                      to the manner in which the Development Officer arrived at her
                      conclusion and the manner in which the variances were supported
                      by the Development Officer’s reasons.

                The Board first heard from Mr. Mitchell who provided the following
                comments in support of their appeal:

                1.    The definition of “Stacked Row Housing” on its face included
                      “Row Housing” and therefore, the two use classes are not mutually
                      exclusive. For this reason, the Appellants submit that the project
                      could be called “Stacked Row Housing” and they did not rely upon
                      any features of the plans in support of that argument.
                2.    Even if the Board found the proposed development was not
                      “Stacked Row Housing”, the guidelines for the Board exercising
                      their discretion in Section 140.5 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw
                      could still be referred to and used in making its decision.
                3.    Consultations with neighbouring property owners that the
                      Community League had undertaken were reviewed and three
                      letters of objection had been submitted from adjacent property
                      owners.
                4.    He noted that 96 Street is a collector road within the City as well as
                      being a major public transit route so it carries in excess of 5000
                      vehicles per day.
SDAB-D-10-329                        4                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                5.    The justification that variances be allowed as additional land was
                      not available was not valid as a developer could always purchase
                      additional land at a price. This situation should not be considered
                      a hardship in relation to the developer.
                6.    He reviewed the written submission of the Community League
                      and, in particular, noted the emails that had passed between the
                      Community League and the developer showing that community
                      consultation in this respect was inadequate.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Said, President of the Hazeldean
                Community League who provided the following information:

                1.    He noted that the additional variances the Community League felt
                      were necessary to allow the proposed development to proceed as
                      proposed included a lack of a visitor parking stall, parking stalls
                      that were too short and not of the length set out in the regulations,
                      amenity areas that were not of the required sizes, and the amenity
                      area for Unit 2 is located in a side yard which also has a sidewalk.
                2.    According to the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, Amenity Areas could
                      not be located within a Front Yard and therefore the deck towards
                      72 Avenue could not be counted as an amenity area.
                3.    A major concern of the Community League is the danger to
                      residents of the proposed development from the proximity of their
                      front entrances to 96 Street. He felt 96 Street was a very busy
                      street with a lot of vehicular traffic immediately adjacent to the
                      sidewalk serving the proposed development.
                4.    Most of the residential properties in the neighbourhood front onto
                      quieter residential roadways which are avenues rather than streets.
                      There are only a few properties facing 96 Street.
                5.    The Community League submitted architectural drawings showing
                      several other viable options for the development of the subject site
                      and demonstrated that the subject site did not impose a hardship on
                      development.
                6.    The Community League and immediately adjacent property
                      owners were opposed to tripling the occupancy from a single
                      family dwelling to a three dwelling project. This was considered
                      an overdevelopment of the subject site which the community
                      opposed.
SDAB-D-10-329                        5                                  October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                7.    In regards to the short parking stalls in the garage, he suggested
                      that this would result in the garage not being used for parking but
                      rather for storage and contribute to the already congested on-street
                      parking problem.
                8.    He submitted that the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw had precedence
                      over the Municipal Development Plan where issues of density are
                      concerned and that the necessity for ten variances clearly showed
                      an overdevelopment of the subject site.
                9.    The Board of the Community League had voted to oppose the
                      proposed development.

                The Board then heard from the Respondent, Vicky Kujundzic, who
                provided the following information in support of the proposed
                development:

                1.    She stated that, in her opinion, the neighbouring property owners
                      did not fully understand the variances that had been granted and
                      most neighbouring property owners were concerned with other
                      problems such as the traffic on 96 Street rather that the proposed
                      development.
                2.    Sun-shadowing is not an issue as the subject site is aligned in an
                      east/west direction.
                3.    As to concerns of the immediately adjacent property owner
                      regarding privacy, there was only one window facing her
                      development site from the existing duplex.
                4.    All the parking regulations had been met and she had been advised
                      by her architect that the parking stalls were regulation size.
                5.    Amenity areas in the proposed development are made up of loft
                      balconies, decks and patio area and are sufficient.
                6.    She was advised by her architect that the deck on the north side of
                      the proposed development could extend 2 metres into the Front
                      Yard and be included as amenity area.
                7.    She noted that there are other multi-family developments in the
                      area with similar decks.
                8.    She submitted materials to the Board which included a letter from
                      the neighbouring property owner across 72 Avenue who expressed
                      support for the proposed development.
                9.    Many neighbours wanted to see the existing house demolished and
                      a new development put in its place.
SDAB-D-10-329                        6                                   October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                10.    Reference was made to photographs of other multi-family
                       developments in the area and she felt that the proposed
                       development would increase the property values for neighbouring
                       properties.
                11.    She explained the community consultation she had undertaken
                       with neighbouring property owners and the Community League.
                12.    In her opinion, the proposed development was not an
                       overdevelopment of the subject site.
                13.    She felt that residents occupying the proposed development would
                       not be at risk from street traffic and she also confirmed there are
                       two parking stalls provided for each unit.
                14.    She proposes to plant trees in the east Side Yard to mitigate
                       privacy concerns.
                15.    She agreed that the proposed development is designed in such a
                       way as to have eleven windows facing the property immediately
                       east of the subject site.
                16.    In reference to Section 46.4 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw
                       regarding Amenity Area, she stated that she was not aware of that
                       provision and had relied on her architect to provide the required
                       amenity space.

                In rebuttal, Mr. Said provided the following comments:

                1.     He reiterated that amenity space was not allowed in the Front Yard
                       and all other multi-family developments provided a suitable back
                       yard which is not the case with the proposed development.
                2.     The balconies on the proposed development are not the minimum 2
                       metres in width as required to be considered as Amenity Area.
                3.     Different drawings were provided to the Community League than
                       those reviewed by the Development Officer, and he reiterated that
                       the position of the Community League was that the garage parking
                       stalls are short and would not be used to park vehicles.
                4.     There are only two on-street parking spaces available in front of
                       the subject site on 72 Avenue.
                5.     With regards to the criticism from the Respondent to the language
                       used in the letters prepared by the Community League, he noted
                       that the same language was used as that used by the City in its
                       notices.
SDAB-D-10-329                         7                                  October 22, 2010


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                6.      He was doubtful as to whether there is sufficient space in the east
                        Side Yard to plant additional trees for privacy purposes and the
                        trees suggested by the Respondent would only serve that purpose
                        for a portion of the year.
                7.      The Community League had corrected their initial error in the
                        height calculation of the proposed development and notified the
                        neighbours of such error.
                8.      There is inadequate provision for visitor parking on the subject
                        site.
                9.      The proposed development is not a family-oriented development
                        due to its lack of amenity area and would not contribute to the
                        family life of the Hazeldean community.

                In conclusion, Mr. Mitchell asked that the Board revoke the approved
                development permit.



DECISION:
                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT REFUSED



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development is Row Housing within the meaning
                        and intent of the definition set out in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw
                        and is a Discretionary Use in the RF3 Low Density Development
                        Zone.
                2.      The general purpose of the RF3 Zone is to provide primarily for
                        Single Detached and Semi-detached Housing while allowing
                        small-scale conversion and infill redevelopment to housing forms
                        containing up to four Dwellings per building and including
                        Secondary Suites under certain conditions.
                3.      The Board accepts that the number of variances cumulatively
                        required for the proposed development leads to the conclusion that
                        the proposed development is an over-development of the subject
                        site and is not suitable for the subject site.
SDAB-D-10-329                            8                                    October 22, 2010


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                   4.     The reduction in required yards will cause a massing effect which
                          is inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood that is
                          comprised of primarily single family dwellings which have yards
                          that conform with the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                   5.     The Board accepts the evidence of the Appellants who reference
                          Laux, Planning Law and Practice in Alberta, …”there is no
                          jurisdiction to grant a variance unless the applicant can satisfy the
                          board that there is at least something unusual about his
                          circumstances. The rule of thumb is that every development must
                          conform to the land use bylaw. It is obvious that if a general rule
                          is to be set aside in a given case, there should be some unusual
                          circumstances to justify such an action,…”
                   6.     The Board is not persuaded that sound planning principles support
                          granting the variances requested by the Respondent. The Board is
                          persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that it is possible to
                          develop the site in accordance with the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw
                          and that the physical characteristics of the subject site do not create
                          hardship for the Respondent to warrant the variances requested.
                   7.     Although a few examples of multi-family developments in the
                          surrounding area were provided, the Board accepts the evidence of
                          the Community League that such other multi-family developments
                          have larger amenity areas in suitably sized yards.”


          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
     separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor,
     10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

2.   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 any conditions of
     approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
SDAB-D-10-329                               7                                   October 22, 2010


3.    A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
      date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, 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. For further
      information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

4.    Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
      within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
      unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
      work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.

5.    This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
      jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
      If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
      for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development
      Permit.

6.    When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
      Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
      out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101
      Street, Edmonton.

NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
      Edmonton information, programs and services.



                                                   Mr. R. Colistro, Presiding Officer
                                                   SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                   APPEAL BOARD


cc:

								
To top